Fiorina: "My position is consistent with... the President."

Instead of answering a question about providing all the benefits and rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples via Federal law, Carly Fiorina deflected the inquiry but said that she "supported civil unions" in last night's debate with Barbara Boxer, and specifically noted that

My position is consistent with that of the President...

Think about that.



A Republican, running for the Senate, using the President's position on an issue to legitimize her own. (Not that the two position are identical: one can support state civil unions without saying that those civil unions should be recognized by the Federal government in lieu of marriage, and Fiorina never said she supported the latter. But still.)

In a diary a week or so ago, I wrote

... because of his unparalleled stature, ((the President's)) very public opposition to equal marriage rights has resulted in him becoming the most prominent bastion of non-religious-wacko support for the fairy tale position that "separate is equal".

Of course that was met with some dissent. But here we are, already watching the chickens coming home to roost.

As Jason Linkins at Huffington Post opined:

... beyond the specifics of the California race, this episode demonstrates that the position of the White House and the Democrats on same-sex marriage is just untenable. Republicans who support same-sex marriage will keep pushing to outflank the Democrats on the issue. Meanwhile, look for more GOP candidates to seek safety in Obama's position.

Sure, the religious wackos are going to oppose anything close to civil unions, domestic partnerships or even holding hands in public. But those in the middle -- not whacko, not paying a lot of attention, but not yet ready to embrace marriage equality (about 30% according to the latest CBS new poll), are able to fall back on the President's position to justify their stand. And Republican candidates can and will use that stand to appeal to undecided voters just as Fiorina did last night when she weaseled out of answering the question -- by appearing reasonable, because they agree with the President; By appearing bi-partisan, because they agree with the President.

Fiorina didn't just cite support of the President. She went on to say

My position is consistent with that of the President and a vast majority of senators in the U.S. Senate.

And she is correct. Right now, according to Wikipedia, there are sixteen supporters of equal marriage rights in the Senate (16%) (17 if Bennet is counted as I am doing below), forty-nine in the House of Representatives (11%), and seven Governors (14%).

That's a long way from the approximately 45% of Americans who now support equal marriage rights.

What about the competitive Senate races and Democratic contenders positions on marriage equality?

• Illinois: Alex Giannoulias's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• California: Barbara Boxer's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• New Hampshire: Paul Hode's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• Ohio: Lee Fischer's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• Pennsylvania: Joe Sestak's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• Wisconsin: Russ Feingold's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• Colorado: Bill Bennet's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."


• Iowa: Roxanne Conlin's (D) position is not "consistent with the President's."

• North Carolina: Elaine Marshall's (D) position seems "consistent with the President's."


• Florida: Kendrick Meek's (D) position seems "consistent with the President's."


• Nevada: Harry Reid's position is unclear.


• Delaware: Chris Coon's position is unclear.


• Washington: Patty Murray's position is unclear.


• Kentucky: Jack Conway's position is unclear.


• Missouri: Robin Carnahan's position is unclear.


• Connecticut: Richard Blumenthal's position is unclear.

That's about a 50-50 split, but doesn't really illustrate what will be happening. Even as the country itself is approaching an equal split on the question of marriage equality, representation in Congress is swinging the other way. With John Boehner now likely to become Speaker of the House (can you really read that without puking?), and the Senate likely to lose a number of currently Democratic seats to Republicans with far-right views, the push for LGBT equality is about to be cut off at the Federal legislative level.

Instead of becoming more attuned to Americans' views on marriage equality, our Congress will become even less attuned, even as a certain subset of Republican elites have begun to 'come out' for same sex marriage.

And so we end with a lose-lose situation. The Democrats' position is being undercut, because of a failure on the part of the President and Congress to come out strongly for equality and ACT on it. Meanwhile, Republicans as a whole start to look more moderate, and perhaps even attractive to some otherwise middle-of-the-road or conservative LGBT community members, even as they consolidate their anti-LGBT positions in Congress.

This is not going to be pretty.