The Republican Party has been using marriage equality to win votes and maintain their power. They rail ad nauseam against members of the LGBT community who deign to desire the rights, privileges, and responsibilities inherent in their state-administered heterosexual rites of privilege, aka marriage. Their officials, candidates, and pundits espouse the virtues of post-industrial traditional marriage in the United States.

The GOP fails, however, to recognize the historical tenets of marriage as a state-sponsored institution. In particular, to benefit the power desires of their polity, they have systematically undermined the right of two spouses to communicate openly and freely. Their policy of eviscerating marriage fundamentalism has been hammered at the electorate via sound bites, false messaging, and personal attacks; however, the media has yet to report on the hypocrisy inherent in the disconnect between their discourse on traditional marriage and their political tactics. On the national stage, no better example exists than the GOP’s fervor in attacking the Clintons and the Obamas.

The Issue

The Republican Party has fostered fear, promoted degradation, and promulgated discrimination via marriage equality, all in support of the right wing’s grip on power. In November 2004, eleven states, including key battleground Ohio, voted on propositions to ban same sex marriage, helping to drive socially conservative majorities to the voting booths in those states, sweeping George W. Bush into another four years in office and expanding upon Republican control of local, state, and national offices.

In November 2008, Rove-ian politics will be at work again, as a same-sex marriage amendment is being proposed in Florida, and California may have a state constitutional amendment put before its citizenry. The 2008 Republican playbook, in part, will look a lot like four years ago: gays are bad and straights are awesome. The United States, especially those millions of citizens unlucky enough to live in one of this year’s anti-marriage equality extravaganzas, is in store for another Clockwork Orange-style barrage of faux, anti-LGBT presuppositions and pro-traditional values rhetorical tripe. However, the GOP fails to grasp the basic structures that have comprised marriages for centuries.

The inalienable right to communicate freely with one’s spouse has been accepted into common law since medieval times. Two spouses should be able to communicate openly and freely with one another: one spouse should be enabled to offer both support and advice to the other. It is codified not only into tradition.

In 1934, the United States Supreme Court expanded the definition of and rights associated with marriage in Wolfle v. United States. In the decision written by Republican-appointed Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, the Supreme Court ruled to protect private communications between spouses. Justice Stone and his brethren chose to read a broader interpretation of the Constitution and Federal law, rather than employ strict constructionism as so often desired by the Republican Party today. Justice Stone’s ruling said that spousal privilege in private communications is “regarded as so essential to the preservation of the marriage relationship as to outweigh the disadvantages to the administration of justice."

The Clintons

Monica Crowley, syndicated conservative commentator, recently said, “By her own admission, (Hillary Clinton) was in on every major foreign and domestic policy decision of the first Clinton co-presidency. Conversely, why does anyone think it would be any different for Bill with her at the top of the ticket?”

Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) has touted, in part, her experience as First Lady to prove that she is ready to be President. Right wing pundits have assailed HRC and former President Clinton for involving her in matters of state. The Republican Party knows that a First Lady traditionally has a tremendous influence over her husband’s administration. No, former President Clinton is not seeking an illegal third term, as Monica Crowley suggested on the McLaughlin Group, but rather it will be HRC’s administration. The First Gentleman will merely exert his rights to communicate openly with his spouse about matters at hand.

The Obamas

Conservatives have not missed an opportunity to attack Michelle Obama whenever she has committed a gaffe. For example, her statement "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country" played well among conservatives’ target audiences. Much to the delight of the conservative blogosphere and punditry, Cindy McCain, wife of John McCain, entered the fray by saying, “I am proud of my country. I don’t know about you, if you heard those words earlier? I am very proud of my country.”

The GOP and its surrogate campaigners know that Michelle Obama did not intend to imply that she is unpatriotic, but rather, her words bespeak of a person who recognizes the negative aspects of American society and is happy that positive social changes are afoot. If conservatives fail to attack her words now and make it so that the American people do not want her to communicate honestly with her husband once he becomes President, what kind of effect will her words have once she is serving as First Lady? Perhaps, the Republican Party fears the encroaching storm that will degrade the entrenched power structure they have meticulously developed since January 1981, largely by exploiting the inequities of American society.

The Hypocrisy

The Republican Party maligns HRC and Obama by systematically defaming the rights and privileges afforded them by traditional, legislative, and judicial fiat. Conversely, they argue that they are the best party to run the country because they care about traditional values, i.e. traditional marriage. In so doing, they undercut their own argument and simultaneously devaluate the laudable benefit afforded the United States by First Spouses and married couples for centuries.

How many people question that Abigail Adams had a hand in founding the United States? Who doubts that Edith Bolling Galt Wilson practically acted as the first female President of the United States following Woodrow Wilson’s incapacitation? When was the last time someone vilified Eleanor Roosevelt or Mary Todd Lincoln for the contributions they made to this country while they served as First Ladies?

These women are part of our shared history. We would not be the same United States without them. Conservative pundits want the citizenry to forget about the collective good done by First Spouses of all political parties throughout our history. If voters realize how First Spouses have shaped this country for the better, by utilizing the foundational tenets of traditional marriage, they may develop a deeper affinity for the Democratic candidates. They may realize the positive outcomes included with a White House occupied by a married couple who aim to serve the country and bring the benefits of American prosperity to bear for all our citizens, not just the lucky few who are in the true constituency of the post-Nixon GOP.

The GOP also wants voters to disassociate their rhetoric about the Clintons and the Obamas from their discourse against marriage equality. Once voters realize that they have been duped by power hungry, authoritarian warmongers, they may choose to vote for candidates of another party, which would undercut the GOP’s power even further. So long as they can continue to perform slight-of-hand and convince values voters that they support traditional marriage, while using the flip side of the same issue to defeat their political opponents, the GOP knows that they will be able to maintain their power.

The Republican Party and their conservative surrogates demonize First Spouses for having and expressing opinions. They produce subversive discourse that devalues spousal contributions and communications. Republicans say they want traditional marriage, but they balk at the idea as soon as one of the basic tenets of marriage faces them squarely in the eye and threatens their political and power aspirations.

Now, that is hypocrisy.

EDITOR'S NOTE: As a private citizen, Justin Patrick Jones has endorsed Barack Obama, both for the Democratic Party’s nomination and the general election.