GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Secretary Rice Urges Respect & Sensitivity in Gay Marriage Debate

by

As readers of this blog now, both Bruce and I are big fans of the Secretary of State. We both agree that Condoleezza Rice is one of the president’s finest appointments, a woman whose leadership has well served his Administration, our party, our nation and the world.

A reader e-mailed me a news story which reports that she appears to agree with me on one aspect of the gay marriage debate, favoring a respectful debate:

This is an issue that can be debated and can be discussed in our country with respect for every human being. . . . When we get into difficult debates about social policy, we get into difficult debates that touch people’s lives, the only thing that I ask is that Americans do it with a kind of sensitivity that real individuals and real human beings are involved here.

Looks like she’s far ahead of the gay leadership on this one.

Secretary Rice refused to offer her opinion of the amendment, saying that it is not her “area of expertise or . . . concentration.”

Kudos, Madame Secretary, for promoting a civil debate. Let’s hope those on both sides of this important issue take heed.

Comments

  2. There’s just one trait of Rice, so far anyway, that I have a particular dislike for – her lack of will to run for president! I’d settle for V.P. next to Rudy though.

  6. I guess that I don’t see how one can “repectfully” argue that some of our fellow Americans deserve second class status because we find them offensive on religious grounds.

  7. At the Republican Minstrel Show of 2000 Dr Rice spoke of how her father felt such disappointment with the Democratic Party that he became a Republican in the 1950’s. She conveniently forgot to mention that most of the Dems of the ’50’s in Congress were Republicans in 2000.

    Agape.

  8. You neglect to mention that she rather artlessly dodged the question of what she thinks about gay marriage in the first place.

    I’d rather have a non-“respectful” debate on the issue than no debate at all. Her comments are typical. If Bush can’t even say the word “gay” when discussing an anti-gay Consitutional Ammendment its no wonder that Condi punts on the issue too. Her message to gays and lesbians? Even in her own Party? Shut up and be “respectful” – AKA invisible.

    Sorry, I’m not impressed. You are essentially praising moral cowardice as a virtue. She’s not being virtuous, she’s being a typical poltical animal. It was a cheap political stunt. At least people like Rick Santorum have the courage to actually speak their mind on the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

    If the Ammendment were passed tommorrow she could claim to be off the hook for having urged “respectful debate” even though she didn’t even take a stand on the issue. In other words if she is going to run for office later she wants to have it both ways.

    She has actually managed to out-Kerry John Kerry. “I was for the ammendment before I was against the ammendment”. Or “vote for me because even though I’m against gay marriage I will treat you with “respect”. And as you yourself have point out GPW, that kind of “respect” is a lie.

    GPW, when your own Party gives you a plate of road apples and cow pie, you are still pretending its a glorious feast.

  9. Sometimes my critics just make my points for me.

    Actually, Gryph, Condi Rice was being most diplomatic. Her very words suggest she opposes the amendment. Perhaps she lacks courage, but this is not her bailiwick. And you exaggerate (yet again) my feelings for my party.

    She may not have had the courage to speak out against the amendment as did the Vice President (and his wife). But, at least, she didn’t retreat to the juvenile stunts of the gay leadership and call her ideological adversaries names and say that this very issue was unworthy of debate.

    The point was that she acknowledged the value of the debate. It’s too bad some of my critics would rather insult this Republican than acknowledge the validity of her point — and that she’s far ahead of the gay leadership on this.

  10. Actually, Gryph, Condi Rice was being most diplomatic. Her very words suggest she opposes the amendment. Perhaps she lacks courage, but this is not her bailiwick. And you exaggerate (yet again) my feelings for my party.

    If she does oppose the ammendment there is nothing in the statements you have quoted to demonstrate that. Nothing.

    And somehow I doubt that if Hillary Clinton had said those words you would be giving her credit for being “diplomatic”.

  11. The homohaters may now try for a Constitutional convention to pass their MPA: http://tinyurl.com/jd5uu

    That could open up a Pandora’s box. Let’s see, we perhaps could get the right to privacy into the Constitution and specifically include the right to choose. And let’s clear up the ambiguity surrounding the second amendment. And perhaps add an amendment to repeal tax exemption for the churches that engage in political activity.

  13. The gay marriage topic is outside of her job description so anything she says is icing as far as I’m concerned. If she runs for president or other federal office where it IS relevant, I expect her to expound.

    Frankly Patrick, I’m a little baffled how you managed to interpret her words so negatively. She seems to be addressing gay-marriage opponents when she asks for civility which leaves me with the impression that she’s against an amendment. I’m with GPW here. I think it’s a sign of her professionalism and intellect that she thinks a civil debate is a good thing. Coming out in favor of that is probably of more use to us than if she just came out and said “This amendment is wrong and you people pushing it are a bunch of redneck Bible thumpers!”

    Dontcha think? No, I guess not. Throwing tantrums is clearly the favored tactic of the left.

  14. I have no reason to believe that Condi would be for the Marriage Amendment. To Rice, such amendments are indicative of federal interference in what should be a state affair. You can extrapolate this position from her position on abortion, which she has indicated that she opposes any federal role in, either for or against.

    For example, Rice opposes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. It is reasonable to suppose that she also opposes Roe v. Wade, as it represents a Federal intervention in what should properly be a state issue. There’s a lot of textualist, state’s rights stuff in what Condi believes, and most of it is libertarian. Nothing in her history suggests that she would be a party to this marriage amendment crap that’s coming out of the WH. Of course, outfits such as the Human Rights Campaign are little more than lickspittle toadies for the DNC, so I don’t expect a recitiation of Rice’s past convictions to convince the Hillary bootlickers in the Gay community (especially since they are so willing to ignore Bill Clinton’s own political cowardice in not imposing his will on Colin Powell when he was the latter’s commander-in-chief during the Gays in the Military Debacle).

    Rice takes the king’s coin, so she remains silent while in the king’s service. You don’t undermine your President after he’s made a decision. It’s just not done. Unless you’re Dick Cheney. But he only mentioned his opposition once or twice. When she campaigns in her own right, you will see a different Rice. I would expect that she would not agree with what happened in Massachussetts, as that is an issue decided by an unelected court and imposed on the people, but I would expect that Rice would say that this is an issue best left up to the states.

    Finally, what does Rice get for opening up her mouth in opposition to Bush, anyway? It’s not like gays are going to stop voting 3/4 Democratic now, are they? Why should Rice piss off her base voters at the Southern Baptist Convention just so later on Gay voters can say, “gee, that’s nice Condi”, and go back and vote for Hillary. Screw that.

  15. Frankly Patrick, I’m a little baffled how you managed to interpret her words so negatively. ….
    Dontcha think? No, I guess not. Throwing tantrums is clearly the favored tactic of the left.
    …..

    I simply have trouble believing that you would be fawning over John Kerry if he said the exact same thing, and his position on gay marriage were unknown. Both Kerry and Rice are just doing a bit of pandering. One may have a classier style of doing it than the other, but it’s still pandering.

    And you should stop blaming “the Left” for my temper tantrums, they are instigated, conducted, and wholly owned by myself, not the Democratic Party of which I’m NOT a member.
    So go haunt a house.

  16. I am however, much more impressed with what she said at the National Baptists convention, as Andrew Sullivan has point out.

    “Let us resolve to deal with the world as it is but never to accept that we are powerless to make it better than it is – not perfect, but better. America will lead the cause of freedom in our world not because we think ourselves perfect. To the contrary, we cherish democracy and champion its ideals because we know we are not perfect,” – secretary of state Condi Rice, to the Southern Baptist Association.

    So long as Rove, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield are nowhere in sight, I would be pleased to vote for her for President, not just VP.

  17. She’s not an elected official- my whole point. That’s what makes her statement “icing”. I will expect more from her if she runs for office, as I said. Right now she doesn’t have to pander to anyone. And how can you possibly call such an calm statement asking for civility, pandering?

  19. raj baby, again you get it wrong… but don’t let the facts get in your way, ok? That bile is reaching a dangerous point for you.

    When Rice was NSA Chief and her nomination as SOS was advanced, career diplomats thought the move would be GREAT for State because she would make a difference –maybe even return State to an influential role in the Administration– because she was smart, dedicated, a relentless insider, loyal to her charge and a known fast study with the legs to put all of that to good use for State. She was also known as a terrific “boss” or leader… she has often said her leadership “style” is to pick good people, then get out of their way -fast.

    Her exit at NSA was attended by more NSA career staffers than any of her 11 predecessors… in fact, it was moved from the auditorium to the lobby in order to accomodate the huge turnout of staffers… she spoke about THEM for 15-20 minutes and then spent another 2 1/2 hours in the lobby sharing her gratitude with the individual NSA staffers.

    The whole thing was watched by senior State staffers and career FSOs by remote –about 800 people at State watched her “goodbye” at NSA. Her comments were centered on the work that the NSA staff had accomplished– not about her. Could you imagine that goodbye done by Sandy Berger? After he stuffed his pants with top secret papers, he’d have spent 2 1/2 hours talking about Sandy Berger and then exited a side door for his portrait to be painted as King Berger, savior of the Free World and bomber of aspirin factories.

    Bob Zoellick is GOING BACK to Goldman after long stints as Trade Rep and at State… he was their #1 guy for international affairs before joining the Trade Reps Office. With Paulson heading to Treasury, Goldman Sachs made an offer that Zoellick couldn’t refuse… he wasn’t pushed out of State, he isn’t mad with Rice, he isn’t sleeping with the 1st Lady, there’s no indictment pending.

    This isn’t a Clinton Administration, after all. lol

    Nice try to spill your bile with a slap at Rice; my, how low the GayLeft has fallen.