Sometimes the most amusing thing about reading the comments is noting how readily so many of our critics ignore the points we make (frequently misrepresenting them if they address them at all) to wonder why we don’t blog on this or that subject.
It’s as if we have all the time in the world and unlimited resources at our disposal. They’d rather bait us for what we don’t say than engage us for what we do.
I do grant that, in the past week, they were right to wonder about our silence on one issue, RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s recent comments on same-sex civil unions. It is something that we should take up–and if it were not for the press of other obligations this week, I would have done so sooner.
On Michael Gallagher’s radio talk show earlier this week,
Mr Steele was asked if “Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions.”
“No, no no,” he told talk show host Mike Gallagher.
“What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?
“No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?
“I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, ‘Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.'”
I don’t expect the Republican chairman to come out in favor of gay marriage. After all, the Democratic president opposes it as well. But, I think it’s incredibly short-sighted of him to rule out same-sex civil unions. While he must know he risks earning the ire of social conservatives if he himself comes out for civil unions, he makes them such conservatives seem the dominating faction in the party on such issues if he rules them out civil unions altogether.
Steele could learn a lesson from the former Vice President Throughout his two terms, Dick Cheney remained incredibly popular with conservatives. In the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, the Wyoming Republican offered a good compromise, saying that he believes this is a matter for the various states, not the federal government:
. . .people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s no one’s business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. … I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate.
To those who suggest Steele is determined to make opposing same-sex civil unions some kind of litmus test, I would remind them that he did not volunteer his opposition to state recognition of such relationships. It came up in an interview.
That said, for the sake of the party, he would do well to change his tune the next time he is asked such a question and respond as did Dick Cheney in 2000. This may not be the answer some of us would like to hear, but at least it shows some recognition of the nation’s changing attitudes toward homosexuality and an understanding of the Republicans’ demographic challenge.
While he must know he risks earning the ire of social conservatives if he himself comes out for civil unions, he makes them such conservatives seem the dominating faction in the party on such issues if he rules them out civil unions altogether.
And you are claiming that they are not? Give me a break, Dan, the GOP on these issues has made no move towards moderating its stance because of social cons. Cheney was chastised by them but mostly received a pass because of the GWOT and that as Veep he wasn’t in a position to effect change on the matter. Until new blood takes the reigns in the Party and on the campaign trail this will not change for quite some time. The GOP will continue placating the social cons as long as they remain a dominant factor in fund raising and partisan activists working for the Party.
John, Cheney chastised? Was he? Perhaps he was criticized, but such criticism did not linger.
Kudos for finally criticizing Steele. So what is Gaypatriot.nets response? Not support the RNC?
So is there any loss of support for the GOP by the Gay Patrioters?
Oh give me a break, Tom, you’ll just use anything you can to badmouth the GOP. Did you stop supporting the Democrats when then-Chairman Dean made hate-filled diatribes and was sued by a gay Democrat for discrimination?
Why should we stop supporting the GOP because we don’t agree with our chairman on any issue?
Unless we see some viable third-party emerge that will challenge the spendthrift policies of a power-hungry president, then the GOP is our best bet right now.
It seems you and your ilk are so ever eager to criticize us, you blind yourself to what drives us.
So, quit your baiting and actually address the points we make. It would be nice to have some responsible criticism from our ideological adversaries.
“Freedom means freedom for everybody.”
Chairman Steele is wrong. Just like DNC Chair ScreamingHowieDean was wrong when he tossed gays out of the DNC offices, threatened litigation if gay employees talked about it and went on to distance the DNC from gays on no less a stage than the 700Club.
Steele is wrong. I only wish there was a respectable gay GOP organization to move forward, address the issue with Steele and get some progress on the issue.
“Freedom means freedom for everybody”.
As a gay, freedom-loving guy who wants his economy and his country back, I can withstand an RNC Chairman who needs an education. This is a good issue for the long term, but right now there are bigger fish to fry. If Steele can’t articulate why we need lower taxes, then let’s toss him. Until then, my self-loathing self will just have to do with a less-than-sensitive GOP. Obama is the enemy, not Steele.
I wonder why you think Cheney is worthy of emulation on this subject. While he did say what you cited, he also declared unambiguously that he would have supported President Bush’s decision to federalize the issue in the form of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution, if it came to that. So, Cheney doesn’t strike me as someone of conviction regarding the “state’s rights” argument on gay marriage/civil unions you ascribe to him.
Um, huckupchuck, go check the article I linked because that piece (which I wrote) contains a link to Cheney’s statements opposing the FMA. Check the record because it’s clear. Cheney disagreed with Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
So, I’m afraid you’re wrong.
Why doesn’t the GayLeftBorg criticize the liberals when they’re handed the most anti-gay laws that have come down the pike in recent years? Do they just enjoy getting fucked every which way from Wednesday?
Filtered.
Dean made a mistake. But he DID push civil unions in VT when it was highly unpopular to do so. Does he get a pass, no. But do I take that into account when I try to balance Dean, sure.
And yes, there are Democrats that I won’t support.
By the way, this concept of balance is useful too. What balance does Micheal Steele have on Gay issues? What Republican outside of a NE governor is LEADING on Gay issues?
With many Republicans, I don’t see anything pro-Gay to offset being anti-Gay. And that is the difference.
Tom, would Dean have acted on civil unions on his own initiative? Recall, he was forced by the state legislature to do so.
As to Steele, I think he was foolish to say what he said, but so far he’s not pushing opposition to same-sex civil unions as an RNC priority.
And as for the party, I don’t really need it to be pro-gay, just don’t want it to be anti-gay. And that’s what I’m trying to do with my small platform.
It’s social change I wish to effect, but don’t believe government is the means to that end.
Um, huckupchuck, go check the article I linked because that piece (which I wrote) contains a link to Cheney’s statements opposing the FMA. Check the record because it’s clear. Cheney disagreed with Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
So, I’m afraid you’re wrong.
Dan, you’re correct that Cheney did state his opposition to the FMA, and stated, “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” One of the few times I appreciated our previous VP. But when I heard him say that, my understanding is he also made it clear that he was stating his opinion, and he was going to stand by his president’s stance for FMA. That was a shame, because on most matters he seemed to be influential with the president, but not on gay rights.
GayPatriotWest – I never said that Cheney agreed with Bush’s position on the FMA, nor that Cheney as a matter of principle thought the FMA was good policy, only that he would have supported the President on this issue as a matter of deferential loyalty to Presidential authority in setting domestic policy if it came down to it. Cheney was pretty clear about this point when asked whether he would ultimately defer to the Bush Administration’s policy, even if he were to disagree with it. I agree that Cheney should be applauded for his personal stand against the FMA, but I am only questioning his conviction in front of what I see is a willingness to embrace loyalty to the President over a policy which he personally opposes. It’s like Cheney, if faced with a FMA pushed by the administration he represented, would simply shrug his shoulders and say: “Well, I don’t agree with it, but, you know, the President does get to decide these things. And I support my President.” I just didn’t get the sense that Cheney would pull a Judd Gregg and resign as a spokesperson and representative of the Administration’s policy on this issue if it had come to that.
Pat – Yes. Thanks for expressing the point I was trying to make much more succinctly than I was able to.
Um, huckupchuck and Pat, your points on Cheney are JPS, just plain silly. He never said he would have supported the president on the FMA. What does it mean to defer to the president in this context when the constitution excludes the executive from its amendment process?
So, he’s not disagreeing with the president on a policy he has implemented, but merely an amendment he advocated. So, this is not an issue where the president gets to decide. The constitution is very clear on that.
And from everything I understand, Cheney lobbied the then-president not to publicly embrace this pernicious proposal.
GayPatriotWest – You raise a good point about the President not ultimately deciding the issue; but it is also quite true that Presidential leadership is a sine qua non for successful passage of any public policy that requires more than just Presidential fiat. I’m sure you know this, so Bush’s position on the FMA was critical to advancing it or not advancing it. Again, Cheney deserves credit and admiration for his personal position on the issue. But I was referring to your viewing of Cheney as some kind of policy leader that Michael Steele and others should emulate. As much as I find Cheney to be fighting the good fight on this issue from the position of personal opinion, I think he is not the best example of someone to emulate on the policy advocacy front. You yourself call the FMA a “pernicious” policy. I couldn’t agree more. But what does it say that Cheney, on an issue so personally connected to his family, and one that is “pernicious” to boot, seemed to suggest that, if it got down to it, his personal opposition to the FMA aside, he would have rolled with the administration’s decision to move forward with the FMA out of deference to Presidential leadership?
I am not surprised at Mr. Steele’s comments. In my opinion he has not been “Gay friendly” or accepting of Gays and Lesbians. It actually saddens me to read that he stated what it stated but it doesn’t shock me.
As to VP Dick Cheney, he has been consistently supportive of civil unions and letting each state decide the issue of marriage since under the federal Constitution, marriage is left to be decided by the states.
Dick Cheney in 2004 clearly stated that he disagreed with President Bush on the FMA and publicly stated that he disagreed with President Bush and said I leave it at that. I mean he was VP not President but he stood his ground and stood up for the Gay community.
I find that Steele is not even in lock step with the GOP and I bet if you asked Republicans they would tell you that they support civil unions and most GOP elected officials do support civil unions and I am betting you will find a fair share that support marriage equality.
As to Governor Dean he admitted that he was not for civil unions but realized that he had to uphold the laws of the State of Vermont so I do credit him for standing up and supporting civil unions. At the time, I remember reading about the fierce debate in VT and seeing the MSM reports on it. I was pissed at Dean for not supporting full marriage equality, which the VT Supreme Court indicated was a possibility the VT Legislature could enact, but at least civil unions were enacted and as I recall they were also enacted for heterosexual couples.
I believe that unless the GOP national leadership comes into the 21st century at the national level, it will face problems for decades to come.
We need more Dick Cheneys and less of the homophobia expressed by the outer fringes. I would remind Mr. Steele he represents all Republicans and not his own view point. However, I am not suprised by his view points….it is nothing new that he has expressed.
On the other hand, the homophobia of President Obama also angers me even more so..I mean how can a person who can publicly state that when his parents were married that in in many states they would never be allowed to marry yet at the same time claim that I am less then and not entitled to the same constitutional rights as he is and other heterosexuals. Nobama angers me for his positions of discrimination based upon his own parents’ history and how he can say I am less then is beyond the pale of any decency. It makes me angry beyond all belief!! Add to that and he cravenly uses the marriage equality issue by stating that he is for “separate but equal’ federal rights for Gays and Lesbians just not for marriage when he knows full well that unless Congress repeals DOMA in full that will never happen, particularly since Section II of DOMA states that any laws that resemble the incidents of marriage and its attendant rights are not legal at the federal level. So, thus, he can’t propose any so called equality of statutory marriage law benefits at the federal level unless DOMA is repealed and he doesn’t support a full repeal of DOMA and opposes marriage equality. To me, NOBAMA is just as craven and homophobic in his view points as is the likes of Mr. Steele, who to me has not been welcoming of Gays and Lesbians in the Republican Party.
Um, huckupchuck and Pat, your points on Cheney are JPS, just plain silly. He never said he would have supported the president on the FMA. What does it mean to defer to the president in this context when the constitution excludes the executive from its amendment process?
Come on, Dan. Cheney said what he said regarding his personal opinion about the FMA, and how he stands by the president on how the administration was going to tackle the issue. I believe huckupchuck had the quote. Was it my semantics or the way I worded it that is “JPS”?
My impression is that Cheney was simply not that influential on that issue with Bush as he was with other issues. Maybe I’m wrong. But Cheney simply telling Bush his opinion, which I’m sure he did, since he told the rest of us, wasn’t much. On the other hand, maybe he didn’t mince words in telling Bush he was small-minded for trying to push such an amendment, and on top of that, idiotic, since it didn’t have a chance to pass. We’ll never know for sure. If you have evidence that Cheney really tried to influence Bush on this issue and failed, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I stand by my impression and understanding of what happened, as I’ll respect what your impression and understanding was.
Also, I’m well aware that the constitution states that the president doesn’t decide on constitutional amendments. I’ve never stated or implied that. But let’s face it. There wouldn’t have even been a vote unless the president didn’t get the ball rolling. Twice.