Game over, man 2 – Steele: same-sex couples deserve legal recognition; being gay isn't a choice
The fun never ends! I do kind of feel sorry for Michael Steele at this point. If the brother’s strategy is to moderate the party by stealth, he needs to look up the word in the dictionary. In its current incarnation, the GOP is a no-tolerance zone on two issues — abortion and anything to do with The Homosexual Agenda. It’s in the party platform. I have seen no evidence the party is trying to move to the center.
As I blogged last night, the chair-in-name-only of the RNC’s interview in GQ magazine in which he said that abortion should be a choice of the individual, he’s already strayed from the party line. In the same interview, he delivers yet another position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage that can’t make his life easier with the rabid right, who already want him sacked and replaced with Katon Dawson, the man who was the member of an all-white country club. It’s game over, man. Via Law Dork 2.0:
Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t-I can’t deny you your nature.
Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to-particularly in times of crisis-to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others-you know, as family members or others-would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage-that institution, the sanctity of it-is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.
Of course his friends would have “some of the core things that they believe are important to them” if they could have a civil union, for instance. But Steele adamantly and very vocally opposed that just recently. When asked on February 23 if he favored them, he said: “No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?”
So I guess the question is, what does M.C. Steele want for his gay friends? A cobbled together set of legal contracts they have to shell out for and a hope and a prayer the state will honor hospital visitation? What exactly, from his POV, is wrong with civil unions then? It makes no sense. But them he goes on to say this incredibly confusing statement in the GQ interview when it comes to marriage equality:
So you think it’s a state issue?
Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about.
Watch your back, Steele. This is sure to enrage Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and the rest of the professional “Christian” set that deeply believes that a Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary. John McCain had to spend months groveling at Daddy D’s feet to squeeze out an endorsement after taking this position. And you’re no Maverick and you have no power.
And then Michael Steele covers himself in gasoline and lights a match:
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.
Buh bye, ex-gay movement.
Based on the rather public smackdowns (Rush, Ada Fisher) and the trashing he received on a recent conference call with top Republicans who said he was endangering small-dollar donations from Dittoheads with his loose talk, I’d say Michael Steele either: 1) wants out of his job, or 2) doesn’t realize how close he is to losing his job. I haven’t seen any public statements of support from his peers, they’ve all been apologizing to Rush and telling Steele to know his place.
Hat tip reader mcc, who mentioned Steele’s quote in the comments last night.
BONUS: Below the fold, Keith Olbermann discusses the meltdown of the GOP.The word on the street about McCain taking over in principle by introducing a new “Contract with America” since Steele isn’t cutting it with the DC Republicans.