Steele: Civil Unions Are “Crazy”

Jim Burroway

February 24th, 2009

Right wing radio host Mike Gallagher asked Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, “Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?”

Steele’s response:

GOP Chairman Michael Steele

GOP Chairman Michael Steele

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? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.”

Trevor

February 24th, 2009

Knuckle-dragging Conservative nit-wit! I called it weeks ago. I win.

Alex

February 24th, 2009

Wow, this idiot makes me feel ashamed to be a Marylander.

Bruce Garrett

February 24th, 2009

I saw this coming. This is Steele. I saw it during the governor’s race he and Ehrlich won back in 2002. All that talk about reaching out to folks in his party that support gay rights was just something he put out there for the media rubes. He has no intention of moderating his party’s anti-gay planks. None whatsoever. He doesn’t think there is anything wrong with them. If anything, he just wants to put a moderate face on them. But not even that if it starts alienating the base.

Timothy Kincaid

February 24th, 2009

Ahem…

Those following the election of Steele will remember that Steele is not a moderate. He is not pro-gay. He is not in favor of marriage equality or civil unions.

What he is in favor of, unlike those who ran against him, is allowing equal standing in the Party to those who disagree with him.

homer

February 24th, 2009

The founding values of our country included slavery…

Alex

February 24th, 2009

…and not allowing women to vote.

Jason D

February 24th, 2009

Why is it that something as important as marriage, that is “one of the founding principles” of our country was never written down as such by those men in 1776?

And why, if Marriage was that important, did they need to start a new country? Marriage was arguably just as important to the British. Wasn’t freedom, and not being compelled to attend state sponsored religious services part of the deal?

Jim Burroway

February 24th, 2009

Re: What he is in favor of, unlike those who ran against him, is allowing equal standing in the Party to those who disagree with him.

Steele is now threatening to withhold campaign funds from GOP Senators who backed Obama’s stimulus package.

It looks to me that as far as Steele’s concerned, there’s no longer any room in the GOP for those who disagree with him.

John

February 24th, 2009

I am really getting tired of this particular re-run. Predominantly white organization (in this case the GOP) puts forth an African American to promote anti-gay bigotry with the thought that it won’t be percieved as bigotry due the the fact that the person spouting the garbage is black. They think it gives them cover since a black guy is saying the same thing. I can’t wait to hear him mouth off on immigration issues.

It betrays a real ignorance about race issues if nothing else.

Swampfox

February 24th, 2009

I had hopes for Steele……….I had hopes!

Jason D

February 24th, 2009

This is Steele displaying the “new energy” “new ideas” and “inclusiveness” that Patrick Sammon of the LCR warned us about.

Good show.

Benjamin

February 24th, 2009

What else do you expect from the Party of NO? Steele has little to no understanding or education on any of these important issues of LGBT equality. No worries, the party of No is the party of no Ideas and no substance. They are also the party of irrelevance so it would be best to just ignore Steele and others like him.

Dave

February 24th, 2009

Jim,

As much as I may disagree with Timothy on gay politics, I feel I must stick up for him here.

When Tim wrote,

What he is in favor of, unlike those who ran against him, is allowing equal standing in the Party to those who disagree with him,

he was referring, quite sensibly and truthfully, to Steele’s willingness to have open discussion and debate on gay issues within the GOP. Responses to Democratic spending measures weren’t part of the deal.

As for your assertions:

Steele is now threatening to withhold campaign funds from GOP Senators who backed Obama’s stimulus package.

It looks to me that as far as Steele’s concerned, there’s no longer any room in the GOP for those who disagree with him.

I’d say you’ve bitten off more than you can chew here. Steele made no threats and committed to nothing. Quoting Greg Sargent,

Steele was asked by Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Will you, as RNC head, recommend no RNC funds being provided to help them?”

Steele confirmed that he would “talk to the state parties about.” When pressed on whether he was open to it, Steele said: “Oh, yes, I`m always open to everything, baby, absolutely.”

In what followed, Steele made clear he would take his lead from the state parties. To go from this to conclude that Steele thinks “there’s no longer any room in the GOP for those who disagree with him,” is absurd.

Attmay

February 24th, 2009

Would he like it if gay organizations started using racial slurs? Because that’s what their position on marriage basically is the equivalent of.

tristram

February 25th, 2009

“STEELE: Ok, but wait a minute. Is it going to — what is it? Is it going to you want the benefits or you want something else? If you want the benefits, there’s a little thing called contract law, you’ve got power of attorney. There’s a whole number of ways in which two individuals can care for each other and look out for each other without having to put the impramatur of marriage on their forehead.”

So the guy who couldn’t pass the bar exam is an authority on contract law?

Scott P.

February 25th, 2009

A power of attorney can be ignored. just ask the survivors of Lisa Pond! NOTHING else has the power of marriage, so we should settle for nothing less!

Attmay

February 25th, 2009

Actually, he does have a point. Civil unions are crazy. They undermined marriage in France, so there’s a way to give gays the benefits of marriage without undermining marriage.

It’s called gay marriage. And we need it now. And we will accept nothing less.

John

February 25th, 2009

“So the guy who couldn’t pass the bar exam is an authority on contract law?”

You mean like the guy who couldn’t use Turbo Tax correctly is now Secretary of the Treasury? Couldn’t resist.

I must say though that I’m disappointed by Steele’s remarks. I expected him to be a social con but these comments do make me suspicious about how “open” he really is when it comes to Republicans who do not agree with his faction of the party on gay rights issues.

occono

February 25th, 2009

Attmay, I believe some CU-supportive Conservatives might try excluding Civil Unions from Heteros under 65, like with Domestic Partnerships in California. (Which are more like New England/New Jersey Civil Unions then what Domestic Partnerships are in other states)
That’d avoid a France PACS theoretical situation in their mind.

Jim Burroway

February 25th, 2009

Dave, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You have the most amazing capacity to argue that what someone said is not what someone said.

When Steele was asked about those who voted for Obama’s stimulus package, he had a choice on how to respond. He could have responded with what he said just a few weeks ago, about the GOP being a big tent and the need to allow for people in the big tent to disagree.

You know, the kind of thing that Reagan often said when he was asked about Connecticut Sen. Lowell Weicker. He often pointed out that the GOP was like a big family, that yes, people in a big family don’t always agree and often bicker, but in the end it’s still a family. The GOP, he often pointed out, was big enough and confident enough for these honest differences to be aired. That reaction was part and parcel of Reagan’s dictum of never speaking ill of another Republican.

You see, Steele could have been Reaganesque. He could have said something like that, or similar to what he said merely a few weeks ago.

But no, the Republican Party’s official National Leader held out the possibility — indeed the endorsement — of sanctioning those three Senators who voted on the stimulus package. Yes, he said that he’d that he’d “talk to the said parties about” it. But oh yes baby, he was definitely open to it.

When the National Leader of the Republican Party is willing to abdicate his leadership to speak so enthusiastically about retaliation rather than emulating Reagan — who all Republicans profess to revere — well, to pretend that he doesn’t think that retaliation is a swell idea is beyond absurd.

Dave

February 26th, 2009

Dave, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You have the most amazing capacity to argue that what someone said is not what someone said.

It is with considerable bemusement that I read this accusation, Jim, as saying I said something other than what I said has been done to me more times on this blog than I can count.

I quoted from Steele more extensively than did you, so I don’t see how you feel you have the right to accuse me of saying Steele said something other than what he said.

Saying he is open to whatever the state Republican Parties wish to do vis-a-vis Senators Collin, Snowe, and Specter is decidedly not the same as saying “there’s no longer any room in the GOP for those who disagree with him.” It takes some gumption on your part to put words into Steele’s mouth and then accuse me of misrepresenting him when I attempt to correct the record.

As for your comparisons of Steele with Reagan, well Reagan was President. Steele is the head of the RNC. There is a big difference in those positions.

There is also a big difference between Weicker’s ineffective disagreement with Reagan and the GOP majority back in the 80’s and Collin, Snowe, and Specter making a possible a hugely expensive spending bill that directly contradicts the governmental and economic principles the GOP wants to stand for. You are comparing apples and pineapples.

If Steele came out and lead the charge to retaliate against these three senators, it wouldn’t mean he thinks there is no room in the GOP for anyone who disagrees with him on anything whatsoever — which is what you accused him of. It would only mean he thought these three senators deserved punishment for one particular action.

However, it isn’t clear from what he told Cavuto that he thinks “retaliation is a swell idea”; it is only clear that he will take his lead from the state parties on such retaliation as on other matters. Steele said,

My responsibility is to follow the lead of the state parties, to get their advice, what their intent is… we’ll follow their lead. It’s just like anything — when the state party says ‘we’re going to endorse a candidate and support a candidate,’ the RNC’s behind them. When the state party says ‘we have a problem with that candidate,’ so does the RNC.

You, as a gay activist, had a knee-jerk reaction to Steele’s civil unions comments. We’d get along better if you didn’t allow your antipathy to conservative politics get the better of you.

Jim Burroway

February 26th, 2009

I’ll repeat again, Steele had a choice in how to respond. His choice spoke very loudly. If I read you right, you’re defending his choice to abdicate his leadership to those who would push for retaliation. “Oh, yes, I’m always open to everything, baby, absolutely” sounds very enthusiastic to me.

Once again, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

John

February 26th, 2009

I think that it would be great for Steele to target Collins, Snowe and Spector. The Dems only need one more senate vote to be able to cut off debate. If Steele could give the Dems a filibuster proof majority, he could well go down as the absolutely worst Republican Party leader in history.

He might even be able to succeed by alienating these senators enough that they switch to the Democratic Party even before the next election.

It is always nice to see somone with the ambition and dedication to really make a difference out there.

Dave

February 26th, 2009

If I read you right, you’re defending his choice to abdicate his leadership to those who would push for retaliation.

No, Jim, you aren’t reading me right. (This isn’t surprising as I’m seldom read correctly here.)

Steele doesn’t see himself as abidicating any leadership. He sees his proper role as RNC head to help the state parties do what they wish to do regarding any particular candidate.

What I am saying is I see no reason to argue with his position on what is proper for RNC leader.

In any event, as I said before, even if Steele were actively supporting retaliation against these three senators you would have no cause to go so far as to say “as far as Steele’s concerned, there’s no longer any room in the GOP for those who disagree with him.”

As for agreeing to disagree, that’s fine by me. But you could have taken this attitude before you accused me of having a “most amazing capacity to argue that what someone said is not what someone said.”

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.