Feh.A reality check. As the party finds itself uniting in hostility to Obama, and the Independents and Democrats stay pretty much the same in terms of judging him, it's interesting to see Michael Steele being frank about reaching out to the center:
GALLAGHER: 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: 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." [...]
GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?
STEELE: What's the difference?
This, remember, is from the RNC candidate who was most regarded as eager to reach out to the next generation.
I had higher hopes for Steele given his talk of "we have to elect moderates in the party", but if he won't even allow the GOP to support civil unions as a compromise for gay rights -- as almost 75% of the country does -- then the distance between me and this illiberal conservatism isn't going to budge much.
Below is how the Christianist right responds to any notion of civil unions for gays, along the lines that David Blankenhorn endorsed last Sunday:
Yep, it's "stunning" that a fellow traveler would endorse something approaching equal civil recognition for same-sex relationships.In a surprising departure from his prior positions, David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values, partnered with Jonathan Rauch for a stunning op-ed in yesterday's New York Times called "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." In it, the pair advocates the creation of a federal civil union law which would give same-sex couples "most or all" of the benefits associated with marriage while somehow strengthening religious conscience protections. Blankenhorn's concession is disturbing on several levels.
As we have seen elsewhere, civil unions are a Trojan horse for homosexuals' ultimate goal of marriage. Once a national civil union law is in place, denial of marital status would be almost impossible to defend. Far from a "compromise," Blankenhorn's position surrenders on the core question of whether the relationship involved (homosexuality) can be recognized as a social good. If it can be, the ability of other institutions to deny it recognition will be on a path of extinction. Their proposal also confines religion to specifically religious institutions or para-religious institutions. But any religion worth its salt (and light) demands moral behavior in all realms of life, so all sorts of freedoms will necessarily suffer curtailment under this regime. This is of little matter, however, because this proposal is a halfway house to the ultimate goal--something I suspect Rauch knows.
But that's Christian fundamentalism for ya. I expect better from Steele, and I demand better from a party that expects me to consider voting for them.
I sort of respect the way he defends his position even though the position is completely wrong and the basis of his defense (i.e., the bible) is utterly problematic. But he's consistent at least.
ReplyDeleteI have no trouble tolerating biblical interpretations or any other group's morality that disapproves of same-sex relationships -- be they marriage or otherwise. I believe they're wrong, but they have a right to be wrong ---- just like, if I believed they were correct, I'd still think gay couples have a right to be wrong. That's secularism.
ReplyDeleteContra Steele the "core, founding values" of this country are Age of Enlightenment secularism and classical liberalism as exemplified by the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. I don't see anything about this liberalism which would suggest founders like Benjamin Franklin would be against legal recognition for same-sex relationships today.