Printer-friendly version
PDF version
To see the recently-appointed chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, fumble his way through recent interviews is to see a breathing, corporeal manifestation of the GOP’s platform, scrutinized by curious media heads. If he appears confused, erratic and illogical after one of those media heads asks him a question, that’s because he's trying to sell a platform American voters handily rejected in the 2008 elections as one that's politically viable. The party's stance on same sex marriage is illustrative of this false advertising.
During a recent interview, GQ asked Steele whether he thought homosexuality is a choice, and Steele said no. “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,’” Steele said. “It’s like saying, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”
With that recognition, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that the Republican Party might be more sympathetic to the prejudice same-sex couples face in the country. Indeed, Republicans might even make a viable effort to eliminate legally-mandated discrimination against those couples.
What’s more, the 2008 Republican Platform’s stance on “Ensuring Equal Treatment for All” appears to take a very progressive position toward equality. “We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes.”
Nevertheless, the battered party holds onto its anachronistic beliefs that granting same sex couples legal rights will lead to the ruination of society:
“Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems,” the platform states under “Preserving Traditional Marriage,” putting it in direct collision with the Party’s stance on “Equal Treatment for All.”
Michael Gallagher, in a February radio interview, asked whether Steele’s party should favor civil unions, and Steele literally asked if the interviewer was crazy. “No, no, no. What would we do that for?” Steele asked incredulously. “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.’”
So Steele accepts that homosexuality is not a choice, but continues to discriminate against homosexuals? When it comes to same-sex marriage, the Republican Party is putting on a masquerade of grand scale, and Michael Steele its maladroit puppet. The question remains whether self-described party of equality will continue this farce in its 2012 platform.
Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
21 Comments
To comment, please login.
So Editorial board, what's your answer?
You must have an answer in three seconds or less and the answer is limited to one sentence.
The question:
Do you think homosexuality a choice?
That is one of the most loaded questions anyone could ask in the context of how the answer relates to whether same-sex marriage should be recognized by the state, and whether it is discriminatory to define marriage as one man, one woman.
Whether or not someone's biological makeup contributes to a same-sex attraction, and whether that individual chooses to outwardly act on that same-sex attraction really has nothing to do with whether a state that chooses to define marriage as one man, one woman is legally discriminating against any individual.
The question asked of Michael Steele with its expressed intentions can not possibly be expected to be be answered in a few, short sentences. And for the Ed Board to maintain that if one were to answer that "homosexuality is not a choice" that that person could not also maintain that marriage can be legally defined as one man, one woman without being discriminatory to those in same-sex relationships, is a ludicrous in its logic.
Here is a simple question?
Q: Can two people of the same sex procreate?
A: No.
That is the fundamentally anatomical, physiological difference between two people of the same sex who are in a publicly declared sexual relationship and two people of different sex who are in a publicly declared sexual relationship:
Regardless of whether those people entered those relationships by choice or by some biological predisposition they are two distinctly different relationships, and as such, the state is not discriminatory if it, by legislative authority or referendum vote, chooses to define marriage based on the knowledge that two people of different sexes can procreate and to people of the same sex cannot.
I find it disgusting that much of the media loves to pick on the black Republican and consider the black Republican a mouthpiece and subservient simply because they choose to not identify with the Democrat party.
From the GQ article: "Michael Steele, the embattled new head of the Republican Party, on whether he'd be in this job if he were white, why he left the seminary for the GOP, and where his diminished party goes from here."
Whether he's be in his job if he were white. That's about a cheap and racist as it gets. I thought we were past that. Guess not.
Dinosaurs
This is so indicative of a major part of what's wrong with the GOP these days. You can't very well claim to be progressive in the way Americans want, then cling to the regressive stances of yesterday just because your most conservative members kick up a fuss if you don't.
Sooner or later the GOP has to either stand up to it's uber-conservative faction or else let them call the shots. If they choose the latter they better brace for extinction.
As far as marriage, how is it a noble conservative value to keep monogamous American gay couples from buying a license at the courthouse? Lighten up GOP, and put your energy into things that matter like the economy, foreign policy, and keeping your own house in order. If a gay couple wants to commit to a like together (whether they raise children or not) we should be glad and give them the equal legal protection the rest of us enjoy. This is America not Iran.
Gigli, I disagree with your
Gigli, I disagree with your assertions.
We all know procreation takes male+female. Procreation is not a prerequisite for a marriage license. Or would you also deny licenses to hetero couples unable or unwilling to procreate?
It absolutely is discriminatory. If a gay person does not choose to be gay but is denied the priveleges and protections afforded married couples unless they enter a sham marriage with the opposite sex, how is that not discrimination?
You offer no argument for why the word marriage in a legal context (merely a contract after all) should be reserved solely for male-female unions. If you dislike gay unions don't enter into one, but there's no legal basis to deny the legal marriage contract to same sex couples.
And I think the GQ question about Steele being white is a fair one. Did the GOP vet this guy at all? He keeps saying things that his own party jumps on him over. So if not for his views why was he chosen? It's not unreasonable to wonder if trying to meet racial quota in the party might have been a factor. ("Look world, we have black folks too!")
DNC chairman is anti-gay marriage
We've got heads of both major parties on record as being against gay marriage. I think we need to take Tim Kaine to task as well. Kaine, the new DNC chairman, is against gay marriage. He doesn't represent the values of the progressive platform that we voted into office across the nation in November. Why aren't we addressing that subject?!!
Procreation
Gigli: that procreation argument is weak. You could on the one hand have a heterosexual couple who chooses never to have children and on the other a same-sex couple who has five children (via either adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or from a prior hetero relationship) and current law calls the straight couple a family and the gay couple & their kids essentially a house of strangers.
It's discriminatory and just plain wrong.
If Republicans really want to hang their hats on "family values" they will put their money where their mouth is and mean all families not just the Beaver Cleaver 1950s ones.
Maybe when they do that they will have more credibility. Until then I see a whole lotta talkin and not much walkin.
Horrible Editorializing
President Obama is against gay marriage. The Daily is attacking Michael Steele over this issue because he is a Republican. R.I.P. newspapers!!
Many of us on the right
Many of us on the right aren't so much against gay marriage, but it's what the gay lobby will do next. Many are fascists who want to crush anyone who doesn't support their life style. Examples:
Phx. An Ordodox Christian photographer declined an offer to photograph a gay marriage. The leisbian sued this lady to force her to photograph her ceremoney, even though their are thousands of other photograhers in the area.
The Christian dating service...I forget it's name, but gays sued the owner to force him to set up gay matchmaking services, even though their are many gay matching sites already in exsistance.
Catholic church in Boston had to stop setting up adaptions because they would not work with gay couples.
Gays have tired to destroy the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts.
What gays will do next
"Dave" I think your argument is half-baked. You sound as if you'd support same sex marriage if that's all that was at stake and I highly doubt that.
As for your examples of what the big bad gay community is doing to ruin society, you'd be wise to temper that with some honesty and faith in the American judicial system: the only claims or lawsuits that will win are those with legal merit.
You can't have it both ways: For example: in one such case in Ocean Grove NJ a religious organization took advantage of a NJ program allowing tax breaks for groups who open their facilities to the public. So far so good. Then they refused the request of the gay couple to hold their ceremony at the group's pavillion. NJ law forbids those who “offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public” from “directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual” on the basis of sexual orientation.
They can either keep their facilities private, and thus retain the freedom to set their own policy, or they can make the facilities public in which case they are subject to public laws like everybody else.
As for individuals, I'd say the litmus test is this: substitute gay with black and see how it looks. If a photographer declined a wedding job and said, "It's because you're black" then I'd say however the law handles that is how it should handle gay people.
If that's too radical an agenda for you (gay people having the full equality guaranteed all Americans in the Constitution) then look in the mirror when questioning who here is the fascist.
It's pretty hard to take, for me to want nothing more than what I would have if I'd been born straight. NOTHING more. And have people like you smugly justify continuing discrimination because you don't understand me or I make you uncomfortable.
Joanne, thanks for proving my
Joanne, thanks for proving my case. You agree wtih me then that anyone who doesn't support your agenda needs to be crushed?
And don't give the gay = black thing. Tyring to equate a behavior with a hue of skin. Do you support polygamy then? I mean, they are just like Rosa Parks.
to Dave
Ah Dave your limited abilities are showing. Let me be clearer for you, maybe that will help.
I did not say anyone who does not agree with my agenda needs to be crushed. Do not put incorrect words in my mouth dear. What I am saying is: anyone who denies another group equal civil rights must be stopped because that is contrary to our law in America. Is that clear enough?
Homosexuality is not merely a behavior. It is one of two sexual orientations. A person's sexual identity, like their skin color or eye color, is not their choice and therefore there's no legal basis on which to deny them equal civil rights.
The black/gay comparisons as civil rights struggles are hardly new with me or anyone gay for that matter:
Just this past Saturday Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, said that, "people of color ought to be flattered" that another group draws inspiration from their struggle. He also said he opposed Proposition 8 in CA because it singled out one group of people for "discrimination". He added, "Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality, and that is what gay marriage is."
If the head of the NAACP is not enough...
Rep. John Lewis, longtime ally and close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said, "I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism."
I think he's a greater authority on the subject of civil rights than you.
Well, the NAACP also has
Well, the NAACP also has taken a stand that says the central corridor light rail line is a violation of civil rights, so their opinions mean pretty much nothing to me.
You didn't answer my question. Do you support the civil right of polygamists? I only personally know 2 people who engage in homosexual sex, but know a ton of people who have multiple partners.
Joanne, do you think Rosa
Joanne, do you think Rosa Parks would have fought for the civil rights of polygamists, or was she polyphobic?
Dave, I have no personal
Dave, I have no personal interest in polygamy or the right of people to practice it. I can see where someone might connect marriage equality for gay people and marriage equality for polygamists if you're the type to think changing one thing will lead to changing everything, but I don't think that way.
Marrying multiple people is not currently legal and I don't seek to change that. I've never really thought about it and don't know what the issues are. I trust that people who do have a vested interest in that can fight their own fight if they have the desire to, but for now that's not the issue at hand. Did I answer your question?
How am I supposed to know what Rosa Parks would have fought for? What's your point? You seem to try very hard to cloud what's being talked about with things that are not relevant.
The only common thread I can see (which you seem to be trying to make into a mountain of distraction) are that gay rights and racial minority rights are both civil rights movements. You have no disagreement with me there.
Joanne, first, thanks for a
Joanne, first, thanks for a rational response. It makes things easier to discuss/debate when it doesn't get down to just comparing the other person to Hitler.
My point was that many in the gay rights crowd compare their cause to Rosa Parks. So I was showing how obsurd their argument is. And as far as Polygamy, those types could use the same arguements as gay marriage proponents do. You don't think that is coming down the road?
Dave, I too appreciate
Dave, I too appreciate rational debate. I must admit it gets easy for me to get overheated or snotty because I have such a personal stake in this, as do many people I care deeply about.
Personally I don't think the comparisons to the black civil rights movement are absurd at all. Of course they are not as parallel as, say, another racial group. Then again, discrimination based upon race should all be covered in one category already.
But they are the same in one very important and distinct way: a group of Americans who are not doing anything illegal are being treated in a different and lesser way in America with little or no legal rationale other than "that's the way it's always been" which of course is not a legal reason at all. Being gay is not illegal, nor is homosexual sex. And I am here to tell you it's not a choice either. So whatever grounds people think they have have to continue the lesser treatment for gay individuals or gay couples simply do not stand up to legal scrutiny in my opinion.
If I had to guess I don't really think that a polygamy rights movement is coming. To me it's a very different thing. Polygamy is much more like a lifestyle or institution. Like you and I, a polygamist is also either straight or gay. One is not born a polygamist so it's a whole different argument to say they deserve legalization of the way they want to marry.
Seen another way: as a gay woman I currently have the right (techincally) to marry a man. But that's as inappropriate as saying I have the right to marry a frog. I would never do that because if I am to form a family life there is only one way that will ever happen for me: with a female life martner. Period.
Gay couples exist all over the place. More and more are raising children. They are families that are being treated by the law as households of strangers. That's not ok.
And then we have to watch the state of marriage as practiced by the Britney Spears' and Liz Taylors of the world, and TV reality shows peddling spouses for ratings, and still accept that our families can not be families under the law? It's perverse.
Debate
I just read through this debate and I enjoyed it, especially the well articulated points of Joanne G. I have thought for a long time that the current legislation discriminates against gay people and that you aren't born straight or gay. I actually think we fall on a Bell curve as far as sexuality goes with a very small amount of people being straight or gay and most people being somewhere in between. I think that society and relationships with other people skew the nature of things into these two categories. Realistically people who wish to make a commitment to each other "till death do us part" should be allowed to do so whatever their sex and the law should respect it. I also agree with the article that if the GOP continues to have this platform of hate, then it will not sustain itself.
Agreed with Stephen
This was a great debate, and brava to Joanne for not falling to the logical fallacies put forth by Dave.
Here's how it breaks down as far as I can see: Equal protection is proclaimed in our constitution. The only spot where the Founders had any trouble with that was with slaves and blacks in general. Our country came to realize that leaving them out was foolish and morally reprehensible, so we evolved to become more inclusive--but not totally inclusive. I think that the Founders would look at this current debate just like they would the debate on freedom of worship at the time--whether you believe that homosexuality is a choice or not, everyone has the freedom to whatever religion they desire, or to no religion at all. Everyone should have the freedom to love and marry who they desire--or not to marry at all. The Supreme Court agrees with me here--see the case Loving vs. Virginia, in which the majority opinion declares that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
So if marriage is a "basic civil right," fundamental to our existence and survival, and if our government provides Equal Protection for all citizens? Then gays deserve to marry. Give love a chance.
You want to make this country safer for kids to grow up in and more wholesome in values? Outlaw divorce. That's what's really ruining kids.
What?
"a platform American voters handily rejected in the 2008 elections "
--What are you talking about. Did the most goofiest, most liberal state in the union not just handily pass a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. A little over half the people in the country may have voted for a liberal (one who also DOES NOT support same-sex marriage mind you) but to say that voters rejected a platform which includes protecting traditional marriage is a blatant and boldfaced lie. I mean just plain false. What the hell kind of crack are you people smoking?
aw marriage
The problem with politics and polling is that the statistics usually lie and statements made by politicians cannot be trusted. With the exception of Kucinich every single candidate in the 2008 presidential election weren't for gay marriage but generally pro civil unions; every candidate knows that if they openly support gay marriage that they won't win. Many candidates have changed their platform about this over time as well. If you look at John Mcain's track record before he was launched into the spotlight he was very moderate about the issues of gay rights. There is still a majority of the public that exists that are relatively accepting of homosexuality or quite frankly (just don't give a damn) and don't have an opinion about sexual orientation. When you use the word marriage all it does is piss people off and start a debate.
The polls and statistics aren't concrete numbers that can be counted on as reliable for one side or another. California has a republican governor as well as a strong faction of republicans in Orange County and other prominent areas. There was also a lot of confusion regarding propaganda used to explain prop8. California will repeal this; it's already happening. Eventually every state will make up their minds one way or another if they'll allow for gay marriage/have civil unions/no recognition of gay unions. After this happens the federal government will eventually step in; there can't be some states that support it and some that don't. It's going to be all or nothing.
I think it'd be best if we just abolished marriage all together in terms of legal aspects and leave that title to religion; the state should make civil unions mandatory for everyone to provide equal rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities. If people want to get married and have formal ceremonies let them do that. A person can call it whatever they like; it's how a couple views their commitment and its importance that matters.
This issue is only a hot topic here in America because we are one of the most developed countries in the world but the least civilly progressive. Canada, Spain, Great Britain, and South Africa (to name a few) have legalized gay marriage or have equivalent civil unions.
There is just an underlying turmoil regarding issues of "morality" "decency" "family values"
The Republican party and Democratic Party both horribly fail at promoting gay marriage but at least Obama can see the travesty of policies in our government like "Don't Ask Don't Tell," which he has pledged to repeal.
We've come so far but there is a long way to go and this battle is just getting started. It's the age old clash of ideologies. Nothing more.
Allen, I'm not sure why that
Allen, I'm not sure why that sentence riles you up so much but I'm inclined to see it as more true than false. The GOP's platform has been taking a serious beating at the polls for two elections now, both in 2006 and 2008. That platform has always been the one least in favor of equal rights and protections for gay Americans. I think that's all the paragraph is trying to say.
Israel is, of course, louis
Israel is, of course, louis vuitton a democracy. Tivoli PM