Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 24, 2009
Politics / Homo New Head of GOP Makes Good On Promise to Reach Out to Gay Voters...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM
...by calling civil unions "crazy" and insisting that excluding gay people from the institution of marriage was a "founding value of this country."
Well, gee. I'm off to read my copy of the "Federalist Papers" and my circa 1790 copy of the U.S. Constitution. I don't remember anything in them about gay marriage—or marriage, period. And even if there were something in those documents about hatin' on those crazy gays, does Michael Steele really want to argue in favor of all of the founding values of our country?
1
Try not to take it personally, Dan. He also promised to reach out to "one-armed midgets" and others who live in "urban-suburban hip-hop settings."
This is just one more promise he can't keep.
This is just one more promise he can't keep.
2
They really have no idea why they lost, and a big part of that is they honestly have no idea when they're being dicks. "Why are you people so touchy?! I'm just being honest!"
3
I can see that Steele's attempts to reach out to teh geyz are going about as well as his efforts to reach out to the young, urban, trendy crowd.
He's straight buggin', homes.
He's straight buggin', homes.
4
And this is coming from a guy who founded some centrist Republican group that was committed to finding common ground. I guess he's forgotten about all of that now that he's King of the Troglodytes. Founding values, indeed.
5
i think you're on to something there, kat. they're the opposite of sociopaths. they're....socioclasts?
6
Well I agree with him on one statement.
"What's the difference," is right. There really is no difference if you believe marriage isn't an inherently religious institution.
But in accepting that denying homosexuals marriage doesn't make much sense.
"What's the difference," is right. There really is no difference if you believe marriage isn't an inherently religious institution.
But in accepting that denying homosexuals marriage doesn't make much sense.
8
It really doesn't matter what the chairman of the Republican party says about gays. We have two parties in this country, one conservative and one liberal. That is orthogonal to issues of sexuality. F**k Michael Steele. He is irrelevant.
9
Yes, Steele is a tool.
Now will you or someone at the Stranger ALSO post a story about the NAACP's strong, loud, active and unequivocal call for the overturning of Prop 8 in California?
http://buckmire.blogspot.com/2009/02/naa…
Now will you or someone at the Stranger ALSO post a story about the NAACP's strong, loud, active and unequivocal call for the overturning of Prop 8 in California?
http://buckmire.blogspot.com/2009/02/naa…
10
So, tell me again, when is Obama going to give us the Gay marriage?... (Oh, that's right. He's not.)
13
Founding value? It's right there under "persuit of happiness". Republicans are only happy when somebody else is suffering. It's a Hegel thing, defining themselves and their interion state by their opposition to an "other".
14
YGBKM,
Obama can't "give" anyone the right to a legally recognized same-sex marriage. Congress passed and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing SSM. Obama's platform included the repeal of the federal DOMA, and I have no doubt that once Congress passes the repeal, Obama will sign it. He's also in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell so gay can serve openly in the military, but again, Congress has to pass it first. There's a pretty limited amount the executive can do on its own in this area due to the amount of preempting legislation Congress has passed. (Contrast with Truman's being able to desegregate the military on his own, because Congress never said the military HAD to be segregated.)
Obama can't "give" anyone the right to a legally recognized same-sex marriage. Congress passed and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing SSM. Obama's platform included the repeal of the federal DOMA, and I have no doubt that once Congress passes the repeal, Obama will sign it. He's also in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell so gay can serve openly in the military, but again, Congress has to pass it first. There's a pretty limited amount the executive can do on its own in this area due to the amount of preempting legislation Congress has passed. (Contrast with Truman's being able to desegregate the military on his own, because Congress never said the military HAD to be segregated.)
17
If you're not in favor of gay marriage, you cannot in good conscience, "Pledge allegiance to the flag... ...and to the republic for which it stands... ...with liberty and justice FOR ALL." It's just that simple.
18
@19: Wrong. The Republican party was against slavery while the Democrats expanded it westward. As far as misogyny is concened, that was bipartisan!
19
I wish it was election time 2010. We'll be through this reccession and I can't wait to see how much further the repubs slide toward total irrelevance. They are truly bat-shit crazy.
20
The Republicans were against slavery but have supported second class citizenship ever since. Now they seek to add to the list of people they want to make second class citizens. "Equal Justice Under The Law" is a founding priciple they find hard to remember. They want to adopt hypocrisy as a founding principle. Their "Do unto others..." rule is their religion. They don't even make a pretense of following it. Their rules are for others. They're just too good to follow the same rules.
21
@8, the Democrats aren't a liberal party, they're moderates. The Green Party is liberal, but they barely exist.
23
@18: Ahh, the refreshing sound of conservatives conveniently ignoring a full century of the history of American political parties.
24
Come on now, Dan?
You didn't really think Steel had read the Constituion (or anything else!) did you?
No doubt, most Republicans would be horrified if they actually read the documents they purportedly support.
You didn't really think Steel had read the Constituion (or anything else!) did you?
No doubt, most Republicans would be horrified if they actually read the documents they purportedly support.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS