Former McCain campaign chief endorses same-sex marriage.
Former McCain campaign chief endorses same-sex marriage.
Former McCain campaign chief strategist Steve Schmidt told the Washington Blade in an interview last week that he is “personally supportive” of same-sex marriage rights. Schmidt, who spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans at the Republican National Convention last year, added that he thinks Americans are “troubled” when they see Republicans “trying to stigmatize” the gay community:
“I’m personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time,” he said. “I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they’re troubled by it.” [...]
“I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage,” he said. “The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.”
Schmidt, who is a California resident, also told the Blade that he voted against Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage ballot initiative that McCain supported as a candidate.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good for him! Let’s hear it for equality for all of us, not
March 26th, 2009 at 10:39 amjust some of us!
I sense an apology coming on…
March 26th, 2009 at 10:49 amFormer McCain campaign chief strategist Steve Schmidt (…) is “personally supportive” of same-sex marriage rights
– - Uh huh, and that carries the political weight of fuzz on a feather.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:49 amOoooooh Daaaarrrrrryyyyyllllll…..
March 26th, 2009 at 10:51 amNo one in Cali needs this man’s approval or agreement.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:55 amOh no, What would Joe the Plumber think?
March 26th, 2009 at 10:55 amHere come the smears. It always happens after a Republican is caught speaking honestly.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:00 ambut right wing sissies need to be afraid of ‘teh gay’
fear is the only thing that prevents them from indulging in their lustful desires for the same sex
March 26th, 2009 at 11:07 amRush Limbaugh. Calling Rush Limbaugh. One of your stooges has strayed from the pack.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:08 amThis serves to highlight the astonishing dishonesty of the McCain campaign. You have to appeal to the radical right wing evangelicals to have any hope of winning as a Republican. That’s the group that cherishes Sarah for all her stupidity and incuriousness.
What is amazing is that the Mullahs of the religious right are striving for dominionism; a theocracy that would end our democracy as we know it.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:15 amWhat this proves is that every gay man and lesbian in America needs to come out to their brothers and sisters and parents. Then they stop talking like Republicans, and show love for their loved ones — which is what happened with Schmidt.
Of course, familial love only goes to far. Schmidt, after all, largely kept his newfound decency to himself while he was working to elect McCain and what’s-her-name. What he’s saying now would have meant a hell of a lot more before November.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amThe scales of justice will soon reach the tipping point.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:34 amCompare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that one.
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slave marriages were not legally honored either. They could not create and sign contracts and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all”.
Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others. Stop gay apartheid.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:38 amYes, gay people should be treated with “respect”. True Americans believe that EVERY person is endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republicans practice wedge politics by demonizing one group of the population and then playing to the bigots in their party. Until they drop this policy it will be impossible for anyone who supports civil rights to seriously consider being a Republican. It is easier to scare people with the bogey men of civil unions, universal health care, and regulated financial markets than it is to propose a positive agenda.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:42 amTOO LITTLE, WAAAAAAY TOO LATE…
March 26th, 2009 at 11:47 amCan I offer a slight correction?
It always happens after a Republican speaks rationally.
They speak honestly all the time, like Newt on faux claiming that Obama is moving us toward a dictatorship. That kinda stuff doesn’t seem to raise an eyebrow.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pmhttp://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
Replace “Mr. Ensley” with “fletc3her.”
For those who aren’t sure, homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry, and incestuous behavior are all immoral.
One is neither a bigot nor anti-American for believing these behaviors are immoral.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pmbitblt, when the many take away or deny the rights of the few, that is discrimination. And last time I checked, that is one of the most Un-American things you can do to an American, to discriminate against them.
Or founding fathers came from and represented an era where men wore wigs and makeup, and practiced questionable sexual acts behind closed doors. (heck sometimes even on public stages)
March 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pmPLC wishes to correct bit’s assertion as PLC recognizes that bit considers “immoral” and “against my religious dogma” as equivalents. PLC is entirely certain that homosexual behavior, in and of itself, does not harm another person and, therefore, is not immoral. PLC is entirely certain that how a person engages in any sexual behavior, homosexual or heterosexual, may be immoral, specifically if that behavior is exploitative in any fashion. PLC does not agree with bit that the laws of our great nation should be based solely on a particular religious dogma. To demand that others follow one’s own religious dogma is, indeed, bigotry and un-American, in case bit isn’t sure.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pmralph is amazed that bit can state with such confidence that certain things are “immoral” when morality is hardly a universal constant.
bit doesn’t seem to realize that while the immorality of incestuous behavior has some grounding in rational principles — being an inherently exploitative relationship, and also one likely to result in genetic damage to any offspring — there is no such inherent feature of either homosexuality or polygamy (polyandry being a form of polygamy) that would lead a rational being to conclude that they are of necessity immoral, as bit seems to pompously suggest.
Than again, ralph has seen bit pompously declare all sorts of his own values to be universal ones, and bit is a familiar contributor to gay-themed threads here at TP, so upon reconsideration, ralph is not so amazed at bit’s pretentiousness after all.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pmJust a thought…
I keep my progressive view to myself at work, as I am a contract bookkeeper and part of my job is to “get along” with people at every jobsite.
I would not work for a politician, as I can’t stand the crap. But really, is Steve Schmidt doing any different than I, keeping his opinions to himself, so he can do his job well?
I don’t know, I have a hard time judging him on this, especially as he is trying to change his party.
OT to PLC – I knew there was another reason why I like you. “Moths? Maria, when did you last complain about these mrrthththths?”
March 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pmbitblt Says
March 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
For those who aren’t sure, homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry, and incestuous behavior are all immoral.
One is neither a bigot nor anti-American for believing these behaviors are immoral.
__________________________________________________________
If you believe these behaviors to be immoral, that’s your right. I have a Jewish acquaintance who believes it’s immoral to eat pork, so he doesn’t. I have a Mormon aunt and uncle who believe it’s immoral to drink coffee, so they don’t. However, none of these people are actively campaigning to make the consumption of pork or coffee illegal. We generally don’t make our laws to suit “morality”, because that’s such a subjective concept. We do make our laws to ensure the civil rights of all people while keeping them safe.
So, if you find it immoral to practice homosexuality, I’d like to point out that nobody is forcing you to. But why should it be banned for everybody just to make your little mind more at ease?
Now, I assume you are going to counter my argument by pointing out that polygamy, polyandry, and incest are illegal. Yes, and there are some fairly solid reasons for this.
First, the law bestows certain benefits for spouses in a system that’s designed for one spouse per person. Nothing is stopping a man from shacking up with as many women as he wants (Hugh Hefner has made a career out of this). But if he wants society to recognize them all as legal spouses, complete with all the benefits and responsibilities thereof, it creates a mess. Therefore, everybody has the right to get married — but we will recognize only one spouse. It’s a matter of practicality, not morality.
Second, the law against incestuous marriages has less to do with morality than it has to do with reproduction. Weak genes (the ones that cause birth defects) are kept rare when they are paired up with stronger dominant ones. When a brother decides to marry his sister, for example, the chances are much greater that the two of them are carrying similar sets of weak genes, which will affect any children they have.
Homosexuality doesn’t get into the issue of multiple marriage (as long as it’s a monogomous two-adult union), and it doesn’t have anything to do with incest. We also know that gay people don’t breed little gay babies, nor is it contagious. So how in the world does it affect you?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pmDon’t go telling those Jacana that polyandry is immoral
March 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pmand don’t even get me started on those bonobo.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pmStill I suppose bit feels morality is unique to the hominidae and that there has only ever been one type of hominid and that it was made from dirt and its ladies from ribs.
His career is effectively over in the GOP. First his losing strategy for McCain, now this…
March 26th, 2009 at 10:22 pmno log cabins allowed.
@24
March 27th, 2009 at 1:51 amDamn you beat me too the bonobos! But of course bonobos are, in themselves and unnatural creatures, as demonstrated by their female led society. Everyone knows that patriarchy is both natural and morally correct.
I will put 1000 on the table and prophesy that Schmidt will come out of the closet in say, about 10 months.
Who wants to bet with me?
March 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am#17 –
bitblt Says:
————————————————————
“I think it’s safe to assume that most, if not all, of our pro-American Founding Fathers believed homosexual behavior to be immoral.”
Replace “Mr. Ensley” with “fletc3her.”
March 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Replace “homosexual behavior” with “slavery” and “immoral” with “acceptable” and you’ve compleely changed the argument.
Wonder why this is never highlighted? Why does everyone assume that the past was somehow better than the present? Progress is required or you get stasis or regression. Pres. Obama being elected proves that America is ready to progress, and not regress.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm