'Are You Crazy?' GOP's Michael Steele Says about Civil Unions
WASHINGTON (BP) --- Social conservatives concerned about the future direction of the Republican Party were heartened Feb. 24 when Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made it clear he opposes not only "gay marriage" but also civil unions.
As reported by Politico.com, Steele made the comments to radio host Mike Gallagher, who asked, "Do you favor civil unions?" Civil unions grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name.
"No, no no. What would we do that for?" Steele responded. "What are you crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? ... I mean, this is a foundational principle of this country. It is a foundational principle of organized society. It isn't something that, you know, in America we decided, 'Let's make it between a man and a woman; oh well now, let's change our mind and make it between anyone and anyone.'"
Steele said that if homosexual couples simple want the benefits of marriage, they can take care of it through an 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 imprimatur of marriage on their forehead," Steele said.
Steele concluded, "I don't understand why you need to weaken an institution that is a foundational institution of not just America, of mankind. I mean, this is something that as human beings, we have organized ourselves around -- this thing called a family unit. This is how we've defined it.... I don't think there's hate in it. I don't think there's discrimination. It's just a core, foundational principle of our society that this is what we believe and this is what we adhere to."
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"Get'cher own rights from an lawyer" displays a level of ignorance which I find unbelievable in a politician so highly placed. Surely a legislator at Mr. Steele's level does not believe that the civil rights and benefits of marriage can be replicated with a few contracts signed in an attorney's office.
Can an attorney grant a couple the right to file their taxes jointly? The right to adopt one another's children in a state where this is outlawed? The right to collect one another's social security spousal benefits should one member of the couple die? The right for the surviver's children to collect social security payments from the deceased parent, if they have not been permitted by their state to form a legal relationship to that parent?
Since there are more than 1000 rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage at the federal level alone, none of which are available to any gay couple in this country, plus myriad state-level benefits of marriage, which are available only to those who live in states where gay marriage has been legalized (3) or where a handful of rights have been tossed like crumbs to those who have been granted some sort of state-level "civil union," the idea that a couple can just trot down to their attorney's office, sign a few papers, and be good-to-go, is beyond idiotic. To me, it smacks of deliberate and malicious spread of disinformation by Mr. Steele.
Mr. Steele is an attorney who has served as Lt. Governor of Maryland. Surely he knows better. And if he knows better, then he must be deliberately misleading those who might otherwise support civil rights for same-gendered couples by salving their consciences with the idea that gays HAVE the same rights as straights, or would have, if they weren't too lazy to go sign some papers and GET them.
I have friends who recently went to their attorney to try to put some legal protections in place for themselves and their twin babies. They spent over $10,000 just to draw up sufficient contracts to guarantee their family a small handful of the protections of marriage.
Mr. Steele is full of it.
I do hope you are correct that he "doesn't have a clue". The alternative—that Mr Steele knew exactly what he was saying—would make him an unkind and dissembling fellow indeed.
In absolute honesty, I would like to believe that Mr Steele is unaware that families headed by gay couples exist, are hit hard by the lack of a legal framework to accommodate and protect them, and that it is difficult (or even impossible) to obtain those same protections through any other means than civil unions or marriage. Then his response would be easier to forgive, and he could perhaps be persuaded to take a more moderate stance. Given his position I find this difficult, but it is a possibility and it would be uncharitable not to allow for it.
As I said above, legal gay marriage with strong religious exemptions is a compromise. Civil union is a compromise on a compromise. Mr Steele's approach is to make absolutely no compromise, unless he would prefer something even more dire. Absolute rigidity is hardly a conciliatory approach to a divisive issue, and emulating shock that anyone might wish to protect gay couples and their families just as we do other families is most unseemly.
Jordan, I agree. And I think it likely that Mr. Steele DOES know EXACTLY the false nature of his statements.
Same-sex marriage with robust protections for religious dissent is a compromise.
Civil unions with most of the rights of marriage are a compromise.
"You can sort it out with your lawyer" is not a compromise; it is an expensive, ineffective imposition on the lives of same-sex couples and the families they take care of.
Finally, defining a family as being headed by a man and a woman is neither unprejudiced or unhateful. Indeed, it is actively unphysical. A family headed by a same-sex couple is a family. Stating otherwise ignores the reality that such families exist, have existed for some time, and need at least as much protection as any other.
""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 imprimatur of marriage on their forehead," Steele said."
I see that Mr. Steele doesn't understand case law very well. Two same-sex parents who are previously dedicated to having children, upon breaking up, cannot demand services from the other similar to marriages. Many courts have consistently broken the in loco parentis model that same-sex parents attempt to adhere to. Some states don't allow for second-parent adoption. Florida doesn't allow for homosexuals to adopt, period.
"Steele concluded, "I don't understand why you need to weaken an institution that is a foundational institution of not just America, of mankind. I mean, this is something that as human beings, we have organized ourselves around -- this thing called a family unit. This is how we've defined it.... I don't think there's hate in it. I don't think there's discrimination. It's just a core, foundational principle of our society that this is what we believe and this is what we adhere to.""
Go ahead and create your speculations based off of little factual evidence. Don't expect those speculations to be persuasive without any proof.
This is where the Loving parallel comes in. Marriage was previously defined as between a man and a woman of the same race (and if you contend that it was actually White Supremacy acting, see Perez). Interracial marriage was "how we've defined it" in the past. Of course there was no "hate in it" because racial groups were all discriminated against equally (and again, see Perez before you say that it was White Supremacy). As for a core, foundational principle, it was considered unnatural for persons of opposite sexes to intermingle. After all, that's why God put them on different parts of the world, right?
PLEASE study case law before you sputter this nonsense. It doesn't take an experienced lawyer to know this kind of stuff, much less a person who's studied law for half a year.
...That is, "opposite races", not "opposite sexes".