RNC Chair Michael Steele with openly gay possible candidate Fred Karger Photo courtesy Fred Karger
I’m starting the New Year off with a concession: I was wrong about the National Organization for Marriage. I thought that the small cadre of Catholic antigay marriage missionaries was mostly smoke and mirrors – as has been well-documented by the NOM Tour Tracker and the increasing public acceptance of marriage equality. But NOM is like a persistent, annoying gnat that just won’t go away or be swatted down. And judging from their spiffy new website and knack for getting props from the mainstream media – they’ve got fiscal backing and may increasingly be a go-to Religious Right Republican power player, aside from the Family Research Council, a newly designated official “hate group.”
Now comes a long interview with Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele, who wants to keep his job, even though some GOPs really, really want someone else. Steele presided over the party during an election where they won back the House. And to a number of libertarian-ish Republicans, he personifies the “big tent” theory of the party – meeting with affiliates such as the Log Cabin Republicans and possible openly gay Republican candidate Fred Karger. But in this party chair candidate interview with NOM, Steele (looking oddly like a doctor about to go play tennis in the video) still maintains that he personally is Pro-Life and Pro-Family and that the party is still hard-core opposed to same sex marriage. But, he insists, that does not mean that either he or the party is anti-gay. It’s just his/their opinion, based on divinity and experience.
But here’s the eyebrow-raiser: Steele promises NOM that if Prop 8 is struck down, as chair of the Republican Party would “absolutely” back a call for a federal marriage amendment, a call already in the party platform.
Steele said:
“In fact we would partner with our leadership in the House and certainly our governors and leadership in the state legislatures to create a very, very strong front line if you will, on that issue. I can’t again stress how important that is for how we will lead as a people, and how we will see ourselves as a nation down the road. And again, that is not to the exclusion of anyone, it’s not anti- anyone, or any group. It’s just so fundamental and so foundational that I think it needs to be protected.”
To illustrate how the “diversity of opinion” within the party, Steele talks about how 31 states support traditional marriage – but his “dear friend” Ken Mehlman, the former party who worked with “Bush’s Brain” Karl Rove to win Bush’s re-election in 2004 through antigay marriage initiatives – now works to win marriage equality for gays. Just like the Prop –Life issue, Steel says he has a “different opinion.” Steele is Pro-Life, which former New Jersey Gov. Meg Whitman is Pro-Choice.
Steele says in this candidate interview with NOM:
“I believe very firmly that marriage is between man and a woman….The party made very clear where it stands. Part of our responsibility going forward is to work with our leadership – particularly now that we have the House in the United States Congress and we’ve added seats to the Senate.
But more importantly , we picked up governorships and state legislative seats to the tune that we’ve flipped 21 state legislatures from Democrat to Republican. That’s where the battle is going to be, my friend. That’s where the organization and the strength of the party on this issue is going to have to show itself – standing in relationship and partnership with you and others in the movement to make very clear that this is a line that we want to draw. It is not one that people like to say is antigay – - absolutely not! But you can support the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as has been divined, if you will, over time. But that doesn’t mean you are anti-anyone or anything. You just feel very strong about that issue – and that’s the fight for us. Look at California – people have a differing view, when it comes to this question….
So I think for us going forward, we’ll look to the leadership in Washington, yes, for any legislative or federal efforts to address the issue of marriage, between man and woman, traditional marriage. But most especially, at the state level where I think the battle is really going to be fought over the next couple years, and we want to be in partnership with our state party through our state party organizations working with state legislative leadership to stand firmly and squarely behind the defense of marriage.”
NOM’s Frank Cannon, the lead interviewer, tells Steele:
“I really appreciate your answer and it really speaks well to your belief in the question. But I would disagree on this one point which is – the attack on the law in California that you mentioned is one of the ways this issue is becoming nationalized, where the federal courts are involved. I’m curious, to specifically, in your role as chairman, the opportunities you get to speak on behalf of marriage and what opportunities you’ve taken and what opportunities you’d seek out – to extend the branding, if you would, of the Republican Party’s platform’s support of marriage out in the public domain.”
Steele says he’s “on the same page” with NOM and that the fight against marriage equality now requires a “pincer move – from the federal and the state level because that’s how it’s being played out nationally.” And he always looks for an opportunity to “talk about what we stand for as Republicans,” which, while Pro-Life and Pro-Family, is “not doctrinaire.” Indeed, Steele insists he is not “exclusionary” and explains that he holds his own beliefs out of dealing with a “broken and abusive” alcoholic home.
NOM’s Cannon cuts to the chase:
“If the federal courts were to strike down the California law and discover a federal right to gay marriage, in that sense, would you fully stand behind the Republican platform’s call for a federal marriage amendment?”
Steele replies:
“Oh, absolutely. Without hesitation or doubt. In fact we would partner with our leadership in the House and certainly our governors and leadership in the state legislatures to create a very, very strong front line if you will, on that issue. I can’t again stress how important that is for how we will lead as a people, and how we will see ourselves as a nation down the road. And again, that is not to the exclusion of anyone, it’s not anti- anyone, or any group. It’s just so fundamental and so foundational that I think it needs to be protected.”
It will be interesting to see if NOM and Steele – or whomever from the Republican Party – introduces a federal marriage amendment even if Prop 8 is struck down and limited only to California. On the other hand, the FMA failed when President George W. Bush pushed it ad nauseam, including in his State of the Union in 2004. Surely getting the economy back on track is of more importance than spending millions on another FMA? Or perhaps raising the issue is just NOM gnatting-about again.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Michael Steel and the rest of the Republicam party of which I have been a member for over 50 years are so far out of step and misleading the American public that it makes me vomit. Marriage is not and has not been between “a man and a woman” since the days before and during the life of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The entire Bible is filled with “marriages” and relationships other than between “a man and a woman” that were based on trusting, loving long term relationships.
The Republican party has demonstrated their bigotry not just on this issue but nearly every one they determine undermines their authoritative POWER grabbing style currently.