RECENT  POSTS:  » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy' » Legal profession made up of ideologues, demands legal ideologue » FRC's senior fellow for exporting/criminalizing gay people bemoan's discrimination's dwindling acceptance » (ARCHIVED): President signs executive order protecting LGBT workers » That discriminatory Colorado baker won't make Halloween cakes either » Catholic Bishops again go after basic workplace protections for LGBT people » FL anti-gay activist, head of anti-gay Boy Scouts group says marriage inequality is 'issue worth dying for'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/24/2009

Steele-ing fairness

by Jeremy Hooper

Yesterday we delved into the considerable reasons why a cvil unions compromise is an unacceptable stopgap for gay and lesbian Americans. But ever since then, social conservatives have come out of the woodwork to tell us that they would never even consider such a proposal anyway.

First we saw the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins say as much. Now comes this, a Michael-Steelesnippet of an interview between radio host Mike Gallagher and newly elected RNC chairman Michael Steele:

GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. 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.” […]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What’s the difference?

Whether He Would ‘Consider’ Gay Civil Unions, Steele Replies, ‘What Are You, Crazy?’ [Think Progress]

Okay, so essentially the suggestion from more moderate conservatives is that gay rights proponents should stop short of what they know is right, constitutional, and deserved so that they can appease religious conservatives who are uncomfortable with giving gays the word "marriage." But on the other side of the issue, you have the anti-marriage equality movement's proponents saying that there is absolutely NOTHING gays can do that will ever make them back off their needless and discriminatory fight. We, the ones who have actual lives, loves, and families at stake, are asked to piece together our rights over time, so as to not rock the boat. However they, the ones who are truly troubling the waters even though the only thing they really have at stake here is their credibility, have thrown too much stake into anti-gay politicking to even listen other viewpoints.

Steele's words are just another example of why why we on the right side of history cannot even consider compromising on our full equality. There is no conversation to be had with the hardliners who keep this movement alive. Our most minor of progressive gains are presented as "slippery slopes," and our most reasonable of arguments are ignored in favor of false rhetoric that employs terms like "core, founding values." Our one and only logical reaction: To eschew any calls to compromise our integrity, and to instead highlight the clear differences between our principled push for parity and their baseless backing of bias!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Didn't he say less than a month ago that his party needs to woo more of us too their side? I'd like to know how dumb he thinks we are.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Feb 24, 2009 9:25:48 AM

I guess someone needs to remind him that Slavery was a core founding value of this country too. And that women not having the right to vote was a core founding value. Some of those ACTUAL core founding values sucked big time.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 24, 2009 11:35:44 AM

Right on. Compromise implies two groups both willingly giving something up to meet in the middle. If we keep budging and they keep standing still, that's not compromise.

Posted by: Dana | Feb 24, 2009 12:48:54 PM

These fucking morons. The country is going down the tubes and all they could do is thrash about, with their ignorance for gay marriage.

Posted by: John Ozed | Feb 24, 2009 1:31:40 PM

I blame miscegenation for how far things have gone downhill :(

Posted by: Chris | Feb 24, 2009 2:33:32 PM

Chris, please tell me your joking! Sorry, but joking like that is a bit hard for me to take. If this is a joke please understand that some here and elsewhere may find this kind of humor distasteful to say the least.

Posted by: Piper | Feb 24, 2009 4:52:35 PM

It's a joke meant to ridicule the Michael Steeles of the world.

Posted by: Chris | Feb 24, 2009 6:41:15 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails