It doesn't matter one bit what the "blowback" on this is. Finally doing one thing right and supporting equal rights for the "dreaded other" will not make up for the bankrupt economic and social policies of the last thirty or so years.

FOX News Pie Fight!

I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. - Steve Schmidt

Oh yeah. That's why they wanted to punish all those people who abused deregulations - banking, accounting, mining, environmental, food safety, etc. And it explains the Bush Administration and Republican congress's push to punish no-bid contractors who overcharged the government. And boy, have they come down hard on corruption in government. You tell 'em, Schmidt. You got us right where you want us.

I find it hilariously ironic that the Republicans are being forced by their lust for power to accept people they have tried to marginalize. Do they really think that the religio-nazis will finally get in bed with teh gays? Do they think GLBT people will accept any GOP outreach after the way the GOP has treated their issues???

Maybe Larry Craig should lead the outreach efforts.

BWAHAHAHAHA

this is as much about Schmidt trying to rehabilitate himself after the awful McCain campaign as it is anything else.

While I appreciate the fact that Schmidt is speaking out, I am (still!) enraged over the idea he tried his hardest to elect 2 people into the Presidency who go against every single thing he says here.

I still think the best model for a sustainable Republican party of the future does not come from any Republicans I can think of but from Chicago's mayor Richard Daley. Cater to business and ignore the religious crazies and create a tolerant society while policy exacerbates poverty and social division and the environment gets trashed.

Apparently Schmidt is willing to go against Republican ideology because he has a lesbian sister that he is close to. Good for him.

What a load of horseshit. The LCRs are the biggest bunch of nelly-ass bootlickers I've ever seen. The LCRs I personally know are (1) racist, wealthy, misogynist white males who think they deserve the privilege of oppressing women, POC, and the poor, and their queerness shouldn't get in the way of that (2) They have a military fetish and fear of brown people (3) Serious Daddy approval issues or (4) All of the above. They hate women, brown people, the poor, immigrants, and transpeople just as much as the next GOPer. They're willing to put up with blatant bigotry and second-class citizen status because at least they'll be in the company of other entitled white folks who hate the same people they do.

The Rethugs will never accept LGBT people as anything but loathsome scum, because that's what their christian hate base thinks. Why on earth is Steve Schmidt committing political suicide?

Anything that helps a party of small-minded people turn on each other because the others aren't sufficiently small-minded is fine with me. Let a thousand Republican parties of intolerance bloom.

Now, where will the Democrats get a competent opposition?

Here's my theory about conservatives: They are always fighting for a return to the old ways before liberals ruined everything. However, their base line for the good old days keeps changing. Conservatives don't defend slavery any more. They don't defend child labor. They don't defend discrimination against Jews. They don't argue against women having the right to vote and run for public office.

Gradually, the conservatives' ideas about the good old ways of doing things are becoming modernized. They might be a few decades behind, but they are moving forward. Eventually, acceptance of equality for homosexuals will become a conservative value, and they will pretend that they always believed in it.

"I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

In other words:

"Gay people should be free to enjoy the benefits of a marriage" is NOT fitting justification for civil rights. "Gay people should have to marry each other and experience the same pain I feel!" IS fitting justification.

In other other words: if we let them marry, then we'll have a state-sanctioned way of punishing them for the crime of being gay.

I truly appreciate the support he's giving for civil rights, but I don't think he really "gets" it. Or, perhaps, he *does* get it, but knows that his audience really won't. Either way, I'm not convinced that his justification really helps anyone.

It's like teaching your kid not to be a bully, and sweetening the lesson with "besides, you're just making those kids better at dealing with pain, and that will give them advantages over you later in life." The POSITIVE justification (don't piss on someone else's rights) SHOULD BE ENOUGH! If it isn't (and, yes, I realize for far too many of my fellow citizens it is not) then there is something seriously, fundamentally wrong, and setting up additional justifications made of straw isn't going to fix that.

jim, I'll give you the comment on Daley's poverty & social division problem, which I don't know enough about to counteract even if I wanted to. But his environmental record is actually quite solid.

But yeah, I think your larger point is correct: if Daley were what Republicans looked like, they'd be viable in actual population centers, and our entire national discourse would be dramatically better off.

Well, a hearty three cheers for Michael Schmidt! I don't think many Republicans will listen to him, but he's doing the right thing anyway.

Err, make that "Steve Schmidt." Not sure where "Michael" came from.

"While the argument seems to be primarily about principle....."

Really? I think the argument is primarily about flip flopping because the issue is no longer polling in the Republicans favor.

If this keeps up, we're all going to run out of popcorn!

Of course he's going to tell this to the Log Cabin Republicans. And of course he's going to give it advance play. The GOP is out of power. Anybody remember what a nice moderate guy dubya was until the election was over?

The big question is whether the religious right is smart enough to keep a lid on the "we don't really mean all that nice stuff about gay people" side letters.

The republican party is not and has never been a 'religious party'!

The republican party is owned by the wealthy and by corporate amerika. The republican party is owned by rich white males with inherited wealth and corporately derived wealth who have coopted the services of the rich white males who got rich by running 'churches'.

The low information voters of those churches are and have been just tools of the owners of the republican party. Other than a few radical judge nominations, all these tools have gotten from the owners of the republican party is fear and verbage! And even those judges are first and foremost of allegiance to the wealthy and corporate amerika.

Fortunately for the owners of the republican party, their low information voters secondary sources of information are Faux Noise, Rushbo, Sean, et. al. Their low information voters' primary sources of (dis)information are their preachers and each other. Disinformation feeding disinformation.

More and more, the religious 'leaders' glorify in their own wealth and power derived from being 'republicans'. They remind me of a parable of Jesus that "It is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a poor man to go to heaven."

Funny, a few years ago Gavin Newsom was vilified for saying gay marriage is coming, "like it or not." The evidence was on his side, but of course those words were used as a cudgel in the Prop 8 fight.

And now here's a Republican saying the same damn thing. I guess this is progress?

Just like stem cells, basic compassion and government assistance, a conservative only does the right thing when it's affected them personally.

Mr. Schmidt, who has a sister who is a lesbian, plans to say that there is nothing about gay marriage that is un-American or that threatens the rights of others and that in fact it is in line with conservative principles.

I'm sorry, I can't get past that line about conservatives insisting that rights come with responsibilities. During the '08 campaign, Schmidt said some of the most irresponsible things I've heard in quite some time.

Perhaps even more provocatively, Schmidt also apparently believes his Republican Party is "at risk of becoming a religious party.

Yah. And mortgage-back securities might not be a good idea.

Yes and all those conservatives who have taken responsibility for torture, abuse, violations of the 4th amendment, outing CIA agents, etc., etc., etc.,

civil unions -- endorsed by both Bush and Cheney -- is "crazy."

If Cheney and Bush were on board with civil unions, the Democratic congress should have sent Bush he would have had to sign, thus either calling his bluff, or provoking a GOP schism (and possibly giving homosexuals more legal rights).

It's raining men!

Jay B. - I agree with your sentiments. Conservatives are self-centered, self-serving, self-righteous, self-indulgent...everything self exept self-effacing!

It doesn't matter what they 'say' we already know republicans cannot be trusted...that they only believe in party first and their mission is to protect the wealth and the property of the richest Americans. They will say or do anything to gain power and then begins the profiteering of America at the cost of America.

The same government that worked for a population of 10,000 will not work for a population of 100,000,000. Do not work to shrink government ...work to make it efficient.

Republicans are just now seeing the rights of gays and marriage as legitimate??? Or are they being forced to 'pretend' they do to gain voters. Which is more in line with past behavior?
They are not called the Obstructionist Party of Hypocrisy for no reason. Now they must figure new ways to get elected but sadly change isn't one of them.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt plans to say.

Sure, if you are talking about a John Stuart Mill conservative.

But if you are talking about a Goldwater-Reagan-Bush-Rove-Hannity-Gingrich-Dobson-Palin-Romney-McCain-O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Scalia-Coulter-Savage-Lott-Thurmond conservative, no.

Maybe that's why he lost. He doesn't understand what his Party is about.

"If Cheney and Bush were on board with civil unions"

They were, in theory, on board with civil unions passed by individual states, not on a federal basis.

I can't believe I'm defending Goldwater, but he doesn't belong in the continuum posted above. Goldwater was a libertarian when it came to gay rights and a host of other issues, and as far as I know was consistent and principled when it came to the government’s role in social issues. Not a liberal by any means, and not in any way a gay rights advocate, but he stated many times that personal sexual behavior was none of the Government’s business.

In short, he couldn’t be elected dogcatcher as a Republican today.

O to be a fly on the wall...this is one meeting the Republicans should have put on pay-to-view.

Funny, a few years ago Gavin Newsom was vilified for saying gay marriage is coming, "like it or not." The evidence was on his side, but of course those words were used as a cudgel in the Prop 8 fight.

IOKIYAR

I really doubt this will cause much controvery. My feeling is that he'll largely be ignored. It's a If tree falls in the woods kind of event, but more like nobody wants to hear him.

I think he'll be dimissed by his fellow Republicans as misguided, out of touch, or, as others have indicated, trying to restore his reputation. But for the most part it will only be whispered what he said as not to make too much of a fuss.

There is no limit to Rethug hypocrisy, as Schmidt makes ever so clear. The LCR, or as I call them the Log Cabin Syrup Republicans, are themselves monumental self-hating hypocrites, who if they had an ounce of integrity wouldn't have anything to do with the Rethugs. Ever. They all deserve each other.

Actually, the Republican Partys has already become a religious party, and will fairly quickly condense itself into the equivalent of a white dwarf star, intensely bright just before it implodes completely and flames out. What fun it will be to watch.

@Tom Dibble:

""Gay people should be free to enjoy the benefits of a marriage" is NOT fitting justification for civil rights. "Gay people should have to marry each other and experience the same pain I feel!" IS fitting justification."

I have co-worker who told me once that he was opposed to Gay marriage until he a) got to know me, and b) went through a nasty divorce where his wife took him to the cleaners. He said to me "I'm all for gay marriage now. I want you guys to have a chance to be f****ed over by lawyers and left destitute the way I was."

The Log Cabin Republicans are having a meeting?

A senior McCain/Palin campaign official will be speaking?

Fucksnews must be all over this, because the MSM will not give this the fair and balanced coverage it deerves.

(Snark)

Sorry, couldn't read past his line about conservatives being more responsible than liberals.

Especially given that right now conservatives don't seem to understand the responsibilities that comes with free speech.

Anything this man had to say based on that resoundingly obvious lie is irrelevant, even if it does line up nicely with progressive ideals.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what this ignorant twit thinks about gay marriage, and like some before me, I'm inclined to jump to the conclusion that it's about getting votes, and has nothing to do with equal rights.

Gay marriage? My God, haven't they suffered enough?

I'd respect Schmidt more if he had said this at a CPAC speech rather than one to the Log-Cabin (Gay) Repukelicans.

"Not sure where "Michael" came from."

Baseball been berry berry good to him.

So a closet homosexual was running McCain's campaign?

That explains a lot.

"Do they really think that the religio-nazis will finally get in bed with teh gays?"

Of course. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Gay marriage is based on an activist redefining of marriage, not on equal rights. Were it equal rights, then threesomes should have equal rights, as they are people also.

what? did threesomes just become illegal?? i think that people in threesome still have equal rights to whatever sex they enjoy...marrage? not so much...unless it's a [breakaway] mormon threesome..all those other conservative churchs would object....