Press Room: Mais um

Desta vez, é um dos maiores estrategas republicanos, Steve Schmidt, que sai em defesa da legalização do casamento homossexual. Para ele, esse combate faz parte de um conjunto de causas a que os conservadores não podem continuar alheios, sob pena de virem a perder definitivamente a sua base popular de apoio.

Schmidt trabalhou com Bush e McCain, e foi o homem por trás do famoso anúncio comparando Obama a Paris Hilton, que despertou grande polémica e ao qual fiz referência neste blog, por altura das presidenciais de 2008. Tal como Dick Cheney, outro famoso membro do GOP a apoiar os direitos civis dos homossexuais (lembre-se que foi Cheney quem impediu o avanço de uma proposta legislativa de Bush para inconstitucionalizar o casamento gay), Schmidt tem uma lésbica na família.

O estratega dirigiu-se, ontem, a uma organização pró-LGBT do Partido Republicano (Log Cabin Republicans), um mês depois de ter defendido esta posição em entrevista a um jornal (Washington Blade). Ficam alguns extractos da transcrição:

As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election.  But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did.  In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30.  President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance.  And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense.  That has happened in the past. 

But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex.  And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters. [...]

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society.  It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect.  But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others.  On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force. [...]

I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality.  It is not a choice.  It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights.  And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person.  It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice.  Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not. [...]

Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both.  They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.

I think that idea makes a lot sense.  While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.  [...]

Durante a Convenção Republicana, Schmidt já tinha discursado num almoço de homenagem aos delegados provenientes do Log Cabin, onde ficara um sinal: ”Keep fighting for what you believe because the day is going to come.”

Para saber mais: Top GOP consultant endorses gay marriage, The Caucus