McCain's Chief Strategist Comes Out In Support Of Gay Marriage

Steve Schmidt, Sen. John McCain's chief strategist during the presidential campaign, said in a recent interview with the Washington Blade that he supports gay marriage.

"I'm personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time," he told the newspaper. "I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they're troubled by it."

Schmidt revealed that he voted against California's Proposition 8, a measure banning gay marriage that his boss at the time supported.

"It wasn't my place in the campaign to debate issues with him that he had a firm opinion on," Schmidt said. "But ... as a voter, I'm not carrying my candidate's proxy into the ballot box, I'm voting my conscience." He predicted that gay marriage would pass in the state by initiative withing a few years.

Schmidt also encouraged the Republican Party to reach out more to gay voters and to avoid using divisive social issues like gay marriage to rile up their base.

"I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage," he said. "The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues."

"Any campaign that would go out and try to demonize people on the basis of their sexual orientation," he added, "is abhorrent and I suspect that that campaign would be rejected."

During the campaign, Schmidt addressed the Log Cabin Republicans, calling them "an important part" of the Republican Party.

Schmidt isn't the only person in McCain's orbit to come out in support of marriage equality. The Senator's daughter Meghan told Larry King recently, "I believe in gay marriage."

"I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party. And I have taken heat, but in fairness to me, I am a different generation than the people that are giving me heat. I'm 24 years old. I'm not in my 40s, I'm not in my 50s and older. And I think there's just such a generation gap, that the people that don't understand me, I actually take it as a compliment, that sort of this new young Republican can come forward and make progress and be successful in the ways that this party has currently failed."

Comments

[tikaJ]

Most Republicans are conservatives but some Republicans are liberal on social issues. Steve Schmidt is obviously liberal on social issues. Schmidt supports gay marraige and there is nothing wrong with that, but my question is, why would he work for a Republican campaign that opposes gay marriage, knowing that he supports it? Schmidt was the chief strategist for the McCain campaign,what shocked me was Schmidt voted against California's Proposition eight. When voters enter the voting booth they should not have to worry about anyone criticizing them about what decision they are about to make. Schmidt should of voted according to what he believed, instead of voting based on what John McCain stood for. Republicans are going to believe what they want to believe. If you have strong political views, then maybe you should find the best political party that best represents what you stand for and not have what you stand for deprived.

[aardvark13]

He voted against the proposition which means he supported gay marriage. I know it is strange. Voting 'no' meant you were 'for' gay marriage. Voting 'yes' meant you wanted the California Constitution changed to make gay marriage not possible.

[jtackeff]

Thats why it passed, prop 8. The mormons and radical christians were telling people who they knew were against it that a vote for prop 8 was a vote for gay marrige, it was a huge farce

[NoCheapShotsPlease]

Ba-BLAM! I feel a change in the wind.

[ticoune]

Would like to hear Cheney comment on this issue.

[JohnJames]

He did in the 2000 campaign when the subject of his daughter Mary was brought up. He said that if his party stands for freedom then that means freedom for everyone. I'm no fan of his but I give him credit for integrity in the matter of gay rights.

[french62]

Yeah, and Darth Vader was in favor of his son Luke joining forces with the dark side. Sounds like real parental support there!!!!! Sheeeeeeesh!

I don't give credit to Cheney one iota for "supporting" his daughter Mary's freedom, as it was proffered from the deepest, darkest closet he could have possibly hiding in at the time. If the man had any integrity he would be out and proud of his daughter regardless of her gender. Rather, Cheney choose, as most of these types do, to play politics of power, pander to their wing-nuts, and love the sinner, hate the sin.

Smells like the same old load of crap they have always offered.

[FlamingLibrul]

History will judge the people who've championed intolerance and homophobia, in much the same way the vast majority of us view the racists we see in black and white footage of Civil Rights protests- the one's carrying hateful signs, spewing the N-word and spurring on the police with their water hoses and batons.

In other words, they will not be judged kindly, and for all their anger, intolerance and hate, Gays and Lesbians will eventually rise above second-class citizenship. There are too many enlightened people on our side. Ignorance really does kill; maybe that's partly why repugs champion the NRA so obsessively... They're very literal people you know.

[johnbdonovan]

This has nothing to do with being racist or gun-crazy. Black people voted the most strongly for the father-mother family in California because they're the ones who really get it. They know from bitter experience that boys without fathers have run-ins with the law in greater numbers and girls without fathers become unwed teenage mothers in greater numbers. You can't affirm the value of a father logically while saying that it makes no difference to not have one and just have two mothers. How much chaos is needed before people wake up?

[antaeus]

The solution for broken homes is preventing them in the first place through education and birth control. Controlling the chaos and irresponsibility of unprotected sex is the answer you are fumbling for. People who have children they can't support are a drain on resources, not same-sex couples.

[JohnJames]

Better two fathers or two mothers than no family at all. If "family values" types are going to froth at the mouth about gay parents then they'd better be prepared to start adopting the thousands of unwanted children in this country. As it is gay couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to adopt these "imperfect" children - too old, wrong race, not in good health, etc . Maybe we just have a natural sympathy for those in life who aren't regarded as perfect. Wonder why.

[carsntrucks]

This isn't really news. I knew this, like, back when there still was an election.

[johnbdonovan]

Have you ever thought about why it is that the vast majority of criminals never really had a father growing up? The same is true with every other form of antisocial behavior too. It's because fathers have a particular way of loving children that is different from mothers. Contrary to trendy opinion, masquerading as progressive, men and women are different. You can't create a father by adding another mother. That's not a situation that should be supported by the kind of economic and other benefits that define the institution of marriage. In fact, the social breakdown we're experiencing today calls for an increase in the economic and social support that will increase the number of children brought up by faithful fathers and mothers and a strict avoidance of the dilution of such benefits and the waste of scarce economic resources occasioned by gay marrige.

[Yish]

Show me statistics of children of gay couples and their tendency towards criminality.

I suspect that the statistics will not only doisprove your point, but prove the opposite: I imagine that children raised by gay couples are less inclined to "antisocial behavior" than a child raised by hetro couples. In fact, children of gay couples are probably better off on the average, certianly in terms of having their material needs provided for (gay couples tend to be educated, employed, etc.),and likely also their emotional needs.

[johnbdonovan]

I've even known orphans who are stable people, but such examples don't nullify the general rule, which is that having a father is very important and having a mother is very important, and so society has to organize itself to support that model. Societies learned it over a period of many thousands of years of experience. Fathers have a different parenting style -- a tendency to bring playtime into all their activities, more physicality. It teaches kids how to control their emotions, set physical boundaries, take risks. Fathers also tend to enforce rules more strictly. Never mind formal studies, which seem somehow capable of proving anything; just go from common observation and common sense. Mothers, of course are just as important, especially in the earliest years, when having a man or a couple of men raising a baby toddler is better for a sitcom plot than a healthy reality.

[french62]

Your either just too dumb or ignorant to get it. There are thousands of couples and individuals who happen, by nature, to be gay and have or are raising amazingly well-adjusted, healthy children. My partner raised three beautiful children and we now have 7 grandchildren.

I am a teacher for 15 years at the elementary level, and I can damn well assure you that I have for greater nurturing and parenting skills than most parents who send their children to school. The dysfunction within the "straight" community regarding the proper raising of children is abhorrent and ends in myriad social costs both to the individual child and our communities.

Furthermore, I personally know 12 same-gendered couples raising the most challenging children from grossly inept and often abusive environments within the traditional nuclear family.

You bigots and ignoramuses are simply on the losing end of a movement, that yet again proves, factually and materially, that your propositions and arguments against our stable and loving families will ultimately wither on the vine as the barren fruit that it is.

Until then, how about Focusing on Your Own Family:-)

[johnbdonovan]

All the exceptions to the rule that anyone can think of will not invalidate the simple inescapable reality that a mother makes a distinctive contribution and that a father makes a distinctive contribution. THAT is what society must once again support before the "grossly inept and often abusive environments" lead to ubiquitous chaos.

[antaeus]

Blah, blah, blah. Talk about heavy abstraction. You need an editor, and badly.

How, specifically, does same-sex marriage "waste . . . scarce economic resources"?

[johnbdonovan]

SSM wastes scarce economic resources by diluting the benefits that go to couples in normal marriages.

[LorettaSingbiel]

he told the newspaper. "I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they're troubled by it."

and who pay equal taxes WITHOUT equal treatment!

Legalize Gay Marriage ... it just may help to reduce the rate of divorce!

[SteveDenver]

"have sleep" why can't I talk no good already dang.

[SteveDenver]

Republicans are scared of reaching out to gay voters, because they don't want to be recognized.

As a gay man, I don't have sleep with closet cases, because I'm tired of waking up with Republicans.

[daimwako]

The Republican haven't yet reconize that because thier political ideology had had been to protect the traditional value. What they dont understand is we are in a verge of generation transformation

[jlab]

Clever choice of words in the headline there...

[daimwako]

I believe we shouldn't identify moral issue like gay right, abortion, and other as one particular party. Historically, people have been categorized to a party best on their moral belief but this is a moment of transformation. We are in a verge of changing generation. Unlike past generation we don’t always wait to get information for our parent lecturing as since we encounter plenty of information by ourselves thanks to the advanced technology. This made the transformation easy event though the 14th amendment provided due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens has to be respected and abided by the whole citizen. Which mean both Republican and Democratic party should reverence the moral believe of an individual who is gay or for that matter a women right to have abortion since we live in a free society our we have to stand by the law even if we don’t believe the morality of the law. During slavery the majority of people taught it was a good thing to have slaves. Now we know that that slavery was not a moral or ethical ways in which the entire society should behave and we can condemn that kind of behavior. In that respect I thing the gay will one day be treated as couple if we truly believe the 14th amendment. After all what difference could it make except strengthening the community and honoring the 14th amendment.

[sasidechick]

"I believe we shouldn't identify moral issue like gay right, abortion, and other as one particular party."

Are you kidding me? It is in the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM. Tom Ridge, former PA governor and Homeland Security chief, wasn't EVEN considered for McCain because he was pro-choice. The Repubs also put gay marraige amendments on the ballot in several states to gin up the base and get the voters out there.

Most repubs are constantly telling us how to live according to their beliefs. I say fine--this is America, you can believe what you want. They are not content with that though--they want to tell YOU how you should feel about this and legislate accordingly. The problem is their numbers are getting smaller and smaller. They will irrelevant soon (if not already).

[southwindow]

contrast with this:
obama is personally against gay marriage.
he personally against our full recognition as people and citizens

what is the world coming to?

I hope the democrats might let us stay on the bus this time. I am a bit tired of the view from under it.

[LorettaSingbiel]

Preventing GAYS from "marrying" has NOTHING to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage".

The REAL REASON hateful homophobes are playing with words ("civil unions" ... "domestic partnership") is to prevent GAY "spouses" and their children from receiving the more than 1,100 benefits that automatically come with "MARRIAGE".

Thankfully, these SANCTIMONIOUS "saviors" of "marriage" are losing their grip on the gays. Soon all they'll have left to cling to are their Gods, their Guns, and their Greed!

Because our President is NOT against equal rights, he'll soon realize how rediculous it is to be AGAINST calling Gay nuptials "marriage", and will soon be calling for Gay MARRIAGE to be LEGALIZED in our Constitution.

"Our Constitution should be a shield to protect us ... not a sword to punish us!" (Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan)

[Khirad]

I remember reading a long article before the election on the McCain campaign (what was it, Time or Newsweek?). He stuck out among the McCain campaign. As a partisan I hope Republicans continue veering hard-right. As an American, however, this warms my heart. My initial impression of this guy was right. I can hope his party loses, yet respect him for not being a hard-right loon.

[alice09]

Steve Schmidt finally got one thing right.

[Mark Andrew]

So, from that , are you all for outlawing divorce if there is a child in the marriage?