Michael Steele Must Go ... Admits to Being "Pro Choice"
Matthew Archbold reports at Creative Minority Report. Steele's role in founding the Republican Leadership Council should've been a dead giveaway. It certainly raised doubts in my mind:
The fact, alone, that Steele founded the Republican Leadership Council along with Danforth and Whitman is enough to disqualify him from the RNC job, in my mind, on the basis of poor judgment and questionable political alliances. Both Danforth and Whitman have stated on numerous occasions their desire to see the GOP scuttle those "divisive wedge issues" like abortion and marriage.
With Whitman and Danforth both clamoring for the GOP to ditch social conservatives, to then place one of their close political associates, with whom they co-founded the Republican Leadership Council, at the head of the RNC is not a good political bet for those of us who are concerned with cultural issues.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson: Give Michael Steele the Benefit of the Doubt
CBN Reporter David Brody Attempts to Rehabilitate Michael Steele's Pro-Life Credentials
Creative Minority Report Asks: "Is Michael Steele Pro-Life?"
Labels: Dissident Catholics, Hypocrites, Pro-Life, Republicans, RINOs
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:27 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
He also said being gay is not a choice.
He was going to be gone by April anyway. This will just hasten his removal.
Jay, I know it's a shameless plug, but you really should read my blog more often. :-)
I've been saying Michael Steele isn't pro-life all along.
Craig, being gay is not a choice. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't know what in the world he is talking about.
Goreds, anyone who says "being gay is not a choice" doesn't know what in the world he's thinking about. He doesn't know "being" "gay" and "choice" all mean.
To be a little less cryptic, saying "being gay is not a choice," notwithstanding the indubitable fact that our sexual desires feel as if they come from nowhere, presupposes (1) sexual orientation as an ontological category ("being") which is, frankly, ass-hattery, as any competent historian of the history of sexuality from Freud to Foucault could tell you; (2) sexuality as a binary-exclusive category rather than a continuum (who are the Bs in LGBT, then?); (3) choice as a self-conscious, pure creative act without condition or influence ("I *will* it thus); and (4) "gay" as a term having nothing to do with self-identification or self-consciousness.
Sorry ... but you've just been propagandized all your life with ideas that don't make a lick of sense once you examine them (and not necessarily when you examine them from a specifically "conservative Catholic" POV). Personality and identity formation are both fascinating subjects, except when the H word gets mentioned, in which case, PC orthodoxy toes the line. There's way more to be said about identity than petulant little "It is not a choice, everyone else is ignorant" squibs.
Just ask yourself this what does "being gay" mean if it does not refer to observable behavior (which is often both chosen and changeable)? If it refers to some eternal state separated from matters of behavior, but not primarily a matter of self-identification (which also would be both chosen and changeable), then *what* *is* *it*? So is it a biological thing .... but if so, then why can't you give a blood/gene/semen/skin/breath/whatever test for it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I had hopes for Steele. I think those hopes are pretty much gone.
Post a Comment
<< Home