Reynolds Riles Righteous Right

Terry Branstad's running mate, state Sen. Kim Reynolds, was caught this week trying to honestly navigate a difficult issue without a pre-prepared, rigid set of acceptable talking points.

When will she learn?

On Tuesday, Reynolds told journalist-about-Iowa Douglas Burns that she thinks marriage is for men and women only, but that civil unions might be OK.

From Burns' piece at Iowa Independent:

On same-sex marriage, Reynolds said Iowa voters, not the state's Supreme Court, should make the decision about its legality in the Hawkeye State.

“I believe that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman from a religious aspect,” Reynolds said. “That is my belief. I have stated that. I always have believed that.”

That considered, Reynolds said she would be open to the idea of civil unions for gay couples.

“We could take a look at civil unions,” Reynolds said. “There are other options maybe that I would be in favor of looking at.”

She added, “They can do civil unions. I think they can get to some of the same place that they want to look at.”

This reminded me of my talk with Branstad in January, when he also seemed to suggest that civil unions might be OK so long as "marriage" remained a wholly owned subsidiary of heterosexuality.

And we all know what happened next. His campaign swiftly retracted. His allies complained that my questions were all stupid and stuff.

And that's what happened with Reynolds' mild tiptoe away from orthodoxy, which came during a tour to woo evangelicals no less.

Branstad's folks quickly said Reynolds and Terry are on the same page, and that page does not include civil unions. So there.

Also, Friend of Terry and Republican blogger Craig Robinson took aim at Burns, noting ominously that the Iowa Independent is all liberal and  funded by a gay rights advocate.

And that Burns is relentless:

It was obvious that Burns' line of questioning caught Reynolds off guard, and his relentless questioning of her on the matter made it clear that he was trying to make her uncomfortable in hopes that she would make a mistake. While Reynolds' answers to his questions on abortion were not stellar, she managed to navigate his questions on the subject. It was when he asked her about gay marriage that she got in some trouble.

Reynolds clearly stated that she believes that marriage in Iowa should be between one man and one woman. She also said that Iowans should be allowed to weigh in on that matter. Yet, when Burns pressed her, Reynolds indicated that she would be open to “other alternatives like civil unions.”

Imagine, a reporter pressing a politician to clarify her position on an important issue of the day. There's no place for this sort of thing in political journalism, clearly.

But where Robinson sees an interrogation, WHO radio's Steve Deace sees surrender:

“Without the questioner even bringing up civil unions she openly volunteered that up front,” Deace said. “She just surrendered that up front without actually being propositioned by the interviewer first.”

It's also possible Reynolds was being honest. Gasp.

I favor full marriage equity, but it wasn't all that long ago that I was in the civil unions camp. It's an evolving issue for many.

I think Reynolds' stated position is probably shared by a lot of Iowans who are fair-minded but still hesitant to fully embrace change.

Her crime was failing spout a bunch of mindless rhetoric to please the disgruntled Vander Plaats wing of the party. And the last thing those folks want are Republicans who embrace popular positions.

Robinson blames the Branstad campaign for not preparing her, a.k.a. handing her a script. I credit the Branstad campaign for not trying to wrap her in cellophane and keep her off limits.

But when the Grand Order of Perpetual Outrage wagged its big scolding finger, Team Terry ran scared. Too bad.