Meg Whitman's Elusive Positions on Marriage Equality

Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, is running for Governor in California, hoping to lock down the GOP nomination.  Last year she was one of Sen. John McCain's biggest proponents, and before that was one of Mitt Romney's biggest proponents (Whitman worked for Romney for nearly a decade when Romney was building up his venture capital firm, Bain & Co.).  Last year, in the heat of the debate over Proposition 8 (California's ballot question that stripped the right to marry from gays and lesbians), Whitman lent her voice as a supporter of discrimination, saying that she believed in Prop 8.

Case settled, right?  Meg Whitman is clearly against marriage equality.

Or not.  At a campaign event this past week with some high-profile Silicon Valley women, Meg Whitman answered a question from a lesbian mother about Whitman's support of Proposition 8.  Here's some of the story from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Whitman "gave her whole spiel," emphasizing that she is "passionate but impartial," a cool head. After a while, the candidate "got into the gay stuff." One guest, a lesbian who is married and has two children, told Whitman she'd heard that the candidate had voted for Proposition 8.

Whitman, who had described herself earlier as objective, admitted she had voted for Prop. 8. She said that decision had to do with both her religion - Presbyterian - and her emotions.

"What happened to the objective CEO lady?" asked her challenger. "Now you're emotional. ... You're all objective about everything; this issue you talk about emotions."

To the questioner, Whitman's blaming her vote on her religion didn't make sense. "I'm also Catholic; that's not going to fly for me. ... 'I have children who are unprotected. It's a matter of legal rights. It's a legal issue. I pay taxes just like you. Why do you get more rights than I do?' "

The discussion was civil, said the questioner, who admitted, "I was testy. She was not. ... When Whitman said, 'You know, I just wish we could have one term for everything: civil unions,' I said, 'Bingo, sold, I'll take it.' "

What?  So Meg Whitman supports throwing out the idea of marriage, and replacing it with civil unions for everyone, gay or straight?

Well, not exactly.  Whitman apparently wouldn't commit to that idea, but instead just affirmed her support for civil unions.  Separate and unequal.  As Ryan Tate over at Valleywag writes, that puts Meg Whitman in the hall of fame club for flip-floppers.

With a consistent statement on gay marriage, Whitman could cultivate California's social conservatives or its social liberals, and maybe win over enough moderates to become governor. With all this flip flopping, though, she just looks as confused as the trainwreck political party she's attached herself too, rather than one of its rising stars.

Tate is right.  And this isn't an issue that's new for Whitman.  Queerty noted back in FEBRUARY that Whitman was spinning the issue of marriage equality.  Looks like several months of campaigning hasn't changed that.

What's even more troubling about Whitman's exchange with this person in Silicon Valley is the substance of Whitman's response.  When Whitman says, "I wish we could just have one term for everything," she's totally glossing over the fact that we already have this.  It's a term called marriage.  And there's no good reason not to apply that term (at least by its civil definition) to gay and lesbian couples.

You would think that a former CEO renowned for her objectivity would be able to understand that concept.  Funny what tying yourself to the Republican Party's more social conservative elements (including Romney) does for your sense of objectivity.