Fallout continues from Reynolds civil unions comments

When GOP lieutenant governor candidate Kim Reynolds suggested she would be open to the idea of civil unions for same-sex couples, she set off a firestorm of criticism from both the conservatives she was trying to woo and liberals who oppose efforts to overturn marriage equity in Iowa.

Bob Vander Plaats chats with Kim Reynolds before the primary in Mount Ayr (photo by Dave Davidson, www.TEApublican.com)

And despite the efforts of Terry Branstad‘s campaign to diffuse the situation, that criticism continues. Some are even suggesting the statements could be the last straw for Bob Vander Plaats as he contemplates running for governor as an independent this fall.

Reynolds made the comments in an interview with Iowa Independent contributor Douglas Burns. Almost immediately, conservatives and evangelicals lashed out at the Osceola Republican, saying her viewpoint shows the Branstad campaign doesn’t understand the voters who supported Vander Plaats in the GOP primary, and for whom marriage is the top issue. The irony is that Reynolds was being sent on her solo tour across Iowa to the 25 counties Vander Plaats won in the June 8 primary.

On Thursday, while touring several cities in eastern Iowa, Branstad made a point of discussing same-sex marriage with The Des Moines Register, emphasizing that if Republicans win the state House and he is elected governor, a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will happen. The campaign also reiterated its defense of Reynolds, saying that despite her words to the contrary, she has never favored state-sanctioned civil unions.

But that didn’t stem the criticism.

“It’s consistent with what we’ve seen out of the Branstad campaign all along,” Bryan English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, told the Quad-City Times’ Ed Tibbetts. “They’ve just failed to understand or adequately articulate the gravity of the issues they’re talking about.”

The IFPC endorsed Vander Plaats in the primary and has refused to endorse or assist Branstad in the fall campaign, primary due to his stance on social issues like same-sex marriage.

Continuing his line of attack from Wednesday, Christian radio host and Vander Plaats supporter Steve Deace said Thursday on his WHO-AM show that Reynolds’ answers show she’s a candidate of “positions and not convictions.” He called the interview a “complete meltdown.”

“And by the way, her positions are pretty good,” Deace said. “Her record in the state senate, private property rights aside, is pretty good. But the first time her worldview is challenged, and she has to go toe-to-toe with someone who has thought about their worldview but just came to a different conclusion, she does not have the moral conviction to withstand that scrutiny. And if you watch that video, she falls apart.”

Deace said Reynolds appears to be someone who “has never seriously thought through the ramification of their worldview.”

Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman sees similarities between Reynolds’ problems dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage and Branstad’s.

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.

Chris Bradshaw, a liberal radio host on 98.3 WOW-FM, said Thursday on his show that he thinks Reynolds’ comments could have long-lasting impact.

“This might be the thing that puts Bob Vander Plaats over the top,” he said. “There might just be enough angry social conservatives to make things happen and get him back into the campaign.”

He later added: “Reynolds supports civil unions? This is something Branstad probably should have vetted, right?  I mean, it wasn’t quite a Palin ‘I read all of them’ moment, but its pretty rough.”

Several other sources close to Vander Plaats’ primary campaign also suggested Reynolds could be motivation for Vander Plaats to re-enter politics. So far, he has refused to endorse Branstad and is openly considering running as an independent. However, Deace told The Iowa Independent he doubts this one incident will sway Vander Plaats one way or another.

“I’m not sure that Sen. Reynolds’ unfortunate answers in this interview will weigh heavily on Bob’s decision-making process, but it might be the proverbial final straw for many of his supporters,” he said. “Although I will say I continue to hear from his supporters that they want him to do it. However, as Bob said when he was on my WHO-AM show, to justify running as an independent he has to believe he has a realistic chance of winning.”

Vander Plaats could not be reached for comment.

Not all conservatives were so tough on Reynolds. Kim Lehman, former Iowa Right to Life president and current member of the Republican National Committee, told the Quad-City Times that she doesn’t have any doubts about Reynolds’ position on marriage, saying, “She is supportive of one man-one woman marriage … and that is consistent with the Republican Party platform.”

And the bloggers at The Iowa Conservative were quick to point out Mike Huckabee, the darling of social conservatives and the winner of the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, had a similar incident around the issue of civil unions, telling a New Hampshire newspaper in 2006 that he was in favor of them as an alternative to marriage. He later retracted the comments and said, “I don’t know, honestly, how I said what I said (in 2006) other than, ‘Hey, that’s something New Hampshire has to deal with.’”