Jon Huntsman: Second look at making gay marriage a conservative cause?

posted at 10:41 am on February 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

Huntsman endorsing gay marriage is like Karl Rove’s new group endorsing a candidate in a GOP primary. Given the suspicion and disdain with which most grassroots conservatives regard them, it’s practically an anti-endorsement. It’s like a neon sign flashing “HERE THERE BE RINOS.”

I do agree with him on the merits about legalizing SSM but I don’t see how you hold the conservative coalition, or what’s left of it, together if the GOP leadership (or what’s left of it) were suddenly to support this view.

[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans…

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love…

This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests…

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

Two things here. One: You’ll note that the word “Constitution” is never mentioned. That’s wise. One of the surest ways to stoke populist rage at ruling-class imperiousness would be to summarily impose gay marriage on red states via judicial fiat. If you want to build grudging respect for the legitimacy of SSM among opponents, democracy and federalism are the way to go. I think that’s what Huntsman’s advocating here, which puts him squarely in line with Obama — but maybe only for another week.

Two: I’ve heard the argument a lot lately in the immigration context that GOP policies can’t and won’t get a fair hearing from an alienated demographic until they move towards the center on a key issue. We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending. Here’s Huntsman making that argument not only on immigration but on gay marriage — and drug policy. In which case, a question: How much of the current Democratic social agenda should the GOP adopt in order to earn a fair hearing with otherwise reliably Democratic constituencies? Shouldn’t we think about moderating on abortion too to gain a “fair hearing” from younger single women? He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program, which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much deviation from their social beliefs. There may be more room to maneuver here in a few years — polls show that young evangelicals are more open to gay marriage than their elders — but in the meantime, how do you get Republicans elected if social cons see the party drifting away?

Via Dave Weigel, here’s the man himself two years ago in presidential-candidate mode. Interesting how electoral realities weighed more heavily on him then than they do now that he’s Mr. No Labels.

Update: An interesting take from Rod Dreher (and one of his commenters) on why the generational divide on gay marriage is so pronounced. Quote: “You’re trying to conserve something that existed in your lifetime and has since been destroyed. For a young person, there’s nothing to conserve.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

There will only be True Marriage Equality when the Federal Government provides spouses for everyone.

Especially for Sandra Fluke.

steebo77 on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Since when is Huntsman and Conservative ever associated together??

ChuckTX on February 22, 2013 at 10:47 AM

More obsession with trying to get conservatives to support something that’s not marriage. Get it through your head. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what the word means. The word does not mean a union of two consenting adults. Once language means nothing, then history means nothing and words can mean whatever you decide they can mean. Grow up.

njrob on February 22, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Hunty Hunt Huntsman is part of the MEDIA WHORE wing of the gop.

He is not, NOT a Conservative.

PappyD61 on February 22, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Cornelius!!!!

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Methodist Pavilion. No.

unclesmrgol on February 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

This is how leftists try and manipulate the language of the Constitution to mean something completely different from its intent. It’s no different at all than idiots claiming “general welfare” means goodies for all.

njrob on February 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Man the Steve Hontsmen would have made a great precident.

trs on February 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Defining Deviancy Down….Way Down.

sentinelrules on February 22, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The best way to protect marriage, or any other institution, is to remove the government’s control over it.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How is going against the belief system practiced by 78% of American’s, a Conservative postion?

Dadgum squishes are losing their cotton-pickin’ minds.

kingsjester on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Jon Huntsman: Second look at making gay marriage a conservative cause?

Nope. Wasn’t even worth a first look.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

There will only be True Marriage Equality when the Federal Government provides spouses for everyone.

Especially for Sandra Fluke.

steebo77 on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM

With government mandated sex quotas. Equal sex for equal vows, mmmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmm

crrr6 on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Federalism on gay marriage is a conservative cause. Conservatives should work to preserve values in their own states but shouldn’t try to overturn it in states that have already voted for it. So long as DOMA stays in force, the GOP should stop fighting a culture war that we lost five years ago.

KingGold on February 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM

How much of the current Democratic social agenda should the GOP adopt in order to earn a fair hearing with otherwise reliably Democratic constituencies?

None.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM

We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending.

Latinos have the highest poverty rate in the country and are extremely dependent on government programs, more-so than other ethnic groups in the country.

Why would they consider conservative ideas on spending? That doesn’t make any sense.

sentinelrules on February 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

With government mandated sex quotas. Equal sex for equal vows, mmmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmm

crrr6 on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

We could call the legislation the “Lily Ledbetter Fair Play Act.”

steebo77 on February 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

So gay.

Pork-Chop on February 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The rationale for the state to recognize marriage – as opposed to other relationships – is that it is the best vehicle for producing and raising the citizens who are necessary if the state is to survive. Gay marriage undermines this purpose. It is not a conservative cause. Homosexuals can enter into whatever relationships they want but the notion that their unions are necessary to the survival of the state – as are heterosexual unions – is ludicrous.

Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

I look forward to the Republican arguments a decade from now on how dropping our opposition to adult/child consensual sexual realtionships is actually conservative.

Mitch Rapp on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program, which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much in the party deviating from their social beliefs.

Really? For most of my adult life, this libertarian voted for and supported the GOP, through some of the most anti-Liberty days of the War on Drugs, the GWoT, and just the twelve years of Bush administrations in general. I sucked it up and fell in line (for the most part).

Time for the SoCons to do the same…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Really? For most of my adult life, this libertarian voted for and supported the GOP, through some of the most anti-Liberty days of the War on Drugs, the GWoT, and just the twelve years of Bush administrations in general. I sucked it up and fell in line (for the most part).

Time for the SoCons to do the same…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Forget it.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

If we were going to change our views on some social issue just to get votes, it should be legalizing marijuana. Why? Because most national Democratic politicians do not already support that (at least not openly). Thus, the Republican Party could be out in front on that issue, as opposed to just going along with what the Democrats already support in order to get votes.

J.S.K. on February 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

There may be more room to maneuver here in a few years — polls show that young evangelicals are more open to gay marriage than their elders — but in the meantime, how do you get Republicans elected if social cons see the party drifting away?

By appealing to them on other issues. It’s not like abortion as a political lightning rod is going away anytime soon, especially in the wake of this regime. Support for gay marriage will grow over time. There’s a generational shift with young people being far more ok with it than older Americans. Case in point, my folks who are every bit as fiscally conservative and anti-Obama as I am don’t support it. I do. Ironically, they’re far more liberal on abortion than I am.

Doughboy on February 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

You’ll note that the word “Constitution” is never mentioned. That’s wise.

Because a majority of the population has never heard of it and would only get frightened and confused.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

As a Mormon I am ashamed of John Huntsman even more than that liar Harry Reid. At least Dingy Harry has not endorsed SSM and to the best of my knowledge has not floated a trial balloon on the subject.

As a conservative my political goals to to build a free American. If we have to adopt liberal positions to win elections then what’s the point?

The Rock on February 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I look forward to the Republican arguments a decade from now on how dropping our opposition to adult/child consensual sexual realtionships is actually conservative.

Mitch Rapp on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

We’re approaching that pretty quickly.

Soon, NAMBLA will be regarded as a civil rights group.

sentinelrules on February 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Defining Deviancy Down….Way Down.

Not defining, eliminating. To the Left, there is no such thing as deviancy.

hawkeye54 on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM

John: The fact that the Libertarian Party cannot win any elections is no reason to ask the Republican Party to become something it is not so that you have a ‘home’ in the political arena.

If it makes you feel any better, this thread and others like it show that the conservatives (and particularly social conservatives) don’t have a political home, either, anymore.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Forget it.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Then you should feel free to leave. All that means to me is I have to look for voters liberal on social issues and fiscally prudent to form a coalition with.

And if the unborn have to suffer, then let that suffering be on the conscience of those who made the perfect the enemy of the good…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM

There will only be True Marriage Equality when the Federal Government provides spouses for everyone.

steebo77 on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I get dibs on Morgan Smith Goodwin.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I have never understood why people have such a hard time with dictionaries. Is it because Conservatives naturally have a superior understanding of literary definition or is the Left just too damn stupid to pick up a book?

mar·riage [mar-ij] noun

The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

HotAirian on February 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I do agree with him on the merits about legalizing SSM but I don’t see how you hold the conservative coalition, or what’s left of it, together if the GOP leadership (or what’s left of it) were suddenly to support this view.

You do what your ilk have been doing: smearing people who disagree with you on the issue.

Blake on February 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM

In which case, a question: How much of the current Democratic social agenda should the GOP adopt in order to earn a fair hearing with otherwise reliably Democratic constituencies?

That’s the problem. The GOP and outspoken RINOs pander to Democrat groups rather than their base. In the process they inch farther to the left and will lose their base. They’ve taken us for granted for far too long. They don’t want us? Fine. See how many elections they win pandering to Democrat groups.

Shouldn’t we think about moderating on abortion too to gain a “fair hearing” from younger single women?

Exactly. Where does it stop?

He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program,

Another problem. These social issues are not isolated from fiscal responsibility. If abortion or “womyn’s rights” are “protected” then PP gets lots of federal $$$$$. It affects healthcare expenses with Obamacare covering abortion for active duty military, citizens, overseas funding. Then there’s the First Amendment issue of freedom of religion.

which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much in the party deviating from their social beliefs.

They push these issues at their own peril. I don’t view the issues independently or through the prism of identity politics or current polling, but holistically. They affect one another.

I’m done with the Republican Party. Their differences from the Democrats are minuscule.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Then you should feel free to leave. All that means to me is I have to look for voters liberal on social issues and fiscally prudent to form a coalition with.

And if the unborn have to suffer, then let that suffering be on the conscience of those who made the perfect the enemy of the good…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM

You’ve got a deal.

All I have to do is look for voters who are conservative on social issues and economically populist to form a coalition with.

And since you turkeys aren’t going to do a damn thing to stop the slaughter of the unborn anyway, it makes little difference.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM

You know I love how Hotair ALWAYS posts complimentary stuff about gay marriage and the gay movement and yet there have been a couple of stories floating around that are relevant to conservatives that I believe hotair has been silent about.

The Massachusetts school system instituting transgender locker rooms and bath rooms etc. and the fact that Panetta instituted benefits for same sex UNMARRIED couples excluding unmarried hetero couples from the same bennies before he left. Apparently Allah really doesn’t care about those issues.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Why not, it’s done wonders for Britain’s Tory PM Dave Cameron…

Pest on February 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Why is it a conservative business who is banging whom in the privacy of their bedrooms? I don’t give a flying sock if two perverts want to snake each other’s refuse pipe and call the process “marriage”. Ensure adequate protection for religious groups and clergy, and let them have at it.

Archivarix on February 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM

John: The fact that the Libertarian Party cannot win any elections is no reason to ask the Republican Party to become something it is not…

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM

A winner?

We won in 2010 because of an anti-tax, anti-spending message. We lost this last time when SoCon albatrosses like Todd Akin got tied around the GOP’s neck. Libertarianism is on the rise in the GOP. Frankly, you go out and ask mainline GOPers who they need more, libertarians or SoCons, I think we both know who they will side with.

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

HotAir: “Second Look at Gay Marriage?”

F@ck you, no.

Start seeing fascism. See?

StubbleSpark on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Huntsman says:

[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them.

And he doesn’t seem to understand that his coming on like a sanctimonious parson with a $1000 haircut and lecturing the benighted is the classic example of the phrase “physician, heal thyself.”

Mr. D on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program,

You understand the difference between Libertarian and libertine, right?

Huntsman is not proposing Libertarianism. If he was, he would ask what Luap Nor did – why the hell is the government in the marriage business, at all?

I really wonder what this current righty chattering class think they’re going to effect – Cupp, Ace, Allah, Hoover, Avlon etc…

…your position plays to the same base; metro progs. They only difference is what kind of social programs you believe in and how to pay for them.

Bubble adults, without children or religion, that know better than the hoi polloi.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I don’t care about this issue in the slightest, and I do think it hurts conservatives. It just doesn’t make sense to more and more people what the objections are to it, and it’s that sort of thing that takes the focus away from the economic message.

changer1701 on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It only makes sense from a ‘individual right’ if you ALSO support polygamy, which has both religious and historical precedences gay marriage does not. If ‘discrimination by gender’ is unacceptable, how can you accept ‘discrimination by number’?
(Point of clarification; I support NEITHER).

Also throw in marriage of step-relatives. The genetic reasons for not accepting intra-family marriage simply aren’t there.

michaelo on February 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason …

We Hold These Truths

http://www.ricksantorum.com/we-hold-these-truths

Pork-Chop on February 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

All I have to do is look for voters who are conservative on social issues and economically populist to form a coalition with.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Feel free. Pat Buchanan tried it already. And the unborn are no safer today then 20 years ago…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM

At least Dingy Harry has not endorsed SSM and to the best of my knowledge has not floated a trial balloon on the subject.

He may not personally endorse it, now, but if it came to a vote in his state, he’d support it, according to this part of an article in the SLC Tribune dated May 10, 2012.

Reid, D-Nev., is the highest-ranking Mormon in the U.S. government and up until now has said he agrees with his faith’s opposition to gay marriage, but on Wednesday, Reid aligned himself with Obama’s newfound embrace for the legalization of same-sex unions.

“My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married,” Reid said.

On Thursday, reporters asked Reid if he would vote to legalize same sex marriage if it was on the ballot in Nevada and he nodded yes, even though he previously voted for the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

hawkeye54 on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I do have some good news, but it might prevent Puerto Rico from becoming the 51st state.

Puerto Rico bans gay adoptions

http://rt.com/usa/puerto-rico-bans-gay-adoptions-243/

sentinelrules on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Following the largest rally in Puerto Rico since at least 2004, in which up to 200,000 people marched in favor of “traditional marriage” in a rally headed by religious leaders, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court handed a decision on Wednesday that shut the door to same-sex adoptions in the Island. In a 5-4 decision, Justices appointed by former PNP governor Luis Fortuño held that the Puerto Rico Adoption Act’s prohibition against same-sex adoption is constitutional given that the local constitution does not include sexual orientation as a suspect class. The Court held that the partner of the child’s mother could not adopt the child as a second mother. A child can only be adopted by members of the opposite sex, the Court held. In an argument that would make Justice Scalia proud, Justice Pabon Charneco held that the Court could not impose its values or judgment on the Legislature, and that it was up to the latter to amend the law and allow same-sex adoptions. The majority opinion was not swayed by arguments in favor of holding the prohibition unconstitutional.

So exactly why do Puerto Ricans vote for Democrats ?

J_Crater on February 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Liberals don’t get Jesus or Caesar. Rinos…well…

He just wants to play nice. Mitts people hated me like they do many of you. I tried to help them. No good.

One major problem is that Mormons don’t observe Lent. Self sacrifice on a schedule and the power of devotion over self.

It is part of the other side of the Roman ‘virtu”. John McCain understood the other side, to be sure. But he loses it on the religious and domestic stuff. Poor John.

God gave us Jesus and Caesar for a reason.
Not understanding this is why many religious people and our effete class of RINOS keep losing.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Feel free. Pat Buchanan tried it already. And the unborn are no safer today then 20 years ago…

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Yep, and he got a huge chunk of the vote up in New Hampshire against an incumbent in the primary. I wouldn’t mind seeing another candidate go for the gusto again with that platform.

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Why is Huntsman talking about conservative causes? He’s not a conservative.

ButterflyDragon on February 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Abortion on demand and free weed, that should attract people.

I’m tired of fighting The Man.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Jon Huntsman: Second look at making gay marriage a conservative cause?

…I know she has a couple of lovely daughters…but I think Joanne Huntsman evolved‘ a couple of decades ago!…I think he loved China for the slit some of the natives would have in the back of their pants…so they could practically squat at will…when there was business too do!

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

It only makes sense from a ‘individual right’ if you ALSO support polygamy, which has both religious and historical precedences gay marriage does not. If ‘discrimination by gender’ is unacceptable, how can you accept ‘discrimination by number’?
(Point of clarification; I support NEITHER).

Also throw in marriage of step-relatives. The genetic reasons for not accepting intra-family marriage simply aren’t there.

michaelo on February 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Actually legally if it is an individual right you must also include relatives as well. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the “womb” is a privacy issue i.e., abortion, contraception etc. and the leftist have continually made the case that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Therefore there is no legal case to keep two consenting related adults from marrying. According to the leftists, it is none of the state’s business if they have babies with genetic conditions as long as the state supports them after they are born or the state pays for the abortion.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM

We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending

Stop making sense.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Why is Huntsman talking about conservative causes? He’s not a conservative.

ButterflyDragon on February 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Well and it shows, because the conservative answer to gay marriage certainly isn’t “marriage equality.” It is let the voters of the individual states decide. Anyone with a fricking working knowledge of conservatism would know that.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM

If homosexual “marriage” is so conservative, please explain why it’s been a cause celebre of the hard left for decades now, and why it’s now on the democrat party platform.

Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM

We won in 2010 because of an anti-tax, anti-spending message. We lost this last time when SoCon albatrosses like Todd Akin got tied around the GOP’s neck. Libertarianism is on the rise in the GOP. Frankly, you go out and ask mainline GOPers who they need more, libertarians or SoCons, I think we both know who they will side with.

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM

There is a difference between taking on Libertarian principles and taking over the Libertarian position.

I’m 100% in support of a more Libertarian Republican party, but that doesn’t mean I have to concede to Gary Johnson’s lunacy.

Republican Libertarianism means application of ideas, not positions.

Again – Libertarian Party supports SSM. Conservative GOP does not.

Common Ground? Equal rights for all.

How do you achieve parity? By separation church and state, and have the state only issue legal licenses called civil unions, for all. Then, if you really want to be married, for a religious org that will perform the ceremony.

Equal rights and full pursuit of happiness in tact, along with adherence to the first amendment.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM

John: I note that nothing fiscally responsible was done as a result of the 2010 elections. Elections don’t matter if you get nothing out of them, and conservatives and libertarians alike got nothing out of that one.

And if the Libertarian Party platform is a winner, I would suggest that you show that by having the Libertarian Party win a few elections.

Now, I am not against Libertarianism; not at all. In fact, I wish we had a more European/parliamentary legislature. I think the two-party system is inherently flawed.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM

We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending
Stop making sense.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Yeah worked so well for John McCain or the Repubs after REAGAN granted amnesty. Or all those wonderful Latinos could just jump right on the Democratic plantation and Repubs could go the way of the Dinosaurs.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Gosh… Go away already. The only reason why I’m in any way looking forward to the inevitable Huntsman and Krispy Kreme 2016 candidacies is to watch Rubio destroy their whiny a$$es ala the Oompa Loompa.

Illinidiva on February 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

If homosexual “marriage” is so conservative, please explain why it’s been a cause celebre of the hard left for decades now, and why it’s now on the democrat party platform.

Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Because Democrats cater to perverts, criminals, and marginals explicitly, whereas Republicans see them as part of the general populace.

Archivarix on February 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending

Stop making sense.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Last I checked, libertarians don’t want to appeal to Latinos on social issues. Polls show that they also prefer more government services and higher taxes to smaller government and lower taxes by a lopsided majority.

For the sake of amusement, pray tell, how do you plan on winning them over?

Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Again – Libertarian Party supports SSM. Conservative GOP does not.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I don’t get why libertarians support SSM. It is the big government position, and it is also one of the ways that the Democrats are eventually going to weed out the traditional family and increase the dependency and welfare state. Libertarians are voting against their own interests.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Honestly, I stopped caring about whether gays can get married or not several years ago.

It’s probably better to allow it just to get the issue off the table and stops serving as a distraction from important issues – like stopping a govt that keeps growing beyond its constitutional bounds, encroaching on our liberties and destroying the country’s prosperity in the process.

And what Huntsman thinks is neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned.

DRayRaven on February 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

It’s probably better to allow it just to get the issue off the table and stops serving as a distraction from important issues

LMAO– Who made it an issue last election? The Dems or the Repubs?

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM

*eye roll*

Go on, tell us next how ‘conservatives’ need to warm up to increasing the welfare state, increased government spending, increased taxes, increased regulation, amnesty for illegals, more gun control, free birth control for everyone, equal rights for asparagus, state-sponsored drum circles, and mandatory kumbuya sessions at work.

Because, you know… ‘conservatives’ can deny their philosophy on any given topic and adopt a new one and still be ‘conservative’ or something.

Midas on February 22, 2013 at 11:20 AM

DRay: At least in the ‘distraction’ department, the current Administration has proven that they will manufacture distractions when there are no real ones. The media also will not distinguish between them.

Also, I will note that Mitt Romney was destroyed over positions he did not actually hold. As such, it would not seem to matter whether or not the GOP actually holds the position or not; the Administration/Campaign will simply claim that it does, and then the same issues will result.

So no, you cannot concede the issue so you can eliminate the issue as a distraction.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I think Huntsman is an idiot. Further, when has adopting any liberal position ever gained the Republicans a single vote?

That said, I support gay marriage. If it’s against your religion, I can’t help you much, but aside from that here are some of my reasons:

1. It benefits society to foster strong personal relationships between two adults and I believe that in many cases the formality of marriage helps support that relationship. A married person is less likely to need/demand that the government take care of them.

2. I would like to see gays experience the marriage penalty tax. The more people that get hit with the marriage penalty, the more chance we can muster the political power needed to get rid of it.

3. It generally supports the status of marriage and thus the desirability of marriage. No matter what the arguments (only a piece of paper etc.) – at base almost everyone recognizes marriage as the “gold standard” for a relationship and making it the same for gays helps it keep that position.

I would have liked to see the Republicans move towards more liberal social positions and more conservative fiscal positions. But they spent the last couple decades doing the opposite, so I’ve given up on them.

Over50 on February 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

What I think is the Conservative view: Let the people of the individual states decide by whatever means they choose, be it by direct ballot or through their respective legislatures. The courts and Federal government keep out.

A corollary and separate issue: If a state does not recognize SSM, it has to also decide if it will accept former residents of other states in such a union. If it does, it de facto recognizes SSM–which is the real aim of liberals who favor it.

Wait till we get to the issue of transgender. Massachusetts is taking up a bill to allow transgender students to use any bathroom of their choosing, and no other student has a right to object.

See how crazy this all is? Which, to me, is why Conservatives can’t bend a hair on the issue and adopt anything from the Left’s perspective.

Liam on February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

..Alejandro Hunstsman, Fudge Packer in Disguise..

The War Planner on February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I don’t get why libertarians support SSM. It is the big government position, and it is also one of the ways that the Democrats are eventually going to weed out the traditional family and increase the dependency and welfare state. Libertarians are voting against their own interests.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

If you haven’t watched Coulter on Stossel last night, you should. She explains it pretty clearly by calling them panderers.

In essence, it’s because of a libertine-left contingent that tries to co-opt the Libertarian party through social policy every election season. They found an inroad through drugs, and have now moved onto SSM.

Luap Nor doesn’t agree with it, but that’s why they fielded Gary Johnson.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Also, I will note that Mitt Romney was destroyed over positions he did not actually hold. As such, it would not seem to matter whether or not the GOP actually holds the position or not; the Administration/Campaign will simply claim that it does, and then the same issues will result.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM

That’s because Mitt has no political balls to speak of. All he needed is to quote Joe Wilson – you know which quote I mean – then showcase another hundred examples of Obama’s lies to the public, and dare the press to discuss them. There was sure no shortage of material for that kind of attack. Instead, he chose to honorably bend over and take it up the tailpipe.

Archivarix on February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Wait till we get to the issue of transgender. Massachusetts is taking up a bill to allow transgender students to use any bathroom of their choosing, and no other student has a right to object.

See how crazy this all is? Which, to me, is why Conservatives can’t bend a hair on the issue and adopt anything from the Left’s perspective.

Liam on February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Liam,

It isn’t just the bathroom in Massachusetts. It is changing in locker rooms. And if say a girl objects to having to change with a “boy who considers himself a girl.” The girl can be punished for objecting to not wanting to change in the locker room. She can be punished!

And the bill actually starts with kids as young as kindergarten, so my five year old daughter could be in a bathroom with a a 11 year old boy..

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Shouldn’t we think about moderating on abortion too to gain a “fair hearing” from younger single women? He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program, which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much deviation from their social beliefs.

Why is the fiscal program the only conservative stance that can’t be abandoned because it’s unpopular. This is why I think that calls to jettison all the unpopular conservative principles in order to push forward on the popular conservative principles are completely disingenuous. Fiscal conservatism is more unpopular than abortion. Fiscal conservatism has zero chance of seeing light of day in California – a state where gay marriage passed a popular referendum (thanks to Obama voters coming out in droves).

gwelf on February 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Archivarix: Can you point to any politician on the right that has successfully fought off a smear campaign orchestrated against them?

I cannot think of any.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

That said, I support gay marriage. If it’s against your religion, I can’t help you much, but aside from that here are some of my reasons:

Over50 on February 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I’ll give you credit for honesty, but that’s exactly the problem.

You see a group who doesn’t agree, and because you are not them, you’re answer is “sucks to be you”.

That’s why SSM support is mostly bullshit. It’s becoming more and more of a secular cause than an equal rights issue.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

If homosexual “marriage” is so conservative, please explain why it’s been a cause celebre of the hard left for decades now, and why it’s now on the democrat party platform.

Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM

That is because the left is forever looking for groups with needs that may be addressed by passing goofy laws.

Gay marriage is really not conservative but the Republicans are in a panic to buy votes.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I forgot about the locker room part of the proposal. Also, I think, it applies to functions off school grounds. Imagine an overnight trip where a trans boy wants to sleep in a room full of girls.

Liam on February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

This is one of those beating a dead horse issues that no one wins and the horse hates.

Regardless of what some of the “more mature” among us think, the younger generation is much more accepting of it and sooner or later this will become a non-issue for a majority of people.

But the proponents need to shut up about it also – all their incessant whining about “it’s not fair, you’re a hater, boo hoo” just annoys the bejebus out of people who might otherwise be more open to it.

katiejane on February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Archivarix: Can you point to any politician on the right that has successfully fought off a smear campaign orchestrated against them?

I cannot think of any.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Michele Bachmann might be on that list. The lefties here have been in full frontal assault mode on her since the beginning of time.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I forgot about the locker room part of the proposal. Also, I think, it applies to functions off school grounds. Imagine an overnight trip where a trans boy wants to sleep in a room full of girls.

Liam on February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I know. I feel like I am living in bizarro world.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Bishop: Bachmann, really? What’s her favorable rating at present?

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

If you had told me, after the 1992 Republican National Convention, that Pat Buchanan would found a conservative magazine which would, in twenty years, run a feature op-ed advocating for gay marriage, I simply would not have believed you.

I’d be looking around for the Spock wearing the goatee.

The_Jacobite on February 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The rationale for the state to recognize marriage – as opposed to other relationships – is that it is the best vehicle for producing and raising the citizens who are necessary if the state is to survive. Gay marriage undermines this purpose. It is not a conservative cause. Homosexuals can enter into whatever relationships they want but the notion that their unions are necessary to the survival of the state – as are heterosexual unions – is ludicrous.

Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Well said.

And the gay lobby wants the state to recognize their unions so they can use the current state power apparatus built up around “equality” to force private institutions and individuals to go beyond tolerating them but to accepting them.

The real problem we face is all the ways in which the government has inserted itself into our lives.

gwelf on February 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I think the Republicans should take the let the states and their voters decide. Everyone loves evolution, right?

Cindy Munford on February 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Archivarix: Can you point to any politician on the right that has successfully fought off a smear campaign orchestrated against them?

I cannot think of any.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Scott Walker? There was some “story” about some lovechild or whatever, right before the recall election.

changer1701 on February 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Huntsman, geesh, who is paying attention to him?

If you are in a red state and have a GOP governor right now, and some power in your legislature. Stop worrying about Medicaid, let them have their Medicaid until it goes bankrupt, you need to be doing other things at home.

You need to enshrine the principals of natural law regarding marriage and childbearing into your state constitution.

You need a genetic gender truth law. You need to define and send through your legislature, laws that define an X gender and Y gender as legal gender. Make sure it is based on dna testing. Nature equals truth. Outlaw the term “Assigned Gender” from state laws. Assigned gender can be reassigned, you need to state what female is and what male is in legal terms.

Decide how your state will handle sperm donors. Nature calls sperm donors Daddy. Put into law that no one is Entitled to receive “free” sperm or eggs to get pregnant, and that only the legal parents should pay for these things. Forbid mandatory health insurance coverage for fertility, and do not provide it unless they are married couples with a female mother and male father that can realistically conceive a natural child. Outlaw the term “Reproductive Inequality” from your state laws. Pre empt these problems which are festering at the HHS as we speak.

Put into your laws that female Mother and male Father are the natural parents of children. If your state is forced to have Parent one and Parent two, it has to exist alongside Natural Parent names. Reserve Mother and Father as biological natural language meaning scientific biological parenthood. Write a law that says Dad is a male parent, and Mom is a female parent determined by nature, and you can have only one.

Write very specific laws regarding unmarried Parents and homosexual couples, making their rights separate and based on nature not fantasy.

Re affirm that homosexual individuals are not prohibited from engaging in heterosexual sex and marriage and encouraging them to conduct themselves according to natural law, as mother or father. Decide what to call their partners in relation to children, if you have gay marriage in your state, or not. The terms: Step Parent and Legal Guardian work when children already have a natural mother. A child should have one mother and one father, and identify the other people in their lives legally or say they have no legal rights. Divorced families have legal words, and you don’t have two mommies in a divorced family, you have mom and step mom, even though she is MARRIED to daddy.

And, forget marriage on this point: Single natural Parents have to be held to account to the same standard of parental responsibility as married parents. State laws have to be simplified and made plain to unmarried parents. Illegitimate children have been children whose parents did not make legal care arrangements for them via marriage laws, but the state has a compelling interest in defining their legal status. There is a gap which children are falling into, as we Pro Marriage folks advocate marriage, we are letting unmarried parents Off the Hook. And finally in respect to married families, and subsequent children of unmarried couples, second families have to be subordinated to the first.

It’s a brave new world being forced on you and you don’t even know it. What is worse, someone else wants you to pay for their fantasy.

Fleuries on February 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Archivarix: Can you point to any politician on the right that has successfully fought off a smear campaign orchestrated against them?

I cannot think of any.

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Scott Walker. Chris Christie, too – we might hate him here, but he won the mudslinging war against NJEA & NJ media. Steal a page from Barack Obama’s manual – you have to act so quickly and forcefully that your maligners in the media don’t have time to react. Unless there’s a trail of personal skeletons in the closet, you win by forcing them follow your crumb trail, instead of biting at your ankles.

Archivarix on February 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Why is Jon Huntsman telling the conservatives what to do? He should stick with his own people.

Tom C on February 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Aside from politics, how does the word conservative ever fit into such an anti-conservative, post modern, aberrational construct as “gay” marriage?

Don L on February 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Once language means nothing, then history means nothing and words can mean whatever you decide they can mean.
njrob on February 22, 2013 at 10:47 AM

That’s the point. It’s not about gay rights, it’s about complete government control over the individual, their ‘religious beliefs’ nonwithstanding. Gay ‘marriage’ is just a means to an end.
People who aren’t particularly religious and don’t really care about gay marriage tend to kinda support it, because they feel bad if they don’t. Someday, there *might* be an issue they care about… but by then, it will be too late. (Cue ‘when they came for the Jews’ story.)

Marcola on February 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Scott Walker I might grant you. Christie only ‘fought off’ the smear campaign by becoming more liberal. I live in NJ, and can personally attest that most conservatives here do not like him anymore.

(IOW, Christie is, at least now, not conservative IME.)

So we want more Walkers. Excellent. Do you think Huntsman’s approach will get us more of them?

Scott H on February 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

This is one of those beating a dead horse issues that no one wins and the horse hates.

Regardless of what some of the “more mature” among us think, the younger generation is much more accepting of it and sooner or later this will become a non-issue for a majority of people.

But the proponents need to shut up about it also – all their incessant whining about “it’s not fair, you’re a hater, boo hoo” just annoys the bejebus out of people who might otherwise be more open to it.

katiejane on February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Indeed. The constant bleating and demagoguery from proponents doesn’t help. But you’re right…it will be come a non-issue for the majority (if it hasn’t already).

changer1701 on February 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I know. I feel like I am living in bizarro world.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

We are!

Just the idea of an older boy in a dress being allowed in a school bathroom with Kindergarten girls is insane. Not all trans are inherently gay and will stick to their (soon-to-be-former) gender.

At least in Brazil they solved this insane problem by having extra lavatories put in to accommodate trans types.

I think I’m getting a headache…

Liam on February 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Michele Bachmann might be on that list. The lefties here have been in full frontal assault mode on her since the beginning of time.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Have you checked Ms. Bachman as a real candidate? Poll numbers and track record? Oh well…

BTW, Amb. Huntsman might make it if Mr. Rove is helping to select candidates.

Why don’t we have a sweepstakes or a reality show and look for a real conservative? I would nominate one or two of the posters here and some of the thread writers.

I’m going to write to Trump.

He does contests.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM

My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love…

I’m really getting tired of this BS. Nobody is denying anybody any relationship. Nobody is stopping gays from living together and building “families”, whatever that may mean in non-genetic terms. Those relationships may eventually have a record of success comparable to marriage and establish their own place in society, but forcing acceptance of something that has no track record of success just because of some theoretical equivalence that remains to be proved is like the government subsidizing green energy industries that couldn’t survive in a free market. Let the social market decide, the government should stay the hell out of it and stop tearing down established social institutions to prop up theoretical ones.

Socratease on February 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Hello Allah,

He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program, which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much deviation from their social beliefs.

It’s not just that, though.

The problem is that the country really isn’t in a libertarian mood. If it were…well, that would be an improvement. But 51% of the country didn’t just vote for a more restrained state.

Yes, young cohorts do seem on board with more libertine social arrangements. But they’re not really interested in limited government. Therefore, all Huntsman’s move would accomplish is to get a big chunk of the GOP base to stay home, with only a few quirky libertarians to take their place. (Not that Jon Huntsman could ever win a presidential election under any circumstances.)

Whatever the answer is to Republican electoral problems, this isn’t it. Gay marriage may be a lost battle, but that doesn’t mean the answer is a total surrender.

The_Jacobite on February 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Ron Humtsman is a cornhole brother

DanMan on February 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3