Karl Rove: Yeah, I could imagine a GOP presidential candidate supporting gay marriage

posted at 6:31 pm on March 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

It does seem increasingly feasible — Sen. Rob Portman recently came out in support of gay marriage earlier this month, which might pave the way for some more Republican politicians to follow suit — although I think at this point it’s more likely we’re looking at a hard-fought battle between the true-north social conservative approach and the federalism tack, with Rand Paul’s hands-off strategy thrown in the mix, too.

This came up of course, in discussion about the upcoming gay marriage cases being reviewed by the Supreme Court this week, which are going to have some heavy implications for the national debate when the decisions come in:

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

Update: I changed my headline from the GOP nominee to a GOP candidate — more concise!


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

Where in the world, and at what point in history, you draw the line at your definition of marriage?

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I’ll bite. I think privately marriage is what you make of it. I don’t care if it includes four people, brothers and sisters etc. I think government licensing shouldn’t be about the ADULTS- it should be about the product of the marriage i.e. biological future taxpayers. If the government is going to sanction a private relationship it should have an interest in doing so. So in that case, it should be a monogamous heterosexual couple who are going to have biological children.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

“of our nation”

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Given the string of losers the GOP has put up for election the last few years, yeah, so could I.

That’s why they keep losing.

Socratease on March 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM

So in that case, it should be a monogamous heterosexual couple who are going to have biological children.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Then we have a lot of marriages, that should never be.
I’ll tell my mom who remarried at 50
and my best friend who married a sterile dude-but didnt care
as she didn’t want children.

I am for CU-not SSM. Just not into your point.
Drop the children part, you just want marriage for heterosexuals-no?

bazil9 on March 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I’ll bite. I think privately marriage is what you make of it. I don’t care if it includes four people, brothers and sisters etc. I think government licensing shouldn’t be about the ADULTS- it should be about the product of the marriage i.e. biological future taxpayers. If the government is going to sanction a private relationship it should have an interest in doing so. So in that case, it should be a monogamous heterosexual couple who are going to have biological children.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Finally!

The defense rests…

I’ll bite.

giggiety ;)

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Hey, I never denied that marriage is what you make of it. Or the fact that I think that homosexuals love is any less profound than what I have found with my husband. I just said that the government should have a very limited role in what it licensed. If we could overhaul the whole system; I wouldn’t want the government in the system at all.

You missed it.. I said I would support SSM wholeheartedly if Hotair agreed never to post another gay thread and I would even walk you down the aisle. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM

You missed it.. I said I would support SSM wholeheartedly if Hotair agreed never to post another gay thread and I would even walk you down the aisle. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM

LOL, I might even change my mind if that came about. ;)

bazil9 on March 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM

The institution of marriage dates from the time of man’s original creation. (Genesis 2:18-25) From (Genesis 2:24) we may evolve the following principles: (1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man. (2) The indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on; the strongest grounds, Comp. (Matthew 19:9) (3) Monogamy, as the original law of marriage (4) The social equality of man and wife.

Since the founding our our nation by Christian men, our laws and culture have had their base in Judeo-Christian principles.

How do you reconcile your wanting to walk the aisle with Bubba to your Catholic Faith?

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Who’s Bubba? Is he cure? :P

It takes some brass balls tho to impugn my religious faith and/or sanctimoniously judge my personal relationship with Christ. That’s between me, my Church, and God.

OK, we’re getting closer…correct me if I’m wrong, but I take it you define marriage through the Judeo-Christian construct. And that’s fine! As I’ve stated time and time and time again, same-sex marriage is a secular constitutional issue. Not every American adheres to the Judeo-Christian faiths.
A few more points:

Our founding fathers weren’t necessarily Christian…many were Deists. Matter of fact, I’ve never seen so much as a vague reference to Jesus in the constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. They knew of the great importance of preventing a state-sponsored religious faith. I agree the basics of our laws stem from Judeo-Christianity…but in no way does any religious faith trump any other in US law.

The first European settlers came to this new land to escape religious persecution…not to institute it as you seem to want to do. Should atheists be allowed to marry? How about Muslims? Hindus? And what about other biblical passages regarding marriage…you believe that a woman needs to be a virgin on her wedding day?

Do you believe a “barren” woman unable to conceive should be shunned by society as “cursed by God”? (1 Timothy 2:15)

Arranged marriages? (Genesis 24:1-4 et al)

Divorce only if the man found his wife “displeasing”? (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Marriage between a rapist and his rape victim? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

There’s quite a bit more…like a wife must always submit to her husband for sex, and slave owners arranging marriages for their slaves. Do you believe all of that? It’s biblical, no? Because I can’t believe for one minute you would cherry-pick scripture to back up your own beliefs. :/

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You missed it.. I said I would support SSM wholeheartedly if Hotair agreed never to post another gay thread and I would even walk you down the aisle. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM

lol!

We would look fabulous!

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You really do not want to place Bible Challenge with me, kid.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

-
2 Timothy 3:16

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

- Hebrews 4:12

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

– Romans 1: 26-32

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

lol!

We would look fabulous!

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Yes we would sweetie. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I’m really not in the mood to play Dueling Scripture with you…But I take it you believe all I quoted falls under your definition of marriage. So tell me…roughly how many woman unable to conceive did you curse at this past year?

As usual, it would take far too long to get you to answer any of my questions…you spin much better than the typical liberal does when asked questions that they can’t answer…HuffPo would be proud.

Yes we would sweetie. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Fierce!

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Is it possible to be pro-gay and pro-traditional marriage?

Yes bluegill! This is what is happening in France right now. Gays are starting to realize the importance of traditional marriage as a heterosexual institution…precisely because children deserve a mom and a dad.

Ask any liberal which is greater…gays right to marry or our right to abort them.

Most people are fine with gays, they just don’t want it called “marriage”.

monalisa on March 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM

I’m really not in the mood to play Dueling Scripture with you…

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Because you wouldn’t win…

Dunedainn on March 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Karl Rove, you are dead to me after your election prognosis debacle.

Sherman1864 on March 26, 2013 at 4:29 AM

Our founding fathers weren’t necessarily Christian…many were Deists. Matter of fact, I’ve never seen so much as a vague reference to Jesus in the constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. They knew of the great importance of preventing a state-sponsored religious faith. I agree the basics of our laws stem from Judeo-Christianity…but in no way does any religious faith trump any other in US law.

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Most of the Founding Father’s were Christian as were the Ratifier’s of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who were Deist are properly classified as Christian Deists because of their advocacy of the teaching of normative Christian moral standards.

Matter of fact, I’ve never seen so much as a vague reference to Jesus in the constitution or in the Declaration of Independence…
As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

That is somewhat disingenuous, because the Declaration uses Enlightenment era yet identifiable Christian terminology to invoke the Christian G-d in an inclusive manner. See here:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

For example:

In theology, divine providence, or providence, is God’s intervention in the world. “Divine Providence” (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God. A distinction is usually made between “general providence”, which refers to God’s continuous upholding the existence and natural order of the universe, and “special providence”, which refers to God’s extraordinary intervention in the life of people…

Catholic theology

Augustine of Hippo is perhaps most famously associated with the doctrine of Divine Providence in the Latin West. However, Christian teaching on providence in the high Middle Ages was most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. The concept of providence as care exercised by God over the universe, his foresight and care for its future is extensively developed and explained both by Aquinas himself and modern Thomists. One of the foremost modern Thomists, Dominican father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, wrote a study of providence entitled “Providence: God’s loving care for man and the need for confidence in Almighty God.” In it, he presents and solves, according to Catholic doctrine, the most difficult issues as related to providence.

also:

They knew of the great importance of preventing a state-sponsored religious faith…

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The Founding generation argued about Establishment of Religion which is somewhat different from supporting religion. Even President Jefferson attended Christian prayer services in Federal buildings. He even as President authorized financial support paid out of the US Treasury paying for a Catholic priest to minister to American Indians Native Americans.

Mike OMalley on March 26, 2013 at 6:47 AM

The first European settlers came to this new land to escape religious persecution…not to institute it as you seem to want to do.

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The Puritans came to America with the foremost purpose of establishing a Puritan religious colony.

Should atheists be allowed to marry? How about Muslims? Hindus?

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

A non-sequitor perhaps? But an interesting one as it raises the question, should normative Islamic polygamy be legal in the USA? The Founders would not have had it, as they would not have permitted “gay marriage”.

And what about other biblical passages regarding marriage…you believe that a woman needs to be a virgin on her wedding day?

Do you believe a “barren” woman unable to conceive should be shunned by society as “cursed by God”? (1 Timothy 2:15)

Arranged marriages? (Genesis 24:1-4 et al)

Divorce only if the man found his wife “displeasing”? (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Marriage between a rapist and his rape victim? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

There’s quite a bit more…like a wife must always submit to her husband for sex, and slave owners arranging marriages for their slaves. Do you believe all of that? It’s biblical, no? Because I can’t believe for one minute you would cherry-pick scripture to back up your own beliefs. :/

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You would seem to profoundly misunderstand Christian scripture, Jewish Torah and the Relationship between Christian Grace and Jewish Torah.

Mike OMalley on March 26, 2013 at 7:05 AM

And what about other biblical passages regarding marriage…

Marriage between a rapist and his rape victim? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)…

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

America’s public school systems just do not prepare the unchurched to think clearly about these topics. Our ill educated students grow up to imagining that 2nd millennium BC Israelis were more or less 1950′s Midwestern Lutherans in Middle Eastern costume.

The Book of Deuteronomy was written for a savagely brutalized primitive tribal people. The emphasis is on tribal because individuals simply did not exist. Everyone was a member of a tribe of some sort. Without a tribe to avenge one, an individual might have days to live, a Libertarian would have hours if not minutes to live. So let’s take a look at what Deuteronomy 22:28-29 actually says in anthropological context:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Footnotes:

(a) Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds or about 575 grams

This is tribal law. It’s purpose is to prevent devastating blood shed (such as might happen when the victim’s brothers kill the rapist and every single person related to him) and to provide for the rape victim and a child she might become impregnated with.

The rapist owes the father a rather large sum, 1-1/4 pounds of rare silver. If he can’t pay, and if no family member is willing or able to remit 1-1/4 pounds of silver for him, the rapist is sold into slavery to pay off the debt. Either that, or the angry father of the rape victim takes possession of the rapist as an indentured servant, a slave, to work for the angry father until the debt is paid in full. [How do you think that is going to work out for the rapist?] (And he should hope the angry father is pious enough not to charge interest on the debt).

The rapist is forced to marry his victim. This is Jewish Law, not Islamic Law, the rapist/husband can not divorce his victim. He must work to support her for life. He must have sex with her as often as she wants to give her the number of children she wants and he must support them too. In a tribal society women want children, many children. Any wife he marries after his rape victim/wife becomes a subordinate wife to his rape victim/wife. The rape victim/wife’s children get fed and provided for first before the later wives’ children. Guess whose children have priority in inheritance? That’s right, his rape victim/wife’s children.

And so the rape victim/wife and her children are provided for (they are not abandoned and they don’t starve). The rapist had best make peace with his rape victim/wife’s brothers too.

Compare that to modern America where statutory rape is rarely prosecuted. Where the rape victim is abused as a matter of course at trial in court by the accused rapist’s defense attorney; and children conceived in rape are most often killed, however in America it is unconstitutional to execute the rapist.

.

As always, correct me if I’m mistaken.

Mike OMalley on March 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3