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

Won’t someone be my friend?/GOP elite.

OldEnglish on March 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I care about gay marriage because…?

Let’s – I don’t know – talk about important things like unemployment, staggering taxes, and geometrically-increasing government spending?

Wino on March 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Is it wrong that every time I see that disgusting dough face I want to punch it?

commodore on March 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Karl Rove and the rest of the establishment didn’t appreciate the purpose of marriage before, they don’t appreciate it now, and they won’t appreciate it in the future.

Time to primary some RINOs then. I look forward to kicking Portman out of office in 2016.

Stoic Patriot on March 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM

why is rob portman important all of a sudden? no one seemed to care about him until he declared his gay marriage support. XD

Sachiko on March 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Karl Rove: the architect of the GOP’s extinction.

Greek Fire on March 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I am alreay tired of hearing Pauls name.

KBird on March 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Yeah I could imagine the next gop nominee losing.

bgibbs1000 on March 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM

I wish Pumpkinhead would just go away and take Rinsed Peni$ with him. These two clowns are going to ensure that the Democratic candidate wins with Reaganesque victories in 2016 as conservatives will vote third party.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM

“You’re burning down house? Can I help?”

Count to 10 on March 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Dem-lite.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I can see the GOP never earning my vote for the rest of my life. I am certain that the GOP will lose around 20 million votes under Rove’s direction. I do not see them picking up more than about 2 million votes otherwise not accessible to the Republicans under Rove’s direction.

astonerii on March 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

And I can imagine that nominee losing and losing badly!

redware on March 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Is it wrong that every time I see that disgusting dough face I want to punch it?

commodore on March 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Yes, yes it is bad. But I am sure you can ask forgiveness after.

astonerii on March 24, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I wish Pumpkinhead would just go away and take Rinsed Peni$ with him. These two clowns are going to ensure that the Democratic candidate wins with Reaganesque victories in 2016 as conservatives will vote third party.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Greek Fire is right!

Karl Rove: the architect of the GOP’s extinction.

Greek Fire on March 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM

…FOX NEWS should have Karl Retreat on every night to accelerate declining viewership!

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Wino on March 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

We got to this point by allowing any number of degenerate behaviors to be recognized and rewarded by government. So, you should care about adding any additional burdens on a society that is already leaning towards decline. Degenerates happen to be very bad at picking political leaders that are going to be fiscally conservative.

astonerii on March 24, 2013 at 6:48 PM

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. If Carl Rove & Co is instrumental in the 2016 General I stay home. EOM

Tangerinesong on March 24, 2013 at 6:48 PM

It’s still kind of repulsive to support gay marriage. What, is gay the new black? Why doesn’t Rove instead imagine something that would be more helpful, that our next nominee doesn’t oppose abortion even in cases of rape, because our leading contenders have that no excpetions position (Paul, Walker), and close to 80% of the electorate oppose outlawing abortion in cases of rape and incest, and most of that 80% is literally repulsed by the no excpetions position, and a good many of them are generally conservative (as in Indiana [Mourdoch]) but are willing to cross the line and vote Democrat on that single issue. Rove should speculate about something useful.

anotherJoe on March 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Is this more important than Wayne LaPierre wondering why there was just a study released and proving that of 90 jurisdictions looked at, when it comes to enforcing federal gun laws already on the books that Chicago ranks 90th out of 90?

He wondered why you (David Gregory) and NBC and the press fail every time to ask Jay Carney or Obama or Biden about that, ever.

I thought it was a great exchange and much more interesting than this.

Marcus on March 24, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Rove is an ass…Interesting article about the issue at Big Gubmint…

“In our constitutional system, states define marriage. But that means states determine issues such as how old you must be to get married if you are not yet an adult, or which relatives (e.g., brothers and sisters, first cousins, second cousins) are considered too close to be married without committing incest. Until recently, all those laws required two persons, one man and one woman.

Will mistakenly says that before 1996 federal law accepted whatever each state’s definition was about marriage. That’s false, as Paul Clement–the lawyer defending DOMA at the Supreme Court and probably the greatest Supreme Court lawyer alive today–explains in detail in his brief submitted to the Court.

There are over 1,000 provisions of federal law that involve marriage, and while most do not define marriage (and therefore rely upon DOMA), others separately define marriage and ignore any contrary definition from states. For example, if you are married but separated from your spouse and living separately, federal law does not permit you to file a married joint tax return; you must file as an unmarried person. Or if you are married to a foreigner and that person is not currently in this country, you must file an unmarried person tax return. Or if you want to claim social security survivorship benefits, the Social Security Act defines marriage as one man and one woman.

DOMA simply clarifies that this definition applies to every provision of federal law. Section 3 of DOMA, which the Court is considering this week, defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Will is also evidently confused, saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it’s not authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause. He says the question becomes, “Does the federal government have the power . . . to define and protect the institution of marriage?” No, that’s not the question at issue, because defining a term is not any exertion of federal power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is actually completely irrelevant to DOMA. If the law using “married” is a tax law, then that whole law is authorized by the Taxing Clause. If it’s Social Security benefits, then it’s the Spending Clause. If it’s military benefits, then it’s the Army Clause. If it’s determining who can immigrate with their spouse into this country, it’s the Naturalization Clause. And so on. All DOMA does is create a federal definition; it’s not an exertion of any congressional power and does not require some separate “necessary and proper” analysis.

One point not discussed by Will–but critically important–is the issue of polygamy. Over 50 nations on earth currently have legal polygamy, and many millions of people are in polygamous marriages. Studies even show that in this country there are currently 600,000 people in polygamous marriages. Yet the federal government does not recognize those marriages, regarding the man as only married to one woman in the marriage, and leaving the others will no recognition or benefits.

Imagine what a person’s tax return would look like if a man had four wives. You get to claim five personal exemptions, and everyone can cross-claim all child tax credits for all children born to all four women. The IRS would have to completely redesign Form 1040, and the resulting returns would have a significant fiscal impact on the nation….

DOMA authorizes this, defining marriage as one man and one woman. If Will’s argument were correct, them the federal government would now have to recognize polygamy if any state in the country chose to do so.

For that matter, Windsor is a case about two lesbians who got married in Canada in 2007, long before their home state of New York created gay marriage in 2011. If the justices agree that the federal government must recognize their marriage and strike down DOMA Section 3, then they probably must recognize all foreign marriages, including all foreign polygamous marriages.

Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, DOMA is constitutional because it is rationally related to advancing legitimate public interests. It involves conferring federal payments and other legal benefits, not determining who can and cannot get married…

Federalism means that the states are sovereign in their domain, and the federal government is sovereign in its domain. The feds can’t tell the states who can be married, and the states can’t tell the feds who must receive federal marriage benefits. The liberals’ argument here rejects the second part of that equation, and must be rejected by everyone who claims to adhere to the text and structure of the Constitution…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/24/George-Will-DOMA-and-Polygamy

workingclass artist on March 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Oh looky… the Skipper of the Election 2006 Titanic has more ideas….

viking01 on March 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Rove endorsed Hillary already?

Schadenfreude on March 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Karl Rove is the piece of dung who brought us ‘compassionate conservatism’ and the Bush attempt at amnesty. We know how well that all worked out… Honest to God, it is looking more and more necessary to have a third party. It won’t win the big one right away, but it will gather steam over time – and get both establishment parties’ attention when both Rs and Ds lose voters to it.

fabrexe on March 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Rove would rather let the GOP burn to the ground, than let the conservatives/teapartiers take over.

The day the GOP become the other gay “marriage” party, is the day it stops being a national party. Without the social conservatives, the GOP couldn’t get a dogcatcher elected.

Rebar on March 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Maybe this clip from Cool Hand Luke best demonstrates the way today’s GOP handles situations.

madmonkphotog on March 24, 2013 at 6:56 PM

I can imagine a three sided square.

SparkPlug on March 24, 2013 at 6:59 PM

I can imagine Rove with no schnutz too.

SparkPlug on March 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Why doesn’t Rove instead imagine something that would be more helpful, that our next nominee doesn’t oppose abortion even in cases of rape, because our leading contenders have that no excpetions position (Paul, Walker), and close to 80% of the electorate oppose outlawing abortion in cases of rape and incest, and most of that 80% is literally repulsed by the no excpetions position, and a good many of them are generally conservative (as in Indiana [Mourdoch]) but are willing to cross the line and vote Democrat on that single issue. Rove should speculate about something useful.

anotherJoe on March 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You know what? Repubs should really stop writing and repeating Dems narrative for them mmmkay. Plan B is available over the counter all over this country. The rape and incest exception is used by the Dems to hammer Repubs and with Plan B it should be almost Nill. And we have useful Repub tools like Rove and you who keep hammering this narrative. How about we change the narrative? How about we turn the narrative when the EXTREMIST POSITION IS SUPPORTING GOSNELL.. The platform isn’t the problem. It is the messaging and useful tools in our own party.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Why doesn’t Rove instead imagine something that would be more helpful, that our next nominee doesn’t oppose abortion even in cases of rape, because our leading contenders have that no excpetions position (Paul, Walker), and close to 80% of the electorate oppose outlawing abortion in cases of rape and incest, and most of that 80% is literally repulsed by the no excpetions position, and a good many of them are generally conservative (as in Indiana [Mourdoch]) but are willing to cross the line and vote Democrat on that single issue. Rove should speculate about something useful.

anotherJoe on March 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Oh and BTW, if someone is crossing the line to vote for BIGGER GOVERNMENT, nanny staters, Obamacare, and anti-second amendment so some chick can have the right to kill her child- I question their sanity.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The Party is over. Feel free to grab a centerpiece on your way out.

steebo77 on March 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Good grief! Now these establishment pukes want a “Gay John McCain” Maybe they will nominate his little girlfriend, Linda Graham this time.

Alabama Infidel on March 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

It really should be a matter of “supporting” or “not supporting” gay marriage. That question should not even be in the discussion at the federal level. The reason is that it is too polarizing. A candidate that is “for” it won’t get votes from deep red states, a candidate that is not for it will not get votes in purple and blue states. You can not get elected by winning only “red” states. You can get elected by winning blue and purple states.

crosspatch on March 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

The Party is over. Feel free to grab a centerpiece on your way out.

steebo77 on March 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Exactly how I feel. Don’t believe I will vote GOP in 2016.

Tasha on March 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Honest to God, it is looking more and more necessary to have a third party.
fabrexe on March 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

We need a second party.

Rove is proving himself a capable architect of the GOP’s conversion into third party.

rrpjr on March 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM

OT/…gg if you are lurking…don’t watch the Florida/Gophers game!…the movie Blind Side is on ABC family…it’s better!…I haven’t seen that kid who played Big Mike since then…and I wanted to adopt him!

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM

It’s a beautiful gay in this neighborhood,
A beautiful gay for a neighbor,
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?

It’s a neighborly gay in this beauty wood,
A neighborly gay for a beauty,
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?

I have always wanted to have a neighbor just like you,
I’ve always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you.

So let’s make the most of this beautiful gay,
Since we’re together, we might as well say,
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won’t you be my neighbor?

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM

The Party is over. Feel free to grab a centerpiece on your way out.

steebo77 on March 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I absolutely agree. I am getting damn sick of being called extremist by my own dang party because I don’t support the wholesale slaughter of children on the whim and convenience of womyn.

And the fact that our party only ever eats their own and has the cajones to call out their own. They never point their guns where they belong- at the opposing party. I am truly done.. GOP message recieved– There is no place for me in your party..

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Seems fair. As the marxists have completely taken over the Democratic Party, someone has to be the regular Democrats.

rbj on March 24, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Karl Rove: Yeah, I could imagine the next GOP nominee supporting gay marriage

… and I can imagine a GOP nominee who signed a universal health care law in his state wanting to repeal the federal law modeled after it. That worked out real well too.

AZfederalist on March 24, 2013 at 7:11 PM

So Rove thinks if GOP supports amnesty and gay marriage that will get hispanics and libs to vote GOP instead of Dems? Why?

ctmom on March 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

It really should be a matter of “supportsupporting” gay marriage. That question should not even be in the discussion at the federal level. The reason is that it is too polarizing. A candidate that is “for” it won’t get votes from deep red states, a candidate that is not for it will not get votes in purple and blue states. You can not get elected by winning only “red” states. You can get elected by winning blue and purple states.

crosspatch on March 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

The problem is is it is going to be asked. The party has to have it in the platform. The Dems will say the traditional marriage is code word for “anti-gay” and the national candidate will get tarred anyways. If the platform changes, you put every national red state election in jeopardy. The best that you can support federally is saying it is a state issue that should be decided on a state by state basis.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

The Root Cause of the dismantling of (eventually) all constructive societal institutions — at least in America?

[Rhetorical question, the answer to which is known by most here:]

The dismantling of education — especially “higher” education — begun a century ago by “Progressive” Marxists …

ShainS on March 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

The thing Rove and Priebus don’t realize is that the closer the GOP comes to the Democrats, the easier it is to vote third party. Christie or Rubio running on a pro-illegal alien, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion platform against Hillary makes it very easy to vote third party.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

So Rove thinks if GOP supports amnesty and gay marriage that will get hispanics and libs to vote GOP instead of Dems? Why?

ctmom on March 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Nope– Our 2016 choices will be this:

Party A: Socially Liberal supports gay marriage, abortion.
Spends money like water. Supports tax increases for the wealthy- give free stuff away.

Party B: Socially Liberal supports gay marriage, abortion, spends money like water.. supports no tax increase(Dems will hammer that they play for the wealthy) doesn’t give free stuff away..

So the only question is do you vote for tax increases for the wealthy and free stuff or not?

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Maybe Rove could gay marry Carville. That’ll win some votes.

Robert_Paulson on March 24, 2013 at 7:16 PM

There are some very strongly worded sections on marriage in the 2012 Republican Party Platform. Emphasis added within the paragraphs.

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I absolutely agree. I am getting damn sick of being called extremist by my own dang party because I don’t support the wholesale slaughter of children on the whim and convenience of womyn.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Couple that with the establishment viewing conservatives as racists even though conservatives backed Allen West, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Star Parker, Raul Labordor, Susanna Martinez and Nikki Haley against boring white RINOs supported by the GOP establishment.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

The thing Rove and Priebus don’t realize is that the closer the GOP comes to the Democrats, the easier it is to vote third party. Christie or Rubio running on a pro-illegal alien, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion platform against Hillary makes it very easy to vote third party.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

That’s not just a Democrat, but a far left extreme liberal democrat. Why don’t these guys just join the democrat party? That way, they won’t have to keep lying to us about being a “conservative”.

Alabama Infidel on March 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM

The section on the First Amendment and religious freedom is also relevant.

The First Amendment: The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom

The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion. That guarantee reflected Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which declared that no one should “suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion….” That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs—and religious believers—out of the public square. The Founders of the American Republic universally agree that democracy presupposes a moral people and that, in the words of George Washington’s Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment—an unprecedented aggression repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court in its Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC decision.

We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and we affirm the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events in public schools and to have equal access to public schools and other public facilities to accommodate religious freedom in the public square. We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM

The blossum is off the turd.

Shut up Karl and go away.

HumpBot Salvation on March 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I suppose if the GOP becomes more like the Dems some of those Dems will vote for us! What a stupid party. If the GOP supports the gay bunch then I know one vote they will no longer get…my guess they will lose more than they gain.

rich8450 on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The thing Rove and Priebus don’t realize is that the closer the GOP comes to the Democrats, the easier it is to vote third party. Christie or Rubio running on a pro-illegal alien, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion platform against Hillary makes it very easy to vote third party.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

…will there be enough of us?…even in 2014 we can’t take two more years of THAT Senate!…we need more than Rand, Cruz and Rubio!

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The platform itself is quite conservative and to pull out any of its planks would cause an uproar.

The problem is the GOPe who pretend they agree with it and then subvert it.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Being viewed as the party of the rich that supports tax cuts for the super rich (many of whom are liberal Democrats) costs the GOP far more votes than its stand on abortion.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Gay Marriage is such a stupid pointless issue that affects about 3% of the population.

That is why I support the Rand Paul position on this. It takes the issue of marriage out of the hands of government and leaves up to contract law and in the religious corner where it belongs.

For all the social cons my message would be what have you gained by getting government involved in this issue? Get government out of marriage, out of religion, our bank accounts and off our dinner plate. Stop trying to drag them into the bedroom!

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Couple that with the establishment viewing conservatives as racists even though conservatives backed Allen West, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Star Parker, Raul Labordor, Susanna Martinez and Nikki Haley against boring white RINOs supported by the GOP establishment.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Yes! I don’t get it at all. What happened to this party?

That’s not just a Democrat, but a far left extreme liberal democrat. Why don’t these guys just join the democrat party? That way, they won’t have to keep lying to us about being a “conservative”.

Alabama Infidel on March 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM

This ^^

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Being viewed as the party of the rich that supports tax cuts for the super rich (many of whom are liberal Democrats) costs the GOP far more votes than its stand on abortion.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I agree. Romney was seen as the “rich white guy” out of touch with the general population. Abortion polls haven’t changed much in 30 years except more people have wanted it made less available in all circumstances or few. The numbers are moving in the prolife column. And Romney let himself get tarred with the war on womyn binders crap, because he didn’t fight back at all..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

…will there be enough of us?…even in 2014 we can’t take two more years of THAT Senate!…we need more than Rand, Cruz and Rubio!

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I didn’t necessarily say voting against Republicans on the state level, but on the national level. A third party takes a long time to build at the state level (slate of candidates for governor, congress, state legislature, etc.).

If the choice is between Christie and Hillary and the platforms are nearly identical, what difference does it make who wins? Maybe Rove and Priebus have invented a cure for “hold your nose disease.”

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

For all the social cons my message would be what have you gained by getting government involved in this issue? Get government out of marriage, out of religion, our bank accounts and off our dinner plate. Stop trying to drag them into the bedroom!

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

A few answers for you:

Why does marriage matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

Marriage ensures the well-being of children. When government recognizes marriage, it protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and to take responsibility for their children.

Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Promoting marriage doesn’t ban anything. Adults are still free to make choices about their relationships, and do not need government permission to do so.

and

Q. Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether?

A. Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life.

Intact, enduring marriages are society’s best tool for ensuring that children are born into stable caring families that will care for, educate, and train those children to be good people and good citizens. If mothers and fathers do not fulfill the responsibility for caring for the children they create, then third parties and government will have to step in….

By promoting strong, intact marriages, the government actually reduces the role it would otherwise play in fulfilling these social functions. It is in the interest of children, spouses, and the public to promote strong and enduring marriages.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Why is everyone so into gays? Seriously–who cares?

If Rove and other ‘straight’ politicians are so into gay, how about they play that way?

If there is nothing wrong with it, then do it!

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Apparently you’ve forgotten about the Bush/Huckabee-wing. So let’s add:

Party C: Socially Conservative opposes gay marriage, abortion, spends money like a Democrat, or pretty close to it, supports no tax increases (but watch out for increases in “fees” and ending “loopholes”!), gives free stuff away in the name of “compassionate conservatism” (or some new-fangled derivation of this failed idea).

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I said what has it gained you….not what you wished it gained you.

I can wish all sorts of things from government but if you have any sense you would realize what government usually does is make things worse…which they have in this case.

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

The moderates continue to flail around trying to find a way to win without supporting any of those icky conservative principles. So they hedge and they cave.

They’d rather be Dem Lite than be conservatives.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Get government out of marriage, out of religion, our bank accounts and off our dinner plate. Stop trying to drag them into the bedroom!

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Pretty funny.
If homosexuals kept their sex in the bedroom it wouldn’t be an issue.

I think that’s the last place they want to have sex. Instead, they have it on our streets, in parades, open public festivals, parks, public bathrooms.. you can’t even freaking go to the gym showers without some guy walking around with… well, lets say looking excited. And it’s his right, you know.

That doesn’t even mention gay sex agendas being pushed in our classrooms.

Yeah.. it’s always a big joke when I hear homosexuals advocates declare “Get the government out of our bedrooms!”

JellyToast on March 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

That’s not a wish at all. I have no idea why you say that.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The moderates continue to flail around trying to find a way to win without supporting any of those icky conservative principles. So they hedge and they cave.

They’d rather be Dem Lite than be conservatives.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

I know. Liberals hate when I say that if gay is okay, why won’t they play?

I mean, if it’s all good, why do they make excuses to not indulge? It’s just ‘an alternative lifestyle’, right?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

This is gay.

Rusty Allen on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Apparently you’ve forgotten about the Bush/Huckabee-wing. So let’s add:

Party C: Socially Conservative opposes gay marriage, abortion, spends money like a Democrat, or pretty close to it, supports no tax increases (but watch out for increases in “fees” and ending “loopholes”!), gives free stuff away in the name of “compassionate conservatism” (or some new-fangled derivation of this failed idea).

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Bush and Huckabee are not most social conservatives. Bush used social conservatives (see Rove) because Rove was smart and knew they were his foot soldiers. Social cons were politically expedient, Bush did nothing for social cons. No child left behind and Medicare drug bennies were NOT social conservative programs. They were liberal programs. Most social cons tend to be very state rights orientated and rabidly fiscally conservative.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

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.

There is a huge difference between a nominee supporting gay marriage and one that either throws the issue to the States in the name of Federalism or takes a Paulian approach of getting government out of marriage altogether. I seriously, seriously doubt that a GOP nominee in 2016 would actually support gay marriage. He or she would never make it through the nomination process with such a bold position.

Now a couple of presidential elections after 2016? Yeah, it’s possible. By then it SSM will be legal in most States, barring SCOTUS intervening in the interim, and the political cost for taking such a position will be minimal.

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Get government out of marriage, out of religion, our bank accounts and off our dinner plate. Stop trying to drag them into the bedroom!

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I have no problem with civil unions in which gay/lesbian couples have the same civil rights as married couples (and I couldn’t care less what they do in their bedrooms). Just don’t call it marriage because it isn’t.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Bush and Huckabee are not most social conservatives. Bush used social conservatives (see Rove) because Rove was smart and knew they were his foot soldiers. Social cons were politically expedient, Bush did nothing for social cons. No child left behind and Medicare drug bennies were NOT social conservative programs. They were liberal programs. Most social cons tend to be very state rights orientated and rabidly fiscally conservative.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Both were indeed conservative on the social issues. On spending? Not so much. Which is exactly the point. Many social cons embraced Huckabee when he ran for the presidency and gave Bush a pass on quite a lot when he was in office, all because both men had the “right” positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Imagine what a person’s tax return would look like if a man had four wives. You get to claim five personal exemptions, and everyone can cross-claim all child tax credits for all children born to all four women. The IRS would have to completely redesign Form 1040, and the resulting returns would have a significant fiscal impact on the nation….

shushhhhhhhhhh…..

budfox on March 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Both were indeed conservative on the social issues. On spending? Not so much. Which is exactly the point. Many social cons embraced Huckabee when he ran for the presidency and gave Bush a pass on quite a lot when he was in office, all because both men had the “right” positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

JohnAGJ on March 24, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You would be talking to the wrong socon then, but then I tend to run to the little libertarian side of some things like pot so there is that.

I was completely against Bush’s big government programs. Bush is one of the reasons the GOP is in the position it is in. And I never cared for Huckabee. His record in Arkansas wasn’t much different from Clinton’s.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:40 PM

conservatives have to sofber up real quick. I watched a panel with Doug Schein, Pat Caddell, and a former R congressman.

The R congressman mentioned that Caddell’s speech was the only one Not posted on CPAC website (no, i didn’t check). At any rate, pretty brutal analysis of the corruption of the Rs.

I believe this. I’m sorry, maybe Rs have their own defense, but they have a lousy track record.

More importantly, the panel criticized the RNC for its Autopsy Report. Well, duh. I mean how stupid is the GOP…pretty stupid. And then it occurred to me…the Autopsy report was their answer to CPAC

who does that? Attack CPAC? yeah, i know, maybe they made mistakes, but to try to facilitate a civil war…Mine’s bigger than your’s…is pretty f***ing stupid.

Anyway…so the R party is pretty dead. That givea Hill, or Cuomo, or O’Malley an easy run.

write off 2016. With luck, 2020 is the next shot. But leftist machines are pretty good at consolidating and holding power.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Caddell-Blows-the-Lid-Off-CPAC-With-Blistering-Attack-on-Racketeering-Republican-Consultants

r keller on March 24, 2013 at 7:41 PM

It does seem increasingly feasible —

It’s all a lie built on a myth.

Every time this was brought to the people to vote on marriage between one man and one woman was the law of the land… and every time it won at the ballot box, it was struck down by some judge. And even now in the SC, Obama isn’t even defending the law.

But we are told there is this great “sea change” in the American culture. Well.. there may be. And then again, maybe not. I do believe a lot of people who worked hard to support traditional marriage at the ballot box probably feel like “what’s the freaking use anymore.” They look out the window and see their values win on election day.. only to have them overturned by a court. And sometimes by a single judge or a panel of 3.

But yet.. we are told there is this great and wonderful change in our culture.

Well, if that is so.. put it to a national vote!

JellyToast on March 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Imagine what a person’s tax return would look like if a man had four wives. You get to claim five personal exemptions, and everyone can cross-claim all child tax credits for all children born to all four women. The IRS would have to completely redesign Form 1040, and the resulting returns would have a significant fiscal impact on the nation….
shushhhhhhhhhh…..

budfox on March 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Its coming especially if SSM is decided on the basis of equal protection. Ya know it is.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Other than selecting Samuel Alito (who was actually Bush’s second choice behind Harriett Miers), what did Bush do to promote social conservatism in his eight years).

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Is it too much to ask for the “hands off” option to be mentioned by at least a handful of well known Republicans? The libertarian approach of eliminating all marriage licensing can’t be all that radical to your garden variety Republican, can it?

Reggie1971 on March 24, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Why should I support gay marriage while liberals celebrate single/unmarried motherhood for heterosexual women?

Buy Danish on March 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I have no problem with civil unions in which gay/lesbian couples have the same civil rights as married couples (and I couldn’t care less what they do in their bedrooms). Just don’t call it marriage because it isn’t.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Yet civil unions are a needless expanse of government, and those who want SSM are never going to be willing to stop there.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

anotherJoe on March 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM
If a candidate supports abortion in cases of rape/incest…they are not pro-life.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Other than selecting Samuel Alito (who was actually Bush’s second choice behind Harriett Miers), what did Bush do to promote social conservatism in his eight years).

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Not much and a lot of what he did was quickly overturned by Obama.

Banned federal stem cell research funding and partial birth abortion. Can’t think of anything else off the top of my head… Maybe the faith based initiative grants program..

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM

I have no problem with civil unions in which gay/lesbian couples have the same civil rights as married couples (and I couldn’t care less what they do in their bedrooms). Just don’t call it marriage because it isn’t.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

That is your right. I feel marriage is a contract issue and a religious issue. I don’t like gay marriage either but I think government should not define it one way or another and the issue should be removed from the tax code completely.

Those who feel strongly that gay marriage and homosexuality is a sin should protest against, educate against it, not allow their church, etc. to recognize it as a marriage. If you think god is against it then god will punish those who do it. Getting government involved in this issue is just opening the door to them telling you what to do with the rest of your life.

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM

r keller on March 24, 2013 at 7:41 PM

You can bet that many of the GOP consultant class Pat Caddell attacked at CPAC had a major hand in the development of the GOP “autopsy.”

My guess theory is that people like Priebus, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos and others responsible for the debacle of 2012 started out with the end result – shifting the blame from them to the conservatives – and developed the methodology to obtain that result. I’m in marketing and it isn’t that hard to do.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Is it too much to ask for the “hands off” option to be mentioned by at least a handful of well known Republicans? The libertarian approach of eliminating all marriage licensing can’t be all that radical to your garden variety Republican, can it?

Reggie1971 on March 24, 2013 at 7:44 PM

It isn’t in theory. The problem is practice. Do you know how much is tied up in government. Do you know how many married couples already have things tied up in government?

Not only that but you are putting an unnecessary burden on couples who do want to legally pairbond and have children. With marriage the father automatically gets equal rights- not so when the pair is not married. The couple must go to court to legally ensure that that happens. This process can be onerous and expensive. There would have to be a complete overhaul of our legal system.

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Hey, like I said before, go ahead. I won’t be voting then.

Rocks on March 24, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Hey, like I said before, go ahead. I won’t be voting then.

Rocks on March 24, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Yep, in theory if the GOP does this it should work out great for them right?

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:51 PM

In the end, a Scripture-based marriage culture hasn’t existed in this country in almost 40 years. Nobody bothers to get married to have kids, and marriage itself is no longer viewed as a permanent institution but instead an indefinite, secular institution terminable at any time. And under this perverted and corrupt marriage culture, gay marriage makes sense.

What Christians should be doing is trying to strengthen the marriage culture overall. Let’s get formal recognition that children need a mother and father to thrive and let’s stop enabling single parenthood. Let’s fight for social approbium for cohabiting un-married couples and divorcees.

Once we restore the marriage culture, gay marriage will just seem strange and will fall by the wayside. No amount of liberal social engineering will defeat God’s plan and the natural beauty of true marriage and love.

Outlander on March 24, 2013 at 7:51 PM

With luck, 2020 is the next shot. But leftist machines are pretty good at consolidating and holding power.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Caddell-Blows-the-Lid-Off-CPAC-With-Blistering-Attack-on-Racketeering-Republican-Consultants

r keller on March 24, 2013 at 7:41 PM

A bit of wishful thinking there. We have no shot after Prince Rubio and the democrats get 30 million or so new citizens from south of the border registered. What kind of retard thinks these people will vote republican? Hell, we can’t even get the asians to vote Republican. That is the group you would think would be most open to a conservative message. But then again, that just may be the problem. They don’t hear a conservative message coming from anyone.

Alabama Infidel on March 24, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I have no problem with civil unions in which gay/lesbian couples have the same civil rights as married couples (and I couldn’t care less what they do in their bedrooms). Just don’t call it marriage because it isn’t.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I personally don’t care about civil unions. But where and when does it stop?

Why can’t a group of people get married then? Why can’t a man have 16 wives or a woman have 18 husbands? Why?

Why are there any lines at all? Why even have marriage?

Why not marriage between man and animals?

My personal opinion is this is not about marriage for homosexuals. It’s about destroying marriage completely. It’s about destroying and ridding our nation of the very concept of marriage.

But they won’t destroy it. Jesus is returning to this earth soon and He is coming back for a Bride. And He will find it. And when he returns the people who like to brag and boast about their perversion will be running to hide in caves.

JellyToast on March 24, 2013 at 7:55 PM

That’s not a wish at all. I have no idea why you say that.

INC on March 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Oh…never mind. Enjoy government defining marriage then. You know our government, the one with socially liberal bureaucrats, social programs, etc., etc.

Like I said, I have no skin in the game on this issue. I just don’t care if gays are not allowed to marry or are allowed to marry, or have civil unions, and fly off to Mars never to be seen again. It is just not critical to our national survival like you seem to think it is.

William Eaton on March 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Why can’t a group of people get married then? Why can’t a man have 16 wives or a woman have 18 husbands? Why?

JellyToast on March 24, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I was never one for conspiracy theories, but I really think that is the goal. The Marxist goal is communal wives with the “community’ raising children. And we are slowly incrementally inching our way there. Think about it for a second.

We acknowledge that two parents are better than one, but now there are numerous studies that say it is not the gender that counts i.e,. moms and dads are disposable gay parents are as good as heterosexuals. So the only thing that counts is the NUMBER. If we are being logical then, if two is better than one- wouldn’t it stand to reason that three or four is better than two? Doesn’t this start us down that path?

Marxist Sociology – The Family in Marxist Society

Marxist sociologists view the modern family created by bourgeois society as a great failure because its foundation is in capital and private wealth. Proletarians, however, are not tainted by the flaws in the bourgeois family and will never enter into family relations as they exist in present society. The proletariat is destined to usher in a new utopian society with a higher form of family. According to Kollontai, “The family deprives the worker of revolutionary consciousness”1 and must, therefore, be shunned.

Engels predicts the kind of family that will evolve when the proletariat revolts and creates its perfect socialist society: “With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the consequences which today is the most essential social-moral as well as economic factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame?”2

Marxist Sociology – The Context of Community
In the new social order premarital and extramarital sex and adultery cease to have the same meaning because within the context of community, there is no private property and everyone belongs to everyone.

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that the idea of a “community of women” is not new, but “has existed almost from time immemorial.”3 To answer critics arguing that communism would “introduce a community of women,” Marx and Engels respond, “Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women.”4

The care of children also becomes a public affair in Marxist society. Children play an insignificant role in the family of the ultimate society since they become the entire community’s responsibility. In effect, children are disengaged from the family in socialist society so the “school becomes literally a home.”5 Alienating children from their parents ensures that children formulate their worldview according to the education provided by the Marxist state rather than according to the outdated views regarding religion and the traditional family structure held by their parents.

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxist-sociology-and-the-family-faq.htm

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Justice is Hurtling Toward Karl Rove……..It is going to meet him like the sidewalk meets something after a 300-foot fall……..

The product of the Bad Karma he has generated is coming towards hims!

williamg on March 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Who cares? What about unemployment, spending, debt

AGAIN this isn’t a political issue…none of the social issues should be.

We can’t win on social issues, family values….Reagan is GONE..so are his voters

Unless you haven’t noticed…demographics didn’t change overnight…the Dems have made huge grounds in the past 30 years…and how..using their liberal social issues on us…’war on women’, etc..

It works.

Redford on March 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Alabama Infidel on March 24, 2013 at 7:54 PM

the left is extremely good at creating negative Icons…and using them for years/decades. Hoover was used for decades as representing the Evil/Stupid Rs that created the Great Depression.

McCarthy is iconic to the Left..used at every chance. Akin was iconic in this election…representing all that is evil in the world. Actually, it is remarkable that the left started their War against Women very early with the Stephy question in the first debate. Rs laughed at the question…and Akin fell right into the trap. Checkmate.

And the self-deportation comment from Romney…checkmate.

the Rs really don’t have political skills. And they have no intelligence on the Dem operations…they are constantly blindsided…looking dumb as dirt.

Newt really took on Rove/Stephens in this piece

http://conservative.org/battleline/rovestevens-model-wrong/#.UU-QLVfJLdw

Rs made every mistake in the book. newt says they are a mid-level college team competing against a super-bowl team. It will take a long time to rebuild….if that is even possible

Meanwhile, barry will be lionized as one of the top 10 prezies immediately….an enduring legacy…and Bush, well he was like Hoover

r keller on March 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Who cares? What about unemployment, spending, debt

AGAIN this isn’t a political issue…none of the social issues should be.

We can’t win on social issues, family values….Reagan is GONE..so are his voters

Unless you haven’t noticed…demographics didn’t change overnight…the Dems have made huge grounds in the past 30 years…and how..using their liberal social issues on us…’war on women’, etc..

It works.

Redford on March 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Apparently according to you people who voted for Obama don’t care about unemployment, spending or the debt; they just care about social issues or else why would they vote for a President who contributed to all the problems you just cited were important…. The war on women meme is allowed to work because we have crappy candidates who don’t challenge it, and I don’t know if you have been keeping score but gay marriage has been voted down in 30 states..

melle1228 on March 24, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Unless you haven’t noticed…demographics didn’t change overnight…the Dems have made huge grounds in the past 30 years…and how..using their liberal social issues on us…’war on women’, etc..

It works.

Redford on March 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM

The war on women worked because of Republican stupidity:

1. The Republicans were dumb enough to agree to George Stephanopoulos as a primary debate moderator. Stephanopoulos introduced it at the Hew Hampshite debate working in conjunction with the Obama campaign.

2. The GOP was too stupid/cowardly to rebut it even though they had many things to rebut it with: the discrepancy of what Obama staff members make (male versus female), how Obama’s fiscal policy has affeted women in terms of unemployment.

Team Romney was your kind of Republicans: stupid and cowardly.

bw222 on March 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Same-sex marriage legal?
Same-sex marriage illegal?
Republicans win?
Republicans lose?

Who cares? Rove still gets paid.

29Victor on March 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3