Huckabee: If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

posted at 12:41 pm on March 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

A shot across the bow of Beltway Republicans on Gay Marriage Day at the Supreme Court.

Alternate headline: “Huckabee’s running in 2016.”

When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, “They might, and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk.”…

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of,” he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table. Rubio and Paul and Jindal et al. won’t have to squirm over whether to endorse SSM, back a federalist approach to the issue, or oppose it on the merits. They can just shrug and say “The Court was wrong but whaddaya gonna do?” and move on to other business. Take it from Huckabee: That won’t happen. Abortion’s technically been “off the table” for 40 years and yet it’s still an absolute litmus test for any potential GOP nominee (and any potential Democratic nominee too). To keep social conservatives onboard, candidates will be asked to promise (a) that they’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who are committed to overturning any gay-marriage rulings and (b) that they’ll endorse some sort of constitutional amendment that would either ban SSM outright or, at a minimum, return the issue to the states. (The amendment will go nowhere but that’s beside the point here.) Think a prospective nominee won’t do some squirming over whether they should sign on to those propositions, especially given the GOP’s panic over losing young voters? Come 2016, this won’t be just about gay marriage anymore; it’ll be a test of whether social conservatives retain the same influence over the party platform that they’ve had for the last few decades. That’s why Huck’s framing this in apocalyptic “stick with us or we walk” terms. It’s their party, at least on social issues.

With respect to what’s best for other GOP pols, the simple explanation is the correct one: They’re better off if the Court surprises everyone and upholds Prop 8. Then the 2016 field can take the position that they’re personally opposed to SSM in order to placate social cons while insisting that, as good federalists, they want local voters to decide this issue for themselves. That sort of squishy middle-way stance won’t dazzle anyone on either side but it might hold the Republican coalition together by reassuring Huck and his supporters that red states will still get to chart their own course. It might also be acceptable to young voters in the sense that the potential GOP nominee won’t be standing in the way of gay marriage in states when the votes are there. But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer. In that case, taking the federalist position via a constitutional amendment will be seen as an attempt to roll back marriage rights that gays have already won. Young voters likely will find that alienating, and social cons may reason that an amendment to return power to the states on the subject simply doesn’t go far enough as a rebuke to a judiciary that’s out of control. What politicians cherish is room to maneuver, and a pro-SSM ruling leaves the GOP with less of that than an anti-SSM ruling would.

Anyway. Across the aisle, Mark Begich magically decided last night that he too is now pro-gay marriage, which makes three Democratic senators who have “evolved” in just the past 24 hours. I’m starting a pool as of right now: At what time today will the next Democratic holdout formally declare his support for SSM? I’ll take 2 p.m. ET.

Update: Interesting choice of words from Reince Priebus:

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”


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 10

Where do they walk to?

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Copy/paste the comments from up above.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM

“thermostats, not thermometers”

Cool line.

itsspideyman on March 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Where do they walk to?

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Pretty much, they are in the same boat the unions are in on the left.

Some may sit on their hands, but most will stay right where they are.

Gatsu on March 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Huckabee: If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

I’m still a registered Republican, mostly out of sentiment and what I recall the party standing for. Thanks to its current leadership, I consider the party about a heartbeat from death, and this would be a walk to extinction.

Might just as well make it official and merge with the dems to create the One and Only National Ruling Party the DC elites act as if it already exists.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Where do they walk to?
Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To Church and away from national politics.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The Huckabee Party?

workingclass artist on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Somebody give Huckabee a game show to host. Jackass

jake-the-goose on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Doesn’t anyone understand that they can oppose gay marriage for themselves but realize that they – via the government – can’t/shouldn’t put the gun to individuals heads and tell them what they can and shouldn’t do. I don’t support a lot of things but believe that the government roll in our lives should be drastically reduced at all levels.

If these so called “evangelicals” actually believed in god then they would accept the notion that homosexuals will go to “hell”, and should then “turn the other cheek”.

As far as the question of “where do they walk to” well the answer is simple, they just don’t walk to the polls.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

To Church and away from national politics.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Yes – because no one gay is associated with the church.

jake-the-goose on March 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM

I’m still a registered Republican, mostly out of sentiment and what I recall the party standing for. Thanks to its current leadership, I consider the party about a heartbeat from death, and this would be a walk to extinction.

Might just as well make it official and merge with the dems to create the One and Only National Ruling Party the DC elites act as if it already exists.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

There ya go.

In the end, it’s all about them rubbing their filthy hands together, and taking turns dictating to us. So they might as well embrace the homosexual embrace, and to hell with us.

I’ve been without a Party, ever since Ronnie was term-limited.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Can’t stand Huckabee, but he is pretty much right on with this.

Many evangelicals will just stay home, and that 48% Mitt got in 2012 becomes 40 to 43% for the R candidate in 2016. Again, if gay marriage is such a winner, how many will come over from Democrats if Republicans start supporting it?

mwbri on March 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM

So, Huckabee is “threatening” to make the GOP the party for small government again instead of Big Government Evangelicals forcing their own personal religious beliefs onto everybody else.

Hey Mike, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Or do, as the remaining Republicans won’t care as they will be paying attention to what matters most, which is getting back to winning national elections. The death of Evangelical Statism would be such a joyous thing for the GOP and the country as a whole.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Where do they walk to?
Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To Church and away from national politics.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Too late for that.

Obamacare forces Catholic Institutions and to act against their liturgy…and if SCOTUS rules for SSM as law of the land…Traditional Churches will be forced again to act against their liturgy.

workingclass artist on March 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Where do they walk to?
Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Reposting this from the other thread:

YOu think based on the state of the parties that there is really much of a choice between them?

They both spend money like water, they both support amnesty, they both are turning socially liberal, and they voted for tax increases, they are both support gun control..

The only difference these days: One party gives you free stuff..

Hmm free stuff or no free stuff?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Its just as wrong for the GOP to support same sex marriage as it is for liberals to ram it down our throats, what the GOP must do as should everyone in this nation is vehemently promote our Constitution, and show the nation that’s what the Republican’s doing.

So Mr Huckabee, perhaps your theology isn’t legislation or a mandate for all of us but what our founders gave us for a guide is.

Speakup on March 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

A lot of Catholics will walk, too. Especially if the switch-hitting extends to abortion, too.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Its been two weeks of poundng by demedia and yet I still haven’t evolved.

DanMan on March 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Oh, and for the record:

Gay = Homosexual.

I despise euphemisms, and the abominations that they usually attempt to mask.

Kinda like Progressive and Feminist and Sensible.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Where do they walk to?

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

they stay home. its what approx. 4 million GOP voters did in 2008 and 2012.

chasdal on March 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Walk, and take a comfy seat on the front porch while it all burns down.

The GOP will betray you, it will just be a little less obvious than the demorat method.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Where do they walk to?

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I was wondering the same thing. Where’s Huckabee thinking evangelicals will go?

It’s much the same situation as libertarians in the GOP. If they want representation on the national stage at any meaningful level (at least as long as we are stuck with the two current parties) then both sides (libertarian and socon) are pretty much stuck with the GOP. They could be unregistered with the GOP officially, but when it comes down to the voting booth and their only choices are D and R, I have a hard time imaging either group voting D.

It certainly is a pickle for anyone not fully in line with the establishment GOP platform.

gravityman on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer.

It is already “legalized.” Stop lying. What you mean to say is that it won’t work if the Court ends up granting federal recognition and benefits to married same sex couples.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

/Curly Bill

Well…Bye.

/end Curly Bill

Benaiah on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Doesn’t anyone understand that they can oppose gay marriage for themselves but realize that they – via the government – can’t/shouldn’t put the gun to individuals heads and tell them what they can and shouldn’t do. I don’t support a lot of things but believe that the government roll in our lives should be drastically reduced at all levels.

If these so called “evangelicals” actually believed in god then they would accept the notion that homosexuals will go to “hell”, and should then “turn the other cheek”.

As far as the question of “where do they walk to” well the answer is simple, they just don’t walk to the polls.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

One problem with your analysis. Gay marriage is not asking the government to have a limited roll in our lives. You are asking the state (and by virtue the VOTERS) to sanction a private relationship. You are asking the state via licensing for PERMISSION to marry the “one that you love. Want the government to have a limited roll, don’t get a state marriage. Stop trying to say that state licensing is not a voters concern because it is. You just don’t want it to be an evangelical voters concern, because you don’t like them.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said

You lie. Our national Republican leaders have already voted for or are currently pursuing policies opposed to the party platform on:

* taxes
* spending
* illegal immigration/amnesty
* Obamacare
* now gay marriage

The GOP is a useless relic.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

This is why it’s time for the American Conservative Party.

The GOP is morally and ethically bankrupt.

wildcat72 on March 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

You lie. Our national Republican leaders have already voted for or are currently pursuing policies opposed to the party platform on:

* taxes
* spending
* illegal immigration/amnesty
* Obamacare
* now gay marriage

The GOP is a useless relic.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Gun control too.

The McCain RINO wing is more than willing to sign on to universal background checks, which means a de facto national gun registry.

wildcat72 on March 26, 2013 at 12:58 PM

You lie. Our national Republican leaders have already voted for or are currently pursuing policies opposed to the party platform on:

* taxes
* spending
* illegal immigration/amnesty
* Obamacare
* now gay marriage

The GOP is a useless relic.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Exactly! The only choice is do we vote for the free stuff party or the stingy party..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Many on HA would call the Huckster a big nanny statist who likes to pardon killers out of an inflated and sinful illusion of his own saint like holiness.

Not me. He is standing on principle here and did it last year with CFLA. He’s trying to stop the insanity and no one else is.

but then there is this
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/huckabee-defends-obamas-immigration-policy-its-an-admirable-thing/

So , he’s not getting my vote. GM can be reversed.

I wish there was a conservative candidate like in the old days of 2008 who’s rhetoric was sensible on most of the issues, not just 1 issue.

BoxHead1 on March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Doesn’t anyone understand that they can oppose gay marriage for themselves but realize that they – via the government – can’t/shouldn’t put the gun to individuals heads and tell them what they can and shouldn’t do.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

guess you missed the abortion debate that resulted in everyone that works pays for those that demand it

did you miss the health care debate where everybody that works pays for that too?

again, follow the money, it ain’t about love

DanMan on March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Deficit hawks should be horrified at the prospect of federally-recognized gay marriage. Think of the implications for tax credits, SS survivor’s benefits, etc.

But true deficit hawks tend to also be social conservatives, so they probably are already horrified.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Acts 4:19 -

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

And most will judge themselves worthy only of kowtowing to the dictates of men …

men on men, that is.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

but nicola wallace said a majority of young christians support ssm

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I can vote for somebody I disagree with in a couple of areas if I think it will be productive in others. The problem is with squishes who say they agree with you but then fold on every single issue. Probably because they didn’t believe it in the first place and are just progressive-lite.

e.g. People like Cruz and Paul will actually fight the good fight on issues I care about. At least, they’re starting too.

Fenris on March 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Don’t always agree with the Huck, but he is absolutely right about this! For me and MANY of my Christian friends, “Gay Marriage” like abortion, is a bridge too far. We will leave politics altogether and pray for God’s righteous judgement if the GOP is stupid enough to entertain the idea of bowing to a Godless culture just to get votes. “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but loose his soul.”

For you agnostic libertarians out there, we’re not playing around with this one. We may like some of your small govt/fiscal ideas, but you’re nothing more that a 3% party with the SoCons.

PaddyORyan on March 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Exactly! The only choice is do we vote for the free stuff party or the stingy party..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The New Americans:

Keep Obama In President

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM

prescient post steebo77

DanMan on March 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM

The real divide is between the political class and the nonpolitical class, not between Republicans & Democrats.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I’m still a registered Republican, mostly out of sentiment and what I recall the party standing for. Thanks to its current leadership, I consider the party about a heartbeat from death, and this would be a walk to extinction.

Might just as well make it official and merge with the dems to create the One and Only National Ruling Party the DC elites act as if it already exists.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I’ve voted in every presidential election since I’ve been eligible to vote, about 40 years.

I’ve frequently had to hold my nose to vote for Republicans, but at least they weren’t Democrats. If they’re about to make it official and join the Democrat party– support abortion and gay marriage, push for amnesty, cave on protecting second amendment rights, give up on the fight against Obamacare, tax and spend like Democats– what’s the point of voting?

I dislike the Republican party and have no respect for the leadership; I loathe the Democrats. However, I won’t vote against my principles and there’s no point in supporting a party that is indistinguishable from the other. I can support conservative local candidates and vote in primaries and decline to vote in the general elections if the Republican is as loathsome as the Democrat.

obladioblada on March 26, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I’m fondly reminded of that one Goldwater quote about preachers trying to control the GOP…

mythicknight on March 26, 2013 at 1:04 PM

but nicola wallace said a majority of young christians support ssm

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Nihchohllhe Wallace (who has a gratuitous number of hs in her name) is an expert on behaving like a Christian.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Good. If this is guaranteed, we need the GOP to be as pro gay marriage as possible as soon as possible.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Benaiah on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

ok I chuckled at that

:)

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

The only difference these days: One party gives you free stuff..

Hmm free stuff or no free stuff?

Once the One Party has been secured in perpetual rule, there is no more reason for free stuff, or if the other people’s money to pay for the free stuff runs out…..Katie bar the door, the free loaders will not be pleased and what they’ll do won’t be a pretty sight to see.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

indeed…

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I was wondering the same thing. Where’s Huckabee thinking evangelicals will go?

It’s much the same situation as libertarians in the GOP. If they want representation on the national stage at any meaningful level (at least as long as we are stuck with the two current parties) then both sides (libertarian and socon) are pretty much stuck with the GOP. They could be unregistered with the GOP officially, but when it comes down to the voting booth and their only choices are D and R, I have a hard time imaging either group voting D.

It certainly is a pickle for anyone not fully in line with the establishment GOP platform.

gravityman on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Where will they go? Same place as in 2012. Nowhere – Stay home. I’m just not voting anymore unless there is a candidate for me to vote for. No more pulling the trigger for a slightly less bad candidate.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM

The Republican Party’s symbol should be switched from the Elephant to the Brontosaurus.

Headed towards extinction.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 1:07 PM

One problem with your analysis. Gay marriage is not asking the government to have a limited roll in our lives. You are asking the state (and by virtue the VOTERS) to sanction a private relationship. You are asking the state via licensing for PERMISSION to marry the “one that you love. Want the government to have a limited roll, don’t get a state marriage. Stop trying to say that state licensing is not a voters concern because it is. You just don’t want it to be an evangelical voters concern, because you don’t like them.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Gay marriage is asking the government to limit its roll. Not allowing gay marriage means that the government can tell individuals what they can and can’t do. The state sanctions things I don’t believe in all the time, and I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling free and independent adults what they can and can’t do as long as those adults arent violating someone elses liberties or robbing them of their private property.

I have no problem with gay people, nor do I have any problems with evangelicals. Both groups do and say things I don’t agree with but that is their right to live their lives as they see fit. Who am i to tell them – either group – what they can and can’t do. you appear to be just another big government supporter as long as the government is doing things you support.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Pics at link:

“Once again the mainstream media proves itself to be nothing more than an extension of the DNC.
Major mainstream media outlets totally ignored the massive March for Marriage today in Washington DC.

It’s like it never happened…”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/media-blackout-no-coverage-on-massive-march-for-marriage-in-washington-dc/

workingclass artist on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Hulkaberry is the new media-approved spokesman for the Evangelicals.

Thanks filthy media scum.

PappyD61 on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Interesting choice of words from Reince Priebus:

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”

Interesting choice of insulting straw man and non sequitur, you mean.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Marriage is between a husband and his wife. Surely Obamacare has some mechanism to solve this dilemma.

meci on March 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

We on the right in this country need to stop playing the left’s game of creating divisions and diversions. Take a look at this article and share your thoughts. Thanks.

LooseCannon on March 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I don’t like that big government statist Huck, but he and I are in agreement with regard to the POS GOP.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

We’ve got tens of trillions in debt, gun rights under assault, Islamic barbarians at the gates, and an out-of-control government giving guns to drug cartels with one hand and implementing socialized medicine with the other…and you’re walking over gay marriage?

Bye.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Huckabee: If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

A long walk off a short pier, I hope, led by Huckabee himself, Santorum, Akin, Mourdock, and the rest of the Christian Taliban. i’m sure Satan himself will haul extra brimstone to their frying pans after they vote for Democrats.

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

I like your idea in theory. But unfortunately getting the government out of the marriage business will not result in less government. No more than getting the government “out of divorce” with no-fault divorce got government out of divorce.

No, the government will become even more entangled in marriage if it was ever “privatized”. Believe it.

happytobehere on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Deficit hawks should be horrified at the prospect of federally-recognized gay marriage. Think of the implications for tax credits, SS survivor’s benefits, etc.

But true deficit hawks tend to also be social conservatives, so they probably are already horrified.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people. How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

For you agnostic libertarians out there, we’re not playing around with this one. We may like some of your small govt/fiscal ideas, but you’re nothing more that a 3% party with the SoCons.

PaddyORyan on March 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

LOL…evangelicals are like liberals and socialists. They love big government as long as big powerful government tells others how to live their lives in they ways they agree with. Why don’t you simply just turn the other cheek?

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Where do they walk to?
Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To Church and away from national politics.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Sorry, but without the opposition of ‘moral’ in our culture to the radical agenda of the left……

…..the trains to the camp would be full in just a few short years.

PappyD61 on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I’m fondly reminded of that one Goldwater quote about preachers trying to control the GOP…

mythicknight on March 26, 2013 at 1:04 PM

And I am reminded that gays and their supporters are committed leftists, so they will become the new Al Sharptons hammering the drums of gay inequality and GOP homophobia even though SSM is legalized. The GOP will not be able to fight that narrative any better than they have the racist one, and they will never replace the socons they lost. RIP GOP…

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

And by the way…if the evangelicals walk, where will they end up? With the Democrats? With Huckabee at the helm, it’s no surprise.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Good. If this is guaranteed, we need the GOP to be as pro gay marriage as possible as soon as possible.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

The Court already legalized baby murder, so we need to be as pro-baby murder as possible as soon as possible.

The Court already legalized socialized, mandated health insurance, so we need to be as pro-socialized, mandated health insurance as possible as soon as possible.

The Court already legalized arbitrary government theft of private property, so we need to be as pro-arbitrary government theft of private property as possible as soon as possible.

Etc, etc, etc.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Evangelicals have been ignored and marginalized by the Obama administration already. We don’t need the Republicans to do that to us, too. Abandoning Evangelicals will destroy the Republican Party because we will stay home. That’s not a threat but a promise. We cannot abandon our principles.

rrbtjacks on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I was wondering the same thing. Where’s Huckabee thinking evangelicals will go?

gravityman on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Where will they go? Same place as in 2012. Nowhere – Stay home. I’m just not voting anymore unless there is a candidate for me to vote for. No more pulling the trigger for a slightly less bad candidate.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I’m a little surprised to hear this question at all, honestly. The GOP did not take conservatives’ threats to stop voting for them seriously, and we saw the first stirrings of them making good on the threat in 2012. I’m surprised the same question is still being asked. I would expect any conservative group that is unable to obtain representation to make attempts to undercut the system by forming their own party, or just staying home.

I expect greater numbers of these people to stay home in 2014 and 2016 given the relentless attacks by the GOP on the base. And once the GOP passes amnesty, its continued viability as a national party will be called into question.

Doomberg on March 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Be honest.. Really other than a little lip service by Rand Paul.. What major player in the GOP or the DNC has support that? Has any gay group said they would compromise on that?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

And by the way…if the evangelicals walk, where will they end up? With the Democrats? With Huckabee at the helm, it’s no surprise.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

No, they’ll just refuse to vote for Democrats or Republicans. Some will try to start new parties. Others will disengage from the political process, knowing the results are predetermined.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

If the GOP evolves on gay marriage we can rest assured that they will then draw a line in the sand, they will never fold on another issue, that is guaranteed.

So just give in this one time, evolve as the left would say, just this one time, ok? You effin dark ages bigots.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

I can support conservative local candidates and vote in primaries and decline to vote in the general elections if the Republican is as loathsome as the Democrat.

I’ve been voting since ’72, casting my first presidential ballot for Nixon and have never voted for a dem at all. I’ve loathed that party ever since it was apparent it worked for defeat in Vietnam and did its best to desert South Vietnam as an ally, especially cutting of military funding and support as it struggled on its own to fend off North Vietnam’s final invasion in ’75.

Now I’ve found I’m beginning to loathe the GOP at the national level. I already loathe the CA GOP as incompetent and ineffectual boobs.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

And I am reminded that gays and their supporters are committed leftists, so they will become the new Al Sharptons

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

“Rainbow”/Push Coalition.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

No, they’ll just refuse to vote for Democrats or Republicans. Some will try to start new parties. Others will disengage from the political process, knowing the results are predetermined.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

So the same people who sneered at those who didn’t want to vote for Romney will proceed to do exactly what they sneered at.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

If the GOP evolves on gay marriage we can rest assured that they will then draw a line in the sand, they will never fold on another issue, that is guaranteed.

So just give in this one time, evolve as the left would say, just this one time, ok? You effin dark ages bigots.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

This OMG This ^^

Progressives NEVER stop progressing. Do we all think that gays will be the last victim minority group that the Dems will hammer the GOP with? Can you say transgender polygamists anybody?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Etc, etc, etc.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

“It’s reality! Get with the program, bigots!” /

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people. How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Really? What “religious views” are they trying to force on you, exactly? Have they proposed any bills requiring non-Catholics to go to church or pay fines or do jail time? Does this mean you’re voting for the Democrats or staying home?

Doomberg on March 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

but nicola wallace said a majority of young christians support ssm

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Nicole Wallace? Katie Couric’s buddy that set up the sabotage of Sarah Palin?

Nicole Wallace, Andy Card, Dana Perrino, or any of the Bushies are all not even worth listening too. They are members of the D.C. Ruling class Mafia.

PappyD61 on March 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

That’s hardly true. Liberals want to take your money and tell you how to live through government coercion. Most evangelicals are fiscal conservatives and, while they would offer their opinions on how to live, generally don’t want the government in that game.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of,” he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…

Wrong Mr Huckabee… You don’t have an objective standard… You have a plurality of subjective standards that came together and CALL it an objective standard.

SauerKraut537 on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Might just as well make it official and merge with the dems to create the One and Only National Ruling Party the DC elites act as if it already exists.

hawkeye54 on March 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Between you and Bishop on both threads, no one’s said it better. The only thing I’d differ on is it’s going to happen regardless of the SSM shift of position. The problem is you actually have GOPers who hate the religious in their party worse than most democtats do. Reread their comments here. They are actually under the impression there is some gold mine of voters out there just waiting to vote GOP if they could just get rid of the social conservatives. Laughable.

And I’ve said it a million times here. The whole meme that socons are ruining the party? It’s a dodge. The very people telling you that you have no right to dictate morality are pushing their own progressive morality in our faces everytime one of the gay agenda issue threads comes up.

Bottom line, the GOP has been dying for a long time. The one shot they had was to really take a hard look at the 2010 mid-terms and see what an effect the TP movement and conservatism did to cement a big win and keep that as a playbook. They threw it away on the mid-term lame duck congress for mostly progressive issues and “scraped the TP off their shoes” and started their foot race to obsurity.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Good. If this is guaranteed, we need the GOP to be as pro gay marriage as possible as soon as possible.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Nope, we don’t. We want the GOP to be as unconcerned with gay marriage as humanly possible. I want some prominent pol to rise up and say “My priest tells me, and personally I believe he is right, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. However, I stand here to represent my constituents, not my priest, and their majority says they don’t give a flying rat’s behind for the issue. Now, Ms. Reporter, have you created any jobs recently, not counting one your news channel is giving Obama?”

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I am sick and damn tired of Republicans pandering to big govt socons like Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and whoever the hell else. I’m sick of watching our candidates fielding questions about abortion, sex, and homosexuality at every damn debate, and I’m sick of talking vaginas like Mike Huckabee stomping his feet, pouting, and threatening to take his ball and go home whenever he thinks the GOP might take a position he doesn’t like.

There are plenty of people in the burbs who agree with GOP positions on the size of govt, taxes, and a lot of other things govt is supposed to deal with who won’t vote Republican so long as people like Huckabee want to impose evangelical Christianity on the coutry by force of law.

Hey, Huckabee, how’s this? If you get the GOP nomination, I won’t vote Republican…and I don’t care if Obama is running for an illegal third term on the flip side of the ballot. We all know you’d be perfectly fine with big govt progressivism if Dems opposed abortion and hated gays, anyway.

DRayRaven on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

You deserve to live under mohammedian sharia law.

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Bingo. It would be nice if evangelicals could just turn the other cheek and pray for the rapture so the rest of us sinners could go to hell.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Well ok we might need to evolve on gun rights too, you know for the children, but then…THEN…the GOP will become like a steel wall and refuse to let the libs take any more from us.

What? Abortion? Ummm…ok…maybe that too…but afterward the Republican Party will stand firm!

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

This is why it’s time for the American Conservative Party.

The GOP is morally and ethically bankrupt.

wildcat72 on March 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

You people are delusional. Did you miss the 2012 election ? The one where the deciding issue for a pro-choice candidate was a media manufactured “war on women” ?

The “Conservative Party” focusing on abortion and gay marriage would be lucky to win an election against David Dukes.

deadrody on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Schmuckabee is actually understating the result. If the GOP caves on this, not just evangelicals but any Christian who knows the endgame will walk, and even non-religious who are just disgusted by how fast they threw their supposedly cherished beliefs out the window.

“the free stuff party or the stingy party” is a very apt description of the ‘choices’ should they act like the French on this.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

That’s hardly true. Liberals – to take your money and tell you how to live through government coercion. Most evangelicals are fiscal conservatives and, while they would offer their opinions on how to live, generally don’t want the government in that game.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Most of them wouldn’t know a socons if we hit them in the head. They think because we are “fighting government expansion into more private relationships” that makes us big government. Can you say oxymoron or just plain moron?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

evangelicals will take a walk

This is the problem with somebody like Huckabee define terms. Evangelicalism is a very complex concept that has meanings on several different levels. When Huckabee talks about evangelicals what he really means are fundamentalists. Most self-described fundamentalist churches today are conservative, separatist Baptist organizations.

In short, Huckabee does not speak for evangelicals, he speaks for a subset of evangelism. At most. And I don’t even think that is true. Huckabee lost an awful lot of whatever support he once had when he supported Akin in the MO Senate race.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

You deserve to live under mohammedian sharia law.

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Him and that other asstiest retard wailing about Christian Sharia.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

I will never vote for Huckabee, but I agree with him that this is a bridge too far. As Republicans continue to be Democrat-lite there is no reason for me to vote for them as they no longer represent me or my beliefs.

Good riddance.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

There are plenty of people in the burbs who agree with GOP positions on the size of govt, taxes, and a lot of other things govt is supposed to deal with who won’t vote Republican so long as people like Huckabee want to impose evangelical Christianity on the coutry by force of law.

Hey, Huckabee, how’s this? If you get the GOP nomination, I won’t vote Republican…and I don’t care if Obama is running for an illegal third term on the flip side of the ballot. We all know you’d be perfectly fine with big govt progressivism if Dems opposed abortion and hated gays, anyway.

DRayRaven on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

This is the funniest thing you people say. So people will rather vote for a party that makes them pay more for healthcare and taxes, increases government, increases unemployment, bans guns and COKE, because a small part of the GOP thinks killing babies and 3% of the population marrying is wrong. BWAAHHAHHHAHAH…..

So they would rather vote for REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT just because some chick can’t kill her baby or Joe and Joe can’t marry…

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people.

That’s a flat-out lie. Not wanting the state to sanction baby murder is actually a position libertarians should agree with completely. Libertarians should also be against the government arbitrarily redefining words with 60 centuries of established meaning.

How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

What a load of crap. Social conservatives (Evangelical or otherwise) don’t want the government making religious choices for anyone. I dare you to give one example. And the most socially conservative members of Congress are also the most fiscally conservative. This is a fact. And as long as the government recognizes marriage for the purposes of tax treatment, survivor’s benefits, etc., everyone has a vested interest in what is recognized as marriage.

Anti-Christian Know-Nothingism is not Libertarianism’s most attractive feature, I must say.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I don’t care about ssm. I care about making evangelicals a politically lost entity with no place to call home. So they stop being so terrible. Politically.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

We will all have a good idea about the new GOP strategy of raising the NoLabels banner in 2014.

2010 was a GOP landslide fueled by Tea Party rhetoric. Let’s see how the new pander to the John Stewart demo goes. Maybe we will have a repeat of 2010 in 2014 and then we( the loyal Rs) can dump the Tea party,socons, bordercons and hardcore fiscons for good. The Stewart demo might be a sleeping giant just like the Tea Party was. do I need to add the tag?

BoxHead1 on March 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Bingo. It would be nice if evangelicals could just turn the other cheek and pray for the rapture so the rest of us sinners could go to hell.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Or and I say this as a loving agnostic.. You both just go to hell..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The “Conservative Party” focusing on abortion and gay marriage would be lucky to win an election against David Dukes.

deadrody on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

We don’t have to win. We just need to be able to look in the mirror at the end of the day.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Gonna agree with Priebus on this, there is a need for respect, and to strike a balance. I don’t want to chase the fundamentalists out of the party, but I don’t want them dictating terms for the rest of the party either.

WolvenOne on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Oh, and for the record:

Gay = Homosexual.

I despise euphemisms, and the abominations that they usually attempt to mask.

Kinda like Progressive and Feminist and Sensible.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Which is why I always use the proper terms homosexual and leftist. Anything else is just trying to gloss over the truth.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

What? Abortion? Ummm…ok…maybe that too…but afterward the Republican Party will stand firm!

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Not hard to stand firm once you’ve compromised every last belief.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

The contention that a more Christian nation would be one where “morality is legislated” and it would not be dissimilar from sharia law is not substantiated by history. Americans have been leaving the church since the ’60′s and the country has been accelerating towards an authoritarian police state. People no longer restrain themselves, so the state has to step in and create new laws to restrain behaviour.

The luciferians contend that christianity will lead to some authoritarian police state, while we are currently undergoing a transformation into an Orwellian secular humanist hell on earth. It is happening right before your eyes.

The churches are emptying out. Christianity is being marginalized at a rate I never thought I would witness in my lifetime. Now I believe I will be jailed, excluded from participating in the marketplace, or beheaded in my lifetime.

Listen to the luciferians at your own peril. They are substituting a lie for truth.

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 10