Senate gay-marriage pool update: Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”

posted at 2:01 pm on March 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Does this count as a “yes” on SSM for purposes of the pool? Susan Collins’s dodge was transparently an attempt to avoid further irritating conservatives when she’s staring at a Republican primary in Maine next year. Murkowski’s not under quite the same time pressure as she’s not up again until 2016. Could be that her reservations are legit. But maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way: Because Collins comes from a blue state, she has to sound friendly-ish to gay marriage no matter what her true views might be or else she’s potentially in trouble in the general election. Murkowski faces no similar dilemma in a red state like Alaska. She could take an adamantly anti-SSM line and likely benefit from it (or at least suffer no consequences for it) in both the primary and the general. The fact that she’s not taking that line but rather sounds about as friendly-ish as Collins suggests that she too secretly supports gay marriage and is simply hedging to make things a little easier for herself if/when she runs again for Senate. Remember, she’s already been successfully primaried once before; she knows the risk in not taking a hard enough line, and yet she’s refusing to take it anyway. That shows some commitment to the pro-SSM side.

I’m going to count it. Congratulations to cmsinaz, who defied conventional wisdom by picking Murky over the handful of Democratic holdouts as the next SSM domino to fall in our pool!

When asked about same sex marriage — which is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate cases — Murkowski seemed to indicate a softening on her previous stance.

“I’ve got two young sons who, when I ask them and their friends how they feel about gay marriage, kinda give me one of those looks like, ‘Gosh mom, why are you even asking that question?’”…

“We have so many issues in this country to focus on that worry us, that I question why there is such focus on the simple right of people to love whom they will,” she said.

This is the only political issue I can think of where United States Senators routinely cite their children’s opinions as a guiding star for how they should vote. I’m not even thinking of Rob Portman, who cited his son in declaring his support for SSM but not because of his “opinion”; I’m thinking of Claire McCaskill, who felt obliged to note that “my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial.” Plenty of kids also have a hard time understanding why weed is illegal, but apart from Rand Paul, there seems to be zero movement in the Senate towards legalizing marijuana. If you believe Pew, support for making abortion legal in all or most cases runs highest among the 18-29 group at 64 percent. (Fun fact: A majority of the same group doesn’t know which issue Roe v. Wade dealt with.) Why no Senate GOP swing towards pro-choice in the name of letting the children lead us? I support SSM but I do so on the merits, not because my politics is shaped by 15-year-olds. For all his faults, McCain’s quite blunt about why the GOP’s suddenly seen the light on amnesty: “Elections. Elections.” Wish Murky and McCaskill would be that honest about their own demographic motivations vis-a-vis SSM.

In case you disagree that Murkowski’s comments above should count for purposes of the pool, here’s a bit more from another interview she did. Does this sound like someone who’s still “evolving”?

“The term ‘evolving view’ has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use,” she said in an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star.

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. “I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.

That’s not the sort of phrasing you typically see from someone who still has reservations. The word “evolving” is itself a giveaway. Has anyone who’s ever used that term to describe their views on gay marriage eventually reversed course and decided no, turns out they can’t support gay marriage after all? Wouldn’t that, per their own rhetoric, constitute “devolution”? If you’re starting out anti-SSM and inching your way towards being on the fence, chances are you’ve already heard, considered, and dismissed any arguments that might have kept you firmly in the opposition. What’s stopping most of these politicians from “evolving” the rest of the way is, I suspect, pure risk assessment. How far can they go towards supporting gay marriage before this issue starts to hurt them politically? Democrats from blue states can go pretty far, which is why there are only 10 or so left in the caucus who haven’t endorsed the practice yet. (Read Noah Rothman at Mediaite about the Dems who’ve waited until now, at a moment of maximum political safety, to finally declare their support.) Republicans can’t go far at all, so “evolution” is going to take much longer. But maybe, per Murky and Collins, not as long as we think.


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

As Ben Fergugon said the other day, average Americans are bing bullied with this issue.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Average Americans are being bullied with this and other issues. They/we are being manipulated through doublespeak and indoctrinated through saturation coverage of progressive causes.

freedomfirst on March 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Like what Prager says about conservative elites, “It’s yes to whatever the polite society says.” And, then they just fold.

Mike from SoCal on March 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM

My comment on Lisa Murcowsky disappeared. Guess calling someone what they really are runs afoul of Hot Gas’ pc filter.

Didn’t use bad language so you can guess what I said. The GoP is no longer my party. They dismissed a good man in Mr. Miller for this turd.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Murky looks like she is devolving into a reptile.

Decoski on March 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I’m going to count it. Congratulations to cmsinaz, who defied conventional wisdom by picking Murky over the handful of Democratic holdouts as the next SSM domino to fall in our pool!
===================================================

OUTSTANDING CMS:

**Shakes your Hand,Kudos*:)

canopfor on March 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Dang it! I was sure that Kirk would be next. Bummer.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Since 40 States have already had this debate and the butt punchers and the muff munchers lost, lets just hope next election they evolve as well.

DDay on March 28, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Steebo I’ll share my morning joe fix with you

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’d rather have the toaster and drop it in a tub.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Dang it! I was sure that Kirk would be next. Bummer.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2013 at 4:10 PM

All in good time, my pretty. All in good time.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 4:15 PM

And to think we were that close to replacing her with Joe Miller.

crrr6 on March 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Re-read Lisa Murkycowski’s position and she has parenting bassackwards! Lisa, as someone noted above, you are the parent and should instill values in your sons, consistent with your upbringing! In as much as you are now an effen U.S. Senator, we know those values continue to evolve! You are a pathetic creature and should have a serious conversation with your confessor and beg the Lord for forgiveness!

tomshup on March 28, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Gay marriage 2.0
–bayam

tom daschle concerned on March 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Thanks Canopfor

Steebo :)

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on March 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Claire McCaskill, who felt obliged to note that “my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial.”

Yeah, children are so wise, let’s put them in Congress to decide how many “freebies” should be handed out.

Children are notoriously unable to understand why there are rules for society, so just let them run wild like the silly weeds they are.

disa on March 28, 2013 at 6:17 PM

As Ben Fergugon said the other day, average Americans are bing bullied with this issue.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Average Americans are being bullied with this and other issues. They/we are being manipulated through doublespeak and indoctrinated through saturation coverage of progressive causes.

freedomfirst on March 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Agree

There is a big lie floating across the land, to manipulate the public.

You may be able to evolve your morals, if they were never fixed, but you cannot evolve a belief in a fixed and eternal God. Believers are not going to deny their Faith.

Ever since Obama ran his staged and scripted ‘evolution’ speech before his gay fundraising swing, ‘evolve’ is the new lie.

These same liars, these phonies cannot evolve to hear the heartbeat of a child in the womb

People are being told they have no right to their own understanding of their own religions

I put this into another thread:

You either give up truth, lay down and die, or fight back. I expect a hardening of positions. Resistance is not futile, when there are no other options

entagor on March 28, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Murkowski’s views are evolving on the basis of her children’s responses?…lol. What an a~hole.

DevilsPrinciple on March 28, 2013 at 10:24 PM

The epitome of cynical opportunist.

AshleyTKing on March 29, 2013 at 12:25 AM

As Ben Fergugon said the other day, average Americans are bing bullied with this issue.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Correct, agreed.

Lourdes on March 29, 2013 at 12:51 AM

Another example of “Profiles in Courage” and “Core Values”. Was just wondering, if transvestites marry, is it a same sex “marriage” or not?

olesparkie on March 29, 2013 at 8:34 AM

The value system of these dirtbags is pure runny mush.

rplat on March 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM

These “evolving” politicians make me sick. All they are, are cowards, afraid to profess and defend their values and the values of their constituents. They sacrifice the Republic and the values that founded this country, for mere votes. Shallow, despicable, RINO’s, all of them.

ultracon on March 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM

“evolving” v. a device politicians use to outwardly change their views so as to pander to the electorate.

sadatoni on March 29, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Something Profound which results in an EXTREMELY NEGATIVE change in her Impulse needs to happen to her.

williamg on March 31, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2