Flake: Inevitable that a GOP presidential nominee will support SSM

posted at 10:01 am on April 1, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Via Mediaite, which claims that Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) “surprises” Chuck Todd with this answer.  I’m not sure that’s the case, but he probably surprised some of his fellow conservatives — even though Flake assures Todd and Meet the Press viewers that his own views on marriage haven’t changed, and aren’t “evolving”:

“I think that’s inevitable. There will be one and I think he’ll receive Republican support or she will,” answered Flake on the Meet The Pressafter being asked about the possibility.

Todd pressed Flake on his own views on marriage equality, asking him if he would ever change his views.

“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i still hold to the traditional definition of marriage,” Flake said.

“In the past I supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t tell. I supported the nondiscrimination act a as well but I hold to the traditional definition of marriage,” he said.

Over on Fox News Sunday, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie doesn’t expect the party platform on traditional marriage to change, but believes that support for a constitutional amendment to protect it will dissipate by 2016:

Republican strategist Ed Gillespie said on “Fox News Sunday” that he doesn’t have a problem with the 2016 Republican Party platform saying marriage is between a man and a woman, but suggested that support for a constitutional amendment might wane.

“I don’t think you’d ever see the Republican Party platform say we’re in favor of same-sex marriage,” said Gillespie, who was a top adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. But, he added, “There’s been a little bit of a shift, I think, in terms of Republicans saying we should allow this to be worked out through the states, not imposed by courts, and not imposed federally.”

Don’t be too sure about that.  Politico reports that social conservatives have begun to push back hard on this line of thinking.  Retreating on these issues cost Republicans the presidency in the last five years, they argue:

Leading cultural conservatives, including the movement’s standard-bearers from the past two presidential campaigns, have had it with Republican elites faulting them for the party’s losses and are finally ready point a finger back at the establishment.

“Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,” former Sen. Rick Santorum said in an interview. “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party.”

Santorum continued: “We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who carried the Christian conservative torch in 2008, pointed to the drop-off in enthusiasm among Republicans following George W. Bush’s victories.

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” said Huckabee in a separate interview. “If all of the evangelicals had showed up, it may have made a difference.”

Frankly, I don’t think it would have made any difference in 2008.  The nation was just too bitter over the Bush years to elect another Republican, and Barack Obama ran a campaign that took full advantage of that bitterness.  Republicans had a real shot in 2012, but the economy was just good enough to turn the focus on the supposed extremism of Republican fiscal and social policy rather than the failures of the Obama term in office.  A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin writes that the silence of social conservatives until now has been “surprising,” but don’t expect it to last.


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

The reason government might need to be involved is to preclude a police investigation, in case dirty play is suspected. Said clerk could as well be a policeman, or an officer of the court.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM

And we know government would always do the right thing, especially in a craphole such as Chicago.

What’s the answer for this particular issue, I don’t know, and wow did this thread go the way of a derailed 60-car freight train. It’s like the epic Palin threads of yore…*sniff snort*…I miss the days of yore.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Not nearly enough. But I do have a ton of experience with folks that exaggerate to make points here.

Can you link to this policy?

hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Is it April Fool’s Day today, or what? Oops, it actually is… Is there an official policy to contribute to Democrats after you get a business loan for a “green” business?

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I had a friend do exactly that…3 days before his wife’s brithday, and left behind a boy in Jr. High and one in High School.

Suicide is painless..for you.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM

It is the ultimate selfish act. The person committing suicide only thinks about themself.. Now you have people who want their loved ones to HELP them kill themselves. /facepalm… How frickin selfish can someone get?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

What’s the answer for this particular issue, I don’t know, and wow did this thread go the way of a derailed 60-car freight train. It’s like the epic Palin threads of yore…*sniff snort*…I miss the days of yore.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM

You just miss the days you were always posting first, that’s all. :)

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Uncle Joe Stalin: “Boris, that entire village looks like they want to kill themselves. Let’s give them a hand.”/

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM

-
The old people in nursing care will either get to the breakfast table on time, by themselves I might add… or they don’t eat. This is the long term end game of the Terri Schiavo ruling.

RalphyBoy on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Suicide is painless..for you.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I agree. It’s most often a selfish act.

Mimzey on April 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Suicide is painless..for you.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Speaking as someone who considered it at one point, that is 1000 pounds of bilge. Unless you have no friends, no family, and have a guaranteed way to go before some Dudley Do-right ‘rescues’ you just in time to save you but NOT in time to keep you from being a slobbering vegetable.

Even as little as not wanting the responding EMT’s to have to try and drink to forget another memory is a factor. (they’ve seen enough results of, say, shotguns to the head to give 1000 normal people nightmares.)

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:45 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Are you saying that my friend’s selfish act, did not hurt his loving wife, his sons’, his family, and his friends? He was like a father to my stepson, before I came into the picture. My stepson had to have counseling because of my friend’s actions.

Bilge, indeed.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:48 PM

It is the ultimate selfish act. The person committing suicide only thinks about themself.. Now you have people who want their loved ones to HELP them kill themselves. /facepalm… How frickin selfish can someone get?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

As opposed to forcing them to spend years taking care of a drooling vegetable that doesn’t have enough clarity of mind to thank, hug, or even recognize them?

Man, please, you really don’t know what you talk about here…

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Uncle Joe Stalin: “Boris, that entire village looks like they want to kill themselves. Let’s give them a hand.”/

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM

-
The old people in nursing care will either get to the breakfast table on time, by themselves I might add… or they don’t eat. This is the long term end game of the Terri Schiavo ruling.

RalphyBoy on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Life is valued by it’s Utilitarian status.

Citizens encouraged to self-eliminate so that they aren’t a Burden to their families or the state.

In the old days…

Citizens were encouraged to do the same with family members who weren’t beneficial to the tribe…Widows…Bastard Children & diseased children…sick and senile elderly.

Old Pagan idea…now with a new name and meme.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Are you saying that my friend’s selfish act, did not hurt his loving wife, his sons’, his family, and his friends?

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Of course not. You’re only asking because you’re being butthurt and intentionally obtuse. I’m merely taking a hammer to the myth that “suicide is painless…for you”.

It isn’t. And it’s scary as all hell.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Suicide creates scandal for everyone involved.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Wait wait, retreating on gay marriage cost the GOP the Presidency? How do they figure!? First off, the GOP hadn’t backed down on that issue, the democrats essentially openly embraced legalizing gay marriage, and support for gay marriage has been slowly but steadily rising. Saying THAT is why they’re lost, is simply absurd.

For context, my position has been for years, that government should be dis-entangling itself from the institution of marriage, and that it should be up to religions and people in general to decide what they wish to define as marriage.

Basically, what other people do in their own bedroom isn’t my business. God will be the one to judge whom was right, not me, and not the government.

WolvenOne on April 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM

As opposed to forcing them to spend years taking care of a drooling vegetable that doesn’t have enough clarity of mind to thank, hug, or even recognize them?

Man, please, you really don’t know what you talk about here…

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Again, if you want to kill yourself and have a debilitating disease- Do it before you are unable to do it for yourself. If someone is in an accident and does not want life saving measures; be sure you have a living will that states that. If you don’t, any measures that KILL that vegetable is murder.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Suicide creates scandal for everyone involved.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Yep. And more than a little animosity for the person who braved pain and uncertainty and terror to end his/her pain instead of sharing the misery with everyone else.

Though that part is rather justified if you were, say, the breadwinner of a household…

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:57 PM

It is the ultimate selfish act. The person committing suicide only thinks about themself.. Now you have people who want their loved ones to HELP them kill themselves. /facepalm… How frickin selfish can someone get?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

As opposed to forcing them to spend years taking care of a drooling vegetable that doesn’t have enough clarity of mind to thank, hug, or even recognize them?

Man, please, you really don’t know what you talk about here…

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Charity is a virtue.

Sick infants can’t hug or say thank you…so by your reasoning we should get rid of neo-natal care?

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

My friend was Manic/Depressive. He was an Air Traffic Controller who did not take his meds, so that he would not be fired. What I was trying to say, is that, once he did it, while he was no longer suffering, a lot more people were. No matter how you stack it up, it was a selfish act that hurt people.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

If the republicans support the same things…..

….WHY VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN?

PappyD61 on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

IMHO, calling it “selfish” is whining unless he was supporting someone. But I agree it’s not painless for anyone involved.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

If the republicans support the same things…..

….WHY VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN?

PappyD61 on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Exactly. No FiCon standing…no SoCon standing…between the two of those, just what is left? (no pun intended)

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

I f you truly mean this. You are a fool. No right minded Atheist should even try to fill the prescription in this manner.

Bmore on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

He was the breadwinner with a 6 figure job in the Memphis area. His wife and children had to move in with her folks in Atlanta. So, yes, it was a selfish act.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Suicide creates scandal for everyone involved.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Yep. And more than a little animosity for the person who braved pain and uncertainty and terror to end his/her pain instead of sharing the misery with everyone else.

Though that part is rather justified if you were, say, the breadwinner of a household…

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:57 PM

The Catholic stance on suicide is in depth with regards to consideration of varying circumstances.

Most suicides involve giving way to despair for which there are remedies…but many people refuse to seek remedy which has to include both medical and spiritual aspects.

Psychologists/Psychiatrists cannot heal the spirit…The smart ones know that…

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Flake appears to be living up to his last name.

And, I should not hang up on the telemarketer or not return the postage-paid reply envelope back to the RNC, NRSC or NRCC because?

bw222 on April 1, 2013 at 1:06 PM

If the republicans support the same things…..

….WHY VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN?

PappyD61 on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

.
That’s my take, on it.

listens2glenn on April 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM

He was the breadwinner with a 6 figure job in the Memphis area. His wife and children had to move in with her folks in Atlanta. So, yes, it was a selfish act.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Ouch. Yeah, that’s the thing…if you’re currently providing you have the obligation to make some plan for when you aren’t. And that even goes for people not considering suicide.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Republicans had a real shot in 2012, but the economy was just good enough to turn the focus on the supposed extremism of Republican fiscal and social policy rather than the failures of the Obama term in office.

Actually, the Republican ran someone specifically leftwing on social policy to supposedly neutralize Obama on it…and it backfired big time.

Instead of having a debate on say Gosnell or Obama’s radical views Romney ran and hid – and Republicans in down ticket races paid the price.

The Republicans have run two liberals in a row, and lost. Do they really want to see the same thing happen a third time in a row?

18-1 on April 1, 2013 at 1:12 PM

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

My friend was Manic/Depressive. He was an Air Traffic Controller who did not take his meds, so that he would not be fired. What I was trying to say, is that, once he did it, while he was no longer suffering, a lot more people were. No matter how you stack it up, it was a selfish act that hurt people.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

This is very sad.

A Life is always more important than a career.

I’m sorry this man acted on his impulse to go off his medication.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Ed, Allah -

If you can get away from gay marriage for a moment, here’s something you might be interested in:

Border Crossings Double:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/01/exclusive-illegal-border-crossings-double-as-beltway-gets-close-to-deal-on-immigration-reform-n1554148

Not that I am trying to do your job, but with your obsession with gay marriage, soimeone has to. Besides, if there’s anything RINO Ed wants, it’s more illegal aliens in the United States.

bw222 on April 1, 2013 at 1:13 PM

I haven’t noticed any socon silence on this topic.

It more sounds like the media don’t want to listen to what they have to say, ya know, being bigots and all. /

alwaysfiredup on April 1, 2013 at 1:16 PM

but the economy was just good enough

O.o I am supposed to believe that?

98ZJUSMC on April 1, 2013 at 1:21 PM

If Flake is correct, say hello to President Hil.

applebutter on April 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

If Flake is correct, say hello to President Hil.

applebutter on April 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Yep.

Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The Republicans have run two liberals in a row, and lost. Do they really want to see the same thing happen a third time in a row?

18-1 on April 1, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Yes.

rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 1:26 PM

If Flake is correct, say hello to President Hil.

applebutter on April 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Yep.

Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM

And at that point we can only hope historians make note of the fact that the last and worst two Presidents in the USA’s entire history were black and a woman. Maybe future generations will read that and go “hmm…” I doubt it, though.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

As opposed to forcing them to spend years taking care of a drooling vegetable that doesn’t have enough clarity of mind to thank, hug, or even recognize them?

Man, please, you really don’t know what you talk about here…

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Again, if you want to kill yourself and have a debilitating disease- Do it before you are unable to do it for yourself. If someone is in an accident and does not want life saving measures; be sure you have a living will that states that. If you don’t, any measures that KILL that vegetable is murder.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 12:57 PM

My Grandfather promised his wife he would care for her…it was in their wedding vows.

She made the same promise to him.

He and our family took care of her at home although she didn’t recognize us or thank him.

All she could do for those last 8 years was mutter Oh Dear.

But she was a person…She was a member of our family…She was his wife & my father’s mother.

My grandfather survived her by 11 years and he stayed with us in our home.

My mother’s mother stayed with us in our home until she died.

I was lucky to grow up knowing the natural cycle of life and learning about fortitude & faith…How this brings families together. We all pitched in.

How caring for the suffering can bring forth strength in character for the caregivers and compassion through humility. I watched this in my parents and grandparents.

Those lessons help my siblings and I now as we deal with our parents (Mom died 4 years ago) and they help us teach our children.

It’s old fashioned…But worth it.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM

the silence of social conservatives until now has been “surprising,” but don’t expect it to last.

I fully expect socons to destroy any chance the Republicans have of taking the Senate back in 2014.

And, to elect another Democrat POTUS in 2016.

Moesart on April 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Moesart on April 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM

And, I fully expect for you to remain a Moby.

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM

And at that point we can only hope historians make note of the fact that the last and worst two Presidents in the USA’s entire history were black and a woman. Maybe future generations will read that and go “hmm…” I doubt it, though.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

If it comes to that, hopefully they’ll note that the last worst Presidents were all big government types.

Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM

If it comes to that, hopefully they’ll note that the last worst Presidents were all big government types.

Fenris on April 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM

That too.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:44 PM

The nation was just too bitter over the Bush years to elect another Republican, and Barack Obama ran a campaign that took full advantage of that bitterness.

I would say “tired.” They would not shut up. Every single day, every single drama, comedy, news cast, guest on late night TV, magazine cover –

We were nagged into exhaustion and watched from the couch, spirit-broken, the Obama Era’s ascendency.

We not including the we the hard-core, I’m not dead yet, of course. That we showed up. But the rest was as likely to engage politics as I am to go to a pride parade.*

*I am exceedingly unlikely to go to a pride parade.

Axe on April 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM

If Flake is correct, say hello to President Hil.

applebutter on April 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Nope. She missed her chance. The Left will turn elsewhere.

rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM

The Republicans have run two liberals in a row, and lost. Do they really want to see the same thing happen a third time in a row?

18-1

Republicans are currently pushing hard for amnesty, a favorite liberal pet cause. So, what do you think? I’m thinking they are perfectly fine with losing another election, and most elections for the next 100 years.

xblade on April 1, 2013 at 2:11 PM

So what’s your problem with the social Conservatives? The Founders would be considered today ARCH-social conservatives.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

On a personal level, all of them would no doubt be the staunchest of social conservatives, making even todays social conservatives look positively liberal. However, that is only on a personal level, not a government level.

I suspect the Founders reactions to how government should handle social conservative issues would be quite surprising to social conservatives today. Someone like Jefferson or Madison probably would have been shocked to discover the government was involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. They probably would never have supported the federal government providing benefits for or having provisions in the tax code related to marital status. I suspect they would have been bothered by marriage licensing at the state level, but being Federalists, they probably would have said it’s not a good idea but the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it so the issue is left to the states to do as they feel is right. Given what Is uspect would have been their view on marriage in general in terms of the federal government, I suspect they would take a more federalist approach today on SSM as well. They would likely be appalled that it was a federal issue, and say it was a matter for the states to decide. All that said, I suspect they would at the same time insist that no judge could violate the Frist Amendment by ruling against any religious institution that refused to marry same-sex couples (or any private institution that refused service to such a ceremony, to whit the NM case of the photgrapher). It would likely make them spin in their graves to think that any judge could even consider a ruling against a church that refused to perform such a marriage.

I think it’s important to remember that while the Founders were personally social conservatives in their own lives and within their communities, they were exceedingly strict Constitutionalists. As much as they might be considered ARCH-social conservatives, they would be equally considered ARCH-Constitutionalists in this day and age… in fact, a level of ARCH-Constitutionalist that would make the GOP or even the Libertarian Party think they were extremists and a bit whack-a-doodle.

Of the Founders, today’s social conservative might only find John Adams a sympathetic ear to the kinds of legislation social conservatives would advocate, such as bans on SSM or Constitutional amendments to the effect. He was probably the biggest voice for a more centralized and powerful federal government, but even his idea of “big government” would look down right strictly constitutionalist compared to today’s GOP.

I think it’s pretty important to keep in mind when thinking of the Founders to remember that they had a very powerful notion of separating the functions of the church and the state. Churches in their day were central to every community… it wasn’t just a place of worship, it was the “community center”, it was where people went spent time not just discussing religion but discussing politics and dealing with many of the day-to-day affairs of the community, especially those affairs considered not part of the local government’s pervue. Even things like charity, that we take for granted today as federal functions (even if the more libertarian among us actually voice concern about it)… things like food stamps, Medicare, etc… would have been anathema to the Founders as contrary to the Constitution and seen as government stepping on the toes of the church.

The above message brought to you by an atheist… even I can recognize the roles that should be handled by the churches and not abrogated by the government.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I for one (evangelical, social conservative) will not vote EVER for anyone who supports abortion or same-sex unions. I am not alone. You “libertarian” types can look forward to democrat control of everything because we just won’t go-along-to-get-along. We have a responsibility to be loyal to a Higher Power than the state or an ideology.

rebuzz on April 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I fully expect socons to destroy any chance the Republicans have of taking the Senate back in 2014.

And, to elect another Democrat POTUS in 2016.

Moesart on April 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM

The last two nationalk elections the GOP has followed the advice of idiots like you and nominated the most liberal candidate possible. If you want to see the reason for the Republican Party’s failures, look in the mirror.

bw222 on April 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Suicide creates scandal for everyone involved.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I worked 18 years or so in social services. Several of those years I worked crisis in the evenings/weekends as well as my day job as a caseworker.

Some common things about suicide. The people who are always attempting it are more likely to do it by accident than on purpose. This was common knowledge. If they’re always making attempts, it’s more attention seeking and manipulative. Yes… some people will attempt suicide just for the power of it. Power over family members and so forth. But… they can still succeed by accident. For instance… the wife who takes an overdose of pills with the intent of her husband finding her when he gets home from work .. knowing he will frantically call 911, etc. But then… the husband doesn’t get home on time like he usually does and instead finds his wife dead.

It was also common knowledge that the ones who really wanted to do it were the ones you never expected.. and if they really wanted to succeed.. they would. If you really want to kill yourself, no one is going to stop you. One sign of suicide is someone who may have been struggling with depression.. and then suddenly feels wonderful and happy. And during this time they are going around telling everyone how much they love them and how appreciative they have been of them. This sudden change in behavior is a warning sign. They may be sawing “goodbye” and are genuinely happy because they’ve made their decision to kill themselves. It’s planned out. They know what and when and are going to do it.

And now.. one last common misconception about suicide. We’ve always heard from the media around Christmas that it’s a bad time for people with depression. All I can say is that wasn’t the case in my experience at all. During my years in crisis and as a caseworker… Christmas was a quiet time. There were usually no calls at all because most people were with their families.

So, in other words.. Christmas was a very good time for people with MH disorders. Very few things happened. Very few people were in crisis. The exact opposite of what we are told each year from the media.

JellyToast on April 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

with your obsession with gay marriage
bw222 on April 1, 2013 at 1:13 PM

If you can’t find other threads here that don’t upset you, there’s plenty of other places to go. It’s a big internet.

Oh, and Two 11-Year-Olds Receive Threats for Testifying Against Same-Sex Marriage

These things should be noted and reported on.

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Of the Founders, today’s social conservative might only find John Adams a sympathetic ear to the kinds of legislation social conservatives would advocate, such as bans on SSM
gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM

So just which Founders were pushing for “gay” marriage, now?

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Wait till gay polygamy is demanded.

Wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings again

profitsbeard on April 1, 2013 at 3:10 PM

So just which Founders were pushing for “gay” marriage, now?

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Did you even read my post? I didn’t say any of them would “push for gay marriage”. I didn’t even come close to saying that. I think any one of them would stand in their church or on any street corner and be happy to proclaim SSM as an afront to God (and they would recognize that the First Amendment gives them every right to do so).

What I said is that most of them would say “marriage in any form isn’t a federal issue”. They would probably think it was nuts that the federal government gave any preferential treatment in the tax code or any other place to anyone based on their marital status, hence they would find the whole notion that the federal government would have any interest in the subject of SSM (or normal marriage) at all as being anathema to the Constitutional limits on federal powers.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

What I said is that most of them would say “marriage in any form isn’t a federal issue”.
gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Well, I’m certainly glad they appointed you as their official spokesperson of thoughts on opinions they never expressed.

I’m thinking there’s a tv show in your future – something like “Crossing Over With John Edwards”. Except with your ability to channel America’s Founding Fathers, I think “Crossing Over The Delaware With Geo Washington & garvityman” would be a more apropos.

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM

So just which Founders were pushing for “gay” marriage, now?

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM

To follow further on what I just said…

The Founders would likely say SSM was a bad idea for society, and they would probably bring up all of the same arguments that social conservatives bring up today. However, they would likely follow that up with a big “but…”. As I said, they were arch-Constitutionalists, and would point out that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any interest in marital status of the citizens, and therefore the Tenth Amendment comes into play wherein the power to deal with any issue not specifically given to the federal government is given to “the state or the people”. So, I suspec they would view marriage on the whole… normal marriage or SSM… as an issue for states to decide for themselves, not an issue for the federal government to be involved in at all. They would likely then immediately leave any such meeting to discuss the matter, walk out into the street, and teel anyone who would listen (and some people who wouldn’t) how bad SSM would be for society.

In short, I am suggesting they had a far better grasp of Federalism than we do, and would likely know what was a power of the federal government (afterall, they wrote the document that tells us exactly and only what is to be run by the federal government) and what is left to the states and people (with “people” to include their churches).

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I have one word–NEVER

Bullhead on April 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I’m only expressing an opinion based on many years studying the Founders, their biographies, and their writings on the Constitution. Hence why I said “I suspect” these are the things they would have said.

It’s funny, an atheist comes in an says to social conservatives here that the church does indeed have a large role to play in society, and that it isn’t the government’s job to abrogate the role of the churches, and you all can’t stand it, can you? And social conservatives say they don’t want a theocracy…

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM

So what’s your problem with the social Conservatives? The Founders would be considered today ARCH-social conservatives.
Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

On a personal level, all of them would no doubt be the staunchest of social conservatives, making even todays social conservatives look positively liberal. However, that is only on a personal level, not a government level.

I suspect the Founders reactions to how government should handle social conservative issues would be quite surprising to social conservatives today. Someone like Jefferson or Madison probably would have been shocked to discover the government was involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. They probably would never have supported the federal government providing benefits for or having provisions in the tax code related to marital status. I suspect they would have been bothered by marriage licensing at the state level, but being Federalists, they probably would have said it’s not a good idea but the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it so the issue is left to the states to do as they feel is right. Given what Is uspect would have been their view on marriage in general in terms of the federal government, I suspect they would take a more federalist approach today on SSM as well. They would likely be appalled that it was a federal issue, and say it was a matter for the states to decide. All that said, I suspect they would at the same time insist that no judge could violate the Frist Amendment by ruling against any religious institution that refused to marry same-sex couples (or any private institution that refused service to such a ceremony, to whit the NM case of the photgrapher). It would likely make them spin in their graves to think that any judge could even consider a ruling against a church that refused to perform such a marriage.

I think it’s important to remember that while the Founders were personally social conservatives in their own lives and within their communities, they were exceedingly strict Constitutionalists. As much as they might be considered ARCH-social conservatives, they would be equally considered ARCH-Constitutionalists in this day and age… in fact, a level of ARCH-Constitutionalist that would make the GOP or even the Libertarian Party think they were extremists and a bit whack-a-doodle.

Of the Founders, today’s social conservative might only find John Adams a sympathetic ear to the kinds of legislation social conservatives would advocate, such as bans on SSM or Constitutional amendments to the effect. He was probably the biggest voice for a more centralized and powerful federal government, but even his idea of “big government” would look down right strictly constitutionalist compared to today’s GOP.

I think it’s pretty important to keep in mind when thinking of the Founders to remember that they had a very powerful notion of separating the functions of the church and the state. Churches in their day were central to every community… it wasn’t just a place of worship, it was the “community center”, it was where people went spent time not just discussing religion but discussing politics and dealing with many of the day-to-day affairs of the community, especially those affairs considered not part of the local government’s pervue. Even things like charity, that we take for granted today as federal functions (even if the more libertarian among us actually voice concern about it)… things like food stamps, Medicare, etc… would have been anathema to the Founders as contrary to the Constitution and seen as government stepping on the toes of the church.

The above message brought to you by an atheist… even I can recognize the roles that should be handled by the churches and not abrogated by the government.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM

First, much of what you say comes directly from the federal government being so involved in our lives because it’s involved in our ability to earn a living. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would be interested in a discussion of income tax policy and its effects on society, because they would start with the premise that the federal government should never have been given the power to tax incomes directly, and that the cure for everything else you cite would be to remove that power

Second, I doubt they would take seriously your assertion that the government was “involved in marriage.” This is an almost entirely libertarian point of view. While the Founding Fathers certainly would have highly prized personal liberty where possible, there’s no evidence that they would have considered state and local governments to to be completely removed from issues of public morality. On the contrary, they would have considered such issues to be precisely in the purview of state and local governments, not the federal government.

The Founding Fathers distinguished sharply between liberty and license. As much as they valued freedom, they would not have signed onto the premise that governments had no say in punishing immoral and antisocial behavior.

You are perhaps confusing their idea of the role of the federal government with their idea of the role of government over all. They were quite content with the idea that many things would be regulated and decided at the state and local level while the federal government would have no role in such questions at all.

In fact, I would imagine the Founding Fathers would have been aghast at the suggestion that any government would arrogate to itself the power to redefine marriage to include two men or two women. They would not be moved by supposed appeals to “the separation of church and state,” since they would consider natural law to be clear that marriage is between men and women, regardless of anyone’s personal religious beliefs.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 3:31 PM

and you all can’t stand it, can you? And social conservatives say they don’t want a theocracy…
gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The ability to read innermost thoughts of others to construct strawmen is not just limited to the long-dead. Amazing powers, I tell ya!
Only an advance winning Powerball pick would top that in my book.

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I think maybe you misread what I said. I actually agree with most of what you said… maybe I did not make that readily apparent. I completely agree that they likely would have said that by the Tenth Amendment, marriage was not a federal issue but an issue open to be handled by state and local governments in whatever way they saw fit.

And I agree that they probably also would have blown a gasket over the income tax.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

whatcat on April 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Hey, I presented a reasoned argument based on observatin and study of our nation’s history. At least There Goes The Neighborhood came back with a reasoned response, and I’m happy to debate it with him. What have you come back with besides attacking me for making a reasonable argument, that just apparently happens to disagree with your position (even though I never personally presented my personal position on the subject)?

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Here we go again, Gay Air pushing SSM day & night per orders from Townhall and they wonder why I stopped reading them in ’06.

The institution is crumbling because the state (rule of law, contract enforcement ) doesn’t see a marriage vow as enforceable.

“No-fault” divorce, a progressive concept, was the proverbial camel that upended the sanctity of marriage. Think how well if we extended “no fault” all other cases of breach of contract. Got a dispute with a crappy construction job? Oh well, it’s no fault. Dr amputated the wrong limb? No fault. Bought a lemon? No fault. 51% LIVs voted for Oboobi? No fault.

Then ‘violence against women’ laws further destroyed whatever societal constraints for remaining true to one’s vow. So-cons were against it, but the progressives running on emotions and worst case anecdotes and/or victims rammed thru these anti-marriage laws.
-Why should any sane guy consider marrying when the spouse can abuse existing laws to leverage a simple marital tiff into a felony against the guy?
-Why is a home-wrecker – speaking of the unfaithful spouse – be entitled to half of the assets and sometimes more? What incentive does he/she have to stay true?
-Why does VAW and other laws automatically presume the mother is always the better care taker? Maybe some guys after being married and seeing warning signs bail out before kids come on the scene, to avoid her having full custody.
-What protection does a father have aginst a vindictive, bi-polar and/or emotional wrecks?

Until the above are honestly addressed, we will continue to see wrecked marriages because the penalties for breaking vows are inconsequential (notwithstanding the judgment to come from the Almighty) and the rewards are stacked inequitably to the advantage of women. Imagine the howling gays will have if “no-fault” was stricken and marital contracts enforced, i.e. fidelity.

That said, with those who accuse so-cons as bad at marriage, what was your question again? Are you somehow linking so-cons’ lack of frothiness regarding divorces as some how hypocritical of SSM? Weak! Even the most stout so-con that strongly regards the marriage vow can be cut off at the knees by a spouse that doesn’t share the same conviction. That it happens all the time does not in the least bit diminsh what anyone believes vis a vis anti-SSM as well as the sanctity of the marriage institution.

Personally, I think the term ‘marriage’ and affliated traditions etc belong to the church and the govt has no business regulating one way or another other than to certify a contractual arrangement for 2 or more people to bind themselves together in terms of shared rights, shared profit/losses and for tax purposes.This certification process should be as dramtic, emotional or otherwise commemorative as going down to the DMV to get your license; aboout as mundane as any org filing for and receiving their non-profit status from the State and from IRS.

Beyond that, the Govt shouldn’t not care if this arrangement is islamic, kosher, christian, orthodox, pagan, polygamy, SS or even siblings (ever hear of sibling spinsters/bachelors that shared their homes for life? why should they not get the same kind of tax breaks?).

As for the GOPe, it’s not a single-issue deal for So-Cons, if the GOP bails on DOMA, it’s just the nose of the camel shoving itself under the tent to be more like the dems. If the GOPe is much alike the dems, then why even vote for either party. No, the GOPe is on the fence, but not for testing the wind. It’s whether they will choose to stand athwart of progressives or to be co-opted by them. As for conservatives, they’ll stay home or vote for a new party, as more and more of them get screwed by the establishment. Every one of them will come to that realization, sooner or later. For some, we’ve seen it as far back as a decade or two, the rest were either slow-witted or forgiving, but enough will be enough sooner or later. For my kids’ sake I hope sooner and not just because of SSM, but every other conservative/clasic liberal principles.

AH_C on April 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I fully expect socons to destroy any chance the Republicans have of taking the Senate back in 2014.

And, to elect another Democrat POTUS in 2016.

Moesart on April 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM

WTF dude/dudette, you said for us to go that we didn’t have that big of an effect.

hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM

hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Is it April Fool’s Day today, or what? Oops, it actually is… Is there an official policy to contribute to Democrats after you get a business loan for a “green” business?

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Let me ask again. Do you have a link to some proof that there is or was a policy in Israel where you had to change to their faith to get medical treatment?

hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 3:59 PM

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I think maybe you misread what I said. I actually agree with most of what you said… maybe I did not make that readily apparent. I completely agree that they likely would have said that by the Tenth Amendment, marriage was not a federal issue but an issue open to be handled by state and local governments in whatever way they saw fit.

And I agree that they probably also would have blown a gasket over the income tax.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

I would agree with how the Founders would have reacted at the federal level. But their reaction would have been predicated on the assumption that state and local governments would have been the appropriate level of government to deal with such issues. And since many of them were quite involved in government at the state and local level, I don’t think we should assume their hands-off role at the federal level would be duplicated at the state level.

So while you draw a distinction between their positions personally and their positions federally, I think you leave a false implication that they would have been hands-off in the question of how state and local governments dealt with the issues. On the contrary, I seriously doubt they would have ever accepted that any government could dictate that marriage must extend to anything other than natural and traditional marriage between a man and a woman. They just didn’t have the view that the government can redefine social institutions at will.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM

kingsjester on April 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

IMHO, calling it “selfish” is whining unless he was supporting someone. But I agree it’s not painless for anyone involved.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM

You two are arguing two different points. We have the coma victim, unable to give consent or make decisions and at that point it may be more “merciful” to pull the plug (as an aside my grandmother had a living will and I had to make the decision to so do – it was an easy decision as she had been explicit over the years, but still a hard thing to do). That’s one argument.

The other is a sentient (definitions may differ) person who decides that life is too difficult or painful and decides to commit suicide.

Maybe decide which particular basis you are arguing on and you may find you agree on more than you think.

kim roy on April 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM

“No-fault” divorce, a progressive concept, was the proverbial camel that upended the sanctity of marriage. Think how well if we extended “no fault” all other cases of breach of contract. Got a dispute with a crappy construction job? Oh well, it’s no fault. Dr amputated the wrong limb? No fault. Bought a lemon? No fault. 51% LIVs voted for Oboobi? No fault.

AH_C on April 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I believe no-fault divorce has been harmful to marriage, but it’s a little too easy of a target to make it take the whole blame for the decay of marriage.

Other factors causing the decline of the family:
– the huge illegitimacy rate (28% among whites, 73% among blacks according to the last figures I saw),
– the normalization of the idea of living together instead of getting married
– the promotion of premarital sex as perfectly normal
– the winking at adultery as “wrong, but as long as they love each other…” (Some indeed defend Gov Mark Sanford’s affair because “it looks like they were actually in love)
– the widespread promotion of the idea that abstinence before marriage is not even a reasonable request for teenagers

We have a culture that effectively says if you want to have sex, then whether or not you’re married to that person is irrelevant.

Make no mistake: no-fault divorce has destabilized the lives of thousands of children, and is a great social ill. But I don’t know what can damage respect for the institution of marriage quite as much as sending a clear and consistent message that marriage is superfluous, and that if you personally want to be married, “that’s nice,” but if you don’t, “that’s nice too.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 4:19 PM

*I am exceedingly unlikely to go to a pride parade.

Axe on April 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM

But that is part of the issue. The pro-sodomy crowd would have you think that gays come out and mate for life. The SCOTUS case clearly has cherry-picked “victims.” None of this is surprising.

This belies the thong-clad sodomites who essentially make the claim that being proud of your sexual orientation involves rainbow body paint and perversion in a parade. This too is the face of homosexuals and they should be the first to try and stop it if they really are interested in inclusion in society.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM

They just didn’t have the view that the government can redefine social institutions at will.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I agree, but I would take that one step further. I believe they would have held the view that government should not define those institutions in the first place. They would have recognized that once government set foot into setting that definition in the first place, then they were forever stuck placing legal definitions on evolving societal institutions.

As I believe we agree on, they would have been aghast at the federal government instituting an income tax, and probably then even more aghast at the idea that the income tax code would include benefits/penalties derived from anyone’s marital status (or frankly, that there would be any exemptions or deductions in the tax code designed to promote/discourage any sort of social outcome).

I don’t think it’s hard for any conservative or libertarian to imagine that the Founders would have been absolutely appalled by the size and scope of our current federal government. I suspect almost above all else, the Seventeenth Amendment would have made them fall over dead, if they weren’t already.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 5:36 PM

And it will then be inevitable that the nominee who does will lose by a bigger margin than Romney did.If evangelicals stayed home because he was a Mormon and flip-flopped on abortion just think what they will do to a nominee who supports SSM.Very possible another RINO becomes the nominee with the conservative/libertine feud roiling up.We will most likely get a pro gay marriage,pro amnesty nominee and Hillary will win in a landslide.

redware on April 1, 2013 at 6:02 PM

They just didn’t have the view that the government can redefine social institutions at will.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I agree, but I would take that one step further. I believe they would have held the view that government should not define those institutions in the first place. They would have recognized that once government set foot into setting that definition in the first place, then they were forever stuck placing legal definitions on evolving societal institutions.

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I believe they would have considered marriage already defined by its nature and its history, not by government. Therefore, I think they would have rejected the notion that the government was defining marriage at all, unless the government tried to change the accepted definition.

Which of course brings us right back to this issue here and now. Marriage has had an accepted definition for a very long time — a definition that came well before even the Greeks and Romans that the founders looked back to for inspiration in how to define government.

The problem is not in how the government has defined marriage before now. That is a complete red herring. The accepted definition of marriage hasn’t really changed at all. But for the government to reject the old definition as too limiting and insist on a new definition that doesn’t even involve the opposite sex and producing children is to exert the government’s power far beyond what any conservative should accept.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM

The GOP has gotten in trouble trying be offer Democrat-Lite. Abandoning principles on the basis of Public Opinion polls without making a case for not rushing into this and fighting for conservative beliefs is not a way to come back. They’ll have to give people a choice, not an echo.

flataffect on April 1, 2013 at 10:00 PM

but the economy was just good enough

See, this is part of the problem. The economy wasn’t good enough. However, we kept hearing and endless parade of “we’ve turned the corner” and “things are getting better” despite all evidence to the contrary. Debt was up, unemployment was unchanged after 4 years and the economy was still in the doldrums. Calling this “good enough” is buying into the nonsense that the MFM endlessly repeated. Sure, people were stupid enough to believe, but that doesn’t make it so. I refuse to cede the battleground of reality.

Physics Geek on April 1, 2013 at 10:18 PM

…Fluke Flake!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2013 at 10:45 PM

gravityman on April 1, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Except that every state in the union (save Georgia) enacted sodomy laws. The only difference between pre and post-Revolution laws was a reduction in the penalty from death for a first offense(usually to castration). Jefferson* introduced the bill in Va to reduce the penalty, but he never suggested it be legal.

Many SSM activists argue that Jefferson was endorsing a view of sexual freedom (or a right to privacy). However, there is no evidence of such. Rather, the best they can say is that he thought the death penalty to be rather harsh for the crime. This view is consistent with his other actions and statements about humane punishments.

In short, your argument is based upon a false premise. Good day, sir!

*it is important to note that Jefferson was not a Founding Father in the sense that he was not involved in drafting the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Pattosensei on April 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Pattosensei on April 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I’m not sure what your point is in regards to punishments and those punishments fitting the crimes. I don’t see where anything you said disagrees with any point I made.

You are pointing to sodomy laws enacted by the states. I never once said Jefferson or any other Founder would have had an issue with those laws at the state level. In fact, I specifically stated that under the Tenth Amendment they would likely have said it was a state’s right to enact whatever laws they saw fit, as long as those laws did not violate Constitutional protections of the individual nor usurp any power specifically given to the federal government. Since sodomy laws were not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution, most of the Founders would likely have said such laws were completely up to the states, and many states instituted such laws, but never at the federal level.

I will try to condense my original point to make it more clear…

Our current federal tax code provides benefits/penalties (however you view it) based on marital status. I am stating that I believe the Founders would have found the idea of federal benefits based on marital status to be contrary to Constitution, since the Constitution gave the federeal government no powers related to marriage. Because of that, I believe they would have cited the Tenth Amendment, and said that any benefit/penalty related to marriage was purely a state matter, and the states would be free to enact any laws they saw fit to enact in regards to marriage.

gravityman on April 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Inevitable that a GOP presidential nominee will support SSM

Meh, that candidate will still be behind the curve. By the time the GOP nominee openly supports SSM, his dem rival will be a muslim with four wives, with the supportive LSM touting the benefits of multiple spouses.

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I don’t see any GOP presidential nominee going whole-hog on SSM, but I can possibly see him/her taking the federalist approach, and maybe going the civil-union route.

TMOverbeck on April 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3