Scott Walker: My position on gay marriage doesn’t matter anymore

posted at 6:11 pm on June 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

A federal judge just struck down the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, so what Walker’s saying is technically correct. As more courts step in and remove this issue from the democratic process, it really doesn’t matter what a governor or a legislator thinks. They’re powerless to stop it — especially if they happen to be running for reelection this year as a Republican in a blue state where a majority (or near majority) of voters now supports legalizing SSM.

How about a would-be president, though? He should probably have a thought or two on the subject, no?

During a 12-minute news conference at a muddy and messy groundbreaking event in Oak Creek, the first-term Republican governor argued that his position on same-sex marriage is no longer relevant.

“It really doesn’t matter what I think now,” Walker said at one point. “It’s in the constitution.”…

“I don’t comment on everything out there,” he responded.

Except he usually does, especially on a hot-button issue like this one.

Walker bristled when it was suggested he was refusing to answer the question. “You can print whatever you want, but I did not decline comment,” he said.

OK, let’s try it one more time.

Is the governor — like some other conservatives — rethinking his position on same-sex marriage?

“No,” Walker said. “I’m just not stating one at all.”

He hasn’t changed his mind on opposing SSM (I think?), he just … doesn’t want to talk about it. And hasn’t, actually, for some time. Shortly after the federal ruling last month, he sidestepped the question by saying, “I don’t know what (allowing gay marriage) means. Voters don’t talk to me about that. They talk to me about the economy. They talk to me about their kids’ schools.” The state’s handling of the federal ruling has been chaotic, with the attorney general battling county clerks over whether marriage licenses should issue immediately or wait for the appeal, but all Walker had to say about it was a lone sentence about defending the state constitution. Back in November, in an interview with BuzzFeed, he went even further in trying to cut the SSM Gordian knot:

On the marriage issue, he can probably best be described as “evolving.” Pointing to a 2006 state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Walker was quick to note — much to his apparent relief — that he was effectively powerless in the debate. “From my standpoint, as governor I won’t ever have any say in that because if you’re going to change the constitution, all it requires is the legislature and then a vote of the people,” he said.

Meanwhile, he said his two college-aged sons, who have grown more aware of gay rights issues while on campus, have tried to persuade him that the government should withdraw from the marriage business altogether, leaving it up to churches and other institutions to define the rite on their own.

“That’s a solid argument,” Walker said. “I personally may not embrace that yet. But that, to me, is a bigger question… I get their concerns.”

The reason he’s seen as a strong candidate in 2016 is because, in theory, he checks all the important boxes: Executive experience, midwestern, fiscal warrior, and … socially conservative. Yet here he is flirting with a libertarian approach to marriage, one that would put gay unions on the same legal footing as straight ones by removing government sanction from the process entirely. What happens to his social-con support in Iowa when Huckabee or Santorum starts clubbing him on that? I guess he figures he’ll worry about that when the time comes. Job one is getting reelected, and talking up a Federal Marriage Amendment in, er, Wisconsin wouldn’t be helpful to that.

Obvious exit question: Is this going to be the party line for Republican candidates in 2016? “I oppose gay marriage personally but am powerless to do (or even say!) anything about it. I trust our state governments and our courts to handle the issue responsibly.” Good enough for me. How about you?


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

I trust our state governments and our courts to handle the issue responsibly.” Good enough for me. How about you?

Nope.
I don’t trust our courts.

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM

They are what the gaynazis say they are.

BuckeyeSam on June 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Constitutional republic?

Nah

bossmanham on June 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

He is evolving! and he’s right.

coolrepublica on June 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

He is evolving! and he’s right.

coolrepublica on June 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Normally when one regresses into paganism it’s called a devolution.

But you can never get animalistic and base enough for the political left.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

“… I trust ……. our courts to handle the issue responsibly.”

Then you’re the only one here.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

…gey air

KOOLAID2 on June 13, 2014 at 6:19 PM

I think that the whole “Get government completely out of marriage” argument is going to spread quickly. Why? Because the public doesn’t matter anymore. We are going to have gay marriage, courtesy of the black robed overlords, shoved down our throats good and hard.

Denmark, for example, mandates that their state church perform gay weddings as a religious ceremony. That’s quickly coming here. So before that train arrives, getting government out of marriage altogether is a way to throw up a roadblock. How can the gays get a judge to force the Catholics to marry someone if the government … doesn’t do marriage?

Sadly, that’s the only thing that may stop the gaystapo here. So I think it’s brilliant for Walker to float this early.

Remember the default leftist argument on this: Once a judge, anywhere, comes up with an argument “advancing” gay rights, then their favorite argument comes in: you cannot “deprive” anyone of their civil rights (except, of course, for Christians who lose the ability to associate, and to define their own faith, etc.–Christians don’t have civil rights!). So get gay judge John Q. Sodomist to issue a ruling saying that Catholics must marry a gay and a 7 year old boy, and bam, that’s it– “we can’t take away the obvious rights that were just granted to them, so we must legalize that!”

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Meanwhile, he said his two college-aged sons, who have grown more aware of gay rights issues while on campus, have tried to persuade him that the government should withdraw from the marriage business altogether, leaving it up to churches and other institutions to define the rite on their own.

this is somewhat* how i feel too. if government did not define marriage at all then everyone could define it however they wanted. so if a church wanted to define it as one man and one woman, there’s no government law saying “no, that’s not what marriage is. it’s between any two adults.”

*that “somewhat” means, i don’t mind government defining marriage traditionally, either. and that’s a more mainstream choice than “don’t define marriage at all”

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

The argument was lost over a decade or so because conservatives fought against civil unions.

Now they want it all.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Well, what is the Constitutional position of a President on gay anything? Nothing. The Constitution leaves such matters to the states.

SunSword on June 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Another nice Republican, playing by the rules.

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

I’ve evolved on gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they be just as miserable as straight married guys? (Kidding, Mrs. bacadog, kidding)

One thing puzzles me though. In a gay marriage, who fixes the damn sammich when the game is on?

BacaDog on June 13, 2014 at 6:23 PM

He’s starting to behave Mitt Romney-ish.

tommy71 on June 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

So is polygamous marriage.

Buddahpundit on June 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Ask yourselves this: Once gay marriage is legalized everywhere, do you think the stories and the demands of the gays are going to stop? What will satisfy the gays to the point where they just go away and stop bothering people?

And the answer is this: Nothing. Giving in to them will never satisfy them. We already know the next battlefield: employment. Soon, you will be required to swear an ideological purity test to hold a job.

You think Hot Air is Gay Air? Just wait until you are forced by your boss to swear that you accept and promote gay anything and everything, in order to keep you job.

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Nope.
I don’t trust our courts.
burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM

This.

jawkneemusic on June 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

This is worth posting every time this topic is brought up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA

If you think caving on homosexual marriage is going to make this topic go away, you are sadly mistaken. I should know. In Massachusetts, we live it every day. We have entire state-funded commissions dedicated to introducing ever more sexually explicit materials in schools.

You have a choice. You can support gay marriage and thereby the subsidizing of homosexuality promotion, or you can kill this intrusive nonsense in its infancy.

You have been warned.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

And Ladyingray–what evidence do you have that by giving in on civil unions, the gay movement would have been happy and gone away?

Remember, the gay groups swore up and down that no one has anything to fear from gay marriage. Now, they are imposing thought control on businesses. Ask Brenden Eich.

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM

My position on gay marriage doesn’t matter anymore

He’s got a point. Nobody’s opinion on gay marriage matters if a federal judge here and there is going to make this decision for us.

TarheelBen on June 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

HiLarry in perfect Clintonian form

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

I think that the whole “Get government completely out of marriage” argument is going to spread quickly. Why? Because the public doesn’t matter anymore. We are going to have gay marriage, courtesy of the black robed overlords, shoved down our throats good and hard.

I would agree, but I’m pretty sure gay marriage proponents are not going to take this argument well. I’ve been told by Gabriel Malor – who does all but pen poetry to gay couples whenever the court decides to overturn these amendments – that removing government approval from marriage is the same as making it illegal. Apparently unless the government puts a stamp of approval on your conduct, it is a CRIME. Funny, I don’t see the police going and arresting every gay couple who performs a commitment ceremony, to say nothing of the heterosexual couples who have decided they don’t want the state involved in their relationship.

Traditional conservatives also believe that heterosexual marriage needs to be “protected” by the state and they have a special incentive to do so. Neither side is going to give up these arguments any time soon.

dogwoodtiredkat on June 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

One thing puzzles me though. In a gay marriage, who fixes the damn sammich when the game is on?

BacaDog on June 13, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Whoever is the woman ,
I think :O

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

The Islamists are having a heck of a months.

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Well, month, but their months have been extraordinarily good.

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I think that the whole “Get government completely out of marriage” argument is going to spread quickly.

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

i think so too. i mean because, you might as well. the lefty argument is “marriage is about love, that’s it.” (in this entire comment, i mean “love” romantically) well okay then. if it’s only about “love” then why stop at marriage between any two adults? some people love their family member. some people love more than one adult. some people love children. some people love animals. some people love inanimate objects. therefore if marriage is only about love, then marriage can’t exclude any type of love. that’s the logical conclusion. unless, marriage is not only about love.

…which is my personal belief. i believe marriage is about more than just “love.” i believe it’s something God created in a specific way for specific purposes.

it’s just that a lot of people don’t care about this, however. they don’t care what God’s intentions are. so now, what i’m doing is following the lefty argument to its logical conclusion.

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

The argument was lost over a decade or so because conservatives fought against civil unions.

Now they want it all.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

They’ve always wanted it all; when they claimed otherwise, they were lying.

Kensington on June 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

What will satisfy the gays to the point where they just go away and stop bothering people?

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

One day soon we’ll have gay quotas. Businesses will have to hire a certain percentage of gays; gays will receive preference in college admissions; military boards will have to advance a certain number of gay people, and on and on . . .

TarheelBen on June 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Judical activism is not and never will lead to good things.

sorrowen on June 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Ask yourselves this: Once gay marriage is legalized everywhere, do you think the stories and the demands of the gays are going to stop? What will satisfy the gays to the point where they just go away and stop bothering people?
And the answer is this: Nothing. Giving in to them will never satisfy them. We already know the next battlefield: employment. Soon, you will be required to swear an ideological purity test to hold a job.
You think Hot Air is Gay Air? Just wait until you are forced by your boss to swear that you accept and promote gay anything and everything, in order to keep you job.
Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Of course not. Teh Gayz will be next demand that churches perform marriage ceremonies and pastors be jailed for read from Romans.

jawkneemusic on June 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Never accept perversion.

Bigbullets on June 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

I trust our state governments and our courts to handle the issue responsibly.

Given recent history…..

…. Yeah right.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

They’ve always wanted it all; when they claimed otherwise, they were lying.

Kensington on June 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Perverts lie?

Say it isn’t so.

Bigbullets on June 13, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.
ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM
It has zero I mean zero biological purpose so no I won’t accept damn emotionalism…

sorrowen on June 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Anything that pushes social conservative stuff to the side is good for me. The right gets too obsessed with marriage when they should be promoting broader values like strong families and involved parents. Instead, they somehow managed to let the left define “family values” as “anti-gay” and now it’s that much harder to promote the parts of social conservatism that can actually do some good.

Cyhort on June 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Warrenhonta/Booker, for the womens/gay victimhood!!!

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Scott Walker……..the unfat Chris Christie.

I told you he was a Establishment “Conservative” ……. AKA Chamber whore.

PappyD61 on June 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Whoever is the woman ,
I think :O

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

The queen. The “man” is called the duke.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM

queer statement..

dmacleo on June 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM

This issue, by the way, explains why libertarianism is wrong. We have to engage on social issues. Because leftists aren’t ever, EVER, going to leave evil alone. They will promote and mandate evil as much as they can. Socially, culturally, politically, and with government force.

Gay marriage is just one assault on the nuclear family. The nuclear family, along with extended family ties, is one of the major ways in which to retain independence and self sufficiency. It’s no wonder that the left wants to destroy it.

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM

I would agree, but I’m pretty sure gay marriage proponents are not going to take this argument well. I’ve been told by Gabriel Malor – who does all but pen poetry to gay couples whenever the court decides to overturn these amendments – that removing government approval from marriage is the same as making it illegal. Apparently unless the government puts a stamp of approval on your conduct, it is a CRIME.

dogwoodtiredkat on June 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

i do think it’s true that some gay marriage supporters will not take that argument well but actually i bet a lot of them will. many gay marriage supporters are not really extreme/radical. they just fall for the “love” “equality” “fairness” stuff and they feel like if they oppose gay marriage, they’re bad people. so they go along with it. but they are not super pushy about it. so these are the “casual gay marriage supporters” and most of them are straight.

so i think those people may not mind, if government separated itself from marriage. the more pushy, extreme gay marriage supporters will be upset. but that reveals that yes, they didn’t really want “equality” or whatever so much as they just want a government stamp of approval on their behavior because they hope that gives them the ability to punish all who disagree.

what i’m saying is, “get government out of marriage” might drive a wedge between the casual gay marriage supporters and the extreme ones. the pro gay marriage movement seems like a large and strong movement but it’s not, because not everyone in the movement is the same.

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Just in – Crabb issued her final order striking down Wisconsin’s constitution, but issued an immediate stay on it.

Cue Alice In Chains

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

So when does heterophobia become law of the land ?

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

The reason he’s seen as a strong candidate in 2016 is because, in theory, he checks all the important boxes: Executive experience, midwestern, fiscal warrior, and … socially conservative.

Midwestern is an important box, AP?

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Where is the tiny Israel-hating black gay of HA?

Admittedly, Israel *is* one of the most notorious terrorist states out there, can you really blame Hamas?

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Same sex marriage is a myth. A proposed redefinition of terms. Much like gay used to mean happy and now it means 2 dudes ramming each other in the tail. They want to redefine the term marriage. 2 dudes can never be married and for very clear and simple reasons. Marriage is a religious construct that the government recognizes as a civil contract. Marriage is performed in the presence of God. All other legal joinings are called civil unions. It’s pretty simple really. You get married in a church. You get a civil union at the courthouse. Homosexuals can never be married. They can pretend they are but by marriage’s very definition they can not.

We are gathered this day to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony

Nothing could be more clear or more simple in concept. Only the self deluded could ever pretend that homosexuals can be married. Many will but it doesn’t make it true.

HotAirian on June 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

He hasn’t changed his mind on opposing SSM (I think?), he just … doesn’t want to talk about it.

That’s pretty much what it seems like. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to either help or hurt his chances in an election. But frankly,intentionally avoiding the subject of SSM wouldn’t seem like it’ll appeal to proponents or opponents of it.

All he can say to clear this is: “I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also believe in defending the laws of the land.”

That way, he’s not dodging his own opinion…he actively can say it…but he won’t suspend any judicial/legal decision that advance SSM. That keeps him close to equal somewhere between opponents and proponents, with portions of both side having a “give and take”.

JetBoy on June 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Hey!!…I know! Let’s pick topics that pit one conservative against another. Not only that, but lets pick irrelevant hashed over a million times topics! We need a thread about urban rap music and it influence on culture. Are tattoos good or bad?

Mimzey on June 13, 2014 at 6:42 PM

All he can say to clear this is: “I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also believe in defending the laws of the land.”

That way, he’s not dodging his own opinion…he actively can say it…but he won’t suspend any judicial/legal decision that advance SSM. That keeps him close to equal somewhere between opponents and proponents, with portions of both side having a “give and take”.

JetBoy on June 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

That’s actually a good idea. It’s not like the gays are going to vote for him in any event.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.

Calling a pig a cow doesn’t make it one. Tell me – how do two homosexuals consummate marriage ?

alanstern on June 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Where is the tiny Israel-hating black gay of HA?

Admittedly, Israel *is* one of the most notorious terrorist states out there, can you really blame Hamas?

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

So what is Israel doing today while Baghdad falls? The west is doomed. Priorities:

Tel Aviv Gay Pride Parade draws 100,000
Parade is high point of Gay Pride Week that began on Sunday, in which some 30,000 tourists were expected to take part.

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Hey, what’s up with that Washington Redskins name? They ever gonna change it?

What’s up with Donald Sterling? Does he like Magic Johnson yet?

How are Clive Bundy’s cows doing?

TarheelBen on June 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

The 2012 election was turned into an election based on social issues. War On Women, birth control, etc. We can’t let that happen in 2016. Take note of the idiocy of Governor Perry this week.

alanstern on June 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Anything that pushes social conservative stuff to the side is good for me. The right gets too obsessed with marriage when they should be promoting broader values like strong families and involved parents. Instead, they somehow managed to let the left define “family values” as “anti-gay” and now it’s that much harder to promote the parts of social conservatism that can actually do some good.

Cyhort on June 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM

We already do that, but it gets ignored because no one in the media cares about reducing divorce or saving marriages. They care about calling social conservatives bigots because we won’t accept the trojan horse of homosexual “marriage.”

Does anyone think Massachusetts is a beacon of liberty? I assume you also prefer stuff that pushes social liberalism to the side. When you support gay marriage, you are acting directly and fully against that desire – and you’re wallet will pay for it because “equality.”

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Pretending not to have an opinion projects weakness.

It does matter what he thinks. What does he think about freedom of association? Should conservative Christian bakers and photographers be forced to participate in homosexual weddings — or are Muslims the only ones whose religious sensitivities matter? Should kids be reading literature about gay families in public schools?

The ramifications of this issue won’t go away just Truce Republicans want them to.

RightKlik on June 13, 2014 at 6:46 PM

The argument was lost over a decade or so because conservatives fought against civil unions.

Now they want it all.

ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Sorry, but civil unions were never more than a stop on the way to gaytopia. The homofascists have been rejecting civil unions for years, for one very, very, very simple reason.

They looked at their history of corporations and entire states caving to the gay agenda, and decided, quite reasonabily, it wasn’t necessary to settle for anything less than a declaration of full marriage.

I’m sorry, but if you really think they would have stopped with civil unions, you haven’t been apying attention. They have learned that bullying works, and until somebody stands up to the bullying and says, “No,” it’s going to continue.

The gay mafia has been on the march since at least the 70s.

And by the way, it’s just as foolish to think the dodge of “get government out of the marriage business” will work. Open your eyes. A baker in Colorado, where SSM was not legal, was successfully sued by a couple of gays who wanted a wedding celebration, even though they were not recognized as married in the state of Colorado. The fact that Colorado didn’t recognize them as married did not make one bit of difference.

So if all governments refuse to recognize any marriages, do you think that would have protected the baker in Colorado?

I don’t know why people can’t grasp this obvious truth. I can only assume they don’t want to face it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Hey!!…I know! Let’s pick topics that pit one conservative against another. Not only that, but lets pick irrelevant hashed over a million times topics! We need a thread about urban rap music and it influence on culture. Are tattoos good or bad?

Mimzey on June 13, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Urban and Rap are different genres.

Tattoos are a bad idea if you plan on growing old.

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 6:40 PM

some more thoughts… if the “gov’t out of marriage” movement gains momentum, i’m sure the pushy/extreme gay marriage supporters will attempt to fight against it and use some kind of argument like “this is anti-equality” and “this discriminates against gay people.” of course this argument makes no sense, because getting gov’t out of marriage treats everyone equally. but it’ll be like voter ID. the left claims that it’s somehow unfair and unequal, even though it’s not. and many people aren’t falling for that bs on voter ID so i don’t think they’d fall for it on this, either.

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

The queen. The “man” is called the duke.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Wow ! I thought they used baseball terms :P

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I do not think Walker should say anything about gay marriage.
The judges, plus the press, plus the school system, plus the fanatical movement itself have paralyzed free speech and thought on this topic.

GaltBlvnAtty on June 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM

I am sick to death having to listen to anything gay or whatever else in that domain. That’s the problem – it’s in your face at all times regardless what you think.

Privacy was a quaint concept from the 20th century.

tru2tx on June 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM

The queen. The “man” is called the duke.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Wow ! I thought they used baseball terms :P

* runs to get some coffee and ….fudge *

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Allah, will you stop with the gay threads if we promise to give you at least 150 hits on the economic and foreign policy threads?

Deal?

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Meanwhile, this, in America, but gay every day…

Islamists, you have it nearly all won, with little effort.

Schadenfreude on June 13, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Of course not. Teh Gayz will be next demand that churches perform marriage ceremonies and pastors be jailed for read from Romans.

jawkneemusic on June 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Already happening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

AJsDaddie on June 13, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Wow ! I thought they used baseball terms :P

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

They may be in casual homo sexual encounters. Such as the type that are prevalent in San Fran Sicko. However in a “relationship” the male who plays the woman is called the queen. The one who plays the man is called the duke. And I doubt he’s A number 1 (Escape from NY reference). I’m not sure what they’re called when it’s two females. But then again I’m still trying to figure out what a Warrenhonta is.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

More on the final order from Crabb (via WISN-AM’s Mark Belling):

- Her earlier ruling was not meant to give county clerks hand out gay “marriage” licenses, with no instructions given to the county clerks at that point. Left unanswered is what happens to those licenses handed out and the “marriages” performed (especially those performed before the 5-day waiting period between license issuance and ceremony mandated in state law).

- The Supreme Court made clear that all lower-court same-sex “marriage” rulings were to be stayed until they took up the issue.

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood: Oregon also has laws against recognizing gay marriage. Didn’t stop the state from bankrupting a baker there.

That is the next fight, really, and in discussions with leftists it’s obvious. They state that your religious beliefs do not belong in the public arena; and that if you offer any sort of service or business or other economic activity, you cannot let your religious beliefs influence that.

This means, of course, all charitable work done by religions will be curtailed and made illegal unless the homofascists are in charge of it. After all, how can you run a soup kitchen and refuse to let the gays run it? Or even have people who disagree with SSM as employees?

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Scott’s “What difference does it make now?” moment….

Every moral code-every institution has fallen…..

Don L on June 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Calling a pig a cow doesn’t make it one. Tell me – how do two homosexuals consummate marriage ?

alanstern on June 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Use your brain…and is a hummer defined as consumating as well?

JetBoy on June 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Militant homosexuals won’t be satisfied until Eric Holder gives them federal subsidies if they are Boy Scout Leaders taking little boys into the woods.

Then………maybe they’ll force Churches to let them take the little ones to the bathrooms with the door closed.

Open sex on the streets, and anything else they want…….all they need is one judge.

Think about that……One judge.

PappyD61 on June 13, 2014 at 6:57 PM

- The Supreme Court made clear that all lower-court same-sex “marriage” rulings were to be stayed until they took up the issue.

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

I wasn’t aware of that. The US Supreme Court or the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Use your brain…and is a hummer defined as consumating as well?

JetBoy on June 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM

My brain tells me you both don’t smell like buttstink after consummating a marriage.

Homosexuals can’t consummate marriage, they can just mock the activity of intercourse and, because the anus isn’t built to be entered, end up spreading all sorts of diseases because of tissue rupture.

All of that money gay organizations spend on AIDS awareness apparently isn’t working. Maybe they should try promoting celibacy once in a while – oh wait, that’s antithetical to the homosexual culture. Especially the homosexual male culture.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM

My brain tells me you both don’t smell like buttstink after consummating a marriage.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Um, eating dinner here! Thank you!

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:03 PM

A baker in Colorado, where SSM was not legal, was successfully sued by a couple of gays who wanted a wedding celebration, even though they were not recognized as married in the state of Colorado. The fact that Colorado didn’t recognize them as married did not make one bit of difference.

So if all governments refuse to recognize any marriages, do you think that would have protected the baker in Colorado?

maybe not, but maybe it would help. who knows. if gov’t weren’t involved with marriage, people can still do their best to fight to protect the rights of bakers and other workers forced to violate their beliefs. what “people?” traditional marriage supporters AND the casual gay marriage supporters. there are many of them who object to what happened to that baker. there are many gay marriage supporters who dislike the more pushy parts of the movement. (and i bet that even many people who thought what happened to the baker was GOOD don’t even realize that gay marriage is not recognized in colorado. they probably assumed it was.)

I don’t know why people can’t grasp this obvious truth. I can only assume they don’t want to face it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

the truth i don’t understand why people can’t grasp is… for all of you who believe marriage is from God and cannot be redefined… people just don’t care. i believe it too. but people don’t care. they will just try to redefine it anyway. you can talk on and on about what marriage is, and they’ll just say “i disagree” and will define marriage the way they want to.

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 7:03 PM

It’s not like the gays are going to vote for him in any event.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM

For a group of people who are all about love ( as they say themselves) they seem to be brimming with extreme hatred and a desire to destroy and destruct anyone and anything just to prove how loving they are . Look at what they are doing in the name of love , to bakers , just for a frikin cake ! They don’t want to co-exist , they just want to wipe off everyone else.

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Obvious exit question: Is this going to be the party line for Republican candidates in 2016? “I oppose gay marriage personally but am powerless to do (or even say!) anything about it. I trust our state governments and our courts to handle the issue responsibly.” Good enough for me. How about you?

Not anywhere near good enough.
This attitude is how we got from “safe, legal, and rare” to “any abortion any reason any time up until after the baby is born alive and kicking” – because elected officials who “opposed it personally” quit talking about it and left it to the government and the courts to handle.

The Left never gives up just because the Right passes a law or gets a judge in their corner.

Being powerless is a state of mind, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

AesopFan on June 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM

I think that the whole “Get government completely out of marriage” argument is going to spread quickly.

Vanceone on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM
i think so too. i mean because, you might as well. the lefty argument is “marriage is about love, that’s it.” (in this entire comment, i mean “love” romantically) well okay then. if it’s only about “love” then why stop at marriage between any two adults? some people love their family member. some people love more than one adult. some people love children. some people love animals.

Forcing the state to recognize the family stabilized the biological building blocks of society while reinforcing a powerful counterweight against the state. Now that we’ve almost completely lost sight of that fact, it’s mission accomplished for the statist left. Redefining the family out of existence through radical overinclusion is the cherry on the cake.

RightKlik on June 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM

…the elite and the judges!…what are we here for?

KOOLAID2 on June 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM

I wasn’t aware of that. The US Supreme Court or the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

kcewa on June 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM

The US Supreme Court. Let me see if I can dig up the ruling.

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM

For a group of people who are all about love ( as they say themselves) they seem to be brimming with extreme hatred and a desire to destroy and destruct anyone and anything just to prove how loving they are . Look at what they are doing in the name of love , to bakers , just for a frikin cake ! They don’t want to co-exist , they just want to wipe off everyone else.

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Like the blacks they live in the moment. Never thinking long-term. The only thing that matters to them is immediate gratification. Nothing else. Because they’ve never really had to suffer. No I am not speaking to all gays/blacks. I don’t want ours thinking I’m painting with a broad brush. But to ours I say “Use your eyes. And be honest.”

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Sorry, conservatives. Same sex marriage is coming very soon under constitutional protection. Accept it.
ladyingray on June 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Why don’t you support my right to marry another woman or two? Bucking Figot.

Nutstuyu on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

*ahem* I like sammies too..why is it always about the queens? ;)

bazil9 on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

So basically Scott Walker is coming closer to the Ed Morrisey (and my) position on marriage.

Mike Rathbone on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Can I say it now?

Ok.

Scott, did it ever matter what you thought?

No, it didn’t.

You are excused.

Diluculo on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM

*ahem* I like sammies too..why is it always about the queens? ;)

bazil9 on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

There are terms though, right B9? For two women I mean? I just don’t know what they are. I am curious if you don’t mind elaborating. If it’s safe to so so anyway.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Anything that pushes social conservative stuff to the side is good for me. The right gets too obsessed with marriage when they should be promoting broader values like strong families and involved parents. Instead, they somehow managed to let the left define “family values” as “anti-gay” and now it’s that much harder to promote the parts of social conservatism that can actually do some good.

Cyhort on June 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM

So, is that sarcasm, or are you really that clueless?
Gay privilege is part of destroying strong families.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:13 PM

We don’t use any names & we both make sammies. :)
I am sure there are terms..I’m just a super uncool GC.
I was just teasin, majority of the time the focus is on men round here.

bazil9 on June 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM

One thing puzzles me though. In a gay marriage, who fixes the damn sammich when the game is on?
BacaDog on June 13, 2014 at 6:23 PM

The one with the least body hair.

Nutstuyu on June 13, 2014 at 7:19 PM

I don’t know why people can’t grasp this obvious truth. I can only assume they don’t want to face it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM

the truth i don’t understand why people can’t grasp is… for all of you who believe marriage is from God and cannot be redefined… people just don’t care. i believe it too. but people don’t care. they will just try to redefine it anyway. you can talk on and on about what marriage is, and they’ll just say “i disagree” and will define marriage the way they want to.

Sachiko on June 13, 2014 at 7:03 PM

The battle is won or lost by those who care. The rest say, “if it will make you leave me alone, then fine, I’ll agree to it.”

But the appeasers, as always, will find out that giving in doesn’t make it go away. It just leads to the next thing where they’ll have to give in.

Watch the link given by BKennedy about MassResistance. The homosexual fascists want to force — not encourage, but force — everyone to accept what they do. They want to spread it in the schools. They want to make it a firing offense to disagree with SSM. There are plenty of companies that will cave when GLAAD starts attacking them, because of course they’re in business to make money, and no employee is irreplaceable. Say you disagree with SSM, let a bunch of activists protest your bigotry, and there goes your job. And 90% of companies would justify it by saying it is inappropriate for employees to take positions on personal issues. And of course such incidents are generally followed by a nice contribution to GLAAD to fund the next witch hunt.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 13, 2014 at 7:21 PM

I was just teasin, majority of the time the focus is on men round here.

bazil9 on June 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM

I gotcha. And that’s true.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Quotes from Crabb’s final opinion and order:

In an order dated June 6, 2014, dkt. #118, I denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that Wisconsin laws banning same-sex couples from marrying violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, I did not resolve plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief or defendants’ request to stay the injunction because plaintiffs had not proposed an injunction that complied with the specificity requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Accordingly, I gave both sides an opportunity to file supplemental materials regarding the content of the injunction….

After considering the written materials submitted by the parties and their arguments at the hearing, I am adopting some of the language in plaintiffs’ proposed injunction, modifying some of the language and eliminating some, for the reasons discussed below. In addition, I conclude that Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 2014), compels me to stay the injunction….

If I were considering these factors as a matter of a first impression, I would be inclined to agree with plaintiffs that defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a stay. However, I cannot ignore the Supreme Court’s order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014), in which the Court stayed a district court’s order enjoining state officials in Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. It is impossible to know the Court’s reasoning for issuing the stay because the Court did not accompany the order with an opinion, but, since Herbert, every statewide order enjoining the enforcement of a ban on same-sex marriage has been stayed, either by the district court or the court of appeals, at least when the state requested a stay. In following Herbert, other courts have stated that, despite the lack of any reasoning in Herbert, they did not see any grounds for distinguishing the Supreme Court’s order. E.g., DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014).

Plaintiffs offer two grounds for distinguishing Herbert: (1) since Herbert, each of the more than a dozen district courts considering bans on same-sex marriage has concluded that the ban is unconstitutional; and (2) same-sex marriages recognized under state law in other states since Herbert have not caused any harm to the state. However, even if I accept both of these arguments, it does not change the fact that the Supreme Court’s order in Herbert is still in place. Until the Supreme Court provides additional guidance on this issue, the unanimity of federal districts is not a dispositive factor.

It is true that the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay in a more recent case in which a district court in Oregon enjoined enforcement of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger, 13A1173, 2014 WL 2514491 U.S. June 4, 2014). However, that order is not instructive because the district court’s injunction was not opposed by the state; rather, a nonparty had requested the stay. Thus, I do not interpret Geiger as undermining the Court’s order in Herbert.

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Disappointing.

Let’s give up on the slaughter of pre-born babies, too.
The Supreme Court affirmed the right to murder a few decades before they found a right for perverts to pervert the definition of marriage.

It’s a good thing Wilberforce didn’t decide he was powerless to do anything about the slave trade.

It’s a good thing Lincoln didn’t say, re. slavery, with Walker & Hillary,

At this point, what difference does it make?

itsnotaboutme on June 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM

I don’t see anything wrong with this. It’s a lot more honest than Hillary or Barry lying about supporting traditional marriage for years when they were closet SSM supporters. They “evolved” when it was politically safe to do so.

I believe Walker personally opposes SSM but it won’t really do him any good to say so in deep blue Wisconsin. So saying his opinion doesn’t matter any more is the best answer he could give in my opinion.

cat_owner on June 13, 2014 at 7:25 PM

No I am not speaking to all gays/blacks. I don’t want ours thinking I’m painting with a broad brush. But to ours I say “Use your eyes. And be honest.”

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Not one single LGBTQRSTXYZ group has told it’s devotees to back off , and leave a hardworking American family just trying to make a living alone . Not one. No hashtag campaign in defense of the bakers , not even one gay group saying ” get your cake from another baker”, just seething sadistic hate from this always offended bunch .
It’s not about a cake or love , for these militant extreme heterophobes .

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Unless one is a Congressman, a state attorney general, or, at least potentially, a state legislator, one’s opinion no longer matters because there are only 2 ways to stop gay “marriage”:

- Win at the Supreme Court
- Pass a federal Constitutional amendment

The last I checked, Walker is not and is not running for Congress, AG or the Legislature, and by the time the next President is sworn in, SCOTUS will have definitively* spoken.

*”Definitively” means either SCOTUS crams it down everybody’s throats or temporarily leave it to the states until the Lawgivers-In-Black reach a majority on SCOTUS, as there is no non-liberal SCOTUS ruling that is ever final.

Steve Eggleston on June 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

It’s not about a cake or love , for these militant extreme heterophobes .

burrata on June 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Kinda like the “moderate” muzzies.

Judge_Dredd on June 13, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2