|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
|
The Daily Signal
What Do the
2016 GOP Hopefuls Really Think About Same-Sex Marriage?
Genevieve Wood
November 14, 2014
The marriage issue didn’t play a major role in the 2014 midterms, but
activist courts overturning state laws and lawsuits threatening the
rights of those who disagree with redefining marriage may very well
make the issue a top one in 2016.
Since 1998 and across the early 2000s, millions of Americans voted at
the state level to define marriage as the union of a man and woman and
more than 38 states have such laws on their books today. Yet with state
and district courts overturning those laws across the country and the
Supreme Court punting on the issue earlier this fall, a number of
questions increasingly come in to play:
Should the definition
of marriage be decided state by state, and how does that then affect
federal law dealing with marriage?
What happens if, as
we’re seeing happen, the courts take the issue out of the hands of
individual states and bans their right to define marriage in their
state and also forces them to recognize the marriage laws of other
states?
How do we protect the
religious freedoms of business owners, churches and others who don’t
want to participate in same-sex marriages–a problem we’re already
encountering?
These are questions potential presidential candidates should be
prepared to answer. A sampling of statements from leading GOP
contenders shows most have some homework to do. All say they favor
marriage being defined as the union of a man and woman–good–but in
light of recent events, few offer policy or legal prescriptions for how
they would actually promote and defend that position or deal with the
increasing number of related issues raised above.
Below, in alphabetical order, are some of the most talked about
contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination, in their own words:
Former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., in a 2013 interview with Newsmax: “I
would prefer it to be a state-by-state issue. That’s how we have
dealt with a lot of issues in the United States. Our federal system is
a spectacular way to deal with changing mores–and states can take
advantage of opportunities much better than federal government.”
Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J. (Photo: Newscom)
Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., talking to reporters this summer at the
National Governor’s Association: “It should be done state by state.”
In 2013, Christie did not appeal the New Jersey State Supreme Court’s
decision ruling the state’s ban on gay marriage was
unconstitutional. A press release from the governor’s office
stated: “Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court
substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected
branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as
to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex
marriage is the law.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, via a press release following the Supreme
Court’s decision not to take up any of the lower court cases
overturning state marriage laws: “Marriage is a question for the
States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect
the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is
why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a
constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the
courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.”
Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., responding the day after the Supreme Court
decision, said in a conference call with reporters that he agrees with
Sen. Cruz and that, “I support what the senator is doing.” He
also said, “I know there are folks that are changing their position on
this. I know former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton,
President Obama, have changed their positions on this. I know you can
certainly see where opinion polls it appears a lot of folks have
changed their positions on this. I’m not a weather vane on this issue,
and I’m not going to change my position. I continue to believe that
marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., talking to a reporter following an event at the
College of Charleston in September: “I believe in old-fashioned
traditional marriage. But I don’t really think the government needs to
be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can
have people on both sides of the issue.” (I’ve written before on Paul’s
lack of clarity on this issue.)
Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas
Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, has supported the federal marriage amendment
in the past, but following the ruling by a federal judge in February of
2014 that a Texas law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, Perry
made a states right argument, saying, “Texans spoke loud and clear by
overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman in our Constitution. The Tenth Amendment guarantees Texas voters
the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to
achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaking at Catholic University last July:
“Those who support same sex marriage have a right to lobby their state
legislatures to change state laws. But Americans who support keeping
the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to
keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing
that overturned by a judge.”
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis, explaining his 2004 vote for a federal marriage
amendment which did not muster the two-thirds of votes needed to
pass: “Marriage is not simply a legal arrangement between
individuals. The institution of marriage is an integral part of our
civil society, and its significance goes well beyond eligibility for
benefits and similar considerations. Its future should not be left to a
few overreaching judges or local officials to decide. That’s why
I support this effort to amend our Constitution to protect marriage.”
Fast forward to 2012 where Ryan said as the GOP vice presidential
nominee that he believes “marriage is between a man and a woman” but
depending on actions of the Supreme Court it may become a “federalism”
issue where states become the deciders.
Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis.
Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., in a press statement in 2006 calling on the
state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment: “The
Wisconsin State Legislature is currently deliberating this issue, and I
strongly urge them to pass the constitutional amendment defining a
marriage as a commitment between one man and one woman. Then, it will
be up to the voters to say what defines a marriage in Wisconsin.”
(The legislature passed the amendment, voters overwhelmingly approved
it, but then a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. Wisconsin was
one of the states directly affected by the Supreme Court’s decision not
to hear the lower court cases earlier this fall.)
Here are Walker’s comments following the SCOTUS decision: “For us, it’s
over in Wisconsin.” He continued, “I’d rather be talking in the
future now more about our jobs plan and our plan for the future of the
state. I think that’s what matters to the kids. It’s not this issue.”
But “this issue” does matter and will continue to matter to many
Americans voting in the 2016 Republican primaries and the general
election. The full court press by the pro same-sex marriage lobby to
label anyone opposing them as a bigot and anti-equal rights, along with
public opinion polls showing an uptick in support for same-sex marriage
among the general population, no doubt makes it one of the tougher
issues to talk about.
But newsflash: Running for president isn’t for sissies.
Additionally, public opinion polls have not mirrored voter
behavior. Regardless of what Americans tell pollsters, the
majority of those going to the polls that matters most, the voting
booth, have supported defining marriage as being between one man and
one woman.
Those contemplating throwing their hat into the 2016 ring should
contemplate now how they will address this issue. It’s not going
away.
Read this article with photos at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
