Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

March 24, 2013 - 12:42 pm

Too soon, say some party insiders. I would agree with that assessment simply because a large number of Republicans who oppose gay marriage do so out of religious conviction and there is little chance of their position “evolving” anytime soon.

Karl Rove disagrees:

In an appearance on Sunday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week,” Rove was asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether he could “imagine” the next GOP presidential candidate saying they are flat out for gay marriage.

“I could,” Rove said.

Some Republican strategists are not convinced change will happen that quickly. John Weaver, manager of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s 2012 presidential run, told HuffPost last week that four years from now is too soon.

“Will we have a candidate who gets there?,” Weaver asked. “Yes. Will it be in 2016? No.”

On the flip side, one Republican voice believes the marker has already been crossed. Stu Stevens, a senior adviser for 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, told HuffPost Monday that Dick Cheney’s role as George W. Bush’s running mate fulfilled “that moment.” Cheney’s daughter Mary is a lesbian.

“I mean, for heaven’s sake, Cheney was on stage at the RNC Convention with Heather and Mary, and on the front page of The New York Times, Heather was referred to as Mary Cheney’s ‘friend,’” Stevens said. “It’s not just about the Republican Party, it’s about the culture.”

Strategist Ann Navarro thinks the evolutionary process of changing GOP minds on gay marriage is well underway:

“There’s no putting this genie back in the bottle. This is now undeniable. The shift is here. We’re not going back,” Navarro, a CNN contributor, said on CNN”s “State of the Union.” “I do feel an evolution and a shift, a small change albeit in the Republican party. People who maybe a few years ago were saying hell no we won’t go there are now saying it should be states rights. They’re talking about it in a different way. The people who are taking about it in a very strident way are now a minority.”

Citing a recent swath of polls that show support for gay marriage climbing to unprecedented highs, Navarro added the rhetoric within the Republican party has changed “tremendously.”

“We’re no longer saying that people who are pro traditional marriage are bigots, and we’re also not saying that people who are like me, a Republican that is for gay marriage, is less of a Republican,” she said. “There’s now much more room with in that tent. It may not look at it, but it is.”

Well, Navarro doesn’t get around too much if she actually thinks that some in the party don’t accuse GOP gay marriage supporters of being “less of a Republican.”

No matter. What might be possible by 2016 is a shift in emphasis on gay marriage to making it a matter of states’ rights rather than a federal issue. Rand Paul is pushing that notion forward:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) suggested Sunday he wouldn’t mind if the Supreme Court struck down “the federalization part” of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) when it takes up the issue this week, since he believes the issue should be left up to the states.

“I’ve always said that the states have the right to decide,” Paul, who opposes gay marriage, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

DOMA, the federal 1996 law, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. So does a 2004 amendment to Kentucky’s state constitution.

“I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don’t think the federal government should tell us otherwise,” Paul said. “I don’t want the government promoting something I don’t believe in, but I also don’t mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue.” matter. What might be possible by 2016 is a shift in emphasis on gay marriage to making it a matter of states’ rights rather than a federal issue. Rand Paul is pushing that notion forward:

According to a Pew Research poll taken in December, only 27% of Republicans support gay marriage. The most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll from last week show 34% support for gay marriage among Republicans. It is doubtful those numbers will flip anytime soon. The GOP will be a reliably anti-gay marriage party for 2016 and beyond.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
With a mental midget like George Stephanopoulos gay marriage is the most important issue of the day. Our nation is sliding toward fiscal collapse, ObamaCare is a disaster, and Iran is about to acquire nukes, and George is all wrapped up in Steve and Bruce’s wedding desires.

If Rove wasn’t such a worthless inside the beltway nitwit himself his appropriate response should have been “George, who gives a damn? Now let’s discuss the issue of the 16.5 trillion dollar national debt.”

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Same-sex marriage has become the Hipster Touchstone: if you're for it, you are at least nominally "cool," even if you hold other conservative views; if you oppose it, regardless of your reasons, you are a troglodyte---and you probably are white, "religious," a watcher of Fox News, and in general an incarnation of everything else that's Bad, regardless of whether or not you are in fact any of these things.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
History repeating itself!
LGBT is being used by Progressive New Left Activists the same way Germany's minority disparate groups were used in the 1920's to lull its citizenry into allowing their candidate and (National Socialism) to wrest control of then: Germany's laws, courts, all jurisprudence and ultimately everything German. Bolsheviks and Menscheviks (Stalin) the same...just read history.
GunControl (America's Second amendment) and Gay Movement (America's First amendment) are focused on fundamentally changing and altering America's course in its history. If the Bill of Rights can be substantially altered, changed forever, America's Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights are its first ten amendments 12/15/1791-George Mason) is also up for grabs...America's form of 1)governance, 2)financial system, 3)education and even its 4)religion (if allowed to change) will forever...alter the course of Americas history.Remember Obama's prophetic words? We Will Transform America(he lectured the Constitution in Chicago). Powerful, deep pocketed individuals are financing this change for:1)greed, 2)power and 3)corruption.Wake-up America. She's on life support! Pray. Amen. Visible proof of this quantum effort currently underway is available! Where are the OWS'ers? And WTO'ers? Anarchists? NAH! All, strangely quiet!!! "All's quiet on the Western Front!" God Bless America!! Stand beside Her, and Guide Her!!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Anything to keep the low information voters' eyes off the real issues: debt, debt, spending, spending, taxes, taxes, health care collapse, etc, et al. Keep them away from anything serious that requires thinking and keep the focus on "emotional" issues.

Since all states have both civil marriage and some sort of licensing regime to regulate marriage, and always have, there is a very strong argument to be made that this is not a Federal issue. However, notwithstanding both the First and Tenth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment provides [section 1, sentence 2] for "equal protection of the laws" for all American citizens. In 1971 in Reed vs Reed the SCOTUS ended discrimination based on sex. That might be a precedent here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Are you trying to bore us to tears with yet another article on this topic? However, I'm glad to see that you're also dealing with matters of real importance in your article on Punxsatawney Phil, a dear little soul fighting an existential battle with an out-of-control prosecutor. Go Phil!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The federal government is only involved from a position of the constitutions idividual equal right protection. The constitution does not define marriage and the federal government, is barred from doing so, by the First Amendment if, such claim were to be based on any religious beliefs and practices.


Will be interesting to see how this issue, the constitutions equal rights protections and the states tenth amendment authority washes out in the end.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Until the constitution is amended to define marriage, the federal governments only authority in the issue is the constitutions 'individual' equal rights protection. The federal government, on claim of any religious tenant(s), is barred from infringing by legislation, any reiligious beliefs and practices, one over another or none at all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Durn! Both the above comments was to attach to another comment way down below, but posted at the top of the page.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Could the next Republican presidential nominee support homosexual "marriage"? Sure, if he wants to lose the election by the biggest landslide since Ronald Reagan trounced Walter Mondale.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dishonest poltical rhetoric has not been a stranger to campaigns for oh, I don't know......... More often than not it always comes back in their faces too reveal their hypocrisy or dishonesty. However, today it seems to come back at them as "before he was against it, her was for it" charges which seemingly, masks outright dishonesty.

Reality put the ReligiousRight/MoralMajority back in the closet back in the 80s and my guess is, that they will eventually have to retreat back there in the end. The difference this time, is that they seek to do as much damage to the GOP and the legitimate 'conservative' brand as possible before retreating to their assigned closet.

If the GOP were smart they would bury that old 'conservative' brand rethoric and find some new legitimate identity term(s) to begin to rebuild a 'legitimate' new party image and purpose.

Gay rights, abortion, dumping old people and the infirmed to the curb and other 'religious' tenants are always going to be a party loser in these modern times of reality.

Until they can come up with signficant and legitimate party changes, 2016 is going to be another loser nationally and likewise, a decline in GOP held states. I see NO candidates on the horizon who can unite the old party or lead a new changed party.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Okay Zeke I'll bite.

Let's assume that the religious right goes into the closet.

If we are in the closet...who will do your footwork for you? The door to doors? The making and funding of ads?

We may be zealous but the zeal drives us to contribute more sweat equity than any other faction.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Could the Institutional Republican candidate in 2016 be a gay marriage supporter? Sure. But by that time with the Institutionals rolling over for Obama on every issue, with the "Republican" Speaker of the House voting with the Democrats and against the Republican caucus to give the Democrats victory time and again, with the RINO Senate Caucus dependably supporting anything the Democrats want; the Republican nominee could campaign on any platform at all and would still lose. Because the Republican base is leaving in droves.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Gay couples will be allowed to marry in all states within a few years (maybe sooner if SCOTUS rules that marriage is a federally protected right - which I don't believe it should and hope it won't.) The number of GOP politicians railing against same-sex marriage diminishes daily. Politics is about priorities. With our debt at $17 trillion, our medical care being federally socialized, our military being gutted, executive orders taking the place of legislation, our labor participation rate plummeting, etc., every word Republicans spend on opposing gay marriage is an opportunity lost.

(While I don't doubt Reagan supported traditional marriage, his stand on that issue, as with abortion, was not a major subject of his campaigns or his Presidential speeches. While I honor President Reagan in many ways, he was running in the 1980s. Even Bill Clinton in the '90s and BHO in 2008 opposed gay marriage. Those who think the US in 2013 has the same attitude toward gays as it did 30, 20, 10 or even 5 years ago are grossly uninformed.)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When culture rots, culture rots.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Culture rot is a very subjective subject. Whose standards are you using when defining culture rot? If Christianity, then curltural rot has been around a very long time as nobody has yet lived up to all the Christain tenants. If on the other hand, you're using Judaism, cultural rot has been around for even a longer period of time. In my 'religion' God says He will judge all and thus, I'll live my life as best I can accordinf to my religious tenants and leave others to do the same and be judged by God when that time comes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Culture rot is a very subjective subject. Whose standards are you using when defining culture rot?"

Thus proving my point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All