Posted on 06/30/2015 6:02:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Scott Walker’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling has saved his reputation with the conservative right.
Scott Walker has his groove back with social conservatives and he has the Supreme Court to thank.
After the court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, Walker released a statement calling for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. And social conservatives loved it, and it came at a moment when he needed all the love he could get.
Back in May, the Wisconsin governor traveled to Washington to meet with a bevy of leaders from the party’s more conservative wing.
And in that meeting, there were lots of Walker skeptics.
Penny Nance—the president of the influential conservative group Concerned Women for America—emailed to The Daily Beast after that meeting to say she still wasn’t convinced Walker was a strong enough opponent of same-sex marriage.
“I think people are still trying to discern,” his position, she wrote.
His list of confusing comments about the issue over the years made it a little tricky for some on the right to ascertain his position.
In 2014, for instance, after a district court judge declared that the Badger State’s ban on same-sex marriage wasn’t constitutional, he gave an oddly obtuse answer on the topic at a press conference.
“It doesn’t really matter what I think,” Walker told reporters, per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “It’s in the Constitution.”
Then he refused to clarify his position on the marriage question.
“No,” he said. “I’m just not stating one at all.”
For gay marriage foes, that little exchange didn’t exactly make him a profile in courage.
“In calling for a federal marriage amendment that would allow states to determine their own laws on marriage Walker has put to final rest any questions social conservatives had on his willingness to lead on the matter,” Penny Nance, head of Concerned Women For America.
And it wasn’t the only time he telegraphed a position on the question that was a bit more nuanced than you might expect from, well, a Republican presidential candidate.
In a 2013 interview with Bloomberg, the likely 2016 contender indicated that he could be comfortable with federal legislation protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination. Walker noted that Wisconsin didn’t let same-sex couples married, but still afforded them those employment protections.
“There’s a healthy balance there,” he said.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are not interested in finding “a healthy balance,” and they weren’t thrilled with Walker’s comments.
But all this changed on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
In response, Walker released a statement saying he favored amending the Constitution to let individual states decide whether or not to allow those unions. As The Daily Beast noted at the time, this distinguished him from other top-tier Republican contenders who refused to back changes to the Constitution.
And people noticed. When the Beast asked Nance if Walker’s full-throated support of a Constitutional amendment gave her more confidence that he would side with her on the marriage question, she emailed, “Boy has it!”
“In calling for a federal marriage amendment that would allow states to determine their own laws on marriage Walker has put to final rest any questions social conservatives had on his willingness to lead on the matter,” she wrote.
And though Nance—like most activists—doesn’t have a 2016 favorite yet, she said taking a Walker-esque position on marriage is a must.
“Just as Roe made the issue of life central to support for a presidential candidate, the Obergefell decision has hardened our resolve on marriage,” she wrote. “The courts have made them issues that candidates for federal office can no longer duck.”
Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, is in the same boat. He said he was “distraught” with the comments Walker made last year about the overturn of Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment.
“I thought it was a huge mistake,” Brown said. “But ever since then, he has been working very hard to be a leader on the marriage issue.”
He also said that, in his view, Walker has changed his position on marriage, and for the better.
“If we ask people to sign pledges and stand for principles, then when they do it, we can’t second-guess them,” he said. “So I’m ecstatic he’s doing this.”
And Bob Vander Plaats, the president of the Iowa-based conservative group The Family Leader, said he was also delighted with Walker’s endorsement of an amendment.
He said his group was “openly concerned” with some of Walker’s previous comments on marriage, and that the governor’s stance has assuaged those fears.
Asked if he thought Walker had changed his position on how to handle marriage issues, Vander Plaats said, “Yea, without question.”
“I was thrilled to be able to see his response to this opinion,” he said.
Walker aides emailed to say that the governor’s position on the issue hasn’t actually changed, noting that in 1997 as a state legislator, he voted to ban same-sex marriage in the Badger State.
But while Walker’s single-minded opposition to same-sex marriage has won him favor with anti-same-sex-marriage activists, it’s already alienated some big Republican donors.
The Washington Post reported last week that Walker lost the support of one hedge-fund billionaire after having a long argument with him about the issue.
And an insider close with the New York Republican donor community expressed disappointment with Walker’s change of tone on the issue and support for a Constitutional amendment, and suggested it could make it harder for him to secure New York Republican donors.
Mary Cheney, an openly gay political consultant who is also Dick Cheney’s daughter, expressed bafflement at Walker’s move.
“From a political perspective, I don’t understand why you would do that,” she said.
“Anti Gay”? Cute.
Just because we dont want to have to be forced to deal with their gross sex habits and desires, because they cant identify as anything of substance, we are “anti gay”?
April 2015
Listening to Gov. Scott Walker, the kerfuffle over the religious beliefs of an Indiana pizzeria owner are much ado about nothing.
“I just think this is people who are chronically looking for ways to be upset about things instead of really looking at what it is,” Walker said of the media and activists bringing attention to it.
He blamed national media for adding to the “hype and hysteria” in the discussion with WTMJ host Charlie Sykes.
He made it clear he wasn’t backing down from the issue, saying, “I believe protecting religious freedom is inherent in our state constitution.
“Heck, it’s inherent in our U.S. Constitution. And in Wisconsin we’ve done it and we’re stronger for it.”
Asked if he would sign a bill similar to the one in Indiana, the governor responded, “We don’t need to. In Wisconsin we have it in our constitution. That’s the remarkable thing, for all the hype, particularly in the media, here in Wisconsin we have it in the constitution. It’s even more entrenched than anything that could be in the state statutes.”
Walker’s comments are in response to a Walkerton, Indiana pizzeria being targeted by progressives, forcing the owners to temporarily to shut down.
A high school coach threatened to burn Memories Pizza down, according to Fox News.
In response, Americans have donated over $732,000 to support the business through a Go Fund Me page.
June 29, 2015
MADISON, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Democrats on Monday called for the elimination of nullified language in the state’s constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Lawmakers held a news conference to introduce the resolution after the U.S. Supreme Court decision Friday legalizing gay marriage nationwide. State Reps. JoCasta Zamarripa, D-Milwaukee, and Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, applauded the court’s decision and said Wisconsin’s constitution should be amended to reflect it.
“Finally victory is ours, but with this bill we want to ensure that our beloved state of Wisconsin is on the right side of history by removing this discriminatory language from our constitution,” Zamarripa said.
The measure is largely symbolic because a federal appeals court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban last year. But Spreitzer said it’s important to give voters an opportunity to amend the constitution. Voters in 2006 amended the constitution to include the definition.
“Even though it’s not enforceable, it would really be embarrassing to the state of Wisconsin if this language continued to be part of our constitution,” Spreitzer said. “We really need to give the opportunity to show that the voters have changed their minds.”.....................
http://www.tribtown.com/view/story/3fc879d8c02644c4a28277c09a7b5b18/WI—Gay-Marriage-Democrats
Sayyyyyyy.
Ah, yes, “headline news.”
There is no chance of a Constitutional Amendment on the subject passing. So, this is purely posturing.
The useful thing a sitting Governor could do would be to instruct his Administration to ignore the Supreme’s anti-constitutional invention, and continue to live by the laws of his state.
Then, you’d have both effect and a pointed response to the pointed error of the Supremes.
I suppose some might have thought this was Walker "posturing" too.
They were spectacularly wrong.
Who’s against Gay’s???? Stupid Betsy....
Walker’s rep didn’t need “saving” with the right. Aside from a few haters, he has a great rep.
bttt
Exactly!
I guess I'm not sure either. Personally, I hate it that gays have hijacked the word "marriage." Apparently civil unions weren't good enough for them. Do you think this is a net win for Scott? Possibly in the GOP primary it's a plus, but in the general I'm not so sure.
Just as the Supreme Court went full-bore into unrestricted abortion years ago and have been clawing our way back to some form of sanity ever since, that same Court now sends us full-bore into gay marriage nationwide.
At first, I didn’t agree with Walker’s proposal, thinking that state-by-state laws are no longer the answer due to the mobility of the population. It makes no sense to be legally married in California, but then, following a move, to not be legally married in Wisconsin.
However, state laws are relatively easy to change, and a constitutional amendment leaving the matter to the States might just be achievable, particularly if a Convention of the States is ever called. With an amendment on the books, if it became apparent that allowing gay marriages was causing serious societal ills or leading to inexorable pressure to relax the law to include polygamy, etc., a large number of States could move to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling, and do so relatively quickly.
State-by-state determination of many of the issues attendant to gay marriage would also be a useful exercise, much as certain states are now experimenting with marijuana legalization.
It’s also relatively easy to justify such an amendment. If the country is four-square behind gay marriage, all states would authorize it so it would have no impact. If they’re not, why deny the citizens of certain states their right to establish their own law? (As was, incidentally, the case regarding marriage only a short year or so ago.)
>>“From a political perspective, I don’t understand why you would do that.”
I guess I’m not sure either. <<
Walker is very astute politically. He will hedge until he decides upon a final position, but you can tell when he’s settled upon one.
He did that with immigration, for example, when he finally stated that American jobs and wages need to be considered in any discussion of how many are allowed to immigrate. That stance subsumed the illegal issue since if we’re going to set legal immigration levels, we obviously have to stop illegal immigration or the whole exercise becomes meaningless.
As I posted above this one, I think he’s probably found a sweet spot in the gay marriage issue as well, although at first I was doubtful. He’s not dismissing the Supreme Court, but is suggesting what has to be done if the voters in any particular state are against gay marriage being legalized, or even if they believe that civil unions (or marriages) should be legal but only with certain benefits conferred, such as visitation rights, legal inheritance, etc., and certain responsibilities such as alimony payments upon dissolution, joint liability for taxes, etc.
If the issue subsides, the call for an amendment will diminish. But if the issue grows more contentious, like the abortion issue has, he will be in a good spot politically for advocating it, because it’s a reasonable response that could be quite effective in addressing the issue.
I haven’t fully worked this out in my own mind, so feel free to lodge concerns.
You know, when a buddy of mine an I were tossing Gays off the Roof of a five Story Building last week, we were discussing Scott Walker’s chances of getting the Nomination.
As disgusting as gay marriage is the younger generations seem to have no problem with it. How do you un-brainwash them on this?
No constitutional amendments are likely for anything that I can foresee. Maybe one could pass if something “free” is offered to the general public. John Q. Public will never learn.
Good dissemination.
Watching how Walker works, I’ve noticed that he has the ability to keep moving the ball in the direction he wants it to go - that he’s in it to win it (take the country back).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.