Posted on 01/06/2015 1:09:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Not so much respect that the state should recognize their commitment as a legal marriage, he stresses, but respect nonetheless.
“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”…
Gay rights leaders said they found Mr. Bush’s statement on Monday encouraging. Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a group that has pushed for same-sex marriage, said that “most Republican politicians have been adamant in their opposition and provide no room for evolution.”
Mr. Bush “at least is expressing his respect for those who support marriage equality,” Mr. Sainz said. “That’s a big change for Republicans.”
Something of a change for Jeb too. BuzzFeed dinged him yesterday by digging up an op-ed from his first run for governor in ’94 in which he framed gay rights as a question of whether “sodomy [should] be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion.” This is the sort of line-walking he’ll have to do now, though, as a man whose base is in the middle but who’ll need social conservatives to show up for him if he’s the nominee. It’s the flip side of the position traditionally taken by some Democrats on abortion, that they’re personally pro-life but pro-choice as a matter of law (“safe, legal, and rare”). The party’s base has a litmus test on a hot-button issue that could cause the candidate headaches with the broader electorate. Solution: Pass the litmus test by siding with your own side on policy while paying carefully crafted lip service to the other side. I’m curious now to see if any of Bush’s more socially conservative competition takes the bait and knocks him for saying gay relationships deserve “respect,” if not legal sanction. That’d be a fun subplot at the debates: Does Mike Huckabee, who’s friendly enough to gay people to have earned a valentine from liberal Sally Kohn in the Daily Beast, want to make an issue of whether committed relationships between two men or two women deserve “respect”? Swing voters can tolerate a candidate who opposes legalizing gay marriage; I don’t know how they’ll feel about someone whom they regard as anti-”respect,” a real problem potentially someone like Huck whose retail power depends heavily on his perceived affability. And if Huck does attack him on this, so much the better for Jeb. It’ll give him a chance to please establishmentarians and independents by defending gays in a visible way, his anti-SSM position notwithstanding.
All of this is premised, though, on the idea that righties will give Bush a pass on his pronouncements on this subject so long as he continues to stick with them on the actual policy. Will they, though? Ted Cruz could get away with the same rhetoric because conservatives have no doubt where he stands ideologically. They do doubt where Jeb stands, such that I wonder if they won’t treat the “respect” verbiage as a sign that he might “evolve” as president a la Obama towards supporting legalized gay marriage himself. That problem isn’t limited to this issue either. Here’s a line from the mission statement from Jeb’s new Super PAC, “Right to Rise.” Quote: “We believe the income gap is real, but that only conservative principles can solve it by removing the barriers to upward mobility.” Pretty unexceptional; Marco Rubio and Mike Lee talk about using conservative policies to create new opportunities for the lower and middle classes regularly. Coming from Jeb, though, that line about the “income gap” sounds a bit … Warren-ish, no? “While the last eight years have been pretty good ones for top earners,” the statement goes on to say, “they’ve been a lost decade for the rest of America.” Quite Warren-ish indeed! And yet, you’ll hear variations on that from nearly every Republican candidate this year, especially ones like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal who’ll be aiming at blue-collar voters and running on economic revival. Because Jeb bears the “RINO” burden, though, it feels more suspicious, an inkling that his presidency would be more left-wing than anyone suspects. Same goes for his statement on gay marriage. How does he solve that problem with conservative voters? Or does he even need to?
Jeb has keen political insight like Wolf Blitzer answers on Jeopardy!
Lifetime commitment?
Yeah, when they celebrate their 50th Anniversary together, I’ll give them respect for their lifetime commitment to each other.
Maybe even on their 25th Anniversary I will.
Not before then.
OMG will that fool never shut up? Go away Jeb. I’ll vote for Hitlery before I ever support you.
I can’t figure out why I’m supposed to respect a man for playing with another man’s private parts, or sticking things in places they are only inconveniently stuck. Even if Christian (and most other forms of) morality were not part of the equation, it would seem to be a neutral matter, at best, with some regard for the obvious mental and physical health issues. I don’t “respect” normal people for having sex or even for getting married. I might be happy for them, I might not. I respect people for their integrity, their achievements, their ability to deal with adversity, etc ... People who are worthy of respect in one area might be completely unworthy of respect in several others. What the hell does Jeb mean? Why do I have to respect them? Why do they “deserve” it?
So a lifetime commitment is the test, Jeb? What if one man and five or six women make a lifetime commitment together? Should they be able to get married? What if a mother makes a lifetime commitment to her son? Should they be allowed to get married? More muddle-headed nonsense from a shallow thinker, just like all the other Bushes.
The fact is, legislature after legislature, in a demonstration of “democracy”, passed laws against homosexual marriage.
It’s the fascist COURTS that are overruling the beloved process of democracy and shoving the sodomite agenda down our throats.
Just wanted to forward to you an example of what most conservatives think of the courts.
My golden retriever deserves respect. But that doesn’t mean I’d allow him to marry. Especially another male golden retriever.
And here is another example of what a conservative thinks of the courts.
Jeb believes that Deviants will reserve themselves to just one other Deviant FOREVER. Yeah, and dogs will do the same, Jeb.
People degrading the concept of marriage do not deserve respect.
Respect? Respect this moral depravity? This evil perversion?
Just go burn in hell, Jeb, you POS!!!! My God, how I despise bastards like you. Go choke to death!
Let's no even get into the fact that some folks actually believe Rand Paul is Conservative.
Do you (collective “you,” not 2ndDivisionVet) understand how very real the Jeb Bush threat is? Is it worth supporting the one-percenter over a Ted Cruz when a loss means Bush/Christie/Paul?
Two faggots committing to sodomize each other deserve contempt, Jeb.
Oh gawd nooooo..........
People like PapaNew are the reason WHY people like Jeb can get elected and sugar-coat the queer marriage agenda.
20 years ago he got it right. Now he is pretending there is no difference.
Look, I am willing to tolerate behavior I disagree with....do it all the time in a society that is pluralistic.
I do not agree with society forcing me to endorse, celebrate, and equate that behavior with what marriage has been for centuries.
The Judeo-Christian faith does not endorse such activities, and now this pagan society is ramming it down our throats. That is wickedness.
Two gay people wanna pretend they have a healthy relationship and give each other shared property rights, etc.? As far as I know that has NEVER been a problem.
The gay lobby is seeking more than that--it is seeking validation and endorsement from those who disagree with the behavior (see: bakers and photographers who are Bible believing Christians). And sadly some of the courts have gone along with the fascists.
Egocentric village idiot.
We don't need to demand that society redefine any institution to recognize our special relationship.
That is just it, either a civil union or a marriage is at its foundation, a contract between two people for a long-term commitment. Now, most contracts are written, for the most part including those of civil unions, and have enforceable clauses, open to review by disinterested parties that make a decision as to the intent of those clauses. Marriages differ from most contracts, in that most of the terms are UNWRITTEN, and are only interpreted by an edict from a court specializing in this branch of civil law. Using this large body of case law, the individual circumstances of each marriage may be examined when there is some contention as to the degree of commitment each of the parties has to maintaining that contract, and the adjudication is administered accordingly.
If you want messy, the various interpretations of just what “marriage” means are fertile ground.
Do these same-sex couples really want to complicate their lives that much?
“Is it worth supporting the one-percenter over a Ted Cruz when a loss means Bush/Christie/Paul?”
Is it the same as supporting the one-percenter?
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.