Posted on 04/26/2015 6:04:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WAUKEE, Iowa — When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took the stage at 9:30 p.m. Saturday night, the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition's spring summit was an hour behind schedule.
He promised the crowd of more than 1,000 at the evangelical Point of Grace Church he would keep his remarks brief so everyone could get home, get to bed and get up for church in the morning. He'd be doing just that, he added, back home in Wauwatosa.
Wearing a suit — with no mention of whether it was from Kohl's — and pacing the stage, Walker was at ease, peppering a few new elements into a stump speech he's given throughout the country as he considers a presidential bid. In his voice, the wear of two days' worth of events across the state could be heard, but his speech drew cheers, stomps and applause.
Just before he took the stage, Walker told reporters he's holding out hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that states can bar same-sex marriages. But if that's not the case, he suggested that voters should seek a constitutional amendment to allow state-level bans.
"I think the appropriate route is for people across America who care deeply about this issue to pursue a constitutional amendment allowing the states to determine what the definition is," Walker told reporters.
When the Supreme Court declined to hear Wisconsin's case last fall, Walker said, "For us, it's over in Wisconsin." But his comments on Saturday indicated he's not ready to walk away from the fight.
He made no mention of a constitutional amendment in his speech, but reaffirmed his belief that marriage "is between one man and one woman" and that states should be the ones to define the terms.
"Another day, and another issue Scott Walker has decided to take a wildly extreme position on," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Jason Pitt. "While the rest of the country moves forward and continues to recognize legal, same-sex marriage, Scott Walker, Steve King and other GOP 2016 hopefuls keep trying to turn back the clock."
Touting his record in Wisconsin, Walker boasted of the state's pension system, its 4.6 percent unemployment rate and the changes enacted through his signature Act 10 legislation, which eliminated collective bargaining rights for most public employees. The protests it sparked first propelled him to the national stage.
The biggest applause came in response to comments about defunding Planned Parenthood and passing castle doctrine, concealed carry and voter ID legislation.
Absent were any mentions of Wisconsin's job growth, which earned him criticism from his detractors during a recent trip to Minnesota. The state ranks at 40th in the nation for job growth and 42nd for wage growth, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the state's job growth has lagged the national average since six months into Walker's first term.
But the crowd wasn't gathered at the church to talk about the economy. Most attendees said they were most concerned with where candidates stood on social issues and national security.
For Renee and Troy McGill, of Ankeny, abortion and marriage are top-priority issues when they consider who they'll support in the caucuses.
"For me, pro-life is a huge issue," Renee said. "But I also liked what Carly (Fiorina) had to say about foreign policy."
Troy said he'd like to see a governor run for president, but more than that, he wants a candidate who will say what he or she means and stick to it.
Dallas County Supervisor Mark Hanson said he's heard Walker is that kind of candidate, but it's too soon for him to declare an allegiance with any of the contenders.
But he, too, said he's more likely to support a governor than a senator.
"They're one of 100, and that's a little bit of what Obama is, too," Hanson said.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio found at least one supporter in David Hance, a retired attorney from Ankeny. Hance said the GOP needs someone new to national politics to be successful in 2016.
Hance said his personal favorite among the pack is former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — but Perry's 2012 performance has him wary of supporting him this time around. He likes Walker, too, but he's concerned about the governor's electability.
"I like him, but I know some of the independents and other people that have union connections are totally opposed to him," Hance said. "So that might drive away some of the independent and lukewarm Republicans that otherwise might vote for a Republican that didn’t have that type of conflict or that type of baggage."
Hanson said the crowd gathered in Waukee is a "segment of the base" in Iowa. The state's evangelical voters tend to be a little older, he said, but they also tend to have a strong turnout in the caucuses and at the polls.
Reading a passage from the devotional book "Jesus Calling," Walker told the crowd about his decision to run for governor in 2010 — something he and his wife, Tonette, decided through discussion and prayer.
Walker has previously said he doesn't believe he should run for president because it's the "next logical step" in his career. Rather, he has said, it should be because he feels called to it.
"The best way to minister is to accept God's calling when you least expect it," Walker said. "We felt it was a calling to get in that election. We felt we were called to do the right thing, so we worried more about the next generation than we did the next election."
The state of Alabama does recognize homosexual marriage. If you are an educator (college, university, primary, secondary) in any public institution in the state, then state provided medical insurance covers the same sex spouse if you choose.
My preferred candidate is Ted Cruz.
Re: Scott Walker and same-sex marriage -
Under current court rulings striking down states on same-sex marriage, and under a coming SCOTUS ruling almost certain to make a sweeping determination that there’s a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the question then DOES become, “can states ban same-sex marriage?”
Walker appears to be advancing his own belief that states have the right to define marriage. Under the Tenth Amendment they certainly do. By banning all but heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, that WAS where most states stood on this, until Holder refused to follow the Defense of Marriage Act, and until federal courts started knocking down states like dominos on this issue. Federal Courts nor any other federal branch were given that power, therefore it devolves to the states.
I don’t see a problem with Scott Walker on this issue. His stance is absolutely the correct and courageous one.
Walker is being criticized by some for allowing a court decision to decide it for Wisconsin. In other words for not standing for nullification, civil disobedience, resistance - whatever one calls it - when federal courts usurp states powers.
What he might be trying to do is use states to amend the Constitution to actually spell out in precise words that states are the ones to decide this issue, by making it an agenda item if a Fifth Amendment Convention of the States does happen (see Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”), to put such a proposed amendment in play, there.
That seems to be where he’s heading on this. What other venue could produce an amendment that says the states, only, can define marriage, besides that one?
In the meantime, let’s compare his position on whether to obey, or to nullify, a federal court ruling on this issue, with positions of other candidates on the same thing.
Let’s compare apples to apples.
That might be news to all the people who voted for State Propositions that have been overturned by activist courts.
Walker believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
I'd like you to read this piece: Scott Walker, a Pastor’s Son, Runs on Faith as Iowa Beckons published in the NYT (not written to blow kisses at Scott Walker but it does inform us on some aspects that you might consider when you're making these opposition postings).
CW,
If citizens of a state overwhelmingly approve a constitutional amendment defining and upholding marriage, and some leftist hack federal judge strikes it down under false pretenses, then how can we be a nation of laws?
So we have to abide by a law deemed "the law" by usurpers who have absolutely no jurisdiction over our state, rather than the law voted on and added to the state constitution by its citizens?
THANK YOU!
That's fine, but has he followed through and stood up for his beliefs and others who also believe that marriage is one man/one woman against the lawlessness of the federal courts.
Sadly, a constitutional amendment would probably have as little effect as the current constitution which most clearly does NOT mandate homosexual marriage. If the justices can rewrite existing law, they can certainly rewrite any new laws. The problem isn’t the constitution. It’s the people we elect and their failure to reign in the judicial branch.
There’s a whole lot of judges needin’ impeachin’.
I'll second that.
When confronted with the homo-marriage insanity being imposed in his own home state, I found Walker’s response to be... unimpressive. To put it kindly.
These are not "bans on gay marriage."
Stop playing the leftist propaganda game.
All states did was define marriage as between one man/one woman based on biblical, historical, and constitutional laws.
Homosexuals can get married....they just have to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Natural Born Citizen means citizen by birth and not by being naturalized.
Congress has the right to define these matters.
Under the relevant statute, Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States by birth, by being born to a United States citizen who was working in Canada at the time but who was herself a U.S. citizen at birth, not naturalized, and the relevant statute did not require that both parents be natural born citizens of the United States, therefore his mother satisfied that requirement.
Nice of you to note Walker’s qualification status, however, please don’t muddy up the waters by implication that Ted Cruz doesn’t meet the necessary criteria.
Yes, he does.
If you don’t believe it, ask Jim Robinson, who has made it crystal clear.
Do tell?
What would you have done Gov. greene66?
Nullification. State the rogue federal judge has no say in Wisconsin’s law, and no say in what defines a married couple. Fight, dammit.
If it's news to them, that's because they are not learning it public schools, or in the media, or from those who are supposed to be representing them.
Absolutely.
Gov. Walker is a fighter.
It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.
Yes, but the question I still have is whether Walker is a fighter for “my” interests and “my” values, or just a fighter for the GOP moneyed class and Chamber-of-Commerce crowd?
That’s a question I consider unresolved at this point.
If you vote, you will be forced to chose ‘between the lessor of two evils’. There are no other choices on the ballot, ever.
The only man who wasn’t ‘the lessor of two evils’ left the earth a long time ago.
That is true, but at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. It’s kicked in for me.
>>The question is, “can states permit same-sex marriage?”
Marriage is an historically observable state-established mechanism for regulating sociobiological/reproductive competitiveness among competing cultures.
In that context, same-sex “marriage” has what effect?
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.