Posted on 06/13/2014 7:30:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
For years, Gov. Scott Walker has been a rock-solid proponent of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
As Milwaukee County executive, he opposed efforts to provide health care benefits to the gay partners of county employees. He also spoke out in favor of a 2006 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
In 2010, he campaigned for governor as a supporter of traditional marriage. He also opposed a law that allowed gay couples to register with counties to get certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights.
"My position has been clear," Walker said Thursday.
Indeed, it was.
But that is no longer the case.
During a 12-minute news conference at a muddy and messy groundbreaking event in Oak Creek, the first-term Republican governor argued that his position on same-sex marriage is no longer relevant.
"It really doesn't matter what I think now," Walker said at one point. "It's in the constitution."
And it's out of his hands, he suggested.
U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb has overturned the state's constitutional amendment, but Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is appealing that decision. Van Hollen is also raising the possibility of prosecutors charging county clerks who permit gay marriages.
"If the people voted to change something in the state's constitution, I think it is right for the state's attorney general to uphold the constitution," Walker said, without explicitly stating whether he agreed with the idea of prosecuting county clerks.
Ultimately, he argued, the matter could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state will follow that ruling.
But where is Walker on the issue now?(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Walker is smart.....it is out of his hands and the question was a set up for a sound bite to use by the left to demonize him .....
Don’t give these leftist bastards any amno...
Support for Gay Marriage is the Mark of the Beast.
Agreed. Why should he give them another lever to attack him with, when it would do no practical good?
Maybe he should have said they need a 12 step program? No matter what he said, he would have been vilified.
We know his position on it. The Enemy Media in this state are throwing things against the wall this week to see what sticks.
This isn’t going to stick.
Trust me; we Wisconsinites who VOTED to change our State Constitution to make, ‘Marriage’ One Man and One Woman are pretty p*ssed that ONE JUDGE can overthrown what We The People of this state VOTED FOR!
OMG! Can you imagine the uproar if the subject matter was something the Libtards VOTED for, then was overturned by a single judge?
How I HATE these judges!
the Journal-Sentinal leans VERY heavily to the left and they never did like the governor. Treat them as you do the New York Times....
One of many.
There is nothing Scott Walker could do which would make liberals hate him any more after they got smashed in the 2012 recall election. Meanwhile, refusing to take a stance on one of the most important positions will irritate conservatives in the state, and rightfully so. We already have wusses in the US House and Senate, Wisconsin doesn’t need a wuss in the governor’s seat.
No. He’s not smart. He’s a coward. They don’t need ammo. They have it. He just wants to run for POTUS and will try and smarm his way to the nomination like so many others.
Let’s solemnize a public health risk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Anal lesions occur most frequently in men who engage in anal-receptive intercourse, where the association has been observed to be as high as 95% in patients.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780052/
Damn, even RINO Rick here in Michigan has stood firm on it.
Sounds like a squish move on his part. Don’t admire that at all.
Not speaking clearly on moral matters is NEVER smart. It is cowardice, and the West is drowning in it these days.
If we get blessed with any more such "smart" people, and we can kiss our behinds behind. (Actually, I think we crossed that threshold in 2008....)
Why is it fine with half the people here to be censored.
I think he needs to define himself somehow on this issue.
I would say I believe in marriage being between a man and a woman but I would also say that changing marriage definitions is just the beginning.
The proponents of gay marriage are demonizing those opposing gay marriage (as Justice Scalia noted in his dissent on last year’s DOMA case) and are already silencing them using boycott tactics and labeling them “bigots” to shut down their business operations or causing them to lose their jobs.
This isn’t ultimately about the definition of marriage, it is an ever increasing and never ending attack on the Constitution designed to deny First Amendment rights of free speech and religion to Americans who disapprove of homosexuality and or gay marriage.
What is the use of a leader getting microphone time, if he won’t use it to sell his message?
I thought the purpose of entering politics was to give you a platform to sell and promote and work for your ideals.
Then we hope Scott Walker never criticizes Obamacare or anything else that the SCOTUS have decided on.
What kind of mindset is this? Is this conservatism, to just say “well, the ball is in the radical activist court now. Oh well!”
Where is the governor with guts who will without hesitation
“The Supreme Court and the lower DC courts as well as various state courts are infested with several judges who take a revisionist view of the Constitution. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘living and breathing Constitution’. This view of our founding document renders these judges illegitimate to serve on any court in the land and therefore delegitimizes any decisions they will make, or have hitherto made with regards to the constitution. There is no right to marriage under our constitution. Marriage a civil contract privileged to those who can fit the definition of a marriage that is and has been in this part of the world for over 2000 years, one woman and one man”
Not hard
He’s done an amazing job in Wisconsin, and he has the best chance of beating Hillary.
Yes, all of what you posted is exactly why I insist that homosexuality be criminalized. The problem with legalizing homosexuality is that doing so gives it some measure of social acceptance _ and giving criminals and deviants even a little social acceptance will lead to them abusing it and demanding that the rest of society accept it at gunpoint.
Also, Walker’s appeal to the US Supreme Court is tacit support of gay marriage _ any ruling would be either 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of gay marriage. I’m not sure how Roberts would vote _ he started off as a voice of reason, but seems to realize that there’s a lot more prestige and money in backing moonbat political positions. Kennedy (I think he’s libertarian) was the main author of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and the other 4 liberal justices are obvious traitors with every choice they make.
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.