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?
Really, you think I have a problem with the Constitution because I point out where certain things MUST be a federal matter?
Yes, when you decide the feds should take action outside their constitutional bounds. The Constitution has not given the feds the power to meddle in marriage. And amazingly you think the feds are the answer to prohibit gay marriage when in fact the feds are currently in the process of trying to overturn state anti-gay-marriage laws.
I don't think they're [the feds] the good guys, but I know that on vital issues they are the only way to preserve morality.
What you consider to be "vital issues" is not the standard for federal action. The Constitution is the standard. Otherwise you're back to the tyranny of the rule of man where today the morality of the Right might prevail, but sooner or later, the moraliy of the Left will prevail and you won't be free to choose regardless of what you think.
Besides the Rule of Law issue, your pipe dream of federal preservation of morality is not backed by the reality of historical fact. The feds are responsible for forced, unconstitutional usurping of state laws leading to 70+ million abortions, Biblical illiteracy and weakened faith in God by banning prayer and the Bible in schools. The feds now unconstitutionally threaten your gun-possession rights and are in the process of overturning state anti-gay-marriage laws. The feds hardly have a record of "preserving morality." You faith in big government is misplaced.
The Full Faith and Credit issue is really not a big deal and the state A & B scenario I gave is generally settled law. But if you still wanted to fix this at the national level, as I said, the answer would be a Constitutional amendment that would be an exception to FF&C allowing a state to refuse gay marriage but also confirming prohibition of federal interference with state anti-gay-marriage laws.
Of course, on an individual case basis, a bona-fide Full Faith and Credit case would be settled in federal court, but that would NOT give the feds power over the marriage issue, only power to deal with a Full Faith and Credit issue which the Constitutional Amendment, if ratified, would alter.
interesting
Interesting, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. You apparently feel comfortable “pigeon-holing” people. But you can’t pigeon hole an independent thinker. I don’t mindlessly follow the crowd and have thought a lot about what we’re talking about.
I don’t appreciate the contempt you show towards those with whom you disagree. It makes you look small.
Really, you think YOU are here to benefit us?
But it certainly doesn't seem fair to only include them on your side of the argument does it?
Life isn't always fair.
Seems like you should send my replies to your ping list or include your ping list in the body of your posts so I can include them because the recipient box only shows a partial list.
Sorry, I don't think that's going to happen.
Yes, when you decide the feds should take action outside their constitutional bounds.
You have yet to demonstrate anywhere I've done that.
The Constitution has not given the feds the power to meddle in marriage.
Nonsense.
And amazingly you think the feds are the answer to prohibit gay marriage when in fact the feds are currently in the process of trying to overturn state anti-gay-marriage laws.
Actually, I've NEVER said this. The answer is a constitutional amendment to be enforced at the federal level.
What you consider to be "vital issues" is not the standard for federal action. The Constitution is the standard.
Try reading the Preamble sometime, the government exists to "Preserve the Blessings of Liberty."
Besides the Rule of Law issue, your pipe dream of federal preservation of morality is not backed by the reality of historical fact.
YOU want the federal government to protect the false notion of "states rights" to immorality.
The feds are responsible for forced, unconstitutional usurping of state laws leading to 70+ million abortions,
Abortion was ALREADY LEGAL in places like New York and California prior to 1973. Your thesis that letting the states decide is completely flawed.
Biblical illiteracy and weakened faith in God by banning prayer and the Bible in schools. The feds now unconstitutionally threaten your gun-possession rights and are in the process of overturning state anti-gay-marriage laws. The feds hardly have a record of "preserving morality." You faith in big government is misplaced.
Who do YOU think should protect rights if not government?
The Full Faith and Credit issue is really not a big deal and the state A & B scenario I gave is generally settled law.
Really, how do you figure it's "settled law"? When a married couple moves from one state to another they don't have to get remarried.
But if you still wanted to fix this at the national level, as I said, the answer would be a Constitutional amendment that would be an exception to FF&C allowing a state to refuse gay marriage but also confirming prohibition of federal interference with state anti-gay-marriage laws.
What's wrong with an amendment defining marriage?
I was simply pointing out a curious fact. Why are you getting so defensive?
But you can’t pigeon hole an independent thinker.
You'd be surprised.
I don’t mindlessly follow the crowd and have thought a lot about what we’re talking about.
I've thought about it a lot too and I can assure you that my beliefs won't be changing on this subject.
I don’t appreciate the contempt you show towards those with whom you disagree. It makes you look small.
Yeah, I've heard that before. You may or may not be surprised to learn that this has been discussed on a great many anti-FReeper sites, for some reason a great many of them don't appreciate me.
I remember that poster.
and I wasn’t referring to PapaNew in my comment earlier either.
Pinging you to this post regarding “the conscience”, with whom you had a previous discussion.
Yes, because Jeb holds "the law" as superior. Same schtcik the courts and legislators use to justify immorality, to oppose immorality is to be opposed to the rule of law. Their point of view is that it is better to be immoral, and legal.
Don’t remember them. lol
It was a few years ago.
I've run into you before and have absolutely no interest in anything that you blather.
The more the merrier. I hope this stuff can be a benefit - that's what I'm here for.
What's wrong with an amendment defining marriage?
You open up another Pandora's box of horribles. It would constitutionally allow the feds to validly enforce and get involved in marriage. That would be a disaster. Sooner or later the Supreme Court would change the original intent of the amendment, just like they have just about all of the Constitution, to their own version of morality. Thousands of new regulations would be created about who can and who cannot get married. Soon there would be a new cabinet post: the Department of Personal Relationships or something. You couldn't do much without the feds interfering with you.
No, you say? That wouldn't happen? Show me one area of federal involvement where that hasn't happened. Your answer would do much more harm than good.
LOL!
I’m sure you’ve heard all this stuff before waggalebee. I’m sure its your mode of operation. I’ve tried to engage in a good-faith debate with you but your contempt and arrogance puts me off. You seem to think you’re some kind of self-appointed FR spokesman or something. Well I hope not. FR is still about America and the Constitutional as far as I can tell.
I think I’m done with this discussion.
Until next time then.
Stick to the issues, and cut the personal attacks.
Excuse me? You’ve got the roles reversed. I’m calling wagglebee out for his personal attacks (”idiot” 1st post) and labeling me instead of “sticking to the issues.”
There is no excuse for you, pal.
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.