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?
Not if you believe the Constitution to be the "supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const, Art VI, Cl 2).
It's not a federal issue because the Constitution did not delegate power to the feds over this issue. A federal act or decision of itself does not validate that the issue belongs with the federal government.
I don't believe an endless series of amendments is the answer to deal with endless unconstitutional federal acts. Among other things, it flips the constitutional presumption stated in the Tenth Amendment that if it is not delegated to the federal government, it belongs to the states and people. It also does not deal with the heart issue of a rogue government continuing to ignore the Constitution, as confirmed by an amendment that is already in place: the Tenth Amendment.
No, I believe the states need to start nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. In this case, states should nullify these unconstitutional SCOTUS rulings about marriage and keep their anti-gay marriage laws if the majority of the people of that state so choose. Same with state anti-abortion laws.
I’ll vote for the Anti Crist as he is not as bad as Satan!
No. They just want to f--- up the meaning of marriage to such an extent that it becomes meaningless and complicates the lives of normal people.
SLOUCHING TOWARD GOMORRAH
“It’s not a federal issue because the Constitution did not delegate power to the feds over this issue.”
But it is a federal issue to the extent that federal law intersects with marriage. That happens a lot. Too much, but that is the reality of the matter.
You are an idiot.
Our Constitution is based on English Common Law, governments have been involved in marriage for seven hundred years.
I loved that book.
What Bush does not understand is that the rule of law cannot and will not override Natural Law.
Natual Law declares sodomy and butt sex is a perversion and anathema to a healthy life.
He must be a Libertarian.
Read post 61.
The solution in our country isn’t finding the non-existent perfect politician (they don’t exist). Find they best guy you can, but the solution is the people taking back ownership of their country, holding politicians, whoever they are, accountable, and, no matter who is in office, making it politically profitable for the wrong guy to do the right thing and politically unprofitable for ANY politician to do the wrong thing by throwing the bum out.
Also, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that these GOP-E figures, who hold nothing but utter contempt for the tea-party Constitutionalists and the grassroots “flyover country” just happen to proclaim two perverted dudes who play around in their own feces as deserving of honor and respect.
Jeb, you and your ilk are degenerate scumbags. And your embrace of this moral and cultural rot is one of the reasons America has slid down the sewer. You are the enemy to all that was good and decent about this country.
Typical crap. How about those who do not make lifetime cimittment jeb? Care to pontificate to us neandrathols about that?
governments have been involved in marriage for seven hundred years
Of course - state governments are involved in marriage issue although I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but that's up to the people of the state.
But the Constitution does not delegate that power to the federal government. And I believe in the Rule of Law as the legal bulwark to protect freedom.
I read it. And you simply don’t understand.
As things stand now - the Courts have absolutely too much power and control. Much more than the States do.
Is that Constitutional? No, but we must play the hand we’re dealt, and work on restoring Constitutional values to the Fedgov.
And that means correctly identifying that marriage is between a man and a woman and that healthy marriages equals healthy and growing societies.
I want a president who stands up for traditional marriages and denounces queer marriages as detrimental to our nation.
Wrong again, but I am a lover of liberty.
My mother's family was a typical early 20th century farm family, which had twelve kids. In their declining years, several of the spinsters and bachelors moved back to the farm to share expenses. Why could they not be "married" so they could retain rights as joint tenants?
By the same "arguments" advanced for homosexual "marriage" they were denied equal protection of the laws by being forced to remain single. And there was actual harm, since there were increasing inheritence burdens that they had to pay.
Poor Jeb. He was actually a very good governor of Florida, and was a much better and more forceful public speaker than his brother. I always thought Jeb was the one who should have been president, because there’s no way he would have let the press attack him the way they attacked W.
Also, Jeb is tall, heavy set, and very engaging, so he might have gotten more support than his timid brother.
But that was then.
Since he came out in favor of Common Core, he’s off my list.
No, they don’t.
This is how the Neorepublicans position themselves against the Alinsky rules in the DemonRAT playbook. By making the handles as slippery as possible, there is nothing the RATs can hold onto for their demonizing smear campaign (you don’t call them DemonRATs for nothing). This slip and slide tactic also takes the spirit out of the conservative base which is the backbone of any ground game. This slip and slide tactic also indicates a deceptive candidate who will say anything, including lies, to get elected. We need a candidate who will stand on the truth and principles that are the backbone of America—not deception!
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.