Posted on 08/28/2010 5:39:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editors' note: This piece is co-authored by Ken Klukowski.
Same-sex marriage is back as a front-burner issue in American politics.
On August 4, a federal judge in San Francisco held that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down part of the California Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered an expedited schedule to consider this case, with arguments to be held in December.
Now former RNC chairman and 2004 Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman came out this week, announcing he’s homosexual, and pushing the Republican Party to support the homosexual-rights agenda. Republicans leaders are beginning to weigh in on where they stand, including on the agenda’s centerpiece: Redefining marriage.
The Republican Party has an official position on same-sex marriage. It’s found in the 2008 GOP platform, which is the clear and uncontestable Republican position until the 2012 convention. When one of your authors (Blackwell) was serving as vice chairman of the GOP Platform Committee, there was a singular focus on producing a party platform that fully reflects the vast majority of Republican Party members.
The GOP platform could not be more explicit: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The fundamental institution of human civilization should be preserved as it has been known through the entirety of American history and Western civilization. Supporters of same-sex marriage had the full opportunity to make their case to the party. They made it, and they lost.
But whether same-sex marriage should be legal is a completely separate issue from whether there’s a right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. A person can support same sex marriage, but admit that it’s a state issue to be decided locally, not a right that can be imposed on a state—or the nation—by federal judges.
That’s where supporters of same-sex marriage cannot have it both ways. Central to the Republican agenda is that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning. If the Constitution must be changed, then we do so democratically through the amendment process. Republicans demand that judges interpret the Constitution as written, not rewrite it from the bench.
The same judicial activism that Judge Walker in San Francisco displayed in declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is the same activism that Republicans decry on every other front. It’s the same activism found in Roe v. Wade, declaring a right to abortion. It’s also the same activism that would uphold Obamacare as constitutional. It’s the same activism that declares foreign terrorists are protected by the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.
You cannot have it both ways. Do you want to see Obamacare struck down as unconstitutional? Then you can’t have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Republican leadership is working hard to prevent a party split. Millions of Tea Party people are justifiably fed up with the GOP, and threatening to abandon the GOP in favor of a third party if Republicans do not fully attack out-of-control federal spending and power with a commitment to constitutional government.
That danger cuts both ways.
Social conservatives cannot be played as fools by the Republican Party. They are not “useful idiots.” If Republican leaders abandon social conservatives and the party platform, then they will face the same disaster as if Tea Partiers abandon the GOP. Millions of social conservatives will either stay home, or will vote for a third-party candidate who takes up the mantle of marriage, life, faith and family.
As we discuss in the introduction of our book, The Blueprint, this is exactly what President Obama wants to see. If a majority of Americans reject the agenda of President Obama and his Democratic Party—as they do today—the only way that Obama and the Dems can hold on to power is to split the opposition vote. If the GOP splits either over economic issues or over social issues, then President Obama could be reelected with as little as 40% of the vote. It’s happened before in American politics, with 1912 as a perfect example. The year 2012 will be the 100-year anniversary of when a Republican split gave America a Democratic president.
If Republicans flinch on marriage, America could have eight years of President Obama.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
“Obama Wins if GOP Flinches on Marriage”
Amen and....AMEN!!!
Flinch? The GOP will bend over backwards to support homosexual unions. After all, the GOP leadership does not, under any circumstances, want to be branded as “homophobic” (which...technically...means the fear of sameness, fear of monotony, or the like...but that’s besides the point)
Same sex is a another DISTRACTION to DIVIDE.
It is NOT the main issue and the GOP must not fall for this. Focus on the ECONOMY.
Just like abortion is unimportant, etc, etc, etc.
Deal with it once. “This party supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman.”
End issue.
Am I supposed to be surprised that the Bush administration was peppered with libs and homos? W is a good man, but with the extreme lib father (41) and all his hangers on, how could it have been any different? We were just dreaming to think 43 would be setting the agenda all by himself.
I think they will do exactly that. They will print it in their platform and then rat on it in their talks.
Who’s kidding who? The GOP (I’m talking the PARTY ELITES now, not individual conservatives) will flinch on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
Why? Because they, like the ‘Rat elites, have fallen in love with big government, big spending, onerous regulations (and the sense of control they bring), and pop culture.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the major parties. And there is a disgusting track record to prove it.
“It is NOT the main issue and the GOP must not fall for this. Focus on the ECONOMY.”
I agree. If the GOP makes abortion and same sex marriage the tenet of its 2010 platform, Democrats will use it against them.
This is a ploy by the MSM to discourage voters in Nov. It’s the ONLY way that the Dems can retain seats (besides fraud which is a given)...if conservatives stay home. So they push the lie that the Repubs may back the homosexual agenda. Look who’s talking about it, NYTimes and WaPo have BOTH said the Repubs are leaning that direction. The RNC has said NOTHING. Don’t fall for it!
And then we call them out when they do that garbage. How hard is it to win a freaking election?! I mean really.
You crack me up, nmh! Here...
I think we should reduce government, thereby improving the economy.
Same-sex “marriage” should be opposed as contrary to nature.
WOW! I’m actually able to focus on more than one issue at a time. Imagine that!
Libertarians would LOVE for us to toss out the social conservative agenda in order to “focus” on the economy, but it’s actually possible to do BOTH at the same time. Does a senator only have a limited number of votes, so that they can vote for reduced taxes but not vote for laws opposing same-sex marriage? No. Is it like we have a shortage of lawyers so we can only litigate some cases and must surrender others? Um...no!
So please stop with your ridiculous assertion that Republicans can only focus on fiscal issues.
“Democrats will use it against them.”
Those Republicans are so scary. They support keeping babies alive rather then killing them and they support marriage between a man and a woman.
Scary stuff indeed. Convictions are a useful thing...
“but it’s actually possible to do BOTH at the same time”
And yet apparently we are the ‘single issue’ voters. How many times do we here that trope?
If you won’t vote for a prolife person, than the single issue is your own.
Please read my reply to nmh. You’re assertion is as laughable as his. Let me educate you. A platform can contain more than just fiscal conservative issues. I know. It’s shocking, but the platform can actually address multiple issues, like abortion, same-sex marriage, AND fiscal conservatism. Now you may think abortion and same-sex marriage are insignificant issues, but you’re wrong. You try to turn the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party, and you’ll lose simply because you don’t have majority support. Try to strike abortion from the platform and you’ll be squashed. That’s just political fact.
It's already in the current platform.
“A person can support same sex marriage, but admit that it’s a state issue to be decided locally,”
Really? That’s about the exact opposite of what it says in Article 4, Section 1.
The author tries to make the point that we need to be consistent in our support of adherence to the Constitution. He should too.
If we want to define marriage as only one man and one woman, we either need to do that in all 57 states or amend the US Constitution.
Mehlman is homosexual and is a GOP party leader.
Many in the GOP (RINOs) are actually Leftists in their thoughts and actions.
No doubt there is an infiltration and control body of Leftists into the GOP.
And that is why they are so scared of the Tea Party.
Four states had to forever swear off plural marriage in order for Congress to allow them into the Union: Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho.
One man, one woman marriage. It’s the law of the land. Always has been.
Those who let the silly states’ rights arguments come into this are playing directly into the hands of the radical gay activists.
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.