GOP Remains (Mostly) Silent on Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Move

NBC ^ | 10/7/14 | Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann

[SoFloFreeper]

To see how the politics of gay marriage has changed in this country in 11 years, revisit this Nov. 19, 2003 New York Times piece after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay denounced what he said was a “runaway judiciary”; the Republican National Committee said the decision “could be an issue” in the upcoming presidential contest; and an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate predicted the subject “is going to come up again and again.” And, well, in 2004, a strong argument can be made....

[Jedidah]

I find this explanation very interesting. It is from Ed Whelan of National Review:

“For what it’s worth, here’s my theory explaining yesterday’s order denying review in the SSM cases:

One or more of the three conservative justices who might most be expected to object to denial—that is, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito—instead concluded that denial was the best course. Why? Because that justice (or those justices) became convinced that Kennedy was beyond persuasion and that he was a certain fifth vote to invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. On that understanding, the least-worst option would be to deny review and thus (for the time being, at least) prevent the Supreme Court from placing its formal imprimatur on the developments below.

I think that this is the only theory that adequately explains why none of these three justices publicly registered a dissent. In particular, I don’t think that a competing theory—that the Chief Justice voted to deny but that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all voted to grant—can explain the absence of a public dissent.

I don’t think that there’s any difficulty explaining why the four liberals would go along with the denial. Even if they’re equally confident of Kennedy, it’s much easier from their perspective to let the lower courts do the spadework and to intervene only if and when a court rules against a constitutional SSM right.”

[Cboldt]

Any way you slice it, and Whelan agrees with this, SCOTUS is ducking the issue. And, he seems to be suggesting that all of the justices are of a mind that SCOTUS would uphold the circuits that find homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right.

[Jedidah]

Yes.

By ducking the issue now, SCOTUS delays consideration and thus, given its current makeup, likely confirming nationwide legality of gay marriage.

They kicked the can down the road, didn’t anoint it as legal, and gave those in opposition a (small) chance of confirming future justices who would leave the issue to the states.

As abhorrent as I consider gay marriage, the strongest force against it is that of public opinion. Right now, it’s considered a cool trend. But trends grow old, and the inherent abnormality of deviant sex will likely eventually cause it to be viewed once again with distaste.

That seems to be happening with abortion. While still legal and available, it is once again carrying a stigma.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

The GOP has surrendered on this.

[Ray76]

Of course. They do not have principles, they do have positions subject to change.