Why Republicans Could Have A Pro-Gay Marriage Presidential Candidate In 2016 ZOT!

The Daily Caller ^ | 2014-10-14 | Alex Lundry

[e-gadfly]

The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to take up challenges to state amendments banning same-sex marriage has had two significant effects – it has expanded marriage to 30 states and reignited the political conversation around marriage equality in the 2014 midterms. Since 2011, I have worked with Project Right Side to help Republican leaders navigate a radically changing electorate on the freedom to marry. While public acceptance of marriage equality has steadily increased, this moment may ultimately be looked upon as the point where Republican opposition to marriage equality began to fall in earnest.

According to a recent poll of Republicans I conducted on behalf of Project Right Side, for every Republican that said they have become more opposed to same-sex marriage over the last five years, two have become more supportive of it. In fact, in just the last three years alone, there has been an eleven point increase in Republican support for marriage rights for same-sex couples; and a seven point drop in those opposed to legal recognition.

More congressional Republicans support marriage equality, eight in total, than ever before. And this year alone, there are ten Republican candidates, five challengers, and five incumbents that support the freedom to marry.

Monica Wehby, the Republican Senate candidate in Oregon, is prominently running an ad featuring the endorsement of a gay man saying “she’ll fight for every Oregon family, including mine.” At 51 years old, Wehby stands on the Republican fault line for marriage support. Republican opposition to marriage equality is heavily concentrated among those older than 50 whereas a majority (52 percent) of Republicans under 50 support same sex marriage. Among even younger Republican voters, those under 30, support for marriage equality stands at 61 percent.

The Republican nominee in the Massachusetts race for Governor, Charlie Baker, describes being gay as “no big deal” in an ad featuring his gay, married brother. Baker’s experience is emblematic of the key driver of growing support for marriage equality: knowing a gay person. According to a recent Marist poll, Americans who personally know someone who is gay are two times more likely to support marriage equality. And CBS polling shows that Americans are much more likely to know a gay person now (69 percent) than they were in 1993 (19 percent).

Clearly, the electoral math around the marriage issue is changing dramatically; while it formerly energized conservative opponents it is now doing more to motivate Democratic supporters. Using data from a Project Right Side Election Night survey of battleground states in 2012, I’ve estimated that support for marriage equality netted Obama nearly 250,000 votes on Election Day in battleground states (he won those states by 504,422 votes). Without those votes Obama’s winning margin would have been razor thin.

What’s encouraging is that these polling trends are leading many Republicans to rightly take action in advance of 2016. The Nevada Republican Party proactively removed language from their party platform on gay marriage. A recent Project Right Side poll that surveyed Nevada Republicans tested this change and found that a strong majority (61 percent) supported the party’s removal of opposition to same-sex marriage from their platform; only 32 percent oppose it.

So what does this all mean for the forthcoming presidential campaign cycle? Karl Rove speculated that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Republican Party will witness in 2016 a presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage. One marriage supporter, Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, has even expressed interest in exploring a bid, and evidence exists that his stance would not be a hindrance in key presidential primary states.

In surveys I’ve conducted among early state Republicans, there is a real willingness to embrace the freedom to marry. Among New Hampshire and Nevada Republicans there is actually plurality support for marriage rights. And while Iowa and South Carolina are not yet net supporters of the freedom to marry, my research shows that there is still robust support for LGBT friendly messaging and policies: 51 percent of Iowa Republicans agree that “the government should stay out of the private lives of adults, including gays and lesbians,” while 74 percent of South Carolina Republicans strongly agree that “we should all follow the Golden Rule and treat others as we would like to be treated, including gays and lesbians.”

While a good deal of work remains to be done among Republicans, the last few years have seen enormous progress. The freedom to marry movement stands at an historic moment in time and it’s clear that Republican officials in Washington and candidates on the campaign trail are poised to play a major role in gaining greater acceptance for same-sex marriage.

[e-gadfly]

This may be the game-changer the GOP needs, especially when one considers the current state of public opinion and the trend lines:

By the end of 2012, 12 states and the District of Columbia had support for same-sex marriage at or above 50%. Of these 12 states, all currently perform marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Thirteen additional states presently are within 5 percentage points of majority support. In the last eight years, every state has increased in its support for marriage for same-sex couples with an average increase of 13.6%. If present public opinion trends continue, another 8 states will be above 50% support by the end of 2014.

The obvious historical parallel is also interesting in this regard:

[Responsibility2nd]

Complete Bull Crap. For now.

I have no doubt the Repugs MIGHT one day have a serious contender for the top slot who is pro-faggy.

But not in 2016.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

We had one in 2012 and probably in 2008 for that matter. In fact, we probably had one in 2000 and 2004 if you ask him today.

[rhinohunter]

Their 2012 candidate was pro-homo.
Why wouldn’t the 2016 candidate be also?

[Reddy]

Comparing the acceptance of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is like comparing apples to oranges.

The better comparison would be abortion.

And public opinion is now changing AGAINST abortion.

[MarkRegal05]

If you had told me ten years ago that the state-by-state map would look like that, I would’ve been incredulous.

This all-out campaign by the media, the Democrats, academia, with help from complicit Republicans or Republicans willing to look the other way.. it worked. The homos had a plan, and it worked.

But at some point, the tide has to shift.

[Dilbert San Diego]

We could ask if any of this matters. IN that, the courts have decided to shove this down our throats.

The reason we have 30+ states allowing homosexual marriage is because, in the vast majority of those states, it was imposed by courts.

Admittedly a few passed homosexual marriage through the legislative process, but most did not.

So I question what it matters, since the Supreme Court will rule someday that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. What any of us think, or what any of us have done to work to define marriage legislatively, will be overturned.

[e-gadfly]

There is a significant difference in that the courts were activist and out in front of public opinion on interracial marriage, but hung back cautiously behind public opinion and avoided activism on gay marriage.

[Ohioan]

This writer shows the absurdity of the purely verbal argument.

No one, who stops to think just what is the function of marriage, throughout human history, should think of this as a rational issue. Marriage is, and always has been, about sanctifying the creation of the biological family, by the mating of the sexes in procreational activity. Marriage has always been consummated by a procreational act--whether it actually results in a pregnancy is not the point.

Same sex "marriage," is an oxymoron. You cannot have a marriage that can never be consummated, even in theory.

There are a lot of people, out there, who are going to feel very, very foolish, when a brave little boy (figuratively) points out that the Emperor is stark naked.

William Flax

[Westbrook]

> interracial marriage

Race is Ancestry.

Queer is Behavior.

They are NOT . THE . SAME !

[Servant of the Cross]

I smell ozone ...

[JSDude1]

No.

[CatherineofAragon]

"This may be the game-changer the GOP needs, especially when one considers the current state of public opinion and the trend lines: "

So you think it's high time for the GOP to approve queer "marriage?"

[Yosemitest]

Oh, HELL NO !
The conservative BASE would NEVER VOTE FORT THEM AGAIN !

This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."

[RIghtwardHo]

I dunno. Before the nomination I agree with you. But after the nomination I would be shocked if it wasn’t some “”that’s just not an important issue” candidate.

Sad but true.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Game changer? I agree. It will finally complete the divorce of the Republican Party from its social conservative base and allow the formation of the conservative party this county so desperately needs.

[Dilbert San Diego]

There is a significant difference in that the courts were activist and out in front of public opinion on interracial marriage, but hung back cautiously behind public opinion and avoided activism on gay marriage.

---

The courts avoided activism on gay marriage?? Really???

You really believe that???

If public opinion is really so much for gay marriage, why have so few states adopted gay marriage through their legislative processes??

On the other hand, why have so many states defined marriage as a man and a woman through the legislative process, which courts are now overturning???

[Servant of the Cross]

Double Team! Calling the VK's!

IBTZ

[RIghtwardHo]

The tide is shifting and has shifted ... and not in our direction.

[Junk Silver]

Of course the Republicans should have a pro-gay-marriage presidential candidate in 2016, assuming that they want a chance to get the votes of the dozen or so Federal circuit court judges who have decided that their power out-weighs that of the states and the wishes of the voting public at large.

The Republican party hasn’t shown much interest in what the public at large wants, so I guess we’ll be hearing all about the virtues of “marriage equality” from Jeb Bush or whatever other useless globalist drone they push on us.