Posted on 01/27/2015 7:08:02 AM PST by GIdget2004
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on gay marriage once and for all in June, and there are many Republicans who privately would love nothing more than to have the question settled and off the table in time for the 2016 presidential election.
It’s not going to happen. Social conservatives here are determined to keep the issue alive during the run-up to next February’s Republican caucuses, no matter how the high court rules or how much some establishment figures would like to move on.
“If you dodge the question, then it’s the kiss of death,” said social conservative Sam Clovis, who finished second behind Joni Ernst in last year’s Iowa GOP Senate primary. “Candidates have got to be declarative about where they stand. Period.”
“If you’re not vocally pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, I don’t think you can win here because you’re going to get hammered,” added Clovis. “Maybe you could win in New Hampshire, but it’s a different culture.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Why can’t this issue be put on the voting ballot for the American people to decide?
Gay marriage is just a humongous straw man.
The marriage part is about public acceptance of the gay part.
Tell me why this vile activity that led to a worldwide epidemic of AIDS is suddenly the cudgel that liberals beat conservatives over the head with? Why can you lose your wedding photography, wedding cake business, etc if you don’t endorse this bestial activity?
Marriage isn't a government concern. Decent people respect the traditions.
And all that goes with it, some of it evident already (promiscuity, child abuse), some of it yet to be discovered.
Ha. How arrogant of this "journalist".
It has been on several state ballots or been decided by the duly elected state legislatures. The problem is the judicial oligarchy has always overruled the will of the people.
"We are learned judges! You peons must be rules by your betters!"
“rules” = “ruled”
It’s been voted down by the people in many states but over turned by the courts. Apparently what the majority wants doesn’t matter. In a Republic minority rights are protected from the majority, the problem seems to be what constitutes a right. Besides,it’s what the “powers that be” wants.
See, that’s what pisses me off. The people of California voted against gay “marriage” but some liberal judge overturned it. What gave him the right to overrule the will of the people? What the hell is going on here?
It’s time to fight back for all that is decent and moral. My politically correct days, minimal as they were, are over.
By "traditional marriage", now outlawed in all 50 states, I assume you mean no divorce, criminal penalties for adultery, no child support for bastards, and automatic father custody in case of separation?
Or by "traditional marriage" do you mean gay marriage for heterosexuals: Terminable at will without fault or damages to the counterparty, adultery not a legal factor in divorce cases, and automatic mother custody with child support even when paternity is disproven?
There is no "traditional marriage" to defend. Even an attempt to introduce it as an option (covenant marriage) in Louisiana was ruled unconstitutional.
Its been put on numerous state ballots. And when the majority decides “NO”, then the BRT’s (Black Robed Thugs) simply rule the other way.
As they use the Constitution for TP.
I wish. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker caved in when his state laws (voted in by the people) were overturned by BRT's (Black Robed Thugs). That being the case; it's clear that Walker is no social conservative. I won't be supporting him.
Why can’t this issue be put on the voting ballot for the American people to decide?
Voters in the vast majority of states voted that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. Liberal homosexual activists took them to federal court, and liberal federal judges, one by one, overturned these laws. The fact is that states are not permitted to define marriage any longer.
And the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was struck down, so the federal government is likewise not allowed to define marriage. Apparently only federal judges are permitted to define marriage nowadays.
Like the Taney Court "ruled" on slavery? Or, will the Roberts Court get ahead of the curve?
“It’s time to fight back for all that is decent and moral.”
You’re exactly right. We need “Righteous” leadership.
“When the “righteous” are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
-— Proverbs 29-2 -—
According to a very extensive poll by the CDC vital statistics showed the LGBT population at less than 2% of the US population. Even if they all married, that would be 1% of the population. That is so far down the list of vital statistics that SHOULD concern conservatives such as percentage of population on welfare, declining participation in the labor market, percentage of illegal aliens in population and their impact on welfare benefits, etc.
Making gay marriage a litmus test simply diminishes the importance of other issues which are truly important politically for the country.
Remember California did just that, all it took to over rule their decision was a few corrupt judges.
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.