Skip to comments.RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on MSNBC (Romney doesn't support federal ban of gay marriage
Posted on 05/09/2012 2:42:22 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
RNC Chairman reince Priebus on MSNBC (May 7, 2012)
Andrea Mitchell: "Let me ask you about this whole issue of gay marriage and give you a chance to respond... what is the latest position of Mitt Romney and Republicans on this issue [same-sex marriage]?"
Reince Priebus: "Governor Romney and the Republican Party have been pretty clear, marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe ultimately that you can't federalize that kind of mandate, which is why we believe that individual states can make that decision on their own..."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Where it now stands:
I.) a. Romney does not support same-sex marriage. b.) Romney does not support a federalized mandate on marriage being between one man and one woman. c.) Romney believes this issue should be left up to the states.
Romney has once again has an etch-a-sketch moment. Out the window goes his support for a federal (Constitutional) ban on same-sex marriage.
Romney and Obama agree on this I think, like 98% of important issues
Etch a sketch alert again.
Romney said in a recent debate that he was for a FMA. Reince Preibus is a terrible chairman.
Forget Romney’s ineligibility, and his dog abuse.
ROMNEY CREATED BOTH, GOT THAT, BOTH,
ROMNEYMARRIAGE and ROMNEYCARE(OBAMACARE).
And with improper Executive Authority (the Romney way)
Federal ban is not necessarily a constitutional amendment.
Given that DOMA is already in place, when Priebus says that Romney believes that “marriage is between one man and one woman, “ but that “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” it is clear that Romney has tossed his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage under the bus, hence why Priebus said what he did on MSNBC, and not FOX News.
I can’t wait for all of the hosts on Fox News and talk radio to fall over themselves reporting this. /s.
Neither Romney nor Obama fool me. Neither are worth voting for. Hence why my focus is on getting more Tea Party people elected and voting for Virgil Goode.
Read my last post.
Given that DOMA is already in place, there can be nothing else but a constitutional amendment that Romney is talking about. Romney does not want to have any federal mandate concerning same-sex marriage, hence why Priebus said that this issue should be left up to the individual states.
A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would take this issue away from the states.
Romney is the one who suggested a federal mandate on healthcare to Obama... but now... lol
By choosing the terms in which he couches his opinions, he can look like he’s backing one side or the other.
To be fair. Mitt ought to be pressed on specifics like marriage amendments. He may not believe that marriage LEGISLATION has a leg to stand on in the current Federal constitutional regime, but an amendment is a whole nother ball of wax. It has to depend on no precedent whatsoever other than getting into the Constitution through the prescribed amendment process.
I frankly just don’t trust Romney on this issue. Or, most any other issues, as well. But especially this one. He was selling himself as more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy during his Senate race, for goodness sakes! Sure as the world, he’s going to pivot again and side with the pervs if he ever gets into office. Makes me sick thinking about it.
Yep, and he quickly saw that he unleashed a monster.
This issue is either left up to the states or it is federalized.
Given Priebus’ comments, and when you look at both statements “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and “the individual states can make that decision on their own, Romney has tossed his pledge for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage under the bus, along with almost every other promise he has made to the base of the GOP.
A federal marriage amendment does not need Romney’s blessing to pass, fortunately.
What role would Romney play in any federal constitutional amendment process? Last I saw, the president can criticize or praise it, but doesn’t get any legal say.
You have to look at two statements from Priebus:
“You can’t federalize that kind of mandate”
“Individual states can make that decision on their own”
If you push for a federal constitutional amendment ban on same-sex marriage (a federal mandate), then you take the issue away from the states to make their own decisions on this.
Given that Priebus said that 1.) “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and 2.) that “individual states can make that decision on their own,” there is no way to harmonize both statements and follow them up by saying that Romney still supports a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Then why did Romney sign the pledge that he would be for constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage?
And why this now?
Enough of this pivoting by Romney.
Romney needs to stay 100% pro Tea Party, 100% conservative, stay pro-traditional marriage, pro-constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or withdraw his nomination for the GOP.
Romney looks like a champ in playing contexts. Finger to the wind, trying to please everybody. It’s risible of course because it becomes a matter of trying to read the tea leaves or coffee grounds.
The amendment question should be put square to him, and don’t let him squirm out of it (unless it’s to acknowledge that a president doesn’t get any legal say in that process anyhow).
Then he should not have signed the pledge saying that he supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and then pull these stunts.
Enough of this attempts by Romney to pivot when all is safe for him to do so. Stay with the base or don’t. Stay with the conservatives and the Tea Party, or don’t.
Romney can’t have it both ways.
Again, is Romney comparing apples to oranges here? Comparing Federal legislation to an amendment is not fair.