Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue
POLITICO ^ | Aug 6 2012 | MAGGIE HABERMAN and EMILY SCHULTHEIS

Posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:15 AM PDT by scottjewell

When Democrats announced that their 2012 platform would include a historic first — gay marriage written in as a plank — the reaction from mainstream Republicans was near silence.

There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign. The same was true for the Republican National Committee. Romney has yet to address the the fact.

The pushback came largely from social conservatives and evangelicals, who pledged to make same-sex unions an issue going forward and insisted the stand will hurt Democrats.

But the comparative quiet from party leaders would have been unimaginable even four years ago, when public opinion hadn’t yet shifted so rapidly on a signature social issue. And it marks a dramatic change among some of the top Republican donors and opinion-makers, who are supporting same-sex marriage in state-based gay legislative and legal fights, even as the official GOP platform will remain centered on traditional marriage.

“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,” said Dan Schnur of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012issues; 2012rncplatform; homosexualagenda; romney; romney2012; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; samesexmarriage; shammarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
"But the comparative quiet from party leaders would have been unimaginable even four years ago, when public opinion hadn’t yet shifted so rapidly on a signature social issue."

This is what seems so stunning to me: In 2008, liberals like Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama himself all said they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, as Kerry had said on '04. How things have changed.

1 posted on 08/06/2012 6:59:20 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.

We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.


2 posted on 08/06/2012 7:04:17 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Natural Born Citizen - born in the USA of citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Social issues come in great floods after a few cracks appear in the social consciousness.

I don’t think everyone believes that Gay marriage is an important issue, but enough people think it is important enough that they network every story now. The fact that so few protesters showed up at the Chick Fil-A kiss in, means that this movement has only just started to gather momentum.


3 posted on 08/06/2012 7:04:57 AM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

It has all to do with money. The rich gays said they wouldn’t support Obama et al financially unless they came out for gay marriage. Their real constituency - black Americans - are poor. So under the bus they go!


4 posted on 08/06/2012 7:05:39 AM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

That right there may be the only way the black vote will finally be divided between the two parties.

I don’t know... Ethics and morals in the United States have been on decline for a long time now. This is just another mile-stone on the slippery slope.


5 posted on 08/06/2012 7:08:37 AM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,”

A reporter could safely paste this quote into articles on any number of issues with no fear of being wrong. For example, is anyone in the GOP talking about Obamacare any more? Mitt Romney sure isn't.

6 posted on 08/06/2012 7:11:08 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Our representatives at the federal level should limit themselves to reducing government to constitutionally mandated size.

Everything else, including social issue reforms, will naturally follow.

7 posted on 08/06/2012 7:11:56 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

Mitt’s single biggest donor owns wedding chapels that perform gay “marriages” every day. Nobody is going to talk about that either because quite frankly most conservatives are pure coward.


8 posted on 08/06/2012 7:14:46 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

You are right. Huge amounts of money are being committed by wealthy gays to pass the marriage law in New York and get this plank into the Democratic platform. Yet in the end the American people will not endorse this nonsense and it will hurt the Democrats even if the Republicans they say nothing.


9 posted on 08/06/2012 7:15:40 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
This is what seems so stunning to me: In 2008, liberals like Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Obama himself all said they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, as Kerry had said on '04. How things have changed.

Obama's stance on this has always been misinterpreted, IMO. The standard Dem response to an issue like "gay marriage" or abortion is to say "I'm personally opposed to it, but think it should be made available to anyone who wants it"; which essentially makes them a supporter of the thing in question.

10 posted on 08/06/2012 7:17:42 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Yes, under the bus they go. Says a lot about Obama.


11 posted on 08/06/2012 7:18:52 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The dems just want to change the conversation from Obama’s horrible economic record to gay marriage. I’m glad the Romney team isn’t taking the bait and are sticking to the winning issue.


12 posted on 08/06/2012 7:22:42 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,”

Many Republican Party leaders are probably closeted homosexuals.


13 posted on 08/06/2012 7:23:07 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

Yes, I suppose that is what it amounts to. And he probably ran in ‘08 with plans to “evolve”.


14 posted on 08/06/2012 7:27:11 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.

Indeed, and the govt should get out of marriage altogether.

15 posted on 08/06/2012 7:30:07 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere — at all.

We do not make government smaller by expanding it to cover marriage. This is something the states should handle, period.”

Yes, all true. Only problem is as with divorce in prior times (say the 1920s and ‘30s) or abortion if some states legalize something, others follow suit and then as time passes it becomes a uniform, national thing. And then federal.


16 posted on 08/06/2012 7:30:43 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bayard

You mean then that the movement against it is beginnig to gather momentum, correct?


17 posted on 08/06/2012 7:32:47 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Nope, I believe we haven’t seen the end of homosexual activism. I do think that a big loss for Obama would put a stop to it for a time, but the horse has left the stable.

Too many people either don’t see the dangers, or they don’t care.


18 posted on 08/06/2012 7:37:40 AM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
There were no statements blasted out from Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Ah, so . . . after the "dangerous time to be a woman" ad, one of Mitt's people said, "That's ridiculous!" -- but Mitt said nothing.

Mitt's between a rock and a hard place both on gay marriage and abortion. His actions supported both, while his words opposed both (finally, in the case of abortion; he was a latecomer). Working both sides of the street only works until someone calls you on the issue!

19 posted on 08/06/2012 7:37:51 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I guess you may be correct. I do think gay marriage is an important issue but if the parties change due to economic issues that is important enough.


20 posted on 08/06/2012 7:38:37 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

when the enemy is destroying themselves, stay out of their way.

Why should they comment? a response would be used by the MSM as a distraction. The lack of response left the MSM to repeatedly state over and over and over that the DNC was endorsing fetish based marriage. Specifically homosexual based marriage.

You can make the DNC look more freaky and abnormal.


21 posted on 08/06/2012 7:39:25 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Yeah, guess Mitzi is following the old adage of “when in doubt do nothing”.


22 posted on 08/06/2012 7:39:43 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Unfortunately we live in a feminized homsexualized nation now. God and religion are like a societies immune system. Once the social immune system starts to break down, perverted diseases attack.


23 posted on 08/06/2012 7:43:26 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
The left and the media are trying to set the narritive to gather info to use against the GOP and Romney. The best thing they can do is continue to ignore the gay rights mess, it's not a Federal issue at all.

It reminds me of the George Stephanopolis/contraception question at the debates...thrown out only to start a controversy and to change the subject.

The "broken record" technique will be the way to go, Romney needs to hammer on the issues, i.e. economy, regulation, FEDERAL taxes, and the aborition called Obamacare. He needs to be relentless and unwaivering, keeping the narritive on the subject at hand and not a bunch of fudge packers, as they will only try to "fil-A" him.


24 posted on 08/06/2012 7:50:58 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Yes, an astute observation.


25 posted on 08/06/2012 7:51:10 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

THe Romans discovered that homosexuality and strong nations don’t mix. We are on the way to discovering it also.


26 posted on 08/06/2012 7:53:51 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The reason “conservatives” can’t resist this is that the destruction of real marriage between 1969-1973, and the resulting explosion of sexual immorality, including in the churches, makes opposing tax benefits and estate planning advantages for gays (which are all that’s left of “traditional” marriage) seem unfair.

If pre-1969 marriage were to be restored (permanent, infidelity criminally punished, no second marriages with a spouse living, no child support for “single moms”) no homosexual would go anywhere near it.


27 posted on 08/06/2012 8:00:53 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Romney will come out for gay marriage. Maybe after the election, but soon.


28 posted on 08/06/2012 8:02:00 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I sure hope not, but I fear it.


29 posted on 08/06/2012 8:04:53 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

That is part of why Republicans will not win the presidency in November. They will not support issues supported by demonstrated majorities of the people because those positions are unpopular with the Left. Republicans would rather have the favor of or at least less opprobrium from the people who constitute the Elite the Republicans would like to join, or at least receive approval from.


30 posted on 08/06/2012 8:05:38 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Mr. RomneyCARE invented gay marriage.

HE ORDERED the clerks to impose it.

Mr. RomneyCARE supports all liberal issues.

Global warming hoax, TARP, and DEATH PANELS.

Mr. RomneyCARE IS the EMBLEM of the GOPe.

31 posted on 08/06/2012 8:08:26 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bayard

The Negro vote will continue to go almost excluively to Democrats even as blacks decry the homosexualization of the Democrat Party. Possibly it will cause fewer to show up at the polls.


32 posted on 08/06/2012 8:10:48 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Ignoring may be a good idea. After all, isn’t this more or less what the leftist media does to Conservatives? Ignoring makes what is ignored appear to be fringe and freaky and not worth addressing. Laugh them off as they have tried to laugh off the REAL majority and make us seem like a small group.Let them have their “cute” “little” temper tantrum and move on to the serious issues.


33 posted on 08/06/2012 8:15:52 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Agreed. The government should abdicate all interest in marriage. Marriage should be a purely religious endeavor. There should be no ‘legal’ distinction between married and unmarried. No difference. Everyone treated the same. Problems solved. It’s none of the government’s business - Period.


34 posted on 08/06/2012 8:20:41 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The dems just want to change the conversation from Obama’s horrible economic record to homosexual marriage. I’m glad the Romney team isn’t taking the bait and are sticking to the winning issue.

Exactly:

The rats are trying to equate homosexual marriage = civil rights, in an effort to rally dispirited young voters to a noble cause. They hope to get them out of their parents basements long enough to further the cause.

This is a looser for the republicans. Not one vote in the base to be energized by this.

And we must quit using the gay word and start calling it what it is.

35 posted on 08/06/2012 8:21:49 AM PDT by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The Democrats have realized that the gay agenda can be thrown out like little balls of poop for Republicans to step on, and if Republicans spend enough time cleaning it off of their shoes, the Obamatrama will get a pass.


36 posted on 08/06/2012 8:23:40 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Agrred. 100% a State issue, Why I don’t support a Federal DOMA. You can’t have it both ways.


37 posted on 08/06/2012 8:26:46 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

Boy ain’t that the truth!! All we will hear about concerning Romney from now til Nov is “tax returns.” Romney lot the messaging war early. But, he’s inept so not surprised.


38 posted on 08/06/2012 8:28:53 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“You mean then that the movement against it is beginnig to gather momentum, correct?”

Like you, I HOPE that’s the meaning, but I’m not sure. If the GOP really does intend to treat this issue as a third rail, they deserve to lose.


39 posted on 08/06/2012 8:29:05 AM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bayard

Sad but true.


40 posted on 08/06/2012 8:30:46 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.


41 posted on 08/06/2012 8:31:04 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

Thanks for the clarification - yes, let’s hope, and yes, I would agree with you on that.


42 posted on 08/06/2012 8:31:49 AM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Yep!


43 posted on 08/06/2012 8:34:14 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.


44 posted on 08/06/2012 8:34:58 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

State issue? Why should ANY any part of the government (federal, state or local) have anything to do with marriage? It’s a religious thing, not legal or government.


45 posted on 08/06/2012 8:35:08 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
I've often thought that there's a strong case to be made for abolishing civil marriage. I recall that the Catholic Church --- at least in the Kulturkampf fight in the 1870's --- was agains civil marriage.

That said, though--- and marriage or no marriage --- do you think the govt should renforce child support from fathers? Or should children all be assumed to have no right to parental support, and be dependents of the State? (At present, single-motherhood wedded to the State --- the "Life of Julia" -- seems to be the major alternative.)

46 posted on 08/06/2012 8:39:24 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (My choice is not to pay for your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I agree - child support is a separate issue - marriage or no marriage - and yes government should have the right to enforce from father - or mother!

But again, the government shouldn’t care whether someone is married or not - it’s just none of their business.


47 posted on 08/06/2012 8:46:08 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
Mitt Romney proved in the primaries that he's really good at smearing conservatives with nasty negative campaigns. So far he's also proven that when it comes to fighting liberals he's timid and weak. The worst president and the worst senate probably in the history of this country and he's the one playing defense??!!

I told my wife months ago that a potted plant could beat Obama in this election but the GOP seemed dead set on nominating the worst possible guy to go against Obama, so Obama might just pull it off. After all, Mitt is a guy who flip flops on every issue, was the grandfather of Obamacare, who pokes the eyes of the conservative base every chance he can, and is a slightly less electrifying speaker than George H W Bush was. They are trying darned hard to lose this thing.

48 posted on 08/06/2012 9:10:38 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

The Republican campaign planks, Domestic, should be jobs and the economy. Period.

The DemocRAT campaign planks are well known > squirel

The rats cannot run on their record. The Republicans need to stick to their campaign.


49 posted on 08/06/2012 9:14:14 AM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Romney will come out for gay marriage. Maybe after the election, but soon.

I guarantee it. In actions.

50 posted on 08/06/2012 9:21:19 AM PDT by Lady4Liberty (Watch Romney DESTROY Obama at his own game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYvx4UfM8RA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson