NYT analysis topped by a picture of Scott Walker with the caption:
“For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” the state’s governor, Scott Walker, said about same-sex marriage. He is a potential presidential candidate.
ADDED: Last October, when the Supreme Court decided
not to take some same-sex marriage cases, I thought GOP candidates should accept that the issue is now over — accept it as
a gift. My post was
"2 conservatives, 2 different reactions to the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling-without-ruling: Scott Walker and Ted Cruz":
Governor Scott Walker, up for reelection here in Wisconsin next month and a possible presidential candidate for 2016, kept it short, neutral, and decisive:
"For us, it's over in Wisconsin. ... The federal courts have ruled that this decision by this court of appeals decision is the law of the land and we will be upholding it."
Walker hasn't wanted same-sex marriage to be an issue in his reelection campaign. As a Wisconsinite, I follow stories about Scott Walker continually, and last time I blogged about him and same-sex marriage was last June, in a post called "Shhhh! Scott Walker is evolving on gay marriage," when the federal district court struck down the Wisconsin ban. Walker's response was: "It really doesn't matter what I think now.... It's in the constitution." I thought that was the best response then, and I'm not surprised to see him use it again. I thought the requirement to allow same-sex marriage was "for him, a gift." It allowed him to display restraint and freed him from having to state an opinion on the divisive issue and to "move on to the matters that properly belong to government."
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Scott is a smart, smart guy. The Donks are going to have to work very hard to put him in the trick box.
The NYT seems sure that the Supremes will rule their way. I'm not so sure.
If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.
I guess that explains all the referenda and legislative votes bringing same-sex marriage in the states rather than judicial fiats.
NYT analysis
NYT's biggest shareholder is Mexico's most successful criminal.
Yes it is over and really comforting to see. The days of straights and gays is really traditional. That's the way its always been.
I fear we will look back on this as the good old days when the next wave for normalizing Trans-genders, and Every which way-sexuals hits.
Gosh I hope the GOP finds political cover somewhere. We don't need 300 Reps and 67 Senators after all, then folks might expect results. But wait, isn't this a capitulation to Darth Dick Cheney?
The best case scenario for our Mitch and John would be smaller majorities so they can cry "I ain't got no damn power because of your radical uncompassionate conservatism wing nut, so shut up while I massage Harry and Barry's balls."
It's over. Scalia has already hinted that.
Time to defend one at a time, adults* only, and no genetically- close family members**, please.
* even this gets tricky since some 17 year olds are mature enough to decide; states will still get to decide this I presume
** and this is tricky too on where to draw the line; also presuming SCOTUS will defer to/compel states to be the line-drawers
I am not a robot and don't think humans should marry them
"“For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” the state’s governor, Scott Walker, said about same-sex marriage. He is a potential presidential candidate."
Yes. And the way he handled that issue is part of why he should be.
Is it gay marriege, or same sex marriage?
"The wise man will not let his pride get in the way of obtaining his goals, and fighting a battle which cannot be won is a prime example of allowing your pride to cloud your thinking." Sun Tzu
Walker knows how to pick his battles.
Just for the record...are there any other hidden "rights" contained in the Constitution that we have been unaware of the last 200 years or so?
Gahrie said...
Just for the record...are there any other hidden "rights" contained in the Constitution that we have been unaware of the last 200 years or so?
Yes, and they will be revealed when the time is right. There is no need to worry, however, because this will be balanced by some of the "rights" that you thought were there being relegated to the dustbin of history. So it all works out.
I find the NYT article to be needing a trigger warning for it's microaggression.
There is no gay or straight. All sexuality is a spectrum. And to couch such an important news discussion in fixed terminology is offensive and traumatizing.
Bunches, they'll let you know when you need to know.
Principled tolerance or selective exclusion. The state established Church head by the president, ag, judges, etc. have chosen the latter and created a moral hazard left for our posterity to reconcile.
Anyway, it's not over. It has been deferred.
The gop prays for similar relief re abortion...roe not enough evidently.
Scott Walker, a very good politician, is not a lawyer. And he's not a member of the Federalist Society.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer, and an articulate one, and a member of the Federalist Society.
I'd vote for Scott Walker, but not because of his phony and premature laydown on same sex marriage. I actually think an even smarter political play for Republicans in the event that Justice Kennedy defies precedent for a fourth time (including his own precedent in Windsor) and finds a federal right to same sex marriage that trumps state law on the subject, would be to say, "See what all of those Democrat-appointed judges did? THAT's why we need a Republican in the White House."
Just move along and focus on what is one the ground and not in the courts.
Keep up funding on child welfare/family stabilization.
Wouldn't it just be sad if the Supreme court actually read the constitution and said:
"Wow, the only place marriage is referenced at all in the constitution is the tenth amendment.
The powers not to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I guess we should let the states decide and butt out. While we are at it how about we butt out of pretty much everything and protect the borders like we are supposed to."
Renee said...
"Just move along and focus on what is one the ground and not in the courts.
Keep up funding on child welfare/family stabilization"
The government is not interested in family stabilization. How about they stop giving my money to parents who stay unmarried on purpose in order to get my money?
Surprisingly there is a lot of public policy that actually wants to strengthen families.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/supporting/introduction/
The State's secular goals to secure taxable assets and reduce the problem set are in conflict with Nature and its Constitutional obligations to We the People and Posterity.
Civil unions for all, including heterosexual, homosexual, several dozen other gender orientations, etc. The demanded normalcy of womb banks and sperm depositors aside, marriage to normalize (i.e. sanction and promote) the union of man and woman for reproductive purposes.
With 23&me for 99 dollars one can find out who they are related to, hopefully surrogacy egg/sperm donation will be banned.
One thing that has always bothered me about the GOP is that they find ways to run from issues. It seems like they believe theirs is always the losing issue.
Homosexuality was unpopular not too long ago and illegal in many States. Now we're talking about marriage. If the Democrats and advocates ran away from the issue, would we have come where we are now? Nope.
The only way to put this country back together again is to fight, not to run away.
Any candidate that runs from issues, rather than fights for them (Even if polling is against them) I won't be able to vote for.
It's one thing if Scott Walker is pro homosexual sex and pro homosexual unions and even pro redefinition of marriage.
But if he's none of those things, if he's pro traditional marriage and believes homosexuality is degrading and sinful and homosexuals need our help, but runs away from the issue, then I won't be voting for him. Or anyone like that.
Republicans need a culture warrior, not a cultural coward who runs away because they are afraid of being called Rich, or Racist, or Homophobic, or any other name the left uses to shut down debate. Because by shutting down debate, the debate becomes one sided and Overtones Window continues it's inexorable move to the left.
The next time we write a constitution, we're going to need to add 10,000 pages of footnotes.
I remember a time we had culture warriors on both sides of the aisle.
eric:
It's still unpopular, despite efforts to convince people otherwise. Most Republicans and Democrats alike support principled tolerance and not selective exclusion.
I don't think Walker is "pro normalization, but rather that a "pro tolerance" stance can appear to mimic the former. In any case, the actions of an activist attorney general and president, judge (with an obvious conflict of interest), ambulance-chasin' lawyers, and the usual leaders from the protection racket, have severely distorted the field.
"Homosexuality was unpopular not too long ago and illegal in many States."
The AIDS epidemic ended that. Even the myth of heterosexual AIDS was pushed but wasn't believable.
Remember California passed Proposition 8 banning homosexual marriage by 53% until it was over turned by a homosexual federal judge who then promptly "married" his male lover.
Look at the map of the vote in the first link.
The Supremes chickened out but might send it back to the states this time.
I am convinced that Walker a serious Christian, a believer in democracy and one sworn to uphold the constitution would no see the violation of all 3 by the courts as a politically expedient "gift." Only the unprincipled would see it as such.
I suppose the Court will end the dispute over gay marriage as effectively as it ended the dispute over abortion. That worked out well.
“For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” the state’s governor, Scott Walker"
I assumed he was talking about the Packers.
The Godfather:
Despite the popular narrative, abortion was legalized as an exemption under the "religious" clause of the First Amendment. Apparently, reasonable people, or rather, people with a sincerely held faith, will disagree when a human life begins or acquires (and retains) value. The Court ruled in favor of spontaneous conception, which may vary between physical conception and some time around birth, with the usual footnote for the morally ambiguous rape exemption.
In other words, they punted the premier human rights issue to the next generation. Thus progressed the women's political movement on behalf their profits: money, sex, ego, and convenience. The FEMENists, female and male, were overjoyed to access another handle to exploit women for their political, financial, and social leverage.
No, it's not over. It was deferred. The pro-choice or selective policy remains unreconciled with a scientific or principled standard.
"I hope they make pi equal to 3 in the same ruling. It would save a vast amount of time on calculations and have precisely the same relationship to the natural world. Maybe make tails equal to legs as well, it would be a boon for those wanting to pet five legged dogs."
A blog comment I read on the Supremes taking on SSM. If you really want to have fun, talk to a liberal who's had a few drinks about SSM. In vino veritas. They know it's a sham too. But, it's the in thing to support it. It's even more fun listening to a bunch of drunk white liberals talking about minorities when there are none around to overhear...
And unverified by snopes we have http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/what-its-like-to-date-your-dad.html And I discovered from reading this that adult incest isn't illegal in NJ. At least this says it isn't. Pretty much any mumbo-jumbo used to create SSM out of whole cloth will be used later to allow this father-daughter to legally marry instead of just co-habit. And every MSM article I have glanced at about this has, of course, been completely non-judgemental.
I don't see how Walker's comments on the courts settling the matter *should* go over well with the Republican base. For at least as long as I've been alive, one of the key talking points for the Republican party has been that unelected judges (and bureaucrats as well) thwarting the will of the people to ensure their own preferred policies are enshrined as law.
eric's comments seem on-point here; Walker, at least here, is acting like every other Republican big-wig, and running away from conservative values as fast as his legs can carry him. In the end, it may work for him, but not because it's a brilliant strategy, but because Republican voters give up and vote for the less-worst candidate.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा