Aaron Blake blogs at the Washington Post that the GOP is witnessing a:
clash is between two converging branches of the conservative movement: the social conservatives who wants to outlaw gay marriage at all costs, and the newly in vogue brand of tea party federalists holding that, regardless of how you feel about the controversial issue, it’s a matter for the states. . . . it’s hard to marry (no pun intended) the two positions.
Blake notes that that while Republicans broadly are against gay marriage, “a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute last September, by a 55-to-41 percent margin, they think decisions about the issue should be made at the state level. And among tea partiers, the margin is even greater: 62 to 35 percent. So, at least on the surface, that’s a solid majority of Republicans AND tea partiers expressing what amounts to opposition to a federal marriage amendment.”
However:
The last thing someone like Bachmann or Perry wants to do is alienate social conservatives, particularly given their influence in Iowa, the home of the first caucuses. But the candidates have also got to remember where their tea party bread is buttered, and if they stray too far from the emerging federalist trend, they could lose some of that tea party support.
The amendment isn’t likely to go anywhere, but the judicial challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) could be front and center next year. And, as the Washington Post editorializes: “If defending DOMA requires making assertions that are clearly false, the law is not defensible.”
17 Comments for “The GOP’s Marriage Quandary”
posted by esurience on
Wanting marriage to be decided at the state level, and supporting a federal constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, are logically mutually exclusive positions.
But that doesn’t stop people from holding both positions. Michelle Bachman, for example, and I believe other Republican candidates as well, believe both things at the same time.
They believe 1) Marriage should be decided at the state level. 2) The federal government should prohibit states from passing marriage equality (by passing a constitutional amendment).
Is it illogical for them to hold both of these positions at the same time? Yes. But they do. So we cannot infer from the statistic: “by a 55-to-41 percent margin, they think decisions about the issue should be made at the state level.” — that 55 percent of Republicans oppose a federal marriage amendment.
It is possible to get a poll that says 60% of people’s favorite food is apples, and another poll that says that 60% of people’s favorite food is bananas.
If you want to know whether Republicans or tea partiers support the federal marriage amendment, you must ask them that specific question. You cannot infer it from a different question.
posted by BobN on
It’s only illogical if you credit them with sincerity.
Their position is that 1) states should be able to ban SSM and CUs and adoption and whatever and 2) federal law will be necessary to reverse gay rights in the states that grant them.
It’s not “illogical”. It’s thoroughly anti-gay.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… a solid majority of Republicans AND tea partiers expressing what amounts to opposition to a federal marriage amendment …
I think this is wishful thinking, Stephen. The Bachmann/Perry responses are poll tested — polls demonstrate that Republican primary voters their state to be able to ban same-sex marriage and also support the FMA.
Perry’s explanation of why is remarkable for its ingenuity. If I understand him right, Perry takes the position that unless same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment, individual states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states under full faith and credit.
posted by Doug on
Recent research shows that the Tea Party is the most right component of the GOP and does not support gay marriage in any form. Perry initially said it was a state issue and then flip flopped and says we have to have a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
posted by Jorge on
I’m sorry, Mr. Miller, but that Washington Post editorial opened the door for why supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment is consistent with believing marriage should be decided by the states. Yes, much of the benefits of marriage is administered through the federal government. If the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the courts, will the federal government’s role increase or decrease? Will it force the federal government to provide the benefits of marriage to gays in all states, or only those who live in states that grant gay marriage.
The FMA would be an overreaction, but it could be part of a backlash that is premised on a belief that the federal government needs to mind its own business.
posted by BobN on
I don’t often think this, but I wish I lived in Stephen Miller’s world, cuz it’s a lot less anti-gay than the real one…
posted by esurience on
BonN,
I suspect that’s why he and Jorge and GOProud live there.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, ewww! I can’t stand free-market libertarianism.
GOProud’s okay. (Too upper-crust, though.)
posted by grendel on
i wish this blog had a facebook like button, cuz I would have clicked it for this comment. brilliant!
posted by Houndentenor on
This reminds me of the old “I’m for equal rights but not special rights” line. Translation: I’m pandering to anti-gay bigots using language that won’t scare away moderates. What’s frustrating is how many people are stupid (or delusional) enough not to see through this kind of bs.
posted by Jorge on
This reminds me of the old “I’m for equal rights but not special rights” line. Translation: I’m pandering to anti-gay bigots using language that won’t scare away moderates.
*Yawn!*
That was a pretty dumb line when it was about accusing people of being anti-black, and I don’t have any confidence that your analysis is any better here. Quit your whining and blaming and stand up for yourself.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s exactly the same tactic the GOP employs with racial issues as well. Pandering to racists using carefully crafted language that won’t scare off moderates. Different group, same tactic. It’s not working as well as it used to, mostly because people are finally starting to see through it. Also, thanks to the internet, candidates can no longer get away with taking opposite positions with different groups. You can’t be for state’s rights AND for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It’s as ridiculous as people claiming they were for gay rights while fighting to keep sodomy laws on the books.
posted by Jorge on
You are at once suggesting that moderates are racists and that moderates are not racists–I hope you realize that. An interesting approach.
posted by Lymis on
What it reminds me of is George W. Bush’s “opposition” to the Federal Marriage Amendment, because he felt that the federal laws including DOMA were robust enough to keep marriage illegal.
It was often claimed as evidence of his “moderate” position, but was nothing of the sort, and generally, neither is this.
This position is essentially “no gay marriage, regardless of what it takes.” If a Federal DOMA works, great. If a state by state approach works, fine. The only reason that any of these people are embracing the “states rights” approach is that they see the writing on the wall at the Federal level, not from any actual moderate stance.
posted by BobN on
What the hell do you mean “opposition”?!?!?!?
Dubya called for the FMA in his State of the Union address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/George_W._Bush%27s_Fourth_State_of_the_Union_Address
posted by BobN on
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I beg your pardon?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
BobN
I’ve found this happens when I include more than one web link in a post. The setting protects against spam-site comments. Nobody seems to be watching the moderation box, though, because the couple of times this has happened to me, the comments are never published.
Moderator’s note: multiple web links get comments sent to the spam filter. If not, you would not believe the level of spam we would face. IGF has a few volunteers who monitor, but sometimes only weekly.