Ted Cruz: gay marriage issue should be decided at the state level

[pbrower2a]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

What exactly are you asking me? Your question is if anyone who opposes gay marriage does so for non-religious reasons?

The only problem with same-sex marriage to me is that it would make a mess of my genealogical program. 

The trend is clear: it won't be long before conservatives accept it as an economic necessity. 

[milhouse24]

The trend is clear: it won't be long before conservatives accept it as an economic necessity. 

What do you mean by economic necessity?

Doesn't the government have to give financial benefits to SS couples, thereby decreasing the tax money available for other government programs like schools.  For example, a lesbian Edith Windsor sued the government so she can keep $600,000 in inheritance taxes from her dead wife.  Now its hard to feel bad for wealthy SS couples who just want to keep half a million dollars for herself, instead of giving it to the government to spend on schools and other necessities.  I'm sure if governments start running deficits, then the losers will be children and public safety.  That $600,000 that Edith Windsor gets to keep would do a lot of good for starving children and unemployed cops.

[Likely Voter]

Apparently it is possible in a GOP primary to be attacked for not being anti-gay enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/liz-cheney-gay-marriage-ad_n_4056983.html

Liz Cheney says she is "is not pro gay marraige" but she is being attacked  in the WY primary for having the "leave it up to the states" position. While I don't think Rick Santorum would run such an ad, I could see an outside group running ads in IA against Christie or others who don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (which was part of the GOP platform in 2012).

[Indy Texas]

Apparently it is possible in a GOP primary to be attacked for not being anti-gay enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/liz-cheney-gay-marriage-ad_n_4056983.html

Liz Cheney says she is "is not pro gay marraige" but she is being attacked  in the WY primary for having the "leave it up to the states" position. While I don't think Rick Santorum would run such an ad, I could see an outside group running ads in IA against Christie or others who don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (which was part of the GOP platform in 2012).

It doesn't look good for them to be embracing that position and it's going to look even worse in 2016 when the country is three years more accepting of gay marriage. At some point there is going to be a fight in the platforms committee about this and it won't be pretty.

[Mr. Morden]

Liz Cheney says she is "is not pro gay marraige" but she is being attacked  in the WY primary for having the "leave it up to the states" position. While I don't think Rick Santorum would run such an ad, I could see an outside group running ads in IA against Christie or others who don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (which was part of the GOP platform in 2012).

Maybe, maybe not.  Unclear how much difference it would make.  Given how fast the issue is moving, and that we're talking about hypothetical ads being run two years from now....

[Likely Voter]

While everyone agrees that there is movement towards acceptance of SSM and how the "states rights" position is the new normal for a GOP candidate, there can be no doubt that there are some on the religious right who are still as anti gay rights as ever. And remember that both the early states of IA and NH have gay marriage so telling socons there "leave it up to the states" does them no good. They want someone to tell them that they will fight to end SSM in their states (it isn't realistic but pandering is pandering). And with IA being a caucus, those kinds of voters can make a difference. The last two IA caucuses were won by Huckabee and Santorum, drawing off the socon vote. It wont be the defining issue but I wouldn't be surprised if an outside group (like they are doing in WY) came in and tried to make it an issue.

[pbrower2a]

The trend is clear: it won't be long before conservatives accept it as an economic necessity. 

What do you mean by economic necessity?

If states want the tourist trade or seek to attract businesses of same-sex couples, then those states may legalize SSM for economic reasons even if the partisan makeup of the State legislature is 'wrong'. Thus if Michigan and Ohio legalize SSN. Indiana follows along or pays a price. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be even more effective to ensure that only Christians could inherit money. That way Jewish families could be fleeced of inheritance taxes, and such would be good for public coffers. It would obviously be objectionable for other reasons.

Discriminatory taxation is of course unacceptable.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Its definitely the right answer for a republican who doesn't approve of gay marriage. That way, they can avoid the bigot/homophone name calling by the lefties. Although I'm sure he actually does support leaving it up to the states (I mean, I support that as well).

Good move Cruz. I hold to this position as well.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well why do you think the court ruled on the Prop. 8 case that only California would be affected? Not all of the states are ready, as high as the support may be.

[Qymaen]

I'm not surprised. If Cruz is running for President, and he most likely is, sucking up to the more liberal funders is a good, actually obligatory, starting point. You can't run a successful campaign based on pure social conservatism. It's practically suicide. Most likely even more so in 2016 than in 2013.

[IceSpear]

I'm not surprised. If Cruz is running for President, and he most likely is, sucking up to the more liberal funders is a good, actually obligatory, starting point. You can't run a successful campaign based on pure social conservatism. It's practically suicide. Most likely even more so in 2016 than in 2013.

Rick Santorum probably would've succeeded if not for Gingrich siphoning support from him.