Nevada's Repuplican Gov: State SSM ban 'no longer defensible in court'

[Likely Voter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nevada-officials-wont-defend-gay-marriage-ban

[Mordecai]

RIP Brian Sandoval

[publicunofficial]

Bet Masto feels like an idiot now.

[DINGO Joe]

Bet Masto feels like an idiot now.

Why?  She's the one who told the Gov. it's no longer defensible.

[Frodo]

Just confirms what I concluded months ago -he apparently has no presidential ambitions as a Republican.  Otherwise he would not have had the courage to say this. 

[badgate]

Time for some traffic problems in Carson City.

[Indy Texas]

Just confirms what I concluded months ago -he apparently has no presidential ambitions as a Republican.  Otherwise he would not have had the courage to say this. 

No, but he apparently has a desire to serve the people of his state and not waste resources on a futile legal crusade. Imagine that.

[badgate]

C R U Z  2 0 1 6
S A N D O V A L

[pbrower2a]

That's one more state to go down the road of freedom. Nevada Republicans likely figure that SSM is the wrong 'conservative' issue upon which to commit themselves. Nevada has a strong libertarian streak.

[IceSpear]

Just confirms what I concluded months ago -he apparently has no presidential ambitions as a Republican.  Otherwise he would not have had the courage to say this. 

Well, he is pretty young. I don't think anyone expects this to be controversial in 2024 or later.

[Iosif]

Support for gay marriage will be widespread in the Republican party by 2016.

They can read polls.

This is quickly dying as an issue.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sandoval should be the next President. He won't be, though.

[Franzl]

They can read polls.

I don't think this is true.

[henster]

He will run in 2016 against Reid I'm pretty sure of that.

[Cory]

Support for gay marriage will be widespread in the Republican party by 2016.

They can read polls.

This is quickly dying as an issue.

I highly doubt the Republican base will give up their opposition to same-sex marriage because polls say it's nationally unpopular.

[SteveRogers]

Just confirms what I concluded months ago -he apparently has no presidential ambitions as a Republican.  Otherwise he would not have had the courage to say this. 

Well, he is pretty young. I don't think anyone expects this to be controversial in 2024 or later.

Basically this. Smart Republicans should come out in support of same-sex marriage now. That way in 2024 or so they'll look more credible for supporting it "before it was cool" as opposed to Republicans who switch views late in the game. 

[Vosem]

Just confirms what I concluded months ago -he apparently has no presidential ambitions as a Republican.  Otherwise he would not have had the courage to say this. 

Really? Because I think he's playing the long game.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Support for gay marriage will be widespread in the Republican party by 2016.

They can read polls.

This is quickly dying as an issue.

Maybe by 2020.  At best the GOP might nominate someone who hasn't been strongly outspoken against SSM in 2016.

[Likely Voter]

To be clear, Sandoval has not come out in favor of Same Sex Marriage. In fact in his legal brief to the court last month (Sandoval is named in the suit) he defended Nevada's SSM ban “because it serves the legitimate purpose of preserving traditional marriage.” He also released a statement in January saying:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has happened since is that his AG has looked at the case and at other rulings by the Appeals Court and come to the conclusion that they are going to lose the case and Sandoval agreed. He is just accepting the reality that there is no legal basis to "preserve traditional marriage."

There are many other states that are defending their SSM bans in Federal court, but at this point they are mostly focusing on the dubious legal argument that banning SSM is needed in order to perpetuate "responsible procreation" which is a term that essentially means that opposite sex couples need marriage as an incentive in order to have planned children, but SSM couples do not need marriage because any children they have will be planned. It is of course a ludicrous argument, but it all the anti-SSM people have for now.

It appears Sandoval and his AG chose not to go down the "responsible procreation" road as it is laughable. In fact when it was used in the Prop 8 case with the SCOTUS it actually drew laughter and mockery, even from Scalia.

Here are parts of the exchange between the justices and the lawyer defending Prop 8 (Cooper):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CountryClassSF]

Sandoval essentially decided that the voters of Nevada's voice should not be heard. He ought to be primaried -- I will never vote for him for anything!

[Holmes]

Sandoval essentially decided that the voters of Nevada's voice should not be heard. He ought to be primaried -- I will never vote for him for anything!

The voters of 2000 and 2002, you mean.

[RedSLC]

Sandoval essentially decided that the voters of Nevada's voice should not be heard. He ought to be primaried -- I will never vote for him for anything!

Because it's not like voters have changed their opinions in the 10+ years since this was voted on.

I'd go into more detail, but I've got places to go right now.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

They can read polls.

I don't think this is true.

I don't even think that's true.

[Meeker]

He will run in 2016 against Reid I'm pretty sure of that.

Ayup.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Sandoval essentially decided that the voters of Nevada's voice should not be heard. He ought to be primaried -- I will never vote for him for anything!

Because it's not like voters have changed their opinions in the 10+ years since this was voted on.

I'd go into more detail, but I've got places to go right now.

Plus, the voters of Nevada's or any other state's voice on this particular issue shouldn't be particularly relevant anyway.