Walker backs amendment to allow states to ban gay marriage

[Blue3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/07/scott-walker-gay-marriage_n_7529072.html

I wonder if he would be ok with an amendment to allow states to ban interracial marriage too?

[tmthforu94]

Not quite.

He wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting the courts from legalizing same-sex marriages and leaving it to the states.

[Thomas D]

Kinda disingenuous seeing as how he knows there aren't the votes in Congress to pass this to the states.

[Mr. Morden]

This was also Fred Thompson's position in 2008.

[Likely Voter]

Ted Cruz has introduced an ammenment for this too. And Huckabee is advocating for states to ignore SCOTUS. clearly this issue is only going to heat up after the ruling, not go away as some may wish.  The so called moderates will have to take a stand on the amendment.

[Bull Moose Base]

I assume every Republican will say the same thing before long.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This was also Fred Thompson's position in 2008.

I don't think that's the comparison Walker was looking for. 

[Maxwell]

This was also Fred Thompson's position in 2008.

I don't think that's the comparison Walker was looking for. 

but it's probably the comparison he'll be hearing over and over again.

[Nutmeg]

Not quite.

He wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting the courts from legalizing same-sex marriages and leaving it to the states.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but I've read and re-read your statement and the thread title, and I don't understand the distinction. What's the difference?

[Holmes]

Not quite.

He wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting the courts from legalizing same-sex marriages and leaving it to the states.

That's actually even more stupid. You should've just let what OP said slide.

[CountryClassSF]

Thank you , Gov. Walker!

"I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

Please keep in mind, as the above poster stated, this is not the same thing as a federal marriage amendment. It preserves the states' right to define or redefine marriage as they see fit, just prohibits courts from imposition on the whole country.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Are the Republicans just trying to hand the White House to the old polarizing/calculating neoliberal corporatist warmonger? When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose, I guess is their new mantra.

[Indy Texas]

This was also Fred Thompson's position in 2008.

At a time when the mainstream GOP position was to have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all states.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Thank you , Gov. Walker!

"I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

Please keep in mind, as the above poster stated, this is not the same thing as a federal marriage amendment. It preserves the states' right to define or redefine marriage as they see fit, just prohibits courts from imposition on the whole country.

[SteveRogers]

The title is misleading. It suggests he wants to ban gay marriage. This is a way to criticize him.

But he actually does want to ban gay marriage.

The article could have stated he backs amendment to allow stats to legalize gay marriage.

No it couldn't have. States are already allowed to legalize gay marriage. The only purpose of such an amendment is to allow states to ban gay marriage once SCOTUS says they can't a couple weeks from now.

[CountryClassSF]

I was previously very concerned with Walker on this issue. I am happy to say that I am not anymore.   

[pbrower2a]

It will fail because Republicans will not have a Constitutional majority in either House of Congress.

Walker simply throws red meat at people slavering for it.    

[Cory]

So I assume the conservatives on this issue would be fine with State Rights to ban interracial marriage? Or is that somehow "different"?

[Yelnoc]

Thank you , Gov. Walker!

"I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

Please keep in mind, as the above poster stated, this is not the same thing as a federal marriage amendment. It preserves the states' right to define or redefine marriage as they see fit, just prohibits courts from imposition on the whole country.

Why are you empty-quoting homophobia?

[Mr. Illini]

The article could have stated he backs amendment to allow stats to legalize gay marriage.

States aren't allowed to legalize gay marriage?

[YaBoyNY]

Thank you , Gov. Walker!

"I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

Please keep in mind, as the above poster stated, this is not the same thing as a federal marriage amendment. It preserves the states' right to define or redefine marriage as they see fit, just prohibits courts from imposition on the whole country.

If the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage should be banned across the nation, what would you say?

[bedstuy]

Maybe one of our lawyer types could explain this to me. 

Wouldn't it be a legal nightmare for some states not to recognize the marriage laws of other states?  I mean, what if Alabama didn't recognize a New York same-sex marriage. 

And, if you did force states without same-sex marriage to accept out of state same-sex marriages, where does that leave us?  We have a Constitutional Amendment that can be circumvented by an airline flight to another state.  That seems like an insult to the Constitution, not to mention gay people.

[Blair]

Oh please, are we going to pick and choose what laws we obey. I thought the GOP were suppose to be committed to the constitution-Walker's just trying to firm up his support in Iowa.

If the courts mandate that gay marriage should be allowed in all 50 states then it should-it's a civil rights position. Everyone got over US vs Windsor.

If we take a cherry picking approach to the Supreme Court can we get rid of DC vs Heller, so states can ban handguns. Can we stop Shelby Country vs Holder so we can actually have civil rights, and can we end the travesty that was Citizens United. There's so much of this court that I want to roll back but I wouldn't call for a constitutional amendment in each state to allow them to veto a civil rights issue

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So I assume the conservatives on this issue would be fine with State Rights to ban interracial marriage? Or is that somehow "different"?

Most conservatives consider race and gender to be different things. 

[HAnnA MArin County]

So I assume the conservatives on this issue would be fine with State Rights to ban interracial marriage? Or is that somehow "different"?

Most conservatives consider race and gender to be different things. 

^^this.

I think to conservatives it's all about "choice." Sure, you can't choose being born white or black or Hispanic or Asian etc., nor can you can choose being born male or female, but I think they still believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and a bad choice at that, and they feel that people who make "bad choices" shouldn't be given equal, excuse me, "special" rights. This is what I don't get with conservatives who constantly tout the evils of government: they want us to choose our health care (so long as it's not government-run) and choose our schools (so long as it's not public schools), but they want the government to choose who we can and cannot love and what we can and cannot do with our bodies in the privacy of our own homes, bedrooms and doctor's offices. I have yet to meet a conservative who can justify government's intrusion into our personal lives without mentioning Jesus, and I just think that Jesus would concern himself more with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, healing the sick and providing for the poor over stoning women and gays for what they do with their reproductive organs.