Walker's "anti-gay transition"

[Mr. Morden]

A primer on how Walker has shifted (at least in emphasis) on LGBT issues since his 2014 reelection campaign:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/30/scott-walker-came-out-as-anti-gay-and-conservatives-loved-it.html

[CountryClassSF]

Why do they call Walker anti-gay? I read this piece, and it looks like they're mad that he's reaching out to evangelical groups. The writer looks anti-Walker.  Is this what passes for news now? These opinion pieces?

for God's sake, he said he wasn't going to intervene with SSM in WI, what more do people want.

[Torie]

How will a Constitutional amendment proposal work out when it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify, and at least more than a quarter of the states have gay marriage by non Judicial means, and a bunch more have legislatures overwhelming in favor of legalizing SSM? Putting aside all the policy issues, this is just so totally disingenuous. Well Walker's done anyway. Bye.

[Mr. Morden]

More on this general topic of Walker tacking right in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/politics/scott-walkers-hard-right-turn-in-iowa-may-hurt-him-elsewhere.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This comes on the heels of some recent reporting on jitters from big $ GOP donors that Walker's pandering to the base might actually reflect his true principles:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8831247/scott-walker-true-believer

[Likely Voter]

I have always thought any moderate heroism on his part was an act. I read somewhere (cant find the link) that his first proposed bill as a freshman legislator was an anti-aboriton bill that was too extreme to ever even make it to the floor. The Vox article noted how he was an anti-abortion culture warrior going back to college.

So far he has got away with trying to have it both ways but I think once the campaign really starts he is going to have to reveal his true colors, otherwise he will look wishy washy and all over the place. But once he does that it is going to cost him appeal with the more moderate GOPers and it will cost him money. Of course he can also pick up support, peeling it away from Carson, Huckabee and others. So being the 'true conservative' can still be a winning formula for him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More on this general topic of Walker tacking right in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/politics/scott-walkers-hard-right-turn-in-iowa-may-hurt-him-elsewhere.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This comes on the heels of some recent reporting on jitters from big $ GOP donors that Walker's pandering to the base might actually reflect his true principles:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8831247/scott-walker-true-believer

I think Walker will be the Huckabee / Santorum this time.

[ElectionsGuy]

More on this general topic of Walker tacking right in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/politics/scott-walkers-hard-right-turn-in-iowa-may-hurt-him-elsewhere.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This comes on the heels of some recent reporting on jitters from big $ GOP donors that Walker's pandering to the base might actually reflect his true principles:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8831247/scott-walker-true-believer

This is not a conservative position.

[Mehmentum]

Wow, as the general population is continually more in favor of gay marriage, Walker shifts in the exact opposite direction.

[pbrower2a]

He has been tacking Right to win GOP constituencies; in doing so he offends everyone else.

By the early autumn of 2016, same-sex marriage will be a political irrelevancy, a done deal everywhere. What will be more important will be the cheap-labor, environment-ravaging, superstition-pushing segments of the GOP.

Can he unite them? Sure. He can also become a brittle target for the 'slings and arrows' of anyone even slightly to the left of center.  

[bedstuy]

The last two Iowa caucuses were won by severely underfunded, Christian conservative underdogs.  Walker needs to compete for those voters.

[muon2]

The last two Iowa caucuses were won by severely underfunded, Christian conservative underdogs.  Walker needs to compete for those voters.

But those IA caucuses haven't done so well the last two cycles at predicting the eventual GOP nominee. It only seems to serve to identify who will be the last challenger to the nominee (Huckabee, Santorum). I wouldn't have thought that Walker wants to be stuck in that role.

[bedstuy]

The last two Iowa caucuses were won by severely underfunded, Christian conservative underdogs.  Walker needs to compete for those voters.

But those IA caucuses haven't done so well the last two cycles at predicting the eventual GOP nominee. It only seems to serve to identify who will be the last challenger to the nominee (Huckabee, Santorum). I wouldn't have thought that Walker wants to be stuck in that role.

I think the problem with Huckabee and Santorum's campaigns is not that they won Iowa.  It's that they weren't registering or raising money at all before Iowa and they were flawed candidates.  If they didn't win Iowa, their campaigns would never have taken off.

Walker comes in a much stronger candidate in every way. 

[Blair]

Why do they call Walker anti-gay? I read this piece, and it looks like they're mad that he's reaching out to evangelical groups. The writer looks anti-Walker.  Is this what passes for news now? These opinion pieces?

for God's sake, he said he wasn't going to intervene with SSM in WI, what more do people want.

They want you to be some vocal queer rights proponent or you are apparently anti-gay

Please, don't use the word queer. Just no.

And yeah It's anti gay to try and ban gay marriage

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

[TJ in Oregon]

Hmm. His rhetoric seems to have changed, but I'm not so sure his views have actually, tangibly changed on anything. In the older quotes he said he supported anti-discrimination laws or gays in the workplace but was against gay marriage "a healthy balance" as he said. Now, he says he wants to pass a constitutional amendment to let states ban gay marriage. It is obviously impossible for him to do any such thing, yet this isn't really a flip flop.

The obtuse answer where he said "it's in the constitution" was a reference to Wisconsin's state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Walker was saying that his opinion on it is irrelevant since it was in the constitution anyway. It shouldn't be remotely surprising to anyone following Walker that he said that. Again, his gubernatorial campaign was built somewhat on avoiding topics he viewed as a pointless distraction.

I won't begin to pretend that running in the Republican Primary isn't changing which issues he views as pointless distractions. In general he now has to give his actual opinion on a lot of things he used to be able to avoid. But he's always been a hardline conservative on pretty much every issue. That hasn't changed.

The real problem here is of course that he, as the article says, may be running to win the primary and lose the general election.

[bedstuy]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed, but there are plenty of great single parents AND same-sex couples. We should not discriminate against anyone.

If we are going to have marriage be state recognized contract, I want it to be at the state and not federal level. But, I would prefer if we left those decisions up to the religious institutions - I don't think our tax code or laws should distinguish between those who are married and those who are single. However, obviously states are going to have to continue to have laws pertaining to children and custody etc. 

[Torie]

Hmm. His rhetoric seems to have changed, but I'm not so sure his views have actually, tangibly changed on anything. In the older quotes he said he supported anti-discrimination laws or gays in the workplace but was against gay marriage "a healthy balance" as he said. Now, he says he wants to pass a constitutional amendment to let states ban gay marriage. It is obviously impossible for him to do any such thing, yet this isn't really a flip flop.

The obtuse answer where he said "it's in the constitution" was a reference to Wisconsin's state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Walker was saying that his opinion on it is irrelevant since it was in the constitution anyway. It shouldn't be remotely surprising to anyone following Walker that he said that. Again, his gubernatorial campaign was built somewhat on avoiding topics he viewed as a pointless distraction.

I won't begin to pretend that running in the Republican Primary isn't changing which issues he views as pointless distractions. In general he now has to give his actual opinion on a lot of things he used to be able to avoid. But he's always been a hardline conservative on pretty much every issue. That hasn't changed.

The real problem here is of course that he, as the article says, may be running to win the primary and lose the general election.

Whatever Walker is doing, being it tacking, emphasis change, irrelevant musings about ways out the box that he doesn't like that are DOA, doesn't this strike you TJ as all pathetically inept?  He also projects to me this ersatz quality, as if he is trying to read someone else's lines that are written for him, but just isn't doing it very well.

[bedstuy]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed, but there are plenty of great single parents AND same-sex couples. We should not discriminate against anyone.

If we are going to have marriage be state recognized contract, I want it to be at the state and not federal level. But, I would prefer if we left those decisions up to the religious institutions - I don't think our tax code or laws should distinguish between those who are married and those who are single. However, obviously states are going to have to continue to have laws pertaining to children and custody etc. 

Marriage has never been at the Federal level so that's solved.

Aside from that, you're not making sense.  You're proposing that we legally invalidate all marriages, and do so at the state level, correct? 

So, the government could never differentiate between married and single people, everyone would be legally single.  That takes away the tax question.  And, for example, you wouldn't get any immigration status because you're married to someone.  That might break up families, but I see your point, breaking families is necessary to stand up for family values.

But, what about my employee benefits point?  Do you ban companies from offering health insurance or other benefits to their employees' partners?  How do you handle family issues and immigration issues? 

And, what is the point of all that legal hassle, which as I pointed out, goes against Republican's core social convictions of being pro-marriage?

[TJ in Oregon]

Hmm. His rhetoric seems to have changed, but I'm not so sure his views have actually, tangibly changed on anything. In the older quotes he said he supported anti-discrimination laws or gays in the workplace but was against gay marriage "a healthy balance" as he said. Now, he says he wants to pass a constitutional amendment to let states ban gay marriage. It is obviously impossible for him to do any such thing, yet this isn't really a flip flop.

The obtuse answer where he said "it's in the constitution" was a reference to Wisconsin's state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Walker was saying that his opinion on it is irrelevant since it was in the constitution anyway. It shouldn't be remotely surprising to anyone following Walker that he said that. Again, his gubernatorial campaign was built somewhat on avoiding topics he viewed as a pointless distraction.

I won't begin to pretend that running in the Republican Primary isn't changing which issues he views as pointless distractions. In general he now has to give his actual opinion on a lot of things he used to be able to avoid. But he's always been a hardline conservative on pretty much every issue. That hasn't changed.

The real problem here is of course that he, as the article says, may be running to win the primary and lose the general election.

Whatever Walker is doing, being it tacking, emphasis change, irrelevant musings about ways out the box that he doesn't like that are DOA, doesn't this strike you TJ as all pathetically inept?  He also projects to me this ersatz quality, as if he is trying to read someone else's lines that are written for him, but just isn't doing it very well.

Yes, it does strike me as inept. There are a number of things about Walker that strike me as somewhat inept and this is only another brick in the wall. I have trouble seeing Walker withstand a presidential campaign without these sorts of things building up into an insurmountable pile. I am not planning on voting for Walker in the primary because I think he would make the occasional poor decision, both in the campaign and, if elected, in office, that would undermine whatever else he was trying to do. As for the speaking, he's always been that way. The original criticism of Walker as a presidential candidate a few years ago was that he doesn't have the charisma to win. He looks uncomfortable.

I disagree about the inauthenticity charge. Walker is not difficult to understand even if he is a tad difficult to predict. I cannot claim to have predicted that Walker would take on the UW system in his budget for example. Now that he has I understand why he did, and what it's made a mess for a marginal fiscal effect. I am sure he does have a speech writer; who doesn't? But I don't think he's particularly puppet-like. I think his problem is that he can only really wrap his mind around a handful of issues at a time and harp on them. That worked okay in Wisconsin, but now when running for president he has to deal with a plethora of other stuff he isn't prepared for. I don't think this will turn out well for him.

[dudeabides]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed, but there are plenty of great single parents AND same-sex couples. We should not discriminate against anyone.

If we are going to have marriage be state recognized contract, I want it to be at the state and not federal level. But, I would prefer if we left those decisions up to the religious institutions - I don't think our tax code or laws should distinguish between those who are married and those who are single. However, obviously states are going to have to continue to have laws pertaining to children and custody etc. 

Marriage has never been at the Federal level so that's solved.

Aside from that, you're not making sense.  You're proposing that we legally invalidate all marriages, and do so at the state level, correct? 

So, the government could never differentiate between married and single people, everyone would be legally single.  That takes away the tax question.  And, for example, you wouldn't get any immigration status because you're married to someone.  That might break up families, but I see your point, breaking families is necessary to stand up for family values.

But, what about my employee benefits point?  Do you ban companies from offering health insurance or other benefits to their employees' partners?  How do you handle family issues and immigration issues? 

And, what is the point of all that legal hassle, which as I pointed out, goes against Republican's core social convictions of being pro-marriage?

The government would not be able to differentiate between single and married, that is correct. As far as employers are concerned, there is no law now that says employers can have to provide benefits to spouses. They do, and they differentiate when that employee specifies who they are married to.

As far as the immigration question, it's the same thing.

Religious institutions can confirm if a couple is married, my argument is simply to get the government out of the marriage question all together.

As a society, we allow people to be free so long as they don't harm others. I don't think letting religious institutions as opposed to governments make decisions about marriage harm anyone and thus, it's okay under our constitution and in our society.

[Torie]

"Religious institutions can confirm if a couple is married, my argument is simply to get the government out of the marriage question all together."

Will there be any governmental restrictions as to whom a religious institution can deem married? If there are, the government is still in the marriage business. If not, then suddenly any two or more humans of any status will effectively be able to get married, via such religious institutions.  And even then the government will be in the marriage business, to the extent it restricts marriages to intra-species hookups. With all due respect, you really need to think this through better. There is no escape from the government being in the marriage business, because a basket of rights and duties attends the relationship.

And of course, restricting it to "religious" institutions would be unConstitutional, as favoring religion, as opposed to the government taking a neutral status, so how does one deal with that little detail?

We really need to get Rand Paul to participate in this thread. Where is he?  

[Gass3268]

More on this general topic of Walker tacking right in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/us/politics/scott-walkers-hard-right-turn-in-iowa-may-hurt-him-elsewhere.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This comes on the heels of some recent reporting on jitters from big $ GOP donors that Walker's pandering to the base might actually reflect his true principles:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8831247/scott-walker-true-believer

This is not a conservative position.

It is in Iowa.

[Blair]

Republicans should continue to defend the pro-life position because human life is precious and deserves to be protected.

However, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the party has to learn to be inclusive and that these are God's children just as much as heterosexual individuals. Therefore, the government should be out of the issue of marriage and if we insist government should be involved, it should only be at the state level.

How do you handle all of the legal issues around marriage then?  How do you know whether people are married for say, purposes of employment benefits without marriage?  And, isn't that the opposite of the Republican social ideology of being in favor of marriage?  I thought Republicans thought marriage had beneficial social and economic effects.  I guess not?

And, Democrats don't want the Federal government involved in marriage.  The only time that has happened was DOMA and Democrats pushed to have that repealed. 

I do believe that children who are raised in a home with one man and one woman are more likely to succeed 

That's complete and utter bollocks. It's like me saying a home with two white parents does better

[pbrower2a]

A stand against same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court has decided that SSM is a right is quixotic in the extreme.