So, now that the GOP is abandoning gay marriage...

[Mehmentum]

What does this mean?  Will this help the GOP with younger voters, or is the damage already done?  Will there be any backlash in the Republican primary?

[opebo]

Will this help the GOP with younger voters, or is the damage already done?

Nope.  If they're not careful, their bandwagoning on the issues that don't matter will leave them without their fig-leaf, and people will see them plainly for what they are - the party of economic oppression.

[Zarn]

It depends on the GOP's "face of the party." More than likely, it will be its 2016 candidate.

Paul is more youth friendly, and so was his father last time around. He needs to be careful of the DNC spin machine, though. If youth have spending (our budget is still bloated) or liberty concerns (Bush/Obama legislation still rearing its ugly head), it would steer them in the GOP direction. His views on pot certainly don't hurt him. Contrast him to Clinton, and you have a very interesting race down the stretch. I cannot imagine the debates.

Rubio, Ryan, and Bush are the faces of the establishment. The hawkish stances of the establishment don't gel with youth. Young Cuban Americans will not support Rubio, either. They are not as bad as the third group, though.
 
Huckabee or Santorum will outright force ficons of all ages out of the party, destroying GOP chances in purple and even red areas across the country. I would consider the GOP would be fortunate to hold onto half of its current youth vote, let alone capture more of the total youth vote.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I'm sure you are all surprised that I think the guy I support right now is the best to capture the youth vote.

[Mehmentum]

I happen to agree, Paul is probably the best person to capture the youth vote out of the people we've seen. 

[King]

Will Rand get Bill and Hillary to admit inhaling in their youths?

[Zarn]

Will Rand get Bill and Hillary to admit inhaling in their youths?

Oooh...  a Drug War debate between Rand and Hillary!

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The GOP will fall apart before long.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yeah, I think self-destruction is coming. The tea party/far right element ain't giving up without a fight, and I don't see them recovering from it anytime soon. I mean just look at Christie not being invited to CPAC, you can't be a serious party with this nonsense directing the voters.

[Zarn]

Christie being disliked is not a socon thing. It's a ficon thing.

CPAC had no trouble accepting Rand Paul.

[Likely Voter]

When did the GOP or any of the potential 2016ers (with exception of that commie traitor Huntsman) abandon their opposition to SSM?

[Blue3]

When did the GOP or any of the potential 2016ers (with exception of that commie traitor Huntsman) abandon their opposition to SSM?

Well Rubio said the states should decide, and it's unlikely that anyone but Santorum would run against SSM in 2016

[Likely Voter]

saying states should decide is not the same as saying you support SSM. And in the GOP primary Rubio and others will end up having to say yes or no on if they personally support SSM. They cant just say they have no opinion personally. In fact note what Rubio said at CPAC "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot" Sounds like he supports the states that do ban SSM

[Mehmentum]

saying states should decide is not the same as saying you support SSM. And in the GOP primary Rubio and others will end up having to say yes or no on if they personally support SSM. They cant just say they have no opinion personally. In fact note what Rubio said at CPAC "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot" Sounds like he supports the states that do ban SSM

I never said the GOP was supporting gay marriage, I said it was abandoning it as an issue.  (or at least trying to)

[Likely Voter]

I agree that some of them will try to avoid the issue, but Romney tried to avoid it too and the Millennials still ran away from him in droves. Chris Christie, probably the most likely GOP nominee, vetoed SSM in NJ, cant run away from that!  And as I said, someone is going to try and make it an issue and drag the rest of them with him on it. They cant be against it and ignore it just like a Dem cant ignore it in 2016. This is a big issue and it is going to get talked about on both sides. In fact the Dem primaries will likely discuss the issue which will lead the MSM to ask the GOP candidates about it. "The Dems are united in favor of marriage equality, where do you stand Candidate X?"

Romney didn't want to talk about abortion in 2012 but in the end he ended up having to support the Blunt ammendent and saying things like "Planned Parenthood, going to get rid of that."  A GOP candidate cant get through the primary without pandering to the evangelicals to some extent on social issues. If they dont, then Mike Huckabee will get on FOX and the radio and declare them a RINO who doesn't deserve their support 

[Mr. Morden]

Even among those voters within the GOP who are nominally against SSM, it's hard to say how many of them are genuinely opposed and care about the issue itself, and how many of them are only nominally against it as a matter of partisan identity.  If the GOP elite starts to retreat on the issue, then you could potentially see a large fraction of the grassroots shift from "opposed" to "don't care" pretty quickly.

There's also something of a fallback position, which is already starting to develop.  At some point, you'll start to see some within the GOP say that while they're personally OK with SSM, they want to speak out against the ostracization of SSM opponents.  For them, it'll become a sort of civil rights issue for SSM opponents.  Rubio's statement at CPAC about opposing SSM not making him a bigot foreshadowed this.  Now that SSM opponents are in the minority, things shift from the offensive posture of blocking SSM to the defensive posture of saying "SSM proponents may have won, but just don't brand SSM opponents as evil monsters".

Even Maggie Gallagher of all people seems to be switching to this defensive posture:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/22/175064250/as-support-for-gay-marriage-grows-an-opponent-looks-ahead

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In any case, the defensive posture offers an out for some Republicans who might want to split the baby further.  They've already starting shifting from "opposed to SSM, and let's ban it in all 50 states" to "opposed to SSM, but let each state do its own thing".  The next shift will be to "apathetic about SSM and even accepting its inevitability, but we must stop the Left's agenda to trample on the rights of those who hate gays".

[Mehmentum]

That sound exactly like something the Republican party would do.

[TJ in Oregon]

There's also something of a fallback position, which is already starting to develop.  At some point, you'll start to see some within the GOP say that while they're personally OK with SSM, they want to speak out against the ostracization of SSM opponents.  For them, it'll become a sort of civil rights issue for SSM opponents.  Rubio's statement at CPAC about opposing SSM not making him a bigot foreshadowed this.  Now that SSM opponents are in the minority, things shift from the offensive posture of blocking SSM to the defensive posture of saying "SSM proponents may have won, but just don't brand SSM opponents as evil monsters".

Even Maggie Gallagher of all people seems to be switching to this defensive posture:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/22/175064250/as-support-for-gay-marriage-grows-an-opponent-looks-ahead

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In any case, the defensive posture offers an out for some Republicans who might want to split the baby further.  They've already starting shifting from "opposed to SSM, and let's ban it in all 50 states" to "opposed to SSM, but let each state do its own thing".  The next shift will be to "apathetic about SSM and even accepting its inevitability, but we must stop the Left's agenda to trample on the rights of those who hate gays".

This is more or less the route I've been hoping the GOP takes for years, once it became apparent that gay marriage made the jump from an unthinkable idea no one even thinks of to basically inevitable. The pro gay marriage argument has often taken the position that gay marriage is essentially equivalent to interracial marriage, thus anyone who opposes it is a bigot. This view allows for individuals to dissent in their personal lives but only on the very fringes of society. If a church denies marriage to an interracial couple, it makes newspaper headlines and creates outrage. If a church denies marriage to a same sex couple, should it also make newspaper headlines and foster national outrage? That's not a legal question in itself, but legal issues will undoubtedly arise, much like this for a random example. I'm sure there will be many more. The range of public opinion on these topics by those I encounter who support gay marriage seem to vary greatly on them, from people those who simply think the government should recognize same sex marriage because it doesn't affect anyone else to those who think I should be locked in a mental institution for opposing it, even on a personal level away from the government. Gay marriage will be legalized at some point nationwide but the question remains of exactly what it will look like when it is.

[auburntiger]

As they should. There's no turning back at this point. Once it passes at the federal level, I don't think it will be an issue in discussion of overturning it.

I think the only way for Republicans to keep evangelicals turning out in the future and for them to be able to accept gay marriage simultaneously is that they promise to protect the rights of churches who oppose same sex marriage to freedom of speech, essentially becoming a conservatively slanted separation of church and state argument.

That has been my position for a long time (separation of church and state). I say go for it at a government level, but don't force my church to recognize something we strongly believe is sin.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There is an important point that was just raised, it's one of the most irritating questions missing from most polling.

You can ask if you care about something till the cows come home... but until you're asked "how much do you care? and would it change your vote?" you have NO idea where people actually stand.

[Napoleon]

Um, who said the Republicans are abandoning gay marriage? One Senator with a gay son happens to support it. A former VP with a lesbian daughter that would take any politican stance as long as he got to blow sh**t up supports it. Who else?

Its the Democrats that are shifting on this issue, and it has the Republicans scared. But they aren't changing one iota.

[Mr. Morden]

You can ask if you care about something till the cows come home... but until you're asked "how much do you care? and would it change your vote?" you have NO idea where people actually stand.

I don't even know that it's something that you can find out by including such hypotheticals in polling questions.  People are very bad at predicting what their own opinions are going to be if a hypothetical circumstance were to arise.

And so, you might have many people who believe X, who also belong to a party where everyone believes X, but they don't necessarily care about X deep in their bones, as distinct from just adopting that position for the tribalistic reason that that's what people of their political group are supposed to believe.  Such people might not realize that their own belief in X is actually paper thin, and will fade away once others in their party stop believing it.  There isn't necessarily a poll question you can ask that would tell you who belongs to this category and who doesn't.

[Likely Voter]

The OP asked if they can win back young voters. Until the nominee supports SSM then it wont help. Saying "leave it up to the states" just says "im happy gays in your state cant get married" (all the swing states except IA and NH ban gay marriage). And if they refuse to give their personal opinion they are just dodging. But I believe the nominee  wont be able to make it out of the primaries without saying they personally are against SSM, even if they believe it should be left to the states

[Napoleon]

Even the "leave it to the states" argument is bullsh**t if they support DOMA.

[Maxwell]

Chris Christie, probably the most likely GOP nominee, vetoed SSM in NJ, cant run away from that!

Well I mean, surely there are other reasons he can ran too far away from it, am i right?

[Beezer]

Sure, the party establishment is abandoning it, but what about the base? Let's face it, the GOP is a Southernized party and the South is the only region still relatively staunchly opposed to gay marriage:



http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/09/behind-gay-marriage-momentum-regional-gaps-persist/

As a matter of fact this general liberalizing trend in the country could actually lead to some sort of Southern backlash. The GOP base sees virtually all of its values under attack. Instead of opening up and accepting defeat, a "circling of the wagons" mentality could prevail among the party's core constituency.