What should Romney/Republicans do about gay marriage?

[level.eleven]

With all the rage being the discussion surrounding gay marriage, I came across two articles in the past couple days that I found to be interesting. Ignoring the right or wrong aspect, lets focus on the political aspect of the topic.

First up, is Romney's flip-flop. While running for governor, Romney fully supported gay marriage, promising to "be better for gays than Ted Kennedy." Of course, we also have the flyer, which is obviously being denied. He also received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Mitt Romney Almost Marched In The 2002 Boston Gay Pride Parade / Queerty

There isn't much Romney can do at this point with regards to his position. He has already came out against and obviously can't do a double flip-flop. But, that brings us to our second story.

Bush pollster, and respected Republican insider for the past 20+ years, Jan van Lohuizen release this memo in 2004. To put it bluntly, the Republicans are marginalizing themselves to younger voters and risk losing a generation.

Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast

This memo comes on the heals of one of the most vocal supporters of the NC amendment stating that it will be overturned within 20 years because of generational differences.

Should the Republicans open the tent and adopt gay marriage and erase the prospect of alienating future voters?

 

[Mosinguy]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

 

[Principal Skinr]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

Bingo. He should take the position that the government doesn't have any business in people's personal lives. Republicans need to decide once and for all if they are truly against government intrusion, or not.

 

[ATM]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

Agreed, but here's the problem:

Our government can't just butt out of defining marriage since they've tied so many other laws and regulations to that status.

It would be a monumental overhaul that neither of the current establishment parties would even remotely consider.

 

[mrjarrell]

Agreed, but here's the problem:

Our government can't just butt out of defining marriage since they've tied so many other laws and regulations to that status.

It would be a monumental overhaul that neither of the current establishment parties would even remotely consider.

Precisely. They aren't going to go down the separation of marriage and state route in anyone's lifetime. So, what should they do going forward with the reality that .gov is not getting out of the interference business?

 

[level.eleven]

Agreed, but here's the problem:

Our government can't just butt out of defining marriage since they've tied so many other laws and regulations to that status.

It would be a monumental overhaul that neither of the current establishment parties would even remotely consider.

Exactly, "nib out" isn't an option. A position has to be taken.

Some interesting commentary from Fox New's Shep Smith the other day. Are Republicans on the wrong side of history?

Shep Smith, call your office - POLITICO.com

 

[Bunnykid68]

Shep is a douche bag

 

[ATM]

Precisely. They aren't going to go down the separation of marriage and state route in anyone's lifetime. So, what should they do going forward with the reality that .gov is not getting out of the interference business?

IMO, the .gov should treat it as nothing more than any other contractual agreement for legal status purposes.

Regardless of my (or anyone's) views on the sanctity, morality, or purposes of marriage, the .gov is no position to regulate beyond their own contractual status requirements.

 

[mrjarrell]

IMO, the .gov should treat it as nothing more than any other contractual agreement for legal status purposes.

Regardless of my (or anyone's) views on the sanctity, morality, or purposes of marriage, the .gov is no position to regulate beyond their own contractual status requirements.

I don't have any issue with that and agree. But, we know that's not what they'll ever do about it, (at any level). Government is too invested in the matter and they will not give up their power.

 

[starbreather]

The government is in enough business...leave marriage alone, doesn't need bailed out.

 

[HICKMAN]

they should do nothing, just as with the "war on women" this is just a distraction from jobs and the economy. I figure guns or immigration will be the next topic.

 

[Expat]

Given all of the above, it is a tough situation. Of course the religious right is a major GOP constituency that is going to be iffy this time around due to the Mormon issue. But where are they going to go. They don't want Obama back in with his past support of partial birth abortion and even infanticide. I also think with Obama coming out so strongly on gay marriage, that. He could lose some of the famous Reagan Democrats. The church going Catholics were already getting uncomfortable with the recent challenges to their principles by Obamacare on their teachings on abortion and contraception.

 

[netsecurity]

This is such a simple matter, but the stubborn radicals on both sides are ruining the happy medium, and obviously best, outcome.

Gays should be able to have civil unions, in which the ceremony and all legal rights are equal in every way to marriage. Just don't call it "marriage".

People don't want their kids growing up thinking that marriage involves choosing a man or woman. Just call it something else damn it. If the most important thing is rights, then who cares what you call it? Civil unions would've been approved and lasting in every state.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If gays want to marry they can always marry someone of the opposite sex.

Get rid of marriage penalties and all other such crap.

If my brother and myself want to live together we should be given the same rights as a married couple, a gay couple, or a cat and a dog.

Is it really that difficult? Well, obviously it is.

 

[level.eleven]

Honestly, this is getting a little embarrassing for Republicans. Romney flip-flops on gay adoption within the past 24 hours.

Romney Says He’s “Fine” With Gay Adoptions, Then Flip-Flops

Why can't the Republican party simply adopt a unified message on this issue?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Honestly, this is getting a little embarrassing for Republicans. Romney flip-flops on gay adoption within the past 24 hours.

Romney Says He’s “Fine” With Gay Adoptions, Then Flip-Flops

Why can't the Republican party simply adopt a unified message on this issue?

Because they are not much different then the Dems these days

 

[GBuck]

Honestly, this is getting a little embarrassing for Republicans. Romney flip-flops on gay adoption within the past 24 hours.

Romney Says He’s “Fine” With Gay Adoptions, Then Flip-Flops

Why can't the Republican party simply adopt a unified message on this issue?

Why can't the GOP get the eff outta my business and go back to being the party of small government and low taxes?

 

[mrjarrell]

Why can't the GOP get the eff outta my business and go back to being the party of small government and low taxes?

When was that? The last gop candidate I can think of who actually spoke about small government and was consistent was Goldwater. Reagan talked a good game, but the reality was much different.

 

[GBuck]

When was that? The last gop candidate I can think of who actually spoke about small government and was consistent was Goldwater. Reagan talked a good game, but the reality was much different.

Glad someone said it!

 

[J_Wales]

They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.

BINGO!!!

I never cease to be amazed at those that scream for a smaller central government operating within the confines established by the States in the Constitution, yet advocate for expanding the reach of the state instead of putting it back in its cage.