Republicans sign document supporting gay marriage
As the Supreme Court of the United States gets set to hear arguments on California's Prop. 8, many prominent Republicans have voiced their opinions against the measure that seeks to ban gay marriage in California.
Republicans sign document supporting gay marriage
Mike Bertha
As the Supreme Court of the United States gets set to hear arguments on California's Prop. 8, many prominent Republicans have voiced their opinions against the measure that seeks to ban gay marriage in California. The New York Times has the details.
Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.
So far, 75 folks have signed the brief, which will be submitted to SCOTUS in advance of the Prop. 8 discussion. Many of them have not openly supported gay marriage in the past.
As for the document, it relies heavily on Supreme Court precedencts.
By contrast, the brief, shared with The New York Times by its drafters, cites past Supreme Court rulings dear to conservatives, including the Citizens United decision lifting restrictions on campaign financing, and a Washington, D.C., Second Amendment case that overturned a law barring handgun ownership.
“We are trying to say to the court that we are judicial and political conservatives, and it is consistent with our values and philosophy for you to overturn Proposition 8,” said Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out as gay several years ago.
While these things don't typically have a profound impact on SCOTUS rulings, some people who know these types of things are suggesting that this might be the exception, not the rule.
Experts say that amicus briefs generally do not change Supreme Court justices’ minds. But on Monday some said that the Republican brief, written by Seth P. Waxman, a former solicitor general in the administration of President Bill Clinton, and Reginald Brown, who served in the Bush White House Counsel’s Office, might be an exception.
Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus filing “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.”
To read more about who has/hasn't signed the document and what it means for the Republican Party, check out the full New York Times piece.
As long as the government is in the marriage business (tax breaks, survivor benefits, etc) then ALL citizens should be allowed to marry. This isn't about religion, which should be kept out of government.— ej610- how many times has newt been married? and reagan? and that worthless thing kardasihian now long was she married then goes and gets knocked up by someone else - ban divorce!!!!!! its not about procreation its about love you idiots— mikey5432
- I never knew you could tell the scotus how to interpret the constitution. My guess is the sc will tell them to pass a law.— Gimmemyfreestuff
I believe marriage is a religious term (man and a woman) and civil unions are a political term (man and man or woman and woman or man and a woman). These are the realities of the world we live in. As for me, I think gays should be allowed to have civil unions and get all the rights a hetrosexual gets. As far as religious leaders and their "flock" is concerned, there will never be a "marriage". It is not in the holy book. Sorry, it ain't going to happen.
Bowers...Thanks for enlightening me on how I should look at some people in my own party. You should take your own advice and do the same.- Marriage existed before religion and laws. It is a part of humanity. To a healthy society, marriage and the family are vital for raising children to be functional adults. We see too many disfunctional people today because of family breakdown. But now, after many thousands of years of the existence of human society, we have an interest group telling us that we must reorder society to satisfy them. Society does not need gay marriage. Society does need traditional marriage because that is society's foundation. — Falls Ed
- Not true Fall Ed. "Marriage" used to be arranged between people who did not love each other. It was a business arrangement. A woman was "sold" to a man. She had no rights. Her existence was to simply procreate and run the man's house. Boys were always favored over girls. Is that the tradition you cherish?
A breakdown in a family has nothing to do with a man and a woman, a single person, or two people of the same sex. It's ridiculous to say a straight marriage never has problems. The breakdown in society is the hatred and intolerance people show each other nowadays.— ej610 - Lamosca your are right: remember that when it comes to affirmative action, too!— STEPHEN1988
- This is good news for all of those closeted, gay conservatives out there that carry on the facade of being "family values" men.
On a side note, REAL Republicans don't pander to the right-wing fringe lunatic religious zealots.— bowersNRAnut - Time to abolish the word marriage and all its idiotic religious idiosyncrasies.— suporma
- The old reliables are falling like flies - are there to be no more GOP Eagle Scouts?
It was bad enough when we heard last week that Christian Mingle could no longer be trusted - now this!
You don't suppose all that intrigue going on in The Vatican - literally down the hall from The Pope's residence - has anything to do with this, do you?— He Visto Todo - Equal Rights under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. End of story.— lamosca
- Gay marriage is definitely an option for those who may not accept the concept of matrimonial bliss as it's practiced repeaztedly - by the poster boys of the GOP - starting with Gingricn.
But they all seem to agree on the basics - Any Port In A Storm...— He Visto Todo - The word gay marriage rubs a lot of people the wrong way all marriages are legal unions in the eyes of the law. Taz got it right with his post as I felt that way also. I always thought that marriage is a religious thing and a civil union is the legal recognition for a couple if some church wants to recognize a gay couple as married then that's fine with me. The best compromise is to call a union of a couple a civil union and leave the marriage word out of the legal documents and only a house of worship can call it what they want as long as legal couples have their rights that is all that matters, this way the religious community may be happy and also the gay community. All I want to see is the gay 's have the same rights as me.— angrywhtguy
- As it is now, it's basically a seperate but equal situation which is inherently unequal. Some states (mostly Southern states) don't even recognize same-sex civil unions.
— daxtremesolja - @Phillytaz - how does any of that change you rights?— Favorthabold
- "So far, 75 folks have signed the brief". Who wrote this story, Tavis Smiley?— teksys
- Where in the US Constitution does it say states or the Feds can limit your right to be married?— chasing history
Comment removed.- How is the gay community going to change YOUR rights to marry? Are they going to force you to marry someone who is gay?
No. They're not. That's the point. Gay marriage would have no impact on YOUR marriage.— daxtremesolja - No Republicans! Only RINO's! It' all about votes!— vietnamvet14
- No one in the house signed. Good.— tynol10
