Covered at Reason 24/7: Karl Rove Says Next GOP Presidential Nominee Could Support Gay Marriage

Credit: Reason

Karl Rove has said that he could imagine a 2016 GOP presidential nominee coming out in support of gay marriage. Rove's comments come shortly before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in two gay marriage cases this week. 

From Business Insider:

Predicting a sizeable party shift more than three years before the next presidential election, Republican strategist Karl Rove said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he could envision the next Republican presidential nominee supporting gay marriage.

Read Reason.com's debate on gay marriage featuring Ilya Shapiro and Jonathan H. Adler here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[The Late P Brooks]

"could support"

Does that mean he will have Rove's "permission" to approve of gay marriage?

Go die in a fire, Rove.

[Aresen]

Maybe Karl is a drone-humper and wants to come out of the hangar.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It sounds like someone has his moistened finger sticking up in the air.

[jesse.in.mb]

Thank's FoE, Rove's moistened finger is not what I wanted to start my work week thinking about.

[sarcasmic]

How did he moisten it?

[Counterfly]

He's like a baby. Always sticky and moist, even if there's nothing making them that way.

[Counterfly]

This is Karl Rove. He doesn't test the wind with a finger. He uses a delicate blend of the tears of starving children and the blood of the old in a demonic anemometer.

[darius404]

How about a 2016 nominee who supports getting government OUT of marriage? Can he see that? Probably too radical for him.

[Counterfly]

I don't think you'll see a Republican running on that platform, like ever.

That's expecting a bit too much.

[Aresen]

Actually, I think a GOP nominee would be more likely to be in the "not the government's business" camp than in the "legal recognition for gay marriage" camp.

[Tony]

"My name is ____, I'm running for president and I'm here to tell you that I'm in favor of taking away all married couple benefits and eliminating the state's promotion of marriage."

What could go wrong with a platform like that?

[wareagle]

maybe people would start asking what else is in the tax code that serves no purpose beyond providing free ponies in exchange for behaviors Top Men find worthy. If they dig far enough, the recipients will find many things they oppose hidden in the stack. And then they will be faced with a question of principle - is govt coercion a bad thing or is it okay if they individually benefit. The latter means the empire is lost, liberty is a meaningless concept, and the death spiral is well underway. In other words, your side will have won which, to answer your question, never ends well.

[jesse.in.mb]

Does Presidential candidate ____ not have a PR group? You'd sell that by arguing that civil unions for all leaves the definition of marriage entirely to believers, protecting it from the capricious whims of the state and then sprinkle in some talk about equality before the law and basic decency.

[jesse.in.mb]

NM Tony, I was thinking taking away marriage for all and jumped to Civil Unions for all. Needs moar caffeine.

[Marshall Gill]

"My name is ____, I'm running for president and I'm here to tell you that I'm in favor of taking away all married couple benefits and eliminating the state's promotion of marriage ending discrimination against the unmarried."

Sounds like something the GOP could run upon. Why do you favor government discrimination, Sock-puppet Tony?

[Tony]

I favor government discrimination in lots of forms and so do you. Discrimination against murderers and thieves, among others. I could potentially get behind ending state-endorsed marriage, but it's never going to happen so I'm gonna stick with the position that does away with arbitrary prejudice-based discrimination in the system that exists.

[darius404]

I could potentially get behind ending state-endorsed marriage, but it's never going to happen so I'm gonna stick with the position that does away with arbitrary prejudice-based discrimination in the system that exists while deriding anyone who actually wants to end state-endorse marriage entirely. There's no contradiction at all! GO TEAM COCKPUPPET!

There, your post is more honest now.

[Brandybuck]

You say that like it's an excuse to prevent gays from marrying. The government is NOT getting out of the marriage business anytime soon, so you might as well be demanding equal treatment under the law.

[R C Dean]

Who really gives a crap what Rove thinks? He had his chance to elbow his way back to relevance with Romney, and blew it big time.

EZ test for whether the GOP has learned anything from losing The Most Winnable Election Ever: is Karl Rove still around?

[Counterfly]

I don't know, I think that's poor reporting by Business Insider (shocking, I know). I don't think he has much to do with Republican strategizing right now (actually probably no one does, they have a strategy like Uganda has a to invade China). He should properly be referred to as media darling.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lapdog media is pleased to keep Rove around so they can continue flogging the corpse of the Bush (II) Presidency.

[SumpTump]

Should be interesting to see how that turns out. Wow.

http://www.TotalAnon.da.bz

[Aresen]

Anon-bot, Rove is NEVER interesting.

Your code is slipping.

[wareagle]

neither Rove nor his opposite in Camp Blue would ever consider why it's govt's business in the first place.