Scott Walker Supports Constitutional Amendment for State Control of Marriage

Likely presidential candidate had previously seen GOP reducing focus on issue.

If presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tries to push forward a constitutional amendment guaranteeing state control over marriage laws, he'd have support from at least one potential rival. While speaking in Iowa over the weekend, Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made it clear that he, like Cruz (and Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio) thinks states should have the authority to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages.

In front of a crowd in Waukee, Iowa, he said:

"I still hold out hope that the Supreme Court will rule, as has been the tradition in the past, that the states are the places that get to define what marriage is. If for some reason they don't … I believe it's reasonable for the people of America to consider a constitutional amendment that would affirm the ability of states to do just that."

Below is a YouTube interview over the weekend by Caffeinated Thoughts, a Christian media outlet. Walker talks about several issues, including Common Core, abortion, Obamacare, and immigration. The gay marriage recognition portion starts at about 4:22. His comments are very similar to the above quote:

The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin, today has a history of Walker's various comments and votes on same-sex marriage recognition. He has long been opposed to same-sex marriage recognition. More recently, though, he has been one of the Republicans trying to pivot away from even talking about the issue as support for gay marriage grows and focus more on fiscal matters. He even suggested that he (and the Republican Party) would give up the fight against marriage recognition as more federal judges ruled against bans. But Cruz has not been playing along with this plan (if this is indeed the Republican Party's plan) and has been vocal about the states maintaining control over gay marriage recognition. Walker seems willing to openly speak in support of these plans, even if he doesn't want it to be emphasized. 

Comments

[Hugh Akston]

Well at least he's being realistic.

[Gojira]

Once again a republican candidate picks a winning issue to wax philosophic about, though I suppose it's more on Cruz for emphasizing it when Walker prefers not to.

"I know, I'll get the White House in the current cultural environment, in 2016, by voicing support for allowing states to deny gay marriage licenses! It's such an obvious winning strategy!"

[John]

Since when is taking the right side on something wrong because it is unpopular?

[Gojira]

When you're trying to win an election. I'm not saying he's right or wrong on the facts - just that republicans love to take losing issues, run on them, then blame voter fraud for the loss. You know, the Stupid Party.

[Hugh Akston]

John I don't know if you have ever experienced an election, but they are essentially popularity contests.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Since that stance is both wrong AND unpopular.

[John]

Yeah because continuing the 200 year tradition of leaving marriage law to the states is wrong. And gays being free to be married and having to sign a fucking POA and make a will is one of the biggest injustices like fucking ever.

We clearly need to give the Left a club to use against religious freedom in this country so gays don't have to make wills and get POAs. It is so fucking noble of you Frank to expect other people you hate to loose their freedom so people you love can avoid having to make a will.

You are a regular fucking Edmond Burke there Frank.

[Agammamon]

We don't have a 200 year tradition of leaving marriage law to the states.

You can ask the Mormon's about federal intervention in marriage law.

[Agammamon]

Since when is taking the right side on something wrong because it is unpopular?

Are you seriously saying we should deny certain people the right to enter into a contract arrangement that we allow other people to enter into?

Shall we go back to miscegenation laws? After all, marriage is 'traditionally' between two people of the same race and culture.

[CampingInYourPark]

Are you seriously saying we should deny certain people the right to enter into a contract arrangement that we allow other people to enter into?

Are there laws that forbid 2 people from voluntarily entering into a contract that has the same obligations and/or penalties as a state has deemed necessary for marriages?

[John]

No. Since when does not getting a marriage license prevent gay couples from entering into marriage contracts? I am aware of no state that refuses ot recognize such contracts or makes them illegal. If there are such states, I absolutely support putting a stop to it.

Just because you can't get sanction from the state doesn't mean you can't be married and doesn't mean you are not free to set the terms of your associations. Hell, if anything you are more free since you are not subject to family law.

If the government decided tomorrow it would no longer recognize my marriage, I wouldn't give a single flying fuck. Whether I am married or not is up to my wife and I. Government sanction doesn't change that fact.

The very same people who scream about getting the government out of marriage turn right around and scream that gays can't be married in this country if they can't get a license. You guys let this issue make you fucking retarded.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

Since such an amendment is never going to happen one must wonder why these retards are going to keep dying on this hill? It's a moot fucking point.

Focus on limiting the fallout by protecting freedom of conscience and association, not waging a losing war against same-sex marriage recognition.

[NebulousFocus]

This.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Are you saying the stupid party is stupid?

[Charles Easterly]

FdA, I'd posit that they are "Otto levels" of stupid, which means that calling them stupid is an insult to stupid people.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

+1 yummy goldfish

[See Double You]

Focus on limiting the fallout by protecting freedom of conscience and association

Even that seems to be a losing issue. Our society is becoming increasingly totalitarian.

[NebulousFocus]

Why not wait a bit for the SCOTUS decision? Calling for an Amendment is stupid- and Hillary beat you to it.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You don't think the fix is already in at the Court?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Doesn't full faith and credit enter into this somewhere? More importantly, are we going to have to wade though a bunch of social issues in this election? Do they think those are winners?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Just a reminder: Gun control and dope are social issues.

[CampingInYourPark]

as support for gay marriage grows

If we continue to read stories about 135,000 lawsuit rewards against people that don't want to be involved in them, that trend might reverse very quickly

[CampingInYourPark]

135,000 lawsuit rewards penaltaxes

[John]

It is going to be a mess. I think you are going to see mass civil disobedience over this. And then people like Tony are going to drool all over themselves at the thought of finally having an excuse to jail and bankrupt the people they hate. We have a 225 year tradition of religious tolerance in this country that exist because the people who found it saw in Europe the wages of the government fucking with people's religious views. This bullshit may very well put an end to that and we can go back to having full on religious conflicts in this country. Won't that be fucking great. I don't think people are going to meekly back down over this. I really don't.

[Tony]

The retirement village where you live with TVs turned perpetually to FOX News does not actually represent the real world outside. Why not try venturing into it? It's a much nicer place than the angry and scared place you apparently spend all your time.

[International Jew]

The idiot solicitor general reveal part of our plot during questioning by Alito:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax? exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same?-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I ?? I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I ?? I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is ?? it is going to be an issue.

You guys are still okay with this homosexual marriage thing, right?

[John]

Yes they are. If you don't the foreseeable consequences of something, you don't have to factor them in when you consider whether to support it. Libertarians wouldn't want that so it is not their problem.

[Tony]

So gay people should be denied civil rights and legal equality because a Christian university somewhere might not be able to get a free pass on paying taxes. Such priorities.

[John]

Yes Tony, gays are good and thus stomping anyone who is not good's face for their benefit is totally great and just. We know how you feel. Again, shut the fuck up and troll some other thread. The adults are talking.

[Tony]

Why does the idea of gay people having the same rights as you make you so goddamn angry?

[See Double You]

John's made it pretty damn clear what the problem is;* you're just too myopic to see it.

*No, it has nothing to do with hating gays.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Why does the idea of religious people having the same rights as you make you so goddamn angry?

[Tony]

It doesn't, and they already do. The only rights that are lacking in this discussion are those owed to gay people.

[thom]

I don't think you get it. It's totally cool to deny people basic rights if there are other, unrelated laws that could give those newly endowed with their basic rights the ability to use the legal system to deny other people's basic rights.

It's kind of a sticky wicket, since in practice you really can't allow everybody to enjoy basic, human rights, which is why we need people like John to decide who gets rights and who doesn't.

[John]

Or maybe we could just recognize people's rights to be left alone. You are free to do as you like and I am free to not want to be a part of it. How about that Thom? No that would be too easy. Better to define rights as the right to shove it to people you don't like and let people like you and Tony decide who is favored and who isn't.

[Tony]

You're a whiny, paranoid, incoherent little bitch John. Nobody is asking for any rights but what you already enjoy.

[thom]

I'm with you, John. People should just leave others be. You seem to align with that philosophy as well, as long as gay people aren't allowed to get married.

[Calidissident]

John backing up American, nice. And how doesn't that apply equally to interracial marriage, the comparison Alito draws?

[John]

Yeah, it is called thinking. I don't give a fuck who is saying it. I care what it says. You might try that sometime.

[Calidissident]

And you didn't respond to my main point at all. Your logic works just as much to oppose interracial marriage, which is exactly the comparison Alito drew, and given that American is the one making that comment, he probably would agree that both of those things should not be allowed.

[John]

Only if you think being gay is the same as being black. Absent evidence of a genetic link to being gay, which has never been found and in fact shown by twin studies to be very unlikely, it is not. Being gay is a behavior and not the same as a genetic characteristic like race or gender.

[gary47290]

There is not "homosexual marriage". There is civil marriage, and religious marriage. Excluding people from civil marriage needs careful scrutiny, and excluding same-sex couples fails on any level of review.

[John]

If gay marriage is so universally popular, what difference would it make if it were left to the states?

The Libertarian position on the CRA has always been that it was unnecessary since the public and the market would have sorted it out without the feds or the courts forcing it. That position is even more compelling for gay marriage given how small the gay population is and how accepted they are by popular culture.

[Tony]

Which of your basic civil rights should be put up to majority vote?

[John]

That is better than it being "whatever the fuck Tony and his ilk think that are". And beyond that, shut the fuck up Tony. That criticism wasn't directed at you. You are craven, ignorant and thoroughly evil but you are consistent. You have never and will never see a problem with government coercion to achieve whatever ends you like. Libertarians on the other hand seem to be a bit more selective.

[Dark Lord of the Cis]

Definitely not your right to force people to like you at gun point.

[tarran]

Which of your basic civil rights should be put up to majority vote?

You tell us Tony! You're the guy who fetishizes majority rule.

[tarran]

Which of your basic civil rights should be put up to majority vote?

You tell us Tony! You're the guy who fetishizes majority rule.

[tarran]

Fascinating! I only clicked submit once!

[Dark Lord of the Cis]

The squirrels hate Tony too. They ain't all bad .

[Tony]

No I don't.

[See Double You]

Why don't Christians (or anyone, for that matter) have a right to disassociate with gay people (or anyone, for that matter) in their places of business?

[Tony]

I thought the topic was marriage.

[See Double You]

You brought up "basic rights."

[Frank Frankelson]

So, let me see if I have this right, you have one side that wants ADA/CRA style protections for all things gay (including compulsory participation in business transactions) and you have the other that wants control of what sort of romantic relationship are and are not acknowledged by the state. Do I have that correct?

So. Much. Stupid.

[tarran]

Yes.

And these are the people who supposedly are the thin expensive-suit-fabric line between civilization and savagery.

[John]

No I don't think so Frank. Most people on that anti-gay marriage side are fine with civil unions as long as they are not compelled to be a part of it. The government can recognize whatever they want, just don't force them to do the same. We could solve this issue tomorrow with civil unions and a few tweaks to federal law. That isn't good enough for the gay activists because they don't give a shit about marriage, they want to use the force of law to make it illegal not to accept their lifestyle.

[Tony]

Define "accept." Do you mean you want the law to coddle your provincial stupidity and bigotries instead of treating gay people as equal citizens, because you're just that fragile and emotional about it all? I mean, gay people have had to "accept" the heterosexual lifestyle in a way that would be totally oppressive to you if the tables were turned. But that's OK isn't it? Because deep down you think gay people should be treated as unequal before the law, as explicitly inferior to straight people. No?

[John]

No Tony. You don't have to accept shit. If you never want to associate with a straight person be my guest. I doubt anyone will miss you. You can be as hateful an idiotic as you like and I will never support any government efforts to prevent you from being so. Go for your own gay only community where straights are not allowed, if you want. I honestly don't care. I only care when you and those like you can't seem to understand that everyone else has that same freedom.

[Tony]

Bull fucking shit I don't have to accept the heterosexual lifestyle. I'm completely surrounded by it in life and in media. Imagine being forced to live your entire life on a gay cruise ship, and that's what it's like for us, except a hundred times less fabulous.

You think all gay people should be second-class citizens solely because you don't want to have to tweak your perspective on the world by the tiniest amount. You are in the dominant demographic on every count and you are such a scared little shit that you think gay people getting the same rights as you somehow challenges that. It's utterly pathetic.

[John]

Oh okay Tony, since you choose to live a minority lifestyle, everyone is required to accept you. Racists can say the same thing you can. They are totally surrounded by non racists and have to accept them.

Libertarians have to accept the millions of economic illiterates like you. It just sucks to bother to understand economics and how the world works. We have to put up with your ignorance.

Sorry Tony but "life is hard" doesn't give you the right to take away everyone else' rights, you narcissistic shit bag.

[Tony]

Whose rights do I want to take away again?

[John]

Everyone who wants to tell you to fuck off and stay away from them. That's whose rights. I honestly don't even think you are gay. I doubt you even find men attractive. You just pretend you do because it gives you the right to bitch and moan and shove your neurosis in other people's faces. It is clear for you the entire thing is about using the government to control other people and for your own personal affirmation.

[Tony]

So what are you doing? Accepting your life circumstances with dignity and equanimity? What a fucking joke you are.

I don't want to shove anything in anyone's face. That would be rude. As I've said repeatedly, the only issue here is whether gay people and straight people have the same rights under the law in this country. A point you repeatedly avoid with distracting, meaningless bullshit. So I'll ask again, what rights do you think I want to take away, and from whom? Be specific.

[Tony]

Your right to be free of the burden of living in a society that treats gays as equal to you? That what you're referring to?

[CampingInYourPark]

Define "accept."

In this context it means indulging the fantasy that rubbing vaginas together and licking another dudes nuts is exactly the same and brings with it the same responsibilities and obligations as a practice that actually produces something the state is interested in protecting.

[Tony]

But not a single one of you has ever agitated for the state to recognize only marriages that are capable and willing to produce children. Never once. Nobody is fooled by this distraction.

[Dark Lord of the Cis]

Several people have said it repeatedly you fucking liar.

[Tony]

Not until the gays came along and decided they deserve equal rights. Nobody alive today thought we should restrict marriage to fertile couples who've signed affidavits promising to reproduce until the gay marriage movement came along. Nobody. Because that would be fucking pointless and stupid.

[CampingInYourPark]

Nobody has to "agitate" for something so obvious as to why the state would have an interest in heterosexual unions and you haven't been following any of the court cases if you haven't heard the argument. That there are heterosexual unions that do not procreate is irrelevant to the fact that the heterosexual union is the only one the state would possibly have an interest in.

Nobody has denied you the right to find a partner and procreate with them if it's so important for you for the state to have some sway in the way you cohabitate.

[Tony]

I've paid close attention to the arguments, and am indeed a little surprised that this particular one made it to the supreme court, considering how ridiculously dumb it is. It's pretty obvious that whatever the state interest in marriage, it's long since been accepted that two heterosexuals can marry for whatever reason they want. That's why, obviously, there is no good reason for the state to forbid gays from enjoying the same right. Even if you insist on bringing child-rearing into the discussion, gays do raise children, so if marriage is good for children, you must favor marriage equality for gays.

[CampingInYourPark]

The states reasons for having an interest in something a union have nothing to do with the reasons the parties are involved in it.

I'll make it simple for you, as you seem to need simplicity. The state doesn't give a shit that you want to drive because you think it makes you look cool. It is interested in the fact that you're in public moving an object that could kill another person

[Tony]

So a state interest in the protection of children extends to infertile and childless straight couples, but not to gay couples with children.

[CampingInYourPark]

If a gay couple does happen to be semi-donated a child, I'm sure the state will be happily involved in that also. Feel better now?

[Tony]

I feel just fine. It's you who have a bizarre inability to emotionally handle gay people having equal rights that will need the psychological counseling, I fear.

[CampingInYourPark]

Even if you insist on bringing child-rearing

PROCREATION isn't child rearing. Although I'm sure you probably would like to change that meaning also.

[Calidissident]

Why is there a fundamental interest in biological procreation that doesn't exist for adoption or procreation via a sperm donor or third-party pregnancy?

[CampingInYourPark]

fundamental interest

I didn't use those words, but beside that, you do realize you are arguing for a more active state interest, right? A libertarian should at least ponder that for a couple of minutes before they decide whether that's a good option. And yes, you could argue that a sperm donor or a third party to a pregnancy are married to the other parties, but historically it's never been called that, quite like two men cohabiting never has been. That's called the navy

[CampingInYourPark]

I'd like to ask you something, also. The word "right" is strewn all through the thread. What "right" is being advocated for? The "right" to receive some perceived benefit from the state or is it really the "right" to have something referred to as "marriage" that has never been referred to in that way? Is that really an issue for courts?

[Frank Frankelson]

What Gov. Walker and Sen. Cruz seem to be proposing is not a limit on state power but an expansion thereof.

But the point I was alluding to is that this is going to be one of those wedge issues that is going to be paraded out in the coming elections as distinction between two nearly identical, in terms of actual governance, national parties.

[John]

I think it is an exansion of States' power in that it would take away the Federal Government's ability to decide the issue. It is not an expansion of state power because at most it would jsut keep things as they have been for the entire history of the country.

If anything is an expansion of state power, it is expanding the scope of family law to include more types of relationships. All marriage law is is a set of default and enforced provisions governing marital relationships along with a guarantee of state force to ensure everyone recognizes those relationships. That is it. Every single aspect of family law is either a restriction on the right to contract or a restriction on someone's freedom to refuse to recognize the union. It is all about government coercion, not freedom.

This is why Libertarians have always rejected it and argued for a contract based system that allowed people to make whatever agreement they wanted and allowed people to recognize whatever marriages they saw fit. Somehow Libertarians fell so in love with support gay marriage that they have convinced themselves that expanding this system of government coercion to include an entire new class of associations is absolutely necessary. It is just fucking bizarre.

[Frank Frankelson]

From my perspective the only remotely valid argument for the current line of reasoning from gay rights activists is the equal protection argument. *If* there is going to be such a thing as marriage/family law, it should be applied evenly across the board.

Of course I would rather have the contract arrangement you mentioned, technocratic meddling rarely, if ever, produces positive outcomes.

[John]

But if you honestly think that the current marriage laws are restrictive and unjust, the equal protection argument makes no sense. Equal protection for what? The right to get fucked in family court? If something is bad, you don't demand that it be inflicted on more people. You work to ensure it goes away entirely. A libertarian arguing for gay marriage is like one arguing for enslavement of whites in the 1850s. Hey, if black people can be enslaved, whites should be enslaved too. WTF?

[Calidissident]

Yes, gay marriage is exactly like slavery John. Exactly.

[John]

No dipshit government marriage is like slavery in that it is a bad thing. If it is not, then why have Libertarians been arguing to end it for so long?

The position is that married couples get the unjust ability to coerce people into recognizing their unions and the tax payers to subsidize them. The solution to that is end government marriage not expand it to gays. You try and end coercive powers not expand them to include more people.

Come on cal. You are not Tony stupid. You know the argument. Stop pretending you do t because you know I have a point.

[Tony]

Are you married John? Yeah, shut the fuck up.

[John]

You want to not recognize my marriage, go for it Tony. I am not an oppressive nasty fuck like you are so it wouldn't bother me. In fact, I would like nothing better since it would leave me free to set the terms of my marriage.

I am not sad and pathetic like you. I don't need yours or anyone else' approval. You are a disgrace to gays Tony.

[Tony]

Yet you sought out a government document nonetheless, and think I shouldn't be allowed to do the same.

I don't give a fuck about what you do, I just think the constitution requires that we have equal rights.

[quantumFog]

To be honest, I somewhat agree with this position. Not because I don't want the Federal government to prevent the Christian perspective of a married couple. But I don't want the Federal government involved in any aspect of what two (or three or four) people choose to display their love/ lust.

[quantumFog]

Oops. prevent = support.

[John]

Marriage law is something that has always been left up to the states. If Vermont and California want to recognize gay marriage and polygamy or whatever, let them. Just don't force other states to do the same and let the process sort itself out. Let people figure out on their own how to live together instead of using the power of the gun to make one side yield.

[quantumFog]

Once the Federal government gets out of the business of marriage, then eventually, so will the state (note: small 's'). Then the decision will be where it belongs; up to the individual.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Doesn't the 9th amendment already do this?

Oh, wait, that's right, they are Statists and still want the federal government to have power when it can, and only delegate to the state those specific enumerated powers which the federal courts have ruled on in ways they don't like.

[John]

No it really doesn't. All of the states had marriage and family laws at the time of the writing of that amendment. It was never intended to invalidate marriage laws or take away the states' right to decide how marriages and such would work in their state.

It was meant however to keep the federal government and the federal courts the fuck out of state law things like marriage and criminal law. The 14th Amendment wasn't supposed to change that. It is only going to do so because no one gives a shit what it means and they want their fucking gay marriage pony.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Ahhh geez, I meant that other obsolete amendment, the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[John]

To the States. And one of those powers reserved to the States was marriage and family law. But fuck it, let the federal Supreme Court go ahead and rewrite the law of something as important and emotional as family law and stomp all over a good number of people's religious beliefs while they are at it. What could possibly go wrong?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I don't see why we need a constitutional amendment to say the constitution means what it has always meant. When such amendments lose, it's represented as affirming that the constitution no longer means what it always meant.

That's why I prefer taking gay-marriage litigation away from the federal courts and giving it to the state courts. Since state courts are elected, that would give the voters in each state some voice in whether to have government-recognized SSM. And such a bill would only need majority Congressional support, not 2/3 in each house plus 38 states.

[John]

That is a good idea. This issue shouldn't even be before the federal courts. It is an almost text book example of that rare case where Congress should step in and kick the federal courts out of the issue.

The States, like Congress, the President and the Federal Courts, get a vote in determining what the Constitution means as well. If the courts in California want to decide there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage, that is California's business. Let other states make their own decisions. Marriage has always been a state issue and should remain such.

[Tony]

So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

[John]

No because being gay isn't the same thing as being black. Moreover, it was illegal for a interracial couple to call themselves married or live together. Nowhere is it illegal for gays to call themselves married.

The two cases are not analogous. Do me a favor Tony, stop spitting on black people by trying to pretend you are in the same class as them or have faced anything like the amount of prejudice they. Take your lilly white upper class gay lifestyle and enjoy it and stop pretending you are just like a black share cropper in 1930s Georgia because you read somewhere there are people who don't like you.

[Tony]

But you said marriage issues should be left to the states. Why can't states decide that interracial marriage is illegal?

And I didn't realize that one has to suffer as much as the most abused group before one has a legitimate grievance in this country, especially considering how epically butthurt you are about everything.

[John]

No Tony, you just have to live with the consequences of your actions. If you want to be gay, go for it. No one should be able to stop you. The price of that freedom, however, is that you have to live with the fact that some people won't like it. If you were not such a pathetic weak narcissist, you wouldn't care. You claim to hate straights so much but are at the same time so desperate for their approval you want the state to step in and make them approve of you.

One of the things I always liked about gays and gay culture is that so many of them just didn't give a fuck. They lived their life how they wanted to and didn't give a flying fuck what mainstream society or anyone else thought. There was always something wonderfully subversive and free about gays and gay culture that you had to respect.

Now all of that is gone and it has been replaced by pathetic weak people like you who crave affirmation and acceptance at any price. It is just pathetic and sad.

[Tony]

So gay people should be forced to have a different set of rights from straight people because...? Oh you still haven't explained. You've just bitched and whined like a toddler (while lacking all self-awareness that this is what you're accusing gays of doing).

As I've said, I think marriage equality might do damage to the gay culture I know and love, but it's just obviously required by the spirit and letter of US constitutional law. You don't get to tell minorities that they have to suffer under the tyranny of the majority and have fewer rights because their cultures are just so special the way they are.

Get it through your thick fucking adamantium skull that I am entitled to exactly the same rights as you. Why do you have a problem with that?

[CampingInYourPark]

different set of rights

The "right" to state involvement. That's a bizarre concept

[Notorious G.K.C.]

When some Republican says "I support a constitutional amendment on gay marriage," he's actually saying, "I want to hold a vote which is bound to lose, because there's no way we're getting 2/3, but at least I can tell the SoCons I was doing something and maybe they'll vote for me."

If you're going to tackle this issue, propose some policy which actually has a chance of passing, otherwise you're just pounding your pud.

[Frank Frankelson]

That is how I read this as well.

Additionally, I see it as an issue that will be used to make the two parties appear to be different from one another.

[Mr. Anderson]

Don't the states already control marriage? Is there a federal marriage? The tenth would seem to cover this already.

[John]

If the Narzgul decide that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, then yes the federal government controls marriage not the states.