• Comment (15)

Prop 8 Ruling Will Be a Political Disaster for Romney and the GOP

February 7, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The federal court ruling that nullifies the California ban on gay marriage will be a financial boon and a political disaster for the Republican Party.

Tuesday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, the California ban on gay marriage, was a violation of the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. The equal protection clause states "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The court correctly held that Prop 8 denied gay couples the same right to marry that heterosexual couple enjoyed. If the Ninth Circuit's ruling is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, there will no longer be marriage apartheid in the United States.

[See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]

There is a decent chance that the Supreme Court will uphold the circuit court's ruling and end the discrimination against gay couples. There are four liberals on the Supreme Court and an equal number of conservatives. The swing Supreme Court vote is Justice Anthony Kennedy. Even though Justice Kennedy is a Reagan appointee, he sometimes sides with the liberal justices. In fact, Anthony sided with the liberals in a majority decision in the landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. In Lawrence, the court majority ruled that a Texas law that banned certain types of sexual activities by gay couples but not straight couples was a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruling will create an outcry from the religious right and help Christian conservatives raise a ton of money. But the battle over gay marriage will put social conservatives on the wrong side of public opinion, focus the spotlight on former Gov. Mitt Romney's flip-flops, and distract Republicans from talking about their best issue, the economy.

[Read a U.S. News interview with Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens]

A majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. The voters who most strongly support President Barack Obama, young Americans, overwhelmingly favor same sex marriage and these millennials will make up an even bigger part of the electorate than in 2008. The coming GOP obsession against gay marriage will light a spark that will generate higher turnout among young voters who are not as enthusiastic about Barack Obama as they were in 2008.

The battle over gay rights over the next few months will make life even more difficult for Mitt Romney than it is now. When he ran for the U.S. Senate against the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Romney said he would be even more pro-gay rights than the senator. Now that he is running for the Tea Party nomination, the former liberal and former Bay State governor has become a born again hater. Exit polls in Florida and Nevada demonstrate that Romney has won over right-wingers. But as he has become more popular with very conservative voters, national polls show that he has become less popular with the moderate suburban independents who will pick the next president in November. Romney's defense of gay marriage will move him even further to the right and spotlight his flip-flops on a lot of other issues like healthcare.

Tags:
LGBT rights,
Proposition 8,
2012 presidential election,
marriage,
politics,
Supreme Court,
Mitt Romney

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

@BILL HEDGES

Obama studied and is knowledgable regarding the US constitution, not CA's state constitution. Obama didn't do anything for or against prop 8, and while his stance personally is against it, he has shown support for LBGT. He did get the repeal of DADT after all.

The Morman church was the outside influence against it that poured millions, upon millions of the money that it extorted from its members for the movement against it.

TACT-acronym of CA 11:00PM February 13, 2012

@randy farmer & anyone else saying same sex marriage will lead to children being married to adults and farmers marrying their cow:

So the argument is:

-gay ppl want 2 marry,

--straight ppl that have the right say no,

--they say no because they say it'll lead to children and animal marriges.

I see that time and time again and it struck me - gay ppl want a right straight ppl have, straight ppl defend the gay exclusion saying it leads to children and animal marriges.

Are they saying that they, as straight people, also have the right to marry children and animals? And don't want to share that too? And gay people dont know it?

Don't worry straight people and farmers, gay people don't want those two things, they just want to marry a human consenting adult of their choosing.

Animals and children cannot give consent, and cannot enter into contract. And is not what the gay community is asking for, the gay community is asking to be recognized by the ppl (government) as well as contractual agreement between consenting adults, to say otherwise or slippery slope into something completely different is used simply to just distract.

TACT of CA 1:19PM February 10, 2012

@randy farmer:

I used the correct term, excuses. Terming them realities is incorrect, because it's not reality. :( sorry. The current arguments being used were used to defend hate, anger, and the illegality of interracial marriage - all of which are excuses ppl used to oppress a minority. Same case here.

I'm speaking in terms of demanding equal rights for all, because current marriage (civil) laws are currently based on ones sexuality, hello! It's one sided, heterosexuals enjoy the benifits of a civil marriage to someone they choose in line with their sexual preference as well as the right to be recognized as such by the government. Gay ppl do not have that right and the protections it affords from the government, they do get reconizition from their religions though.

Morals r something that fluidic between religions, sociatial norms, self exploration and upbringing. This is not about morals. If this was about morals, the Mormans could preach that's it's immoral to have less that 2 wife's, or an Islamic follower believing it's immoral to drink to excess. Get it now? This is separate from morals, it's a civil matter. Otherwise the tax code for the rich would be immoral. Heck, marriage would have been immoral at around 1200 AD.

And you go on to say that "on that basis.....sexually attracted to children or animals.... And ensuing the marriage therof." first let me say how ridiculous your statement was, is, and always will be. Second, name one animal that is legally recognized as an adult that can read, understand and sign a contract (marriage)...... Next, children cannot sign legally binding contracts, they are not adults and thus cannot. So, both of your mentions (animals and children) are moot - same arguments were used to try and keep interracial marriage illegal, was that moral? And are you saying that there are no morals to protecting children and animals from people who want to harm them other than "protecting marriage" to just man and woman?

And are you saying that your beliefs is what keeps you moral? There is a religion that marries grown men to little girls in Utah and Texas. What does that say about that?

And by your response, you don't get it. As a retort, you do realize that this isn't about beliefs, don't you? Some can see where I'm heading, but you don't. You see a slippery sloped argument to keep the statu quo of your beliefs, which are oppressive in nature, so you remain cozy and don't have to admit ur wrong.

I still see your remark as personal attack against the Arthur's appearance, it may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it any less of what it see it. So, you either communicate very poorly there, and I took it the wrong way, or ...

And you're right, further argument around legal child brides and beastility weddings is nonessential in relation to same sex marriges. One can c where You r heading, and if u searched YOUR Soul you'd know what i said to be true.

TACT of CA 12:33PM February 10, 2012

Brad Bannon

Brad Bannon

Brad Bannon runs Bannon Communications Research, a political polling and consulting firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups, and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. Brad guest hosts Leslie Marshall’s nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a commentator on America’s Radio News Network. Follow him on Twitter @BradBannon.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement