Could a 2016 Republican Presidential nominee support gay marriage?

Only if he won the Nomination....then he'd quickly do a "Much of what I said about gay rights were my PERSONAL opinion....not necessarily what I would do as President" back-pedal.

But the chances of The Incredible Huck getting the Nom are slim.

 

YES
They run the Party anyway .

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...iIXYQ1dPcB0TXxk6Q&sig2=tefEwYcNG8_1c-Rya2Rpqg

 

Seriously? They run the party

 

Uh, No.

Top Republicans like Rand Paul don't believe that it is possible or the way to go for Republicans to support Gay rights and marriage. And as long as such divisions continue in the Republican Party LGBT citizens cannot expect Any help from Republicans along the way let alone if they were to be elected to the nation's highest office.

Here's Why Rand Paul Says the GOP Can't Completely Flip on Gay Marriage

http://politix.topix.com/story/1348...-the-gop-cant-completely-flip-on-gay-marriage

 

I read that story. Rand Paul "subtly" telling people "Even though I personally might say yes to gay marriage, I can't and my Party can't openly say yes or we'll p*** off a goodly portion of our Base who are homophobes."

That's why I think it's an outside chance that, even after the Primaries (when he no longer has to pander to the Social Cons), the Eventual GOP Nominee won't come out fully for gay marriage rights.

But I think he can get away with "Leave it to the States and the Courts" (note the use of the word "courts", which gives him an out if the USSC rules in favor of SSM) and not anger too many of the Base.

But the old days of a Republican Nominee using "Vote for me and I'll protect traditional marriage" openly and forcefully....are over.

 

Yes, I think that politically speaking, for Republicans those days ARE over. They really have to be, as LGBT citizens are comprised of many different people from different races, ethnicities, careers, social statuses, etc. and to alienate them any farther would be equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot.

I also think if he gives the answer .... "Leave it to the States and the Courts" ...., as you put it, that would be also wrong. There can be no doubt that with 19 Federal Courts ruling to strike down same-sex marriage bans in different states and the judges saying it is wrong to discriminate against LGBT citizens because they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things, if Republicans continue opposing that they will soon find themselves completely alienated from any Gay or Lesbian vote in the country. After all, who wants to vote for someone who does not lift a finger to help them but continues to marginalize them, oppose them, and make life harder on them?

And the courts have also reasoned, and I completely agree with them, that a majority of voters in any state cannot be voting against a minority of citizens where their civil and human rights are concerned. Of course they shouldn't. That is plainly discriminatory to continue to do so and LGBT citizens do work, pay their taxes, go to worship in church, have or adopt children as part of their family, and have rights guaranteed to them in this country that are being obliterated every time prejudiced people go to the polls and vote against them.That is just plain wrong to do and why the courts must intervene at every opportunity to drive that point home and overturn prejudiced and discriminatory initiatives started by people against Gays and Lesbians. That cannot be allowed to continue.

 

Chairman,

I believe the GOP began to lose the "God, guns, and gays" electoral wedge issue argument in 2000.....when the Religious Right, who for years told us "Homosexuality is due to no Christian values at home"......supported Dick Cheney for Vice- President. Despite the fact, his daughter Mary was an open lesbian. At that point, they showed that partisan loyalty to the GOP...was more important than their "moral outrage" at homosexuality....and it knocked them off the "high ground".


As for "leave it to the States and the Courts"....the devious use of that by a GOP Nominee leaves him CYA. By saying "States"...it APPEARS as if he is supporting the State bans on gay marriage.....but by also saying "Courts"...it gives him the chance, when court rulings or especially if the Supreme Court rule against gay marriage bans, to say "It's been decided by the Courts....can't we just move on to more important issues like taxes, spending, defense...."

IOW, he's covered on both ends. The Homophobes don't get mad at him for blatently endorsing gay marriage and seemingly endorsing State gay marriage bans....so they don't vote for some other Republican in the GOP Primaries.

But he's covered with moderates, Independents, and even pro-gay rights Republicans by seemingly to endorse Court decisions against gay marriage bans.


Eventually, the Final Decision will come out of the USSC and gay marriage will be legal nation-wide.....at that point, the entire Republican Party leadership will say "It's been decided....can't we just move on?"

And the war will be over.....officially. With the Homophobes left saying "What happened? The Republicans PROMISED me that they would stop gay marriage!?!?!?"