Stein: Tweeted on 5/20/16: "We're seeing politicians use 'religious freedom' as a fig leaf for discrimination. We must resist their efforts to deny inclusive services."
Clinton: Denounces legislative efforts in Indiana and Arkansas that supporters say protect religious expression and opponents say discriminate against gay people. Clinton called it "sad" that Indiana would approve the law, which like the 1993 version is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Trump: In June 2016, Trump delivered a message to evangelicals that if he wins the White House in November, he will fiercely defend religious freedom.
Evan McMullin's answer: My faith believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I recognize that not all Americans share my beliefs.
Tim Kaine's answer: Yes
Mike Pence's answer: No
Tim Kaine's answer: Yes
Mike Pence's answer: No
Evan McMullin's answer: My faith believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I recognize that not all Americans share my beliefs.
Evan McMullin: My faith believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I recognize that not all Americans share my beliefs.
The law sparked widespread outrage. Opponents contended that it would give license to religious conservatives to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. In response, several major events and corporations--including Salesforce.com and the NCAA--threatened to limit business ventures in the state or boycott it altogether.
Pence adamantly defended the RFRA legislation and refused to say whether it allowed for discrimination, which led to extensive questioning of his underlying motives. So much so that he quietly signed a subsequent piece of legislation--dubbed the "RFRA Fix"--that clarified that the law did not allow businesses to discriminate based on a customer's sexual orientation or gender identity.
JOHNSON: He has said 100 things that would disqualify anyone else from running for president but doesn't seem to affect him. That statement in and of itself it really is--it's racist.
Q: You feel that his statement is racist, or do you think he is racist?
JOHNSON: Well, when it comes to Mexican immigration and that he would call immigrants from Mexico murderers and rapists--look, that's just not true. They are more law-abiding than U.S. citizens and that is a statistic. The stuff he is saying is just incendiary.
Q: Incendiary, but do you think he himself is racist?
JOHNSON: Based on his statements, clearly. I mean, if you look up the definition of "racism," calling a U.S.-born Hispanic a Mexican and his inability to judge others [because he is Hispanic, that's racist].
[Johnson was interviewed along with Vice-presidential nominee William Weld.] Both men described themselves as fiscally conservative but accepting of social differences. They are pro-gay marriage and support protecting a woman's right to abortion.
TRUMP: Well, you do as they used to do in New York, prior to this mayor dismantling. Right now, they're doing it in France. In fact, in some instances, they are closing down mosques.
Q: Are you talking about increasing profiling of Muslims in America?
TRUMP: Well, I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country. And other countries do it. You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it. And they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling. But we have to start using common sense, and we have to use our heads. Recently, we had tremendous numbers of people coming into a speech I was making. And people that obviously had no weapons, had no anything, they were going through screening--the same scrutiny as somebody else that looked like it could have been a possible person [of interest]. So, we really have to look at profiling.
French has also written about what he deems the "high cost of sexual license." In a May 2016 column, he wrote, "Indulging in sexual desire without considering the underlying virtue of the relationship or the morality of the desire itself is a recipe for human suffering--leading to the paradox where many of the most sexually-active people are the most heartbroken and most lonely. For those who understand biblical truth, the notion of slavery to sin is hardly new--and it turns out that redefining sin as freedom doesn't make the slavery or sorrow any less real."
McMullin concluded, "I do think that you have some corners of the Republican party that maybe struggle with diversity, and that's a challenge. But it's also an area where the rest of us need to lead."
Ferguson is an amazing example of how they have structured their tax system to basically tax through fines. Taxation through citation. Police officers aren't police officers, they are tax collectors. You park your car, get a traffic violation, you don't pay that fine on time, you get an arrest warrant. This taxes the least empowered political group, because what are they going to do? Elect a candidate to overturn it?
TRUMP: I'm fine with it, but we have it, it's there. But it's coming to a time when maybe we don't need it. That would be a wonderful thing. I don't think we need it so much anymore. It has served its place, and it served its time. Some people have loved it and some people don't like it at all. But I think there will be a time when you don't need it.
The panelist followed up, "Are you saying women workers are less skilled than men?"
"No, no, of course not," Kasich said. "I mean, a woman is now running my campaign, and she's doing a fantastic job. The head of our welfare reform office is a woman. I understand that if you exclude women, you're not as effective."
In Kasich's own governor's office, women workers earn nearly $10 an hour less than male workers, according to an Associated Press investigation published in 2014. That gap was just $3.99 an hour under Kasich's predecessor, Democrat Ted Strickland.
"Obviously, the community has earned an extraordinary victory over the course of the last 20 years," Lessig said. "It's the most successful equality movement in the history of equality movements in just the sense of the speed with which attitudes were reversed and the law brought about to recognize the importance of granting equal status as a constitutional matter. And now, the fight is going to be as a statutory matter, to secure the same kind of equality protections that other groups such as women and people discriminated on the basis of race have."
Lessig said the issue of transgender rights hits close to home because he has a transgender person in his family: His wife's cousin is married to a transgender man. "This is something that's very present in our life as they raise their own family and have to live in a world which doesn't quite understand them," Lessig said. "I think we should be as aggressively supportive of achieving social recognition of the equality of all humans regardless of these characteristics." Lessig said his wife's female cousin was in a same-sex relationship with a woman before he knew her family, but was around for this family decision to transition. "He was not yet a 'he' when it began," Lessig said.
A: Wisconsin has a law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace. I have enforced that, I'll push for enforcing laws like that all across the country. And when it comes to women's health care. We took money out of the hands of Planned Parenthood, and put it into noncontroversial areas to provide for women's health.
KASICH: No, I don't agree with him. I think, you know, the court has spoken. I believe in traditional marriage, but the court has ruled. Now, I respect the fact that this lady doesn't agree, but she's also a government employee. She's not running a church. I wouldn't force this on a church, but in terms of her responsibility I think she has to comply. I don't like the fact that she's sitting in a jail, that's just absurd as well. But I think she should follow the law.
HUCKABEE: Because the court's decision on the issue was a wrong decision. And to say that we have to surrender to judicial supremacy is to do what Thomas Jefferson warned against, which is, in essence, surrender to judicial tyranny. We had so many different presidents, including Jefferson, who made it very clear that the courts can't make a law. The Constitution is expressly clear that that's a power reserved to Congress.
Q: What about the 1967 ruling that effectively legalized interracial marriages? Was that unconstitutional?
HUCKABEE: No, it's not the same, not even close. Because you still had a marriage which was a man and a woman, and it was equal protection. But it didn't redefine marriage. That's what the Supreme Court did in June.
CHRISTIE: Religious institutions should be able to decide how they conduct their religious activity. The rest of the folks in the United States need to follow the law. We need to enforce the law in this country in every respect, not just the laws we like, but all the laws. This way we won't have sanctuary cities in this country when I'm president of the United States, and we won't have people getting high on marijuana in Colorado and Washington if the federal law says you shouldn't.
A: Some people have hopes of passing [Constitutional] amendments, but it's not going to happen. Congress can't pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that's making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it [and hence only a Constitutional amendment can overrule that].
TRUMP: I've always had a great relationship to the women I work with. The relationship has been amazing in terms of thousands of employees, top-level employees. And, you know, I was one of the first people in the construction industry to put women in charge of major construction projects and my relationship has been great. I have many executives that are women and doing a phenomenal job. And I'm doing very well with the women voters. So I don't really worry about those false accusations.
CARSON: Well, I don't recall calling it silly, but what I called silly is political correctness going amuck. When, I guess it was Martin O'Malley who said, "Black lives matter, white lives matter." He got in trouble for that and had to apologize. That's what I'm talking about is silly. We need to be a little more mature, but certainly in cases where police are doing things that are inappropriate, I think we ought to investigate those promptly and justice should be swift.
Q: So do black lives matter?
CARSON: Of course all lives matter, and of course we should be very concerned about what's going on, particularly in our inner cities. You know, for a young black man, the most likely cause of death is homicide. That is a huge problem that we need to address in a very serious way.
TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. We don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade.
Q: I understand your critique, but why we won't see another black president for generations?
TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard and it's a shame for the African American people. He really has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels, and with their youth. They have problems now in terms of unemployment numbers. We have a black president who's done very poorly for the African Americans of this country.
"I'm not interested in sending a message of anger or hatred to anybody in this race -- anyone. But I don't support gay marriage," Gilmore said in a 2007 interview. "I think that the traditional marriage values that we've had over generations in America is the appropriate thing. The extent that people can find some way to build some kind of contractual relationship between themselves, fine, but I don't think it should rise to a civil union which is really a substitute for the concept of marriage, and I don't support that either."
Gilmore's campaign did not respond to emails seeking clarification on whether or not he has changed his position on marriage equality following the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year.
SANDERS: No, I didn't have a confrontation. I was there to speak about immigration reform. And some people thought of disrupting the meeting. And the issue that they raised was, in fact, a very important issue, about Black Lives Matter, in this case of Sandra Bland, about black people getting yanked out of an automobile, thrown to the ground, and ended up dead three days later because of a minor traffic violation.
Q: Well, I guess there were some people who felt that you were being too dismissive of the protesters.
SANDERS: Well, I'm not dismissive. I've been involved in the Civil Rights movement all of my life. And I believe that we have to deal with this issue of institutional racism. But we have to deal with the reality that 50% of young black kids are unemployed. That we have massive poverty in the America, in our country, and we an unsustainable level of income and wealth inequality.
WEBB: Unfortunately, I think you're seeing it from both sides. We're seeing an issue which should have been resolved and now is resolve, flying the Confederate battle flag in public places morphing into something much different. I asked [advisor and African American] Nelson Jones what was he hearing down in Houston on this issue? He said he was just at the barber shop and the brothers said, "Here we go again, when are we going to talk about jobs? When are we going to talk about education? When are we going to talk about harmony and bringing people together?" And that's what inclusive leadership needs to be.
SANDERS: I don't know that I would go there. Now, you know, we have religious freedom. And I respect people who have different points of view. But my view is that people have a right to love each other, regardless of one's sexual orientation. I voted against the DOMA act, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, way back in 1996 that was signed by President Clinton, because I think, if people are in love, they should be able to get married in this country in 50 states in America. And I strongly support what the Supreme Court recently said.
I would urge everyone to read Justice Scalia's dissents. He said that these decisions are an assault on democracy. That this is 5 unelected lawyers declaring they are the rulers of 320 million Americans.
"I do believe in traditional marriage, but the court has ruled and it's time to move on," the Ohio governor said. Kasich was one of the original defendants in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that began in Ohio in July 2013 when James Obergefell and his partner, John Arthur James, filed a lawsuit against the state because of its refusal to recognize same-sex marriage on death certificates. But he's taking a much more cautious approach than many of his GOP presidential rivals in the wake of the court's ruling. "I think everybody needs to take a deep breath to see how this evolves," Kasich said. "But I know this. Religious institutions, religious entities--you know, like the Catholic church--they need to be honored as well. I think there's an ability to strike a balance."
GRAHAM: No. I think it's a transformational moment. There are a lot of upset people who believe in traditional marriage. They're disappointed, they're down right now. But, the court has ruled, so here's where I stand. If I'm president of the United States, here's what would happen. If you have a church, a mosque, or a synagogue, and you're following your faith, and you refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, because it's outside the tenets of your faith, you will not lose your tax-exempt status. If you're a gay person or a gay couple, if I'm president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also.
"For those who do not think that we are under threat, simply recognize that the fact that we are now in city after city watching ordinances say that your 7-year-old daughter, if she goes into the restroom cannot be offended and you can't be offended if she's greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man."
Huckabee said there was "something inherently wrong about forcing little children to be a part of this social experiment. And yet today we are the ones who are ridiculed and scorned because we point out the obvious," he said.
SANTORUM: Well, of course I'd fight it. Roe vs. Wade was decided 30 some years ago, and I continue to fight that, because I think the court got it wrong. And I think if the court decides this case in error, I will continue to fight, as we have on the issue of life. And that's the role of the citizenry. Q We're not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity. We have an obligation and a right in a free society to push back and get our Congress and our president and rally the American public to overturn what the court wants to do
Q: But you're not advocating states ignore the law, ignore the ruling?
SANTORUM: I don't advocate civil disobedience. I do advocate the role of an informed citizen to try to overturn when a court makes a mistake and gets an issue wrong.
This month he said he was "glad secretary Clinton's come around to the right positions on these issues" and criticised her for poll-testing policies rather than following principles.
Pushing her along in making commitments to advance LGBT rights was her bruising primary with then-Sen. Barack Obama, who ultimately bested her to win the Democratic nomination.
Both were largely on the same page with major requests from the LGBT community, pledging to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into law.
But as she begins her second attempt to win the White House, most of those requests have been accomplished after more than six years of the Obama administration, which gives her less to talk about in terms of LGBT issues.
PAUL: I do believe people ought to be left alone. I am a "leave me alone" kind of guy.
Q: But not when it comes to marriage?
PAUL: Well, no. States will end up making the decisions on these things. I think that there's a religious connotation to marriage that has been going on for thousands of years I still want to preserve that. But I also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law. I see no reason why, if the marriage contract conveys certain things, that if [a woman] wants to marry another woman, they can do that and have a contract. You could have traditional marriage, and then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows [same-sex couples] to have contracts with one another.
JINDAL: This is about business owners that don't want to have to choose between their Christian faith, and being able to operate their businesses. What they don't want is the government to force them to participate in wedding ceremonies that contradict their beliefs. I was disappointed [that the law was overturned] in Indiana.
Q: So it's OK based on religious conviction for a business to deny services to a same-sex couple?
JINDAL: JINDAL: We're not talking about day-to-day routine commercial transactions. We're talking about a very specific example here of business owners--florists, musicians, caterers--who are being forced to either pay thousands or close their businesses if they don't want to participate in a wedding ceremony that contradicts their religious beliefs. So in that instance, yeah, I think part of the First Amendment means that we allow individuals to obey their conscience, to obey their religious beliefs.
JINDAL: Look, let me see the details of the bill. I am, in general though, very supportive other defending religious liberty. And I think we can do that without condoning discrimination. I don't think those two values are mutually exclusive. And I think that's what this debate has been really about. I think we can have religious liberty without having discrimination. I think it's possible to have both. And it's desirable to have both in our society.
SANTORUM: I was hoping he wouldn't. I think that the language they had is better language. This is acceptable language. I voted for this language, so I certainly can't say that it's a bad bill. It's a good bill, but it is a pretty limited view of what religious liberty is in the workplace. And we need to look at as religious liberty as now being pushed harder to provide more religious protections. And that bill doesn't do that.
Q: What now do you think with this new language changes?
SANTORUM: I think what we need to look at is, we aren't for discrimination against any person. I think that no business should discriminate because of who you are. But it should have the ability to say, we're not going to participate in certain activities that we disagree with from a religious point of view.
But it's unclear how far--and to whom--Paul extends the argument that rights cannot be defined by behavior. Practicing religion, for example, is a behavior enshrined in the Bill of Rights, , as is the behavior of free speech. Does Paul believe those behaviors are protected rights?
A Paul spokesperson said the rights that count are those in the country's founding charter. "He does not classify rights based on behavior, but rather recognizes rights for all, as our Constitution defines it. Sen. Paul is the biggest proponent for protecting the Bill of Rights, which, as you know, protects the rights of all Americans as stated in our Constitution."
In recent weeks, some of Bush's biggest skeptics in the faith community had specifically mentioned wanting to hear from Bush on the issue of religious liberties. His comments put him publicly in line with the conservative evangelical right that he is quietly wooing ahead of his expected presidential run.
Paul continued, "I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we're still headed."
For Paul's vision of equal rights for same-sex couples through contracts to become a reality, the first step would be have to be a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in June upholding state prohibitions on gay nuptials.
"Absolutely," Carson replied. Asked why, he went on to explain his prison theory. "So did something happen while they were in there?" he said. "Ask yourself that question."
He continued, invoking his argument against same-sex marriage: "Why do gay people want to get married? Because they want to have various rights," he said. "Property rights, visitation rights--why can't any two human beings, I don't care what their sexual orientation is, why can't they have the legal right to do those things?"
Later in a statement to CNN, Carson backed down a bit from his morning remarks. "I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation," he said. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive."
Policy adjustments big & small are routine in American politics. Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton both previously objected to same-sex marriage; today, they support it.
For Bush, the pattern was illustrated last week by a head-turning statement on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Florida, when he urged "respect" for the unions and offered words of conciliation to same-sex couples "making lifetime commitments to each other."
In 1994, as he ran for governor in Florida, Bush employed strikingly different language when discussing gay rights, arguing that "polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers and developers without permits receive--and deserve--precious little representation or defense from their governor."
What about rapidly-changing opinions on the matter? He took a soft tone. "Society's changing," he said. "People change their minds all the time on this issue, and even within the Republican Party, there are people whose child turns out to be gay and they're like, 'maybe I want to rethink this issue.' So it's been rethought. The President's rethought the issue. A lot of people have rethought the issue."
Was Paul hinting that he, too, could change his thinking? He said, "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don't really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue."
"You could rethink it at some point, too?" I asked. He shrugged. It wasn't a yes or a no.
"On the other stuff, don't ask, don't tell is fine with me," Bush responded, appropriating the terminology Pres. Clinton used regarding gays in the military. "What you do in your private life is your business. If it crosses over into the public policy realm, then that is another matter. If you are comfortable with that, then we can proceed."
In an interview with the American Family Association, Huckabee had charged that Republicans have given in on battling gay marriage and other social issues and vowed that it jeopardized his standing with the party. "If the Republicans want to lose guys like me, and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue," Huckabee said. "Because at that point, you lose me, I'm gone. I'll become an independent."
He said that he was most disturbed at the general tenor among Republicans to the Supreme Court's action was, essentially, "Well, that's settled."
"Of course, it isn't," Huckabee said. "The courts can't MAKE law. Even if one agrees with their ruling, the legislative branch has to pass enabling legislation, and it has to be signed by the chief executive and carried out. One branch of the three equal branches doesn't get to override the two other branches," Huckabee told Newsmax. "Civics 101."
Many conservative GOP candidates slammed the Supreme Court's rulings--Cruz vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment that would prevent federal courts or government from voiding state laws on marriage--but others considered the more strategic implications.
Walker, who is in a tough re-election battle, declared after the court's ruling that the fight to prevent same-sex marriage was "over in Wisconsin."
Many conservative GOP candidates slammed the Supreme Court's rulings--Cruz vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment that would prevent federal courts or government from voiding state laws on marriage--but others considered the more strategic implications.
Mike Huckabee charged that the GOP "establishment" has waved the "white flag of surrender" on gay marriage.
JIM WEBB: I took some very tough stands in '06. People will look back at the Virginia campaign. There was an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in Virginia. I've got a lot of family ties down in the far Southwest, and I oppose that. And I'm really comfortable with where the evolution has gone.
Q: So you're not ready, so legal in some places, but not legal in others?
WEBB: I think this has been a good thing for the country.
Still, he added, the issue is "settled" in New Jersey, unless there's an unexpected change in the state's solidly Democratic legislature. Christie, who opposes same-sex marriage, drew flak from conservatives for deciding to halt a court battle over the issue last year. He said that he made the call because he would have lost anyway: "When I know that I've been defeated, you don't bang your head against the wall anymore and spend taxpayer money to do it," said Christie. He said the issue should be left to the states, noting that "an overwhelming majority of states currently still ban same-sex marriage."
FIORINA: Absolutely not. And the most obvious example of that is the announcement about her departure. Here is a woman who, having been told she has an abrasive style, how many times have women heard that? She's been a distinguished reporter for The New York Times, an editor for three years. There is not a single word in her departure announcement about her contribution, about her record, about her time at The New York Times. Not a word. That is disrespectful. She is excised from history. No more lectures, please, from The New York Times about the treatment of women. Whatever the issues in the newsroom were, the dynamics around her departure would not have been the same for a man.
A: I think there is a way to find common ground to say 'we don't have to agree with the content of each other's beliefs, but we do stand up for the rights of each other to have those beliefs.' What I think is dangerous is this idea that we are going to try to silence those we don't agree with, to say 'we don't want them to be on TV shows; we don't want them to run their businesses.' I believe in the traditional definition of marriage. I don't condone discrimination. l think again here that tone matters. I think it is important that at the same time that we articulate our deeply held religious beliefs I think it is also important to communicate a tone that says 'we don't accept discrimination' and we understand that there will be those who disagree with us."
Democrats have blasted the effort in Republican states to enact strict voter identification laws, arguing they disproportionately affect minority voters. Paul acknowledged that much of the animosity surrounding the debate centers on race. Republicans claim the laws are essential to combat voter fraud. In past comments, Paul has acknowledged fraud exists but that "Republicans may have overemphasized this."
"There's 180,000 people in Kentucky who can't vote. And I don't know the racial breakdown, but it's probably more black than white," he said.
RUBIO: On the one hand, I think Americans, myself included, are against discrimination. A notion that someone, because they are gay, would be denied service at a restaurant or so forth is something conservatives don't support. The other side of the equation is, imagine how if you are a Catholic or Evangelical photographer, who does not believe because of your faith in gay marriage, and because of that, you don't want to provide photo services for a gay marriage. Should you be sanctioned by the state for refusing to do so?
Q: So what about the recent Arizona case?
RUBIO: I don't believe that gay Americans should be denied services at a restaurant or a hotel or anything of that nature. I also don't believe however that a caterer or a photographer should be punished by the state for refusing to provide services for a gay wedding because of their religious-held beliefs. We've got to figure out a way to protect that as well.
PAUL: Well, you know, I think we have a lot of debates in Washington that get dumbed down and are used for political purposes. This whole sort of war on women thing, I'm scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won. You know, the women in my family are incredibly successful. I have a niece at Cornell vet school, and 85% of the young people there are women. In law school, 60% are women; in med school, 55%. My younger sister's an ob-gyn with six kids and doing great. You know, I don't see so much that women are downtrodden; I see women rising up and doing great things. And, in fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women really are out-competing the men in our world. I think the facts show that women are doing very well, have come a long way. So I don't really see this, that there's some sort of war that's, you know, keeping women down.
O'MALLEY: Yes. And I'm proud of each of those things. I'm proud of the people of our state. But, also, being an inclusive people, respecting the dignity of every individual, these things are also good for an economy.
HUCKABEE: Well, he said it in a way that would be a more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine. But that being said, this issue was specifically about GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign protesting to A&E over his comments regarding same sex relationships. Now, let's keep in mind, that for a Christian to talk about sin, homosexuality is no more sinful to a Christian than is pride, than is lust. So, if a person who is totally heterosexual lusts in his heart after a woman, that's as much sin as any other sin. There's no division about which sin is the most important, they're all out of the glory, out of the perfect will and mind of a holy God. So, that's the whole point of being a Christian. We're all sinners. None of us are perfect, none of us have measured up.
POWELL: I think it would show that enormous progress has been made. African-Americans and other minorities have moved to the top of every institution in American society, whether it's politics in the form of the president; or in the military; or in finance, or in corporate America, in media America. And we should be so proud of our accomplishments. But at the same time, that mirror should show us that there are still problems in this country, that there is still racial bias that exists in certain parts of our country. So I would say--and if Dr. King was here, I'm quite sure he would say--congratulations on all the progress that has been made, but let's keep going, the dream is not fully achieved yet.
"While Christie doesn't support marriage equality, he does have a good record," said a spokesman from the gay conservative group GOProud. "He also does a good job of talking about how he's thought about how issues affect gay people."
As a Roman Catholic--and as someone who would have to work hard to earn conservatives' trust in a GOP primary--Christie is not likely to be the first to step out with a personal endorsement of gay marriage. But he could well be the first to argue that his personal opinion doesn't mean gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
"The institution of marriage is an integral part of our civil society and its significance goes well beyond eligibility for benefits and similar considerations. Its future should not be left to a few overreaching judges or local officials to decide," Ryan said in a 2004 statement. "That's why I support this effort to amend our Constitution to protect marriage." He has described himself as a "big supporter" of Wisconsin's 2006 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. On the other hand, he did vote for the Employment Non-discrimination Act in 2007. Given how conservative he is now he could shift a bit and still be to the right of Rubio and Paul.
At the same time, Paul suggests that the tax code and health insurance should be made neutral so that gay couples benefit from the same breaks as married ones. Like Rubio, he has said that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide. He said Sunday that he is okay with the government being "neutral" on gay marriage; in February he said he was "not sure" how he felt about DOMA.
But he's already willing to let other states legalize gay marriage and to let gay couples have some federal benefits; he could expand that to mean marriage in all but name.
PAUL: I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds of years. DOMA is complicated, though, because DOMA does provide protection for the states from the federal government. But, then part of it federalizes the issue. I think the way to fix DOMA is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue, and I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in.
(VIDEO) PORTMAN: I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry. I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay.
Q: Is gay marriage a civil rights issue?
Gov. SCOTT WALKER: In our state, it was in the constitution years ago [protecting homosexual civil rights, but not gay marriage]. It rarely is an issue. I focus on the economic and fiscal crisis. People don't want to get focused on [gay marriage] issues.
A: In our state, it was in the constitution years ago [protecting homosexual civil rights, but not gay marriage]. It rarely is an issue.
Q: But you've said it's generational.
A: I think it is.
Q: Are younger conservatives more apt to see marriage equality as something that is what they believe, rather than as a disqualifying issue?
A: No doubt about that. But that's all the more reason, to talk about the economic crisis. People don't want to get focused on [gay marriage] issues.
Q: Do gays have the right to follow their love?
A: On the generational standpoint, I've had young people ask me about [not just] expanding it to include folks who are not one man and one woman, but rather questioning why the government's sanctioning it in the first place? And that would be the alternative, say not have the government sanction marriage, period. And leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that
Johnson said, "Instead of insisting on equality as a US Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality."
Johnson, once a long-time supporter of civil unions, has also "evolved" on the gay marriage question. "As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights," he said in December 2011, "it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple."
| |||
| 2020 Presidential contenders on Civil Rights: | |||
|
Democrats running for President:
Sen.Michael Bennet (D-CO) V.P.Joe Biden (D-DE) Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NYC) Gov.Steve Bullock (D-MT) Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) Sen.Cory Booker (D-NJ) Secy.Julian Castro (D-TX) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Rep.John Delaney (D-MD) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Sen.Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Gov.Deval Patrick (D-MA) Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-VT) CEO Tom Steyer (D-CA) Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Marianne Williamson (D-CA) CEO Andrew Yang (D-NY) 2020 Third Party Candidates: Rep.Justin Amash (L-MI) CEO Don Blankenship (C-WV) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Howie Hawkins (G-NY) Gov.Jesse Ventura (I-MN) |
Republicans running for President:
V.P.Mike Pence(R-IN) Pres.Donald Trump(R-NY) Rep.Joe Walsh (R-IL) Gov.Bill Weld(R-MA & L-NY) 2020 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates: Sen.Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen.Mike Gravel (D-AK) Sen.Kamala Harris (D-CA) Gov.John Hickenlooper (D-CO) Gov.Jay Inslee (D-WA) Mayor Wayne Messam (D-FL) Rep.Seth Moulton (D-MA) Rep.Beto O`Rourke (D-TX) Rep.Tim Ryan (D-CA) Adm.Joe Sestak (D-PA) Rep.Eric Swalwell (D-CA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||