http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/the-gay-marriage-litmus-test-114616.html?hp=t1_rThe gay marriage litmus test
Social conservatives won’t let GOP presidential candidates dodge the question.
By James Hohmann
1/27/15 5:36 AM EST
DES MOINES, Iowa — The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on gay marriage once and for all in June, and there are many Republicans who privately would love nothing more than to have the question settled and off the table in time for the 2016 presidential election.
It’s not going to happen. Social conservatives here are determined to keep the issue alive during the run-up to next February’s Republican caucuses, no matter how the high court rules or how much some establishment figures would like to move on.
“If you dodge the question, then it’s the kiss of death,” said social conservative Sam Clovis, who finished second behind Joni Ernst in last year’s Iowa GOP Senate primary. “Candidates have got to be declarative about where they stand. Period.”
“If you’re not vocally pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, I don’t think you can win here because you’re going to get hammered,” added Clovis. “Maybe you could win in New Hampshire, but it’s a different culture.”
Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Scott Walker have each essentially said that the issue has been settled by the courts in their states and “the rule of law” must be respected, even if they personally disagree.
But the GOP base isn’t going to let them off the hook so easily, regardless of whether a majority of the justices rule that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right. Socially conservative activists in Iowa made clear during a day of interviews here that gay marriage is and will remain a litmus test issue, and the next Republican nominee will need to navigate that reality with the growing majority of Americans who favor same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision — oral arguments are in April, with a decision expected two months later — will only fan the flames of debate on the issue just as the nominating fight is heating up, activists predicted. And candidates on the right end of the spectrum are already signaling they’ll use the issue to prove their bona fides to evangelical Christians and draw contrasts with less socially conservative contenders.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are calling for a federal constitutional amendment that would allow states to ignore a Supreme Court ruling striking down bans on gay marriage. The establishment candidates, like Mitt Romney, are bound to be asked whether they support or oppose such an effort.
The sheer volume of candidates looking to stand out in the emerging GOP field guarantees that same-sex marriage will continue to play a prominent role in Iowa and South Carolina, two states with large and passionate evangelical populations.
“I don’t think it’s over,” said Ben Carson, the retired Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon who is moving toward a run for president. “I don’t hear any fat lady singing. I think we have to continue to stand up for what we believe in.”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa caucuses, said that judges upholding a right to gay marriage does not make it morally acceptable for states to give out marriage licenses.
“There’s no such thing in the Constitution as judicial supremacy where the courts make a ruling and it becomes quote ‘the law of the land,’” he said before a speech to conservatives here Saturday, in remarks that drew criticism. “A great example of this is the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court in one of its most horrendous decisions … said that people who are black aren’t fully human. Now Abraham Lincoln said he wasn’t going to fully abide by that. Nobody argues that Abraham Lincoln should have abided by the Dred Scott decision. We recognize that he had the courage to realize that he didn’t have to enforce something that was morally wrong.”
Even if gay marriage does not dominate debate, it will inevitably be a wedge. After the Supreme Court ruling, it seems certain to crop up at town hall meetings across the Hawkeye State.
“I know that many politicians are evolving, or so-called evolving, on this issue based on the polls,” Jindal said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “I don’t change my views based on the polls.”
Most of the party’s biggest donors from New York, Los Angeles or Washington either accept gay marriage or, in the case of the Koch brothers, were always more libertarian on the issue. But major donors, of course, don’t get to participate in the Iowa caucuses, which typically draw about 100,000 voters.
“It’s something [the candidates] are going to all have to talk about from time to time,” said Steve Scheffler, Iowa’s representative on the Republican National Committee. “They can’t shy away from it. They can’t be defensive about it.”
Lower turnout in caucuses than primaries strengthens the hands of more ideologically pure activists. That helps explain why Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum were the last two caucus winners, and evangelical Pat Robertson finished ahead of the sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush, in 1988.
“I’m going to be focused and centered on seeing what we can do to help restore the American family,” Santorum said when asked how big an issue gay marriage will be in the race. “The most important thing we can do as a party is to highlight the importance of restoring marriage.”
In 2010, Iowa social conservatives maneuvered to defeat three members of the state Supreme Court who had voted to allow gay marriage. During his Saturday speech, Huckabee praised those who were involved in that effort.
“Let me say, thank God for Iowa,” Huckabee said, “because when you had some judges who thought they could ignore you, you sent them home. That was a wonderful message!”
The current nominating calendar could also help ensure that social issues stay in the mix. Immediately after the four early states go — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — a batch of very conservative Southern states are moving to schedule their primaries for March 1, including Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. Republican base voters in these states may likewise demand a candidate strongly opposed to same-sex marriage.
An adviser to one of the more establishment-oriented candidates said that people who are most worked up about gay marriage won’t vote for Bush, Romney or Christie, anyway. The real fight is going to be among the social conservatives trying to outdo one another in being against gay rights. This adviser hopes that the race to the right among the social conservatives will help drive independents and donors toward a candidate who takes a more conciliatory tone.
Evangelicals say the debate about gay marriage will be closely linked with discussion about religious liberty, in essence protecting the freedom of those who oppose gay marriage to not recognize such unions. The most prevalent example is the baker who does not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religious exceptions.
The Iowa Republican state chairman, Jeff Kaufmann, said his party’s platform endorsing traditional marriage is unlikely to change. “We have a pro-family plank in our platform, and it’s very clear,” he said.
But Kaufmann added that he’s “not hearing as much talk” about gay marriage as he did four or eight years ago. Right now, he said, many activists are focused on the president’s executive action on immigration and the congressional debate over a 20-week abortion ban.
Rep. Steve King, introducing Christie at the congressman’s “Iowa Freedom Summit” last weekend, praised the governor for vetoing a gay marriage bill in New Jersey. But some social conservatives remain uneasy that Christie, in the weeks before his 2013 reelection, withdrew an appeal before the state Supreme Court to block marriages ordered by a lower judge.
Christie spoke extensively about his opposition to abortion but did not mention gay marriage during his remarks.
“I’m sure you will not agree with me or any other candidate on every single issue,” he said. “If that’s the standard we hold each other to as a party, we will never win another national election. Ever.”
