Republicans are trying to find their way forward in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same sex marriage, hoping to appease social conservatives without alienating everybody else.
That delicate balancing act was evident since Friday in remarks delivered by the Republicans who hope to lead their party in 2016 against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. They were unanimous in expressing their preference that traditional unions between one man and one woman be the only marriages sanctioned by government. The Republican White House hopefuls also agreed that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was constitutionally flawed.
There were even some strongly worded rebuttals. Most notably, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in an op-ed in National Review that the court “had has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.” He proposed a constitutional amendment that would make the states the sole arbiters of marriage law, while additionally recommending that Supreme Court justices be stripped of their lifetime appointments.
But most declined to propose any resistance or counter measures to the Supreme Court ruling, and urged that it be respected. A close reading of their seemingly aggressive reactions, and those of other senior Republicans, revealed a party resigned to the reality of legal same sex marriage — and eager to move on.
“While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land,” said retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, among the more overt social conservatives in the GOP’s 2016 field. “I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.”
In recent months, top Republicans had already begun shifting their approach to same sex marriage, shown in public opinion polls to enjoy the support of a majority of Americans.
In years past, Republicans ran on opposition to same sex marriage, vowing to use the levers of federal power preserve heterosexual unions as the only government-sanctioned marriages. As recently as 2004, President George W. Bush ran for re-election on amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Fast forward to 2016. and the Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination are couching the issue as one of religious liberty and states rights.
If some states wanted to legalize same sex marriage, they should be allowed to do so, but the federal government, and specifically, the Supreme Court, should not impose it on those states whose voters weighed in otherwise. Even some staunch social conservative presidential candidates like Cruz have taken this approach. Republicans are trying to recast the debate as one of “religious liberty,” a strategy expected to accelerate in the aftermath of Friday’s landmark decision.
“I think tone is critical. I think Jeb and Rubio’s statements were on the mark; Kasich too. That’s where I want to see them. If handled correctly, the Supreme Court took the issue off the table for the presidential cycle,” said a senior Republican political strategist, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. “Conservatives and evangelicals are moving towards marriage equality — especially by age. Religious freedom is important for those voters and can be handled in such a way as to keep those groups in our camp.”
This GOP operative was referring to the statements issued by former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida; Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as examples for the party to follow. Here is Bush’s full statement:
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
The Republican Party’s social conservative wing remains an important part of its governing coalition. Even if the GOP wanted to ignore them, they can’t afford to because they don’t have anywhere to go to replace their votes; it’s not just a matter of kowtowing to social conservatives in the primary. But where 10 years ago a majority of Americans agreed with social conservatives on marriage, the ground has shifted.
In March 1996, only 27 percent thought same-sex unions should be “valid,” with 68 percent saying they should not, according to Gallup. By last year, support for gay marriage had risen to 55 percent, with opposition dropping to 42 percent. In a recent Reuters Ipsos poll, Democrats, who generally support same-sex marriage, held a 22 point advantage over Republicans on the question of which party had a better plan or approach to “gay marriage.”
It’s this sort of data that has Republican strategists viewing the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges as beneficial to the party against Clinton. With the justices deciding the matter, there won’t be much to fight about in the general election. Clinton can’t run on making gay marriage legal, and the Republican nominee won’t have to respond by promising not let that happen, which, theoretically, allows him to focus on the economy and national security.
The primary campaign is another matter. Many conservatives are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, not just because of its implications for the institution of marriage, but because it overrides the will of voters and legislatures in states where same sex unions were not recognized. A Republican strategist who advises GOP candidates worries that primary voters will demand action from the presidential contenders, keeping the issue front and center for the time being.
“Big picture and long term, taking this issue off the table is the best thing, but I’m guessing that the presidential primary focus right now won¹t allow that to happen,” this GOP strategist said.
Grassroots conservatives could pressure GOP presidential contenders to join Cruz and pursue passage of constitutional amendment, and futile effort given the high threshold for ratification. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said in his statement that a constitutional amendment is Americans’ only recourse, but pointedly did not specifically offer to lead the charge or urge that one be adopted. Neither did Walker join Cruz in recommending that Supreme Court justices be subject to judicial retention elections, as many states require for the judges serving on their high courts.
Instead, most Republicans are signaling plans to pivot to the issue of religious liberty.
The issue already is front and center, as religious activists and grassroots conservatives battle certain Obamacare mandates on businesses and move to protect wedding vendors with faith objections to same sex marriage from having to provide services to a gay wedding celebration. On Friday, as Republicans advocated for the freedom to object to gay marriage on religious grounds, there was a noticeable absence of remarks challenging its legality, perhaps signaling their resignation and search for an off-ramp from a policy that has long defined the GOP’s cultural moorings.
“The governor has always believed in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, but our nation’s highest court has spoken and we must respect its decision,” Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said.
Disclosure: The author’s wife works as an adviser to Scott Walker.
