Sometimes The Apples Do Fall Far From The Tree

[+ Gar1eth]

In this case possibly not far enough but still...

 

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s sons disappointed in dad’s dissing of gay marriage ruling

One of the sons had been best man at a lesbian cousin's wedding last year

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called Supreme Court ruling a 'grave mistake'

Photo: Scott Walker via Twitter

http://www.gaystarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Wisconsin_Governor_Scott_Walker-1200x700_c.jpg 06 July 2015

The two sons of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker were not happy to see their father take the US Supreme Court to task for making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

 

After the 26 June ruling, Republican presidential hopeful Walker stated: ‘I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake,’ blamed ‘five unelected judges’ and called for an amendment to the US Constitution giving states the ability to decide if same-sex couples can marry.

 

‘We will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas,’ Walker also stated.

 

Matt Walker and Alex Walker immediately voiced their displeasure to their mother.

 

‘That was a hard one,’ Tonette Walker tells the Washington Post. ‘Our sons were disappointed. . . . I was torn. I have children who are very passionate [in favor of same-sex marriage], and Scott was on his side very passionate.’

 

She adds: ‘It’s hard for me because I have a cousin who I love dearly – she is like a sister to me – who is married to a woman, her partner of 18 years.’

 

Alex Walker had even been the best man at the wedding of the cousin, Shelli Marquardt, and her wife Cathy Priem.

 

At his first public appearance after the ‘grave mistake’ statement, the governor toned down his comments on gay marriage and said: ‘We should respect the opinions of others in America. But that in return means that they not only respect our opinions, they respect what is written in the Constitution.’

 

The sons are still planning to take some time off from college to work on their dad’s presidential campaign – he will formally announce on 13 July – despite their disagreement on the hot button marriage issue.

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Gman

[+ dutchmuch]

Good for Matt & Alex!

[tyro]

Why do people trot out the "let's interpret the Constitution literally" stance only when they're afraid?

T

[+ Gar1eth]

Good for Matt & Alex!

 

I wonder how the fundamentalists are going to feel about his sons-and possibly his wife-thinking differently on marriage. And what is Scott going to say when asked about his family's feelings, or how are his sons going to respond to reporters or fundamentalists when questioned. I obviously support his sons' views. But their feelings may be a detriment to their father's campaign which would be all to the good.

 

Gman

[corndog]

I wonder how the fundamentalists are going to feel about his sons-and possibly his wife-thinking differently on marriage. And what is Scott going to say when asked about his family's feelings, or how are his sons going to respond to reporters or fundamentalists when questioned. I obviously support his sons' views. But their feelings may be a detriment to their father's campaign which would be all to the good.

 

In the very unlikely event that he makes it past the primaries, his family's views on marriage equality would make it easier for him to pivot toward the center and "evolve" to support the popular view in favor of gay marriage. He might be trying to appear conservative enough to win a primary while leaving himself a little wiggle room to move toward the center for the general election.

[rvwnsd]

I don't think a literal interpretation of the US Constitution would lead one to think it could be amended to restrict civil rights. Prohibition failed miserably and created an entire cottage industry of crime.

[Lookin]

Why do people trot out the "let's interpret the Constitution literally" stance only when they're afraid?

T

 

Perhaps because they're afraid. Logic and reason often take a back seat to knee-jerk reactions when fear is involved.

 

In another thread, on a different topic, Quoththeraven quoted this:

 

But when the fear circuitry takes over and the prefrontal cortex is impaired, habits and reflexes may be all we’ve got.

 

While the topics (rape in that thread and sexual insecurity in this one) are different in both direction and degree, there may well be similarities in the underlying response to fear.

 

Just a hunch.

[+ purplekow]

I do not believe there is any interpretation of the constitution which would speak against gay marriage or it certainly would have been a loud ringing bell to the Supreme Court Justices. 5 unelected judges. Well all supreme court judges are unelected not just those 5 but the other 4 as well. Does anyone think Clarence Thomas could have been elected? Too conservative for most liberals. Too black for most conservatives. Scalia and EYE talian? Three women. Come on, majority of the judges could never have been elected by the general population.

[+ Gar1eth]

In the very unlikely event that he makes it past the primaries, his family's views on marriage equality would make it easier for him to pivot toward the center and "evolve" to support the popular view in favor of gay marriage. He might be trying to appear conservative enough to win a primary while leaving himself a little wiggle room to move toward the center for the general election.

 

Call me cynical, but I think there's also a political strategy at play here - whereby a candidate is able to steadfastly maintain the "official conservative position" and thereby appeal to the conservative base, while family members indicate they feel otherwise, which tends to make the candidate appeal to more moderate voters too, because such voters may assume (a) the candidate may evolve because of his or her family's view or (b) the candidate doesn't *really* feel as strongly as he or she claims about the issue because his family clearly believes otherwise (basically it's a dog whistle to more moderate voters).

 

My prediction is that the Republican nominee will be either Jeb Bush or Scott Walker, and I think Scott Walker would be the stronger candidate in the general election because of his ability to appeal to both the conservative base and the more moderate wing of the Republican party and also to some independants. I still think (and hope) Hillary will beat him, but I think he'd give her the best run for the money.

 

I don't think that's it. He'd have to evolve an awful lot. He voted for Wisconsin's Man/Woman Marriage Amendment as a member of the Wisconsin State Legislature. He was against the court decision in Wisconsin to allow same sex marriage. And currently he is pro some kind of Constitutional Amendment against same sex marriage.

 

Gman

[Guest Starbuck]

Call me cynical, but I think there's also a political strategy here whereby a candidate is able to steadfastly maintain the "official conservative position" [to] appeal to the conservative base, while family members indicate they feel otherwise, [thus helping] the candidate appeal to more moderate voters ...

 

Hard to know whether it's an actual strategy or not, but TGuy's premise reminded me of the likelihood, oft-reported during the 1992 election, that Barbara Bush was pro-choice ... and of the suggestions made about that. Some excerpts from an article that appeared in The New York Times in August 1992:

 

Days after Republicans finished work on a platform that takes an uncompromising anti-abortion stance, Barbara Bush has told interviewers that she does not believe that the issue has any place in the party's platform. "I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," Mrs. Bush said in an interview with news magazine reporters... "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."

 

... Mrs. Bush's comments on abortion came as the Republican Party struggles to retain the loyalty of its conservative wing without alienating voters who favor abortion rights. The platform that will be approved at the party's convention in Houston next week advocates a constitutional amendment banning abortions in all cases.

 

... Mrs. Bush's view, expressed in one of a series of interviews she granted before the convention, marks a sharp break with her practice of not speaking out on policy matters. [she] has declined to state her own views on abortion for years, but her friends say she privately favors abortion rights. Her comments about the platform could have been intended as a signal to pro-choice Republicans that they have a sympathetic ear in the White House.

 

... By expressing compassion for homosexuals, unwed mothers and people with AIDS, Mrs. Bush has won praise from groups that find fault with her husband ...

 

Maybe these things are a matter of political calculation. Or maybe it's just hard, even within political families, to keep everyone marching in lock step--particularly when it comes to issues with a deeply personal dimension.

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm going with political calculation, because if my memory serves me correctly the same thing occurred when George W was running - i.e. Laura and his daughter indicated they didn't agree with a number of the social items in the Republican platform. I've heard from a number of folks who worked with W when he was governor that both he and Laura are very gay friendly. Apparently so are the Cheneys, who have known for years that their daughter Mary is gay. Yet publically, both W and Cheney toed the party line - and in fact, used same-sex marriage as a wedge issue in 2004 to fire up the conservative base. This just furthers my theory that in order to go into national politics one must - at a minimum - have a borderline personality disorder.

 

I wonder what the Bush's do actually think. George the elder served as a witness for a lesbian couple getting married (autocorrect wanted to put merged). Laura spoke in favor of same sex marriage back in 2010 but later asked to have her name removed from an ad campaign. But in any case, wives and children don't run the White House. Sympathy is nice but as in these cases it doesn't get you much.

 

Oh and Cheney was an ass to support his older daughter's political bid at the expense of his younger daughter's family.

 

Gman