Herman Cain supports homosexual “marriage”
From Gary Bauer’s October 17 e-mail:
Cain Misspeaks On Marriage
I know many people have concluded in the past few weeks that Herman Cain is the best conservative we could nominate. Many are drawn to his 9-9-9 tax plan. Cain’s surge in the polls has predictably led to increased scrutiny of 9-9-9, as well as his other positions, including on values issues.
National Review’s Katrina Trinko reviewed Cain’s weekly column, which he started writing after his 2004 Senate campaign. While Trinko finds much to admire, she notes, “Cain rarely dove into social issues in his columns, most of which were centered on the economy.”
On Meet The Press yesterday, host David Gregory pressed Cain on abortion and homosexual “marriage.” On abortion, Cain said, “I believe in life from conception and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.” I applaud his clear support for the sanctity of life. But then Cain and Gregory had this exchange on normal marriage:
MR. GREGORY: A couple more. Same sex marriage. Would you seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage?
MR. CAIN: I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro traditional marriage.
MR. GREGORY: But you would let the states make up their own mind as they’re doing now?
MR. CAIN: They would make up their own minds, yes.
Whoops. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum quickly pointed out the flaw in Cain’s response, saying, “I have been a longtime supporter of states’ rights. However, I believe, as Abraham Lincoln did, that states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs.”
On this issue, Senator Santorum is exactly right. America will not have 50 different definitions of marriage. Either normal marriage will be the standard in every state or we will lose the institution of marriage as it has been understood for several thousand years.
Any politician who gives Cain’s answer is either uninformed or disingenuous. When it comes to same-sex “marriage,” the left will not permit each state to decide. It plans to have the federal courts order every state to recognize the same-sex “marriages” performed in other states. When that happens—Voila!—we’ll have nationwide same-sex “marriage.”
The Defense of Marriage Act prevents this from happening. But as we know, the Obama Administration has declared DOMA unconstitutional and is refusing to defend it in court. How would President Cain respond if his home state, Georgia, were ordered by the federal courts to recognize the gay marriages performed in Massachusetts? Only a federal marriage amendment can prevent that.
President George W. Bush, often accused of not being a “real conservative,” supported a federal marriage amendment. I think this should be a key issue for values voters. If preserving traditional marriage is an important issue to you, and I hope it is, let Herman Cain know—particularly if you are supporting him right now. You can send an email to the campaign here.
LA writes:
Cain’s position is the same as that of George Will, who in 2003 came out in favor of letting the states “experiment” with homosexual “marriage.” That ended any notion that Will is a conservative, just as David Brooks’s support for homosexual marriage ended any notion that Brooks is a conservative (see this and this), and just as Dick Cheney’s support for homosexual marriage ended any notion that he is a conservative (see this and this).
While the definition of conservatism is somewhat undetermined, there nevertheless remain clear lines. For example, a person who supports socialism may have some conservative positions on some issues, but by definition he not a conservative. By the same token, a person who supports homosexual marriage may have some conservative positions on some issues, but by definition he not a conservative.
Also, this is worse than a “whoops” or a “misspeaking.” It is a deliberate statement on Cain’s part. We know this because when Rick Perry said to an audience in Aspen a few months ago that he had no problem with New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, conservatives came down on him like a ton of bricks, and Perry instantly retreated and reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage. (See this, this, and this.) Given that recent background, for Cain to say what he said indicates that it was not a misstatement but a deliberate expression of what he believes.
LA continues:
On a side note, Bauer’s praise of President Bush for supporting the marriage amendment is misplaced. Bush, on a couple of occasions, coldly and mechanically stated his support for the amendment, and that was all he did. His tone showed that he didn’t mean it, that he was fulfilling a political obligation and doing it in the most minimal way possible. His lack of real opposition to homosexual marriage is further demonstrated by the fact that he allowed his vice president to state publicly his own support for it. Also, since Bush left office, his wife and his daughter have expressed their support for homosexual marriage. Bush continues to have nothing to say about the issue.
- end of initial entry -
Jim C. writes:
Cain is history.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 18, 2011 06:09 PM | Send