Prominent Republican Political Leaders Sign Brief in Favor of Gay Marriage

According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the gay rights organization that brought the original lawsuit seeking the overturn of California’s Proposition 8, 131 prominent Republicans have signed an amicus curiae brief supporting gay marriage.

This brief seeks to influence the United States Supreme Court in its upcoming rulings on the legal standing of marriage in the United States. The signers are mostly prominent Republicans who have held or currently hold powerful government positions either as elected officials or as part of Republican presidential administrations. A number of these people have had lifelong careers bouncing from one prominent position to another in the service of the Republican Party. Based on that, I would assume that they are total, absolute party hacks. I also believe that when they sign a petition like this, it indicates something real is happening inside the party deep-thinking processes.

To put it bluntly, if you are a so-called “values” voter who has been supporting the Republican party because of their “moral” positions, you have been sold out. This doesn’t surprise me at all. It is nothing more than a public manifestation of what I have seen up close and personal as an elected official. Political parties are about power. All they care about is getting power and keeping power. Everything else they say is a lie.

Gay marriage advocates have stated that they are hopeful that this brief, with its prominent Republican signers, will influence the conservative members of the Supreme Court in their deliberations on the issue of gay marriage.

Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: People of faith can no longer vote for either party and feel that they are voting in line with their beliefs.

Here is the list of the brief’s signers so far:

Republican Party Officials, Fundraisers 

  • Kenneth B. Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
  • Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor
  • Tyler Deaton, Secretary, New Hampshire Young Republicans, 2011-Present
  • Jeff Cook-McCormac, Senior Advisor, American Unity PAC
  • Ken Spain, Communications Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2009-2010
  • Sally A. Vastola, Executive Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2003-2006
  • Jacob P. Wagner, Chairman, New Hampshire Federation of College Republicans, 2012-Present
  • Cyrus Krohn, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2007-2009
  • Mark McKinnon, Republican Media Advisor

Bush (W) Administration Officials

  • Tim Adams, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2005-2007
  • John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009
  • William A. Burck, Deputy Staff Secretary, Special Counsel, and Deputy Counsel to the President, 2005-2009
  • Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Operations, Bush-Cheney 2004, 2003-2004
  • Thomas J. Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 2006-2008
  • James B. Comey, U.S. Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005
  • R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. Alternative Representative, United Nations Security Council, 2007-2009
  • Julie Cram, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, 2007-2009
  • Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009
  • Alicia Davis Downs, Associate Political Director, White House, 2001-2003
  • Christian J. Edwards, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Press Advance, 2005-2007
  • Lew Eisenberg, Finance Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002-2004
  • Mark J. Ellis, State Chairman, Maine Republican Party, 2005-2006 and 2007-2009
  • Charles Freeman, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China Affairs, 2002-2005
  • David Frum, Author and Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002
  • Reed Galen, Director of Scheduling and Advance, Bush-Cheney 2004, 2003-2004
  • Benjamin Ginsberg, National Counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004
  • Josh Ginsberg, National Field Director, Romney for President, 2007-2008
  • Juleanna Glover, Press Secretary to the Vice President, 2001-2002
  • Adrian Gray, Director of Strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
  • Richard Grenell, Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001-2008
  •  Israel Hernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, 2005-2009
  • Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional Budget Office, 2003-2005
  • Margaret Hoover, Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2006
  • Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 2005-2009
  • Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, 2005-2009
  • David A. Javdan, General Counsel, U.S. Small Business Administration, 2002-2006
  • Reuben Jeffery, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, 2007-2009
  • Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Advance, 2003-2004
  • Coddy Johnson, National Field Director, Bush-Cheney 2004, 2003-2004
  • Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, 2008-2009
  • Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 2004-2005
  • Jeffrey Kupfer, Chief of Staff and Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy, 2006-2009
  • Catherine Martin, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy and Planning, 2005-2007
  • Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005-2009
  • David McCormick, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2007-2009
  • Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 2001-2003
  • Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001-2003
  • Susan Neely, Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002
  • Noam Neusner, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Speechwriting, 2002-2005
  • Meghan O’Sullivan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, 2005-2007
  • Richard Painter, Associate Counsel to the President, 2005-2007
  • Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-2005
  • Nancy Pfotenhauer, Regulatory Advisor, Romney for President, 2008, and Economist, Presidential Transition Team, 1988
  • Gregg Pitts, Director, White House Travel Office, 2006-2009
  • J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 1973-1977
  • Luis Reyes, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Assistant to the President, 2006-2009
  • Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, 1995-2001, and Secretary of Homeland Security, 2003-2005
  • Mark A. Robbins, General Counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2001-2006
  • Kelley Robertson, Chief of Staff, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
  • Brian Roehrkasse, Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice, 2007-2009
  • Harvey S. Rosen, Chairman and Member, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
  • Lee Rudofsky, Deputy General Counsel, Romney for President, 2012
  • Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
  • Corry Schiermeyer, Director for Global Communications, National Security Council, 2005-2007
  • Steve Schmidt, Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President, 2004-2006, and Senior Advisor, John McCain for President, 2008
  • Faryar Shirzad, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, 2004-2006
  • Robert Steel, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, 2006-2008
  • Mark Wallace, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for UN Management and Reform, 2006-2008
  • Nicolle Wallace, Assistant to the President and White House Communications Director, 2005-2008
  • Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005, and President of the World Bank Group, 2005-2007

Bush (George) Administration Officials

  • Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Chief of Staff, 1989-1990
  • Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President, 1981-1984 and 1987-1989
  • Jonathan Kislak, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development, 1989-1991

Ronald Reagan Administration Officials

  • David Stockman, Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1985
  • Elizabeth Noyer Feld, Public Affairs Specialist, White House Office of Management and Budget, 1984-1987
  • Robert Kabel, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 1982-1985

Romney Presidential Campaign Staff

  • Katie Biber, General Counsel, Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
  • David Kochel, Senior Iowa Advisor, Mitt Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
  • Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012
  • Beth Myers, Romney for President Campaign Manager, 2007-2008 and Senior Advisor, 2011-2012

John McCain Presidential Campaign

  • Ana Navarro, National Hispanic Co-Chair, John McCain for President, 2008
  • Jill Hazelbaker, Communications Director, John McCain for President, 2007-2008

Republican Elected Officials

  • Susan Molinari, Member of Congress, 1990-1997
  • Connie Morella, Member of Congress, 1987-2003, and U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003-2007Charles Bass, Member of Congress, 1995-2007 and 2011-2013
  • Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress, 1998-2013
  • Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts, 1997-2001, and Ambassador to Canada, 2001-2005
  • B.J. Nikkel, Colorado State Representative and Majority Whip, 2009-2012, and District Director for Marilyn Musgrave, Member of Congress, 2002-2006
  • Ruth Ann Petroff, Wyoming State Representative, 2011-Present
  • Larry Pressler, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, 1979-1997, and Member of Congress, 1975-1979
  • Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress, 1993-2009
  • John Reagan, New Hampshire State Senator, 2012-Present
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Member of Congress, 1989-Present
  • Adam Schroadter, New Hampshire State Representative, 2010-Present
  • Christopher Shays, Member of Congress, 1987-2009
  • Nancy Stiles, New Hampshire State Senator, 2010-Present
  • Jane Swift, Governor of Massachusetts, 2001-2003
  • Richard Tisei, Massachusetts State Senator 1991-2011, and Senate Minority Leader 2007-2011
  • William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts, 1991-1997, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General, Criminal Division, 1986-1988
  • Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, 1994-2001, and Administrator of the EPA, 2001-2003
  • Janet Duprey, New York State Assemblywoman, 2007-Present
  • Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present
  • Mark Grisanti, New York State Senator, 2011-Present
  • Patrick Guerriero, Mayor of Melrose, Massachusetts, and Member of Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1993-2001
  • Richard L. Hanna, Member of Congress, 2011-Present
  • Michael Huffington, Member of Congress, 1993-1995
  • Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, 2005-2009, and Ambassador to China, 2009-2011
  • Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1995-2003, and Libertarian Party Nominee for President, 2012
  • Nancy L. Johnson, Member of Congress, 1983-2007
  • James Kolbe, Member of Congress, 1985-2007
  • Thomas A. Little, Vermont State Representative, 1992-2002 and Chairman of the Vermont House Judiciary Committee, 1999-2002

Prominent Republican Business Associates

  • Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author
  • David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, 2001-2003
  • David C. Chavern, Business Association Executive
  • Meg Whitman, Republican Nominee for Governor of California, 2010
  • Daniel S. Loeb, Businessman and Philanthropist

Republican Think-Tankers, Cultural Supports, Media Stars

  • S.E. Cupp, Author and Political Commentator
  • Robert Wickers, Republican Political Consultant
  • Clint Eastwood, Producer, Director, Actor, and Mayor of Carmel, California, 1986-1988
  • Mark Gerson, Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group and Author of The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from an Inner-City School that Works
  • N. Greg Mankiw, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
  • Michael E. Murphy, Republican Political Consultant

Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House) Staffers

  • Richard Galen, Communications Director, Speaker’s Political Office, 1996-1997
  • Ed Kutler, Assistant to the Speaker of the House, 1995-1997

Republican Congressional Staff

  • John Goodwin, Chief of Staff to Raul Labrador, Member of Congress, 2011-2013
  • Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005

Aaron McLear, Press Secretary to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2007-2011


The Murderers Got Away With It.
I Need a Doctor Who Will Listen to Me
When It Comes to Caring for Your Parent with Dementia, You are Alone.
Apple Watch Review: Do NOT Buy
  • pagansister

    As I mentioned on the “sequester” article—I’m a registered Independent for a reason! I do not trust either major political party. Am betting there are a few ticked off Republicans right now.

    • Manny

      Damn right I’m ticked off. Unfortunately gay marriage is unstoppable and has been for a while. The only thing that has slowed it down has been the repeated losses in the referendums. But even that’s turned around.

      • pagansister

        Yes, Manny, gay marriage is unstoppable. Equal rights take awhile to acquire sometimes.

        • Manny

          Marriage is not a right. Look it up.

          • pagansister

            Was voting a right for women at the beginning of this country? No. Women had to fight for that right. It’s called equality, Manny.

            • Manny

              Voting is a right. Marriage is a defiinition of a concept.

            • SteveP

              Complete male sufferage was accomplished only after female sufferage and then by executive order. Equality is rather not the point of political action then and now.

              • Rebecca Hamilton

                Steve what you are referring to here?

                • SteveP

                  Rebecca: I was thinking of the timing of the 19th Amendment (1920) and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 but incorrectly identified the latter as an executive order. Thank you for giving me the chance to correct myself.

  • Ashley

    “But one thing is certain: People of faith can no longer vote for either party and feel that they are voting in line with their beliefs.”

    “People of faith” is not equivalent to “People who oppose marriage equality.”. A majority of Catholics favor equality, for example. Republican politicians are simply beginning to understand that they can no longer extract a political advantage by supporting discrimination as they could just a few years ago.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I agree with you here:
      “Republican politicians are simply beginning to understand that they can no longer extract a political advantage by supporting discrimination as they could just a few years ago.”

      Neither political party believes anything. I, however, don’t agree with your assessment that supporting traditional marriage is discrimination. It’s actually common sense.

      I don’t agree with you here:

      “A majority of Catholics favor equality, for example.”

      My disagreement is a matter of terminology. First, I don’t agree that gay marriage has anything to do with “equality.” I think rather it has to do with dismantling Western civilization. Second, the “majority” of Catholics these polls refer to include people who do not practice their faith. Many of them have not so much as darkened the doorway of a church in decades. Practicing Catholics, at least in my experience and according to polls that take this into consideration, support traditional marriage by wide margins.

      Choosing a sample that will give you the results you want is a dishonest but effective way to use polling for propaganda purposes.

    • Ted Seeber

      “People of Faith” is not equal to “People who go to Church” or even “theists”. There is a huge difference between claiming you know what morality is, and actually knowing what morality is.

    • Ted Seeber
    • abb3w

      While “people of faith” is not equivalent to “People who oppose marriage equality”, there’s an extremely strong correlation as far as outside observers can tell them by their fruits (so to speak). Going by self identified religiosity (unaffiliated/not very/somewhat/strongly), belief in God, and attendance rates, there’s Pierson’s r between 0.32 and 0.36 or so for all three to attitude on gay marriage legality, and a net alpha of 0.77 (as of GSS 2010 data).

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        You probably should explain your statistical terms if you to be understood.

        • abb3w

          A full statistics tutorial is both beyond my ability to do well (I’ve not much more formal background in stats than you), and seems unlikely to make it out of the moderation queue, since you appear to tend to also moderate for length.

          Briefly and badly, Pierson’s r and Cronbach alpha are measures of co-relation; how much variation of one variable is tied to others. In the US, height and weight have r about 0.5 — half of the variation in weight is explained by variation in height, or vice-versa. Cronbach alpha is more about consistency of the relationships — very loosely, alpha is to r as standard deviation is to mean.

          I commend to the curious the habit of poking Wikipedia, as a general principle. The incurious seem unlikely to care what r and alpha are, anyway.

  • Jessica Hoff

    Calling things names they don’t have is one of the things which gets us into messes. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Who gave someone a mandate to change that?

    • pagansister

      Just a question—why is it that those who practice a faith think that the word “marriage”, which is only a word, belongs to only those of different genders who wish to commit to each other? It is merely a word—and since “marriages” can be performed in a secular venue with a secular person authorized by the state, why do those of faith object? Marriage isn’t a religious word, nor owned by those of faith, IMO. My thoughts FWIW.

      • Oregon Catholic

        If it was only a word then ss couples would have no particular interest in marriage vs civil unions. It is precisely because of the meaning and the social stamp of approval the word carries, religious and secular, that it is coveted.

        • pagansister

          OC, would you want to be denied having your commitment to your spouse (if you’re married) called a Civil Union? You would still have all the legal rights, just not use of the word Marriage. Would you be upset about that? Gender combination shouldn’t be a deciding factor on the use of a legal commitment to another person. If the situation were reversed, you’d be fighting for the use of that word, I suspect.

      • Ted Seeber

        Because that is the way it has always been, and NOBODY has shown me a GOOD reason to change it.

        That and because the gays seem to think it means something. We offered them civil unions (the word meaning nothing) and they called us bigots.

        • pagansister

          Ted, the” Because that is the way it has always been——” does not mean that it should continue. There were slaves in the time of Jesus, and in the USA for a long length of time—so if your “Because it has always been—–” was a valid reason, then perhaps there would still be legal slavery.

          • Ted Seeber

            Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. EVERY time we break with tradition, we end up with a world messier and more destructive than the one we started with.

            We get civil rights for colored people, and Planned Parenthood starts killing them wholesale, for instance.

            We got rid of slavery, only to have business owners pay people so little that they have to be on food stamps- the low rung workers are actually WORSE off under Capitalism than they were under slavery.

            And at least, in both those cases, there were *GOOD* reasons for the action taken.

            In the case of gay marriage, I can think of NO socially redeeming value in it. None at all. There is no socially redeeming value to homosexuality at all- it is a selfish and disabling disease whose victims are to be pitied.

            Next you’ll be telling me we need to support and provide victims for child sex abusers, because that’s the disease they have.

            • pagansister

              Ted, your last sentence is down right ridiculous!
              I realize some people have a problem with change.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              Ted, I know you sometimes have trouble communicating, but this is really over the top. I support traditional marriage absolutely. However homosexual people are human beings made in the image and likeness of God. They are precious in His sight and He loves them dearly. Christian gay people are our beloved brothers and sistres in Christ. Please do not say cruel things about people Our Lord died to save.



              • Theodore Seeber

                Criminals are ALSO people made in the image and likeness of God. Everybody is a person made in the image and likeness of God.

                That doesn’t mean that *actions do not have consequences*, *sin does not exist*, or that *homosexuality is not a disease*.

                You can treat the disease without feeding it. You can have compassion for the child abuser while NOT allowing him access to children. You can love and support your same sex attracted friends without being for their twisted definitions of love and marriage.

      • Fabio P.Barbieri

        If words matter so little, then give me all your dollars. It’s only a word – “dollar”.

        • pagansister

          Fabio, many words have been “changed” over the years—-for better or worse (in some cases). Words have been added to dictionary’s etc. so, words do not always have the same meaning forever.

          • Ted Seeber

            And that is a mistake too. Because we let the meanings of words change, we can no longer read Chaucer in the original.

            The Church was right to stick with Latin so long. Change is always evil.

            • pagansister

              The Latin Mass is indeed beautiful.

            • pagansister

              Oh, seriously Ted—”Change is always evil”? Would you say that about allowing those of different races to marry wrong? (heterosexuals of course, :-) ). Was abolishing slavery wrong? Is having the first Black president elected in the USA wrong (not talking about politics here)—-the fact that America broke with “traditional white guys” for the highest office in the land wrong? Was electing President Kennedy, the first (and so far only) Catholic president, wrong? Totally disagree that “change is always evil”.

              • Fabio P.Barbieri

                Essentially, you don’t have any argument except that once marriage between races was forbidden. That is a lousy argument. Everything else you say amounts to “change is good for you”, which is not an argument because it has no logic to it. And it is wrong anyway.

              • Theodore Seeber

                Every single one of those was a negative for somebody. At best, change is just reshuffling the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.

                • pagansister

                  Life is never all about positives for everyone, Theodore. Have you heard the expression: ” Life isn’t fair ” ?

                  • Oregon catholic

                    No, life isn’t fair. That’s a good place to start when explaining to homosexuals why we shouldn’t allow SSM just because heterosexuals can marry.

                    • pagansister

                      Difference here, O C , is that due to the laws, which are changing, equal rights are not being applied to ALL consenting adults who wish to be married to each other. Life will, hopefully, become “fair” for those who are being denied that right. (I know Manny, it really isn’t a “right” in your opinion). No need to “explain” to same gender couples that discrimination is not fair—they know that.

                    • Theodore Seeber

                      “Difference here, O C , is that due to the laws, which are changing, equal rights are not being applied to ALL consenting adults who wish to be married to each other.”

                      So what? Life isn’t fair.

                  • Theodore Seeber

                    EXACTLY my original point. Life isn’t fair. And while I do see socially redeeming value, especially in genetics, for mixed race marriages, I still see about as much socially redeeming value for gay marriage as I do for child sex abuse.

                    That has NOTHING to do with the people involved, it has to do with why homosexual acts are a violation of chastity to begin with.

                    • pagansister

                      I know, Theodore.

  • Karla

    President of National Organisaiton for Marriage Brian Brown

    ‘Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party’s platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”

    … The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage inMinnesota, a state considering such legislation.

    “None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican Party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      This is spin, Karla. What needs to happen is for rank and file Republicans to let their party know that they must stay the course on marriage.

  • Terry Lee

    Look at them people. Mostly moderates, attached to moderates, or from left leaning states. With the exception of maybe five of them they are nobody you have ever heard of (unless you are a political nerd). This is by far not even close to a representative group of Republicans and definitely not of conservatives. I could possibly see a response to this from actual conservatives within the Republican party.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I think you are correct in that there will be — hopefully a big one — a backlash from the rank and file over this. But these are not “nobodies” in the party. Look at their titles and consider their influence on policy both within the party and within our government during the time they were in office. Most of them are only out of power now because Romney lost the election. Don’t pander to your party by excusing this. Go at them and make sure they get the message.

      • Fabio P.Barbieri

        But Romney lost because millions of conservative electors stayed home. And they stayed home because they saw that, after using not even knuckledusters but chainsaws to destroy any other Republican candidate by any possible means, he suddenly turned into the soul of discretion and respect when arguing with Obama. It might as well have been Obama vs. Obama’s butler. If Romney had expended one tenth of the venom and viciousness against Obama that he did against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, Obama would have been on the ropes, and many Conservatives would have been motivated to take part.

        • pagansister

          IMO, Fabio, (you live in Italy, right?) one reason Romney lost was because he decided that 47% of the population expected everything to be given to them—stating this in what he wrongly thought was a “safe” room full of his buddies—-wrong—he was being recorded. Discounting an entire group of people doesn’t play well in the voting booth.

          • Fabio P.Barbieri

            That, too. But don’t think there were no conservatives with which it did not play well. A great many conservative Republican have no love for gilded elites and corporate sharks. I well remember an American cousin of mine, a Republican to her bones, applauding the tenacious and doomed lawsuit fought by a couple of penniless British anarchists against Macdonald’s. The image of a rich man telling other rich men that people who need federal or state support are spongers and ought to be kicked out of the political debate was not one that a struggling Republican holding down two jobs to pay for his children would love.

            • pagansister

              Good point, Fabio.

  • Kenneth

    This is the marketplace of ideas functioning flawlessly in a democracy. The ideas have all been laid out before the public and voters for years running. The argument that the state needs to enforce Christian marriage in civil law has been very well heard and examined. A steadily growing majority of Americans are simply no longer buying it. It had its day on the auction block in a very well funded funded election this past fall. It didn’t sell. It didn’t get the votes.

    That, with Supreme Court review for Constitutional legitimacy, is what settles the matter in this country. Political parties and their donors don’t exist to tilt at windmills, or to permanently sideline themselves from office in order to maintain fealty to an idea and constituency that cost more votes than they deliver.

    This list of people above are not bit players in the GOP. They are big names and this is a signal that the GOP is done losing elections over gay marriage and throwing good money after bad. NOM’s $500,000, even if they really raise it, is not going to turn this around. This last election cycle involved $6 Billion! The solution for anti-SSM believers is not to bellyache about that, but to roll up your sleeves, form or find a party that supports you, and do the leg work of selling your ideas to the public.

    • Fabio P.Barbieri

      You ignore the reality of the modern marketplace – massive advertising, corruption of experts, corporate power, spin, and behind-the-scenes cartelization. If you had taken any of these things into account, I would assume you are living in the real world and know what the so-called market economy amounts to. As it is, you are spinning because you are possessed by the spin, and you don’t know the difference between advertising and reality.

  • SteveP

    The NYS legislature, in 2011, showed it was a seller’s market for “marriage equality” advocacy. I’m not surprised others, of both parties, have availed themselves from that stream.

  • Evelyn Hon

    I agree with everything Rebecca Hamilton said, she said it very well. I am an Independent and now in a real quandary with both parties out to just get votes and think of money & careers instead of what the nation wants. Proof of the pudding is if what I heard is true that, Washington D.C. is the wealthiest city in the USA.

  • Oregon Catholic

    I haven’t believed them for years. Almost to a one, they have been “anti-abortion” in their rhetoric and once in office did nothing. This is the same thing. Tell the voters what they want to hear and then do what you will once in office. Our memories are so short that they can spin up some lies right before an election and people take them at their word. Both parties do it. Our government is seriously broken.

    • Manny

      That’s not quite true on abortion OC. They have passed restrictions to abortion in a number of states and in some cases it got rejected in the courts. But they have definitely made progress on the abortion issue on a state level. With Roe v wade, it impossible to completely overturn it.

      • Ted Seeber

        Their restrictions are pretty much window dressing, tapdancing around the real issue- personhood for the unborn.

        • Manny

          Roe v wade prevents anything of significance. The four justices on the Supreme Court who would overturn it were all appointed by Republican presidents. The one appointed by a Republican who wouldn’t is Kennedy. On the other hand all four justices appointed by Democrats are staunchly and unmovingly pro-abortion. Don’t tell me there is no difference in the party you elect.

          • Ted Seeber

            Roe V. Wade, in the decision, directly stated that Congress had the right to define when life began and define what a person is.

            A personhood amendment would make Roe completely moot, but Congress is too chicken to pass one.

  • Manny

    The bastards. I’ll never support those on that list.

    You have to understand that the Repblicans have a fault line between the conservatives and the libertarians. Those are just about all libertarians.

    Well, at least there is a wing in the Republican Party that supports traditional values. The Democratic Party is nearly to a man pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

  • Manny

    Let me add that this is all a result of the disasterous 2012 election where Obama won on left wing social issues. Elections have consequences and results move the losing party, especially through their dissonant members who never supported the party on those issues. The country has changed and traditional values have collapsed and will probably never return. It’s a moral disaster, and it’s hard to love this country any more. It’s not the country I grew up in.

    As to supporting the Republican Party, perhaps I feel a little duped with that list, but my conscience is clear. I supported the party who’s platform is pro-life. What was I supposed to do support the gay rights/pro-death party that boos God? One third of Republicans are pro-abortion. People forget that. I would estimate that the pro-life movement got a lot of value from the Republican Party. Most elected Republicans are pro-life, which goes against that one third demographic. It is the push from pro-lifers that makes the Republicans go against one third of their constituents and actually institute it in the party platform. I’m proud to have helped in my miniscule way push the Party to traditional values. I could have taken the idiotic Mark Shea position and voted for the 1% candidate and completely wasted my vote. At least I feel I pushed the country in the right direction. At least there are four justices on the Supreme Court that support life. One’s choices are limited in life. Out of the three possible choices I could have made, would it have been best to waste my vote for the 1% candidate, violate my conscience for the pro-death candidate, or push a wavering party toward the moral position?

    • Ted Seeber

      Neither the Republican nor the Democrat platform can be considered pro-life. The Republican platform makes exceptions for rape and incest, for instance.

      This is why I vote Constitution Party.

      • Manny

        Oh you’re one of those that votes for the 1%. That’s just masterbation, self gratification with no outcome. The Democrats are laughing all the way to the bank with that vote. Absolutism in politics does nothing for the cause. You push the side that can win closer toward your position otherwise it’s pure waste. Sorry for being crude, but it’s the truth.

        • Theodore Seeber

          No outcome is better than supporting lies. I can no longer live with the lies.

          Perhaps if more people were actually unable to live with the lies instead of just paying lip service while 56 million children died for incrementalism, we would not have a problem today.

          • pagansister

            Oh, one more question, Theodore—-where does the Constitution Party stand on abortion?

          • Oregon catholic

            I tend to agree that some of the lesser efforts to curtail, rather than stop, abortion have not been good for the cause. One example involves the effort to ban abortion AFTER a certain point because the baby can feel pain. Well, as soon as someone comes along with a way to prevent the pain then they have just given a green light to abortion and left themselves not a leg to stand on to object.

            Truth matters and the truth is that a human life begins at conception, when all the unique DNA, half from each parent, is united. That’s when personhood needs to be declared to exist and trying to pin down any other point in the pregnancy at which life should begin to be protected amounts to guesswork and opinion. If we start promoting accepting half-truths in an attempt to save some babies it will come back to haunt us in the end.

          • Darren

            Dear Theodore;

            <blockquote” No outcome is better than supporting lies. I can no longer live with the lies.”

            And yet you do just that… sad, really.

            You don’t really believe fertilized eggs and fetuses are actually human beings. You don’t really believe that they are being murdered wholesale. You don’t really believe that, ‘cause if you did, you would act differently, you would spend your time and energy otherwise.

            Just imagine:
            In your town is a fast food restaurant. And running that restaurant is a manager who likes to kidnap and kill children. Every week, 20 or 30 children go missing, never to be seen again. Everyone knows what is happening, the parents, the police, the employees, the mayor of the town, but no one does anything. The manager is well connected, and makes sure the right people get paid.
            There are protests. Nothing changes.
            Sometimes a person tries to run for office against the mayor, or chief of police, to end the killings. But, they are never successful.
            And day after day, the innocent are killed. Hundreds, thousands…
            What would you do if that was true? Would you spend your days blogging about how bad it was? Would you sign petitions?
            Why wouldn’t you just stop it? You could, anyone could, it would be easy. Sure, the Mainstream Media would crucify you afterwards, but so what, they are part of the conspiracy themselves. Their hands are as bloody as anyone’s.
            You might end up in prison, or dead, but how many children would you have saved? Would it not be self-defense; self-defense of those who cannot defend themselves?

            So, now let me ask you, what should you be doing if you _really_ believed babies were being murdered… Different than what you actually spend your days doing, I think…

  • Fabio P.Barbieri

    My dear Rebecca, I think we should go a bit further. Think about it. This is happening, at the same time and in the same way, in at least three countries I know of – and not just any three countries, but the USA, Britain and France, the three cultural lead countries of the whole Western world. Why is that, at the same time, Mr.Obama has claimed to have “evolved” from no to yes on this issue; Mr.Cameron is forcing the thing down the throats of his own party while claiming that “he is for gay marriage BECAUSE he is conservative,” and using the most brutal, bare-knuckle political persuasion to get the result he wants (are you familiar with the expression “three line whip”? He had one in place, incredibly, in the supposedly free vote on the proposal) while Monsieur Hollande, the so-called Socialist “modest man of the people with the common touch”, does exactly the same from his side of the Channel. None of them had anything remotely like gay marriage on their platform when they were elected; none of them was answering any real need – France and Britain both have civil partnership laws (as does Germany) and there had been no public pressure, no petitions, no demos. To the contrary: when people realized what Hollande was up to, a million Frenchmen flooded the streets of Paris (the gay-marriage mob tried a counter-demo, and only managed to show their pathetic lack of any real support), and the electors of Eastleigh, England, used a by-election to explain to Mr.Cameron that as far as the Tory electorate of Britain is concerned he is dead meat and the future belongs to Nigel Farrage MEP, leader of the splinter United Kingdom Independence Party. And still the Gang of Three proceeds with all the grace and democratic manner of a Waffen-SS tank division, Mr. Hollande clearly stating that he was going to ignore the monster demo for marriage – something that ordinarily would have stopped a French Socialist politician dead in his tracks, while Mr.Cameron’s apologies after the Eastleigh rout did not even mention “gay marriage”. And that, mind you, is politically disastrous for him, because if he is not willing to accept that the conservative electorate punished him for gay marriage, then he has to say – and has in fact said – that they are angry at his economic policies – the very economic policies on which both he and his Chancellor of the Exchequer have staked their political future. So he would rather place his economic policies, and his political future, in question, than gay marriage. Can you believe it? Here is a political figure of the first rank placing his future in the most serious jeopardy rather than do anything to slow down the “gay marriage” juggernaut.

    Think about it. Obama is now in his second term and can’t stand again. Hollande was lucky to get the Presidency: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the obvious Socialist candidate, was conveniently destroyed by a false but very well chosen charge of rape, and Martine Aubry and Segolene Royale were stopped by party in-fighting; and even so, he would never have beaten Sarkozy had not Sarkozy imploded. He is not good enough for a second term and he knows it. As for Mr.Cameron, his second term was already in doubt before he visited the disaster of “gay marriage” on his unfortunate party; he had failed to win the 2011 elections against a Labour Party that an idiot could have trashed, and he knew that at the next elections he would face an invigorated opposition and a lasting economic crisis.

    We are seeing a strategy being carried out. Three politicians with a bright present and no future in politics, from different and opposing backgrounds, all perform the same manoeuvre in the same way, with the same from-above quality, with no evidence of any need, against the evident will of the majority, and all of them using political brass knuckles. This is not chance. And if it is an international movement, like human rights was in the sixties, like socialism and trades unionism have been before, with strong public opinion support, where is the membership? where are the demos? Where are the protesters in jail? This is all a matter of pressure groups, astroturfing, and useful idiots like the few who keep playing the same old song on your columns. And the real history of what is being done, and who is doing it, will only be written when a sufficiently hard-nosed and hard-working historian starts ignoring the motion of the glove puppets and trying to find out who has been talking with them and who they report to.

    • Oregon catholic

      It’s obvious who is directing their offices, whether they know it and consent to it or not. It’s the same one who prowls through the world seeking the ruin of souls. St Michael defend us.

      • Fabio P.Barbieri

        Of course. But I rather think that in this case the Devil is working with human helpers. It simply does not happen that three separate governments, different in origin, interests and views, should carry out, at the same time, in the same way, with the same intention, the same policies. Human beings just don’t behave like that, not without a prompt.

  • Amy

    I encourage all who are Catholic to have Masses said for our Supreme Court Justices. Find a religious order, monestary, mission priests, etc, and offer a stipend. Encourage others to do the same.
    Luke 12:48, “But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
    We are called to witness, to evangilze, to pray, to bear good fruit. If we can multitask, we can certainly bring a prayer into our thoughts no matter what we are doing… Praying unceasingly!

  • Dave

    I guess I missed the boat on this one. All I have to say about it is these people don’t believe in anything. When they think they have sensed a political shift in the wind, they try to jump on the boat going the other way. Yet another proof of what Rebecca is trying to tell us.

  • Laddie V Mapani

    Well, demons are so strong when you give them room in your heart. Most of us we start up these sexual vices because we seek so much a unique sexual satisfaction, and our lusts do not have bounderies in terms of differences between man and women. Demons will take up the vacant room in our hearts and spoil our spirit we become part of the evil by accepting the status. Have you guys ever sensed this demon’s presence. You can even see the state of torment. God have mercy. We are spiritual are we not.

    • Bill S

      No, actually we are physical beings with physical desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has nothing to do with angels or demons or anything else supernatural. It is genetic, physiological and most of all psychological. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be a disorder by anyone but religious fundementalists, mostly Christians and Muslims.

      We might be naturally repulsed by same sex activities because natural selection has programmed us to pass on our genes to the next generation. We are not slaves to natural selection. We can choose not to pass on our genes with no skin off our noses. From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, which is the only way we should look at this, it is quite alright to seek sexual pleasure in a way that does not pass on our genes as long as we are not harming anyone else.

  • Laddie V Mapani

    . Yes. Bill S. I am Christian fundamentalist who believe in demons and evil. The psychological part is what you refuse to term demonic of which mostly can not can not be cured. Are you saying you can even have sex with an animal since you wont be hurting anyone. The moment that desire for sexual pleasure become boundless its now demonic. Tell, why cant animals do the same they know their boys and ladies.

    • Bill S

      OK, Laddie. Whatever you say.

  • pagansister

    “The moment that desire for sexual pleasure become boundless its now demonic” Laddie
    Must say I disagree with your statement.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Here’s the real problem. I am autistic. That means I have a problem with the definitions of certain words. If there is no concrete right and wrong, how do you define consent?

      • pagansister

        Theodore, who are you asking? the dictionary defines the word “consent” as permission, agreement, , to agree to.

  • Laddie V Mapani

    Pagansister. What I am saying is that if you have no control over how you get sexual pleasure it becomes demonic. If you have sex with man, animals male or female your desire can not be contained that kind of lust is demonic.

  • Don

    “if you have no control over how you get sexual pleasure it becomes demonic.”


    Sexual and other addictions can be explained and successfully treated by modern psychology. We no longer need to associate such disorders with demonic forces. Furthermore, I am sure their are sex acts between consenting adults that you are likely to consider to be demonic which are considered to be normal and healthy by psychologists who should be considered experts in their field and the last word on what is or isn’t disordered in any way.

    • Oregon Catholic

      The hole in the soul that addictions are trying to fill comes from our fallen human nature that separates us from God. satan and carnality can fill that hole or Jesus and spiritual grace can fill it. I know of what I speak. Giving in to the carnal attractions of various addictions invites satan more readily than Jesus. There is a far greater spiritual component to any addiction than most psych specialists are willing to admit.

    • Theodore Seeber

      “Sexual and other addictions can be explained and successfully treated by modern psychology. ”

      Not since the DSM-III-TR got changed for political, rather than scientific reasons. ALL actual scientific research on treating homosexuality stopped at that point, and was replaced with encouraging the addiction.

  • Laddie V Mapani

    Star. Fabio I plus your pount.

  • Theodore Seeber

    Guess the threading no longer works. But the relevant paragraph from the above link is:
    We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. The first duty of the law is to protect innocent life, created in the image of God. No government may legalize the taking of life without justification. Legalizing the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn, whether by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia or suicide, is a direct violation of their unalienable right to life. As to matters of rape and incest, we find it unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.