Last night's GOP debate found Republican presidential candidates surprisingly united, according to the New York Times. One unifying point that the Times didn't touch on was that five of the seven candidates present said they favored a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum all said they favored a federal marriage amendment, with Ron Paul and Herman Cain saying they wouldn't. According to the famously anti-gay Santorum, "We should have one law with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is."

The kind of consistency Santorum wants might be difficult for him to achieve, since a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Three-fourths of the fifty states would have to ratify the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution; that seems unlikely to happen. But that doesn't mean this won't be an effective way to rally the Republicans' base, although given that growing acceptance of gay marriage, it might not be as useful a wedge issue for the GOP as it's been in the past. If we do end up with President Bachmann, I'll be very surprised. And in Canada.

Commentarium (5 Comments)

Jun 15 11 - 12:06am
CdeLeo

My platform would be that gay marriage receptions are what this economy needs, let's get those ice sculptors back to work!

Jun 16 11 - 3:39pm
julian.

trudat

Jun 15 11 - 12:59am
Jud

Fucking seriously, Rick Santorum? Never mind the gayness of homophobia, there has NEVER been a national standard marriage law, period, game over. Each state sets their own age requirements, each state makes their own rules on first cousins marrying ("yes," "no," and "only if they're too old to have kids together" being the general options). Each state also sets their own divorce laws. This is nothing new, and to propose a constitutional amendment against gay marriage on the grounds that something as important as marriage deserves a national standard is, in addition to being bigoted, a radical expansion of the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states. WTF is wrong with you?

Jun 15 11 - 10:01am
anon

How can someone favor amending the constitution to prohibit rights?

Jul 22 11 - 1:08am
Kaed

Yeah that's what I'm tlaknig about baby--nice work!