3 ms·
He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.
by agildehaus 11y ago
He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.
- insensible 11y agoThat's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.
- mattlutze 11y agoState governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action. The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out. The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.
- ubernostrum 11y agoI suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).