Discussion: Jeb Bush: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Should Be 'State Decision'

system1 · January 5, 2015, 2:38pm

Discussion for article #231623

theghostofeustacetilley · January 5, 2015, 2:51pm

WhO wE DIScrIMINAte agAINSt baseD on PERVErsions OR colOR sHOULD be LEFT to THe voters in A STATE. STATE righTS!11!1!!!one!1!!!

k_in_va · January 5, 2015, 2:55pm

I think I ought to have the right to vote on your marriage, Jebbie. I think I ought to have the right to make you spend your life as a second-class citizen, Jebbie. And – for damned sure – I have and will definitely exercise my right to vote against you and other homophobic-vote-seeking Republicans.

imkmu3 · January 5, 2015, 2:56pm

Jeb, how about we make this the people’s decision? The Republican’s are always screaming about letting the people decided, so…if two people want to get married, that’s there decision. Everyone happy with that?

mattinpa · January 5, 2015, 3:00pm

See, this is how they used to pander to the bigots—it sounded reasonable, ducked any expression of personal principles or beliefs, and blamed the courts for trying to make the legislatures obey the Constitution. Three for three! Deft, artful pandering you could admire even as it made you enraged. Today’s panderers—pfft. Lunkheads by comparison.

psyclone · January 5, 2015, 3:00pm

“It ought to be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,”

I mean, a decision made by whatever entity is controlled by Republicans and their bigoted supporters that is convenient for my argument.

austin_dave · January 5, 2015, 3:04pm

It should be a county decision, not a state decision. Or area code. No wait–let’s do it by zip code. NO–it should Zip plus-four. But even then, every street should decide who should get married. Or maybe household. Or maybe just everyone could decide for themselves.

arrendis · January 5, 2015, 3:05pm

Here, Jeb, lemme give you the founders-approved phrase you’ll need to brush up on by the time the primaries come around (and popular sentiment is even more in favor of marriage equality):

“Tyranny of the Majority”.

Note that’s ‘TYRANNY’, not ‘TRANNY’, Jeb.

bdtex · January 5, 2015, 3:13pm

That won’t beat Huckabee in Iowa.

stephen_maturin · January 5, 2015, 3:14pm

I think I’m going to start calling this kind of positioning by Bush “The Huckabee Effect” and I expect to see a lot more of it.
Poor Jeb isn’t going to be able to run on just old-fashioned Republican principles which is right in his comfort zone. Mike the Moral Marauder is going to force him to engage on his ground and stake out positions that he’d rather not.
Welcome to FOXAmerica, Jeb.

lonewolf_93 · January 5, 2015, 3:15pm

It should be a state decision, the same way SLAVERY should be a state decision… #COWARD

lonewolf_93 · January 5, 2015, 3:16pm

Exactly, perhaps inter-racial marriages should be a state decision as well #Failed Leader #Coward

berkshire_boy · January 5, 2015, 3:18pm

Don’t I remember him saying something about illegal immigration being an act of “love?” Maybe he would like immigration to be a state or “local” decision too? That would be interesting.

mantan · January 5, 2015, 3:19pm

If it crosses over into public policy realm, then that is another matter.

What is this “it” the craven attention whore and tool of the 1% mentions?
We’re bored, JEB, and you can’t resign from that…

arrendis · January 5, 2015, 3:32pm

Considering Jeb’s family is definitely part of the 0.1%, I don’t think it’s really safe to call him their ‘tool’. More their ‘latest front-man’.

yankeeclipper · January 5, 2015, 3:33pm

“The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.”

You guess? Wow. Some deep thinking going on in the head of the Bush that’s supposed to be the brains of the clan.

dweb · January 5, 2015, 3:33pm

Now THERE’s a classy approach Jeb. Push this issue back to decisions on a state-by-state basis.

Ignore the fact that people are mobile. Follow this approach and create a national legal quagmire for people who are allowed to marry in one state but need to move to one that would NOT allow such marriages for reasons like jobs or family issues and/or create more hurdles and discrimination for those trying to deal with things like inheritance, hospital rights, discrimination…

Terry Schaivo…you just can’t help trying to stick your finger into other peoples’ lives Jeb. What is it with you and
personal choice? This issue is sliding away from you. Get over it.

mantan · January 5, 2015, 3:41pm

I’d call a member of the 1%'s secret society police arm a tool, yes, as I’m sure many wealthier, classier 1%ers do…

sniffit · January 5, 2015, 3:41pm

Indeed. Because Atwater. The problem they’re now having is that their resentment and poutrage over the election of a black man as POTUS and its implications vis-a-vis demographic shifts has emboldened them. They’ve literally started gong off-script because “ok, that’s it, I’ve had it.”

marcus8182 · January 5, 2015, 3:53pm

And if the question of whether he should be able to marry a non-white woman was also left up to his neighbors, he’d be ok with that too, right?

I’m going to give him the benefit of a doubt and say that he’s saying what he is because he doesn’t want to antagonize people he’d need to vote for him in 2016, even though he could care less who marries who, but it’s cowardly all the same.