Mike Sullivan, the guy who claims to be proud to be a Republican and who has aggressively staked out much more socially conservative positions than his primary opponents Dan Winslow and Gabriel Gomez, confused just about everybody today. First, he reiterated (no surprise) that he is “a traditionalist when it comes to the definition of marriage.” But then, later in the day, he released a statement as follows:
“I believe DOMA should be reversed and the federal government should respect those states that recognize gay marriage by providing those couples with the same level of benefits,” Sullivan said in the statement, referring to the federal Defense of Marriage Act that bars federal recognition of same-sex unions.
Uh, OK … so you oppose same-sex marriage, but you think the federal government should give legally-married gay couples the same benefits that straight couples get.
Yeah, I’m confused. I’m trying to work out how this is some sort of states-rights-trump-everything sort of position, but that breaks down pretty fast if you think it through. Plus, that wouldn’t make much sense coming from a guy whose biggest résumé items are federal government jobs (US Attorney and acting head of ATF) – it’s not like he’s some kind of federal power skeptic. So, I’m just confused.
mike_cote says
n/t
methuenprogressive says
He’s for Progress. And the Flag.
Jasiu says
Although I’ve never met anyone of this sort, I can imagine there would be people who’d say “I am against gay marriage but it isn’t my place nor the government’s to prohibit those marriages.” There are plenty of people who express similar views about abortion.
But I have no clue if that is what Sullivan is trying to say.
David says
because, by providing certain benefits only to married people, the government is already taking sides by deciding which married people get the benefits and which don’t. The only way to really adopt the hands-off approach would be for the gov’t to get out of the marriage benefits game completely.
Jasiu says
We are dealing with human thought, which has defied logic time and time again. 🙂
In any case, what I said seems to make more sense than what’s coming out of Sullivan’s mouth.
bluewatch says
The GOP has code words to signal where they really stand. So, on abortion, they say that they are personally opposed, but the issue is “settled law”. And, they want Supreme Court justices who are strict constructionists. Translation to their supporters: They are really adamantly opposed to abortions and are just making these statement to get elected.
On Same Sex Marriage: They are traditionalists who are personally opposed to Same Sex Marriage. Every state should make their own decisions on that issue. They believe in states rights, and the federal government should honor the states’ decisions. Translation to their supporters: They are really adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage and just making these statements to get elected.
kbusch says
This seems like completely the wrong time to be shaking the etch-a-sketch. Mr Sullivan still has to win the Republican primary. In that case, as the only social conservative, it would make sense for his surrogates to proclaim his upright endorsement of God’s putative position and then only later muddy things up a bit when it becomes time to appeal to the non-Republican cult part of the state.
fenway49 says
The GOP primary being open to GOP-leaning unenrolled, he might need to appeal to both the social conservatives and the more tolerant. He may calculate he’s not going to lose the social conservatives since he’s still the best they got, but muddying the waters on this opens up some non-socially-conservative GOP primary voters, and helps him a bit should he get to the general.
I agree that there’s a disconnect between these two positions, but it can be resolved pretty easily:
1. His view is that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. If asked, he would vote against that as a legislator. Or rail against it as a candidate.
2. BUT, if same-sex marriage is made legal in a state, despite his personal opposition, those marriages should be treated by federal law the same as every other marriage.
Translation: His preferred form of meta-discrimination (prohibiting the marriages) not having worked, there should be no more discrimination. You know, because discrimination’s bad.
SomervilleTom says
There you go again, confusing the practice of his religion with discrimination. He believes in marriage, he believes that God made men and women, and he believes that God intends for men and women to marry each other and make babies. When he opposes gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, and all the rest, he’s not discriminating, he’s just practicing his religion. After all, we don’t prosecute parents who bring their children to the communion rail for giving alcohol to minors. His stance is the same.
When you accuse him of discrimination, you’re just attacking his religion — it’s as simple as that.
Right?
johnk says
Herald
Um, what?
jconway says
17 years ago DOMA passed a Democratic Senate and was signed by a Democratic President. Liberal lions like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone voted for it and it was signed by Democratic hero Bill Clinton. Fast forward to the present, even conservative traditionalists can’t defend it anymore. If we have forced the right wing into the Cuomo corner: “personally opposed but the state can’t enforce my views”-than that’s significant progress.
fenway49 says
When Sullivan was a federal official, Calhounism was a less potent part of the Republican base’s screening criteria. You see, there was a conservative Republican President then. Now there’s some Socialist Fascist Marxist Communist Nihilist anti-carbon, anti-carbs, healthcare-forcing, gun-grabbing, Muslim Kenyan Chicago thug Democrat in the White House.
ACORN, which secretly still exists, stole TWO elections for this guy. And he’s BLACK. Obviously right-thinking Americans need all the guns they can get their hands on to keep the jackboot thugs at bay. And all that starts by saying, hell no, the Federales cannot discriminate against the marriages our sovereign state allows, even if we hate the idea of those marriages with every fiber of our Jesus-loving being.
(I never said they were rational.)
jconway says
I’ve heard all that stuff from various right ringer friends on Facebook so you hit the nail on the head. It’s also funny that they are posting Rand Paul’s filibuster all over since NONE of them cared about civil
liberties back when Dubya was President.
Ryan says
a lot of the Paul supporters are young enough that they may not have been voters when Dubya was President… but you’re probably right, were they voters back then, they probably would have been younger versions of the other-other Paul, Paul Ryan.
Ryan says
confusing answers, since their position is inherently indefensible. There is not one single answer to the question that’s logical sense. Not one.
Christopher says
…of, “I’m personally prolife, but politically prochoice.”?
jconway says
I argued that upthread, its like the Cuomo statement. And again, if we are forcing the theocons into that corner this is fine by me.
Laurel says
FWIW.
jconway says
And that might explain the fudging, though awfully premature to do it now.
jconway says
We aren’t as progressive as we make ourselves out to be, but to me the average Massachusetts voter supports gay marriage for conservative reasons. 1)Its none of their business 2) The court made its decision and the sky didn’t fall 3) Let the gays be as miserable as the rest of us. I honestly don’t see why the majority of Republicans, not just the majority of young Republicans can’t see it or frame it that way.
Patrick says
http://audio.wrko.com/a/71896679/u-s-senate-candidate-mike-sullivan-and-doma.htm