Across the country, among people of all ages and religions, the acceptance of same-sex marriage has grown with stunning speed. But not in the leadership of the Republican Party.
There is a striking unanimity among the candidates who are running for the party's presidential nomination in 2016: Not one supports allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. And after the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage for all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, the degree of difference among the candidates was largely a matter of how aggressively they would continue to resist.
Many pledged to fight on, using language that was both biblical and bellicose, framing the debate over marriage rights as a choice between surrender and retreat, between the divine and the profane. Others vowed to keep the debate alive in a more measured and indirect way, by advocating for the rights of Christians and others who worry the ruling could force them to violate their religious beliefs.
But either way, the clash over same-sex marriage seems likely to smolder well into the 2016 primary season, despite the hopes of many less hard-line Republicans that a Supreme Court decision would allow the party finally to move past one of the most divisive aspects of the culture wars.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, said that while he was certain that "some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag," he was determined not to bow to a decision he saw as illegitimate. "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court," he said Friday.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said he would push for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to continue prohibiting same-sex marriage. "No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience," he said. "We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans."
Others tried to shift the debate to the safer terrain of religious tolerance.
Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, was brief and more tempered. In a statement that ran just 82 words, he said that while he believed the court had erred, he urged respect for all couples, "including those making lifetime commitments." He then said it was crucial "to protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida also criticised the decision but added, "We live in a republic and must abide by the law." The next president, he said, must focus on protecting "the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage." (Bush and Rubio, unlike Walker, have said they do not support a constitutional amendment to reverse the court's ruling.)
The varied reactions reflected the priorities of the Republicans seeking the presidency. Some, like Bush, are eyeing a general election in which hostility to same-sex marriage could present difficulties in winning competitive states. Others, like Huckabee, Walker and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana - who said Friday that marriage was ordained by God "and no earthly court can alter that" - are focused on winning over social conservatives in early nominating states like Iowa. A few, like Rubio, seem equally mindful of both.
Overheated language on gay rights may rally a socially conservative base whose confidence deflated as one court after another, then finally the highest court, declared that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. But it also ignores a reality on the ground in the states where the presidential contest will take shape next year.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the first two nominating contests, since 2009. Yet resistance movements, to the extent that there ever were serious ones, have had no success. And many conservatives appear to have moved on.
"It's not an issue anymore because we've evolved," said John Reagan, a Republican state senator in New Hampshire.
"We saw nothing happened," he added. "Our lives didn't get worse. And we began to see people we knew in that situation and it made it more acceptable."
With public opinion moving so unambiguously away from support for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, the Republican National Committee has acknowledged that the party stands to continue to lose favor with voters, especially younger people who are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.
There is a striking unanimity among the candidates who are running for the party's presidential nomination in 2016: Not one supports allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. And after the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage for all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, the degree of difference among the candidates was largely a matter of how aggressively they would continue to resist.
Many pledged to fight on, using language that was both biblical and bellicose, framing the debate over marriage rights as a choice between surrender and retreat, between the divine and the profane. Others vowed to keep the debate alive in a more measured and indirect way, by advocating for the rights of Christians and others who worry the ruling could force them to violate their religious beliefs.
But either way, the clash over same-sex marriage seems likely to smolder well into the 2016 primary season, despite the hopes of many less hard-line Republicans that a Supreme Court decision would allow the party finally to move past one of the most divisive aspects of the culture wars.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, said that while he was certain that "some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag," he was determined not to bow to a decision he saw as illegitimate. "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court," he said Friday.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said he would push for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to continue prohibiting same-sex marriage. "No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience," he said. "We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans."
Others tried to shift the debate to the safer terrain of religious tolerance.
Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, was brief and more tempered. In a statement that ran just 82 words, he said that while he believed the court had erred, he urged respect for all couples, "including those making lifetime commitments." He then said it was crucial "to protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida also criticised the decision but added, "We live in a republic and must abide by the law." The next president, he said, must focus on protecting "the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage." (Bush and Rubio, unlike Walker, have said they do not support a constitutional amendment to reverse the court's ruling.)
The varied reactions reflected the priorities of the Republicans seeking the presidency. Some, like Bush, are eyeing a general election in which hostility to same-sex marriage could present difficulties in winning competitive states. Others, like Huckabee, Walker and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana - who said Friday that marriage was ordained by God "and no earthly court can alter that" - are focused on winning over social conservatives in early nominating states like Iowa. A few, like Rubio, seem equally mindful of both.
Overheated language on gay rights may rally a socially conservative base whose confidence deflated as one court after another, then finally the highest court, declared that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. But it also ignores a reality on the ground in the states where the presidential contest will take shape next year.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the first two nominating contests, since 2009. Yet resistance movements, to the extent that there ever were serious ones, have had no success. And many conservatives appear to have moved on.
"It's not an issue anymore because we've evolved," said John Reagan, a Republican state senator in New Hampshire.
"We saw nothing happened," he added. "Our lives didn't get worse. And we began to see people we knew in that situation and it made it more acceptable."
With public opinion moving so unambiguously away from support for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, the Republican National Committee has acknowledged that the party stands to continue to lose favor with voters, especially younger people who are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.
2015© The New York Times News Service