Penny Nance, the CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, is praising Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s push for a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings that same-sex marriage is constitutional.
“Scott Walker said it right in underscoring two points:1) the only hope the states have of reversing this ruling is a Constitutional Amendment 2) increased conscience protections are all that stands between people of faith and job loss and discrimination,” Nance said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News.
Walker, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling released on Friday, called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said.
Earlier this month, on ABC’s This Week, Walker endorsed a Constitutional amendment on marriage.
“I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Walker said in the interview in early June. Walker said that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide, “the only next approach… for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is, ultimately, to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment.”
Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who worked on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) failed 2008 election bid and currently advising former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign, attacked Walker over his comments.
“We look at this issue as left and right to some degree,” Schmidt told Politico, which framed his quote as him calling on Walker to drop the marriage amendment push. “It’s really under 40-over 40. Under-40 Republicans support the ruling.”
As the Tampa Bay Times noted, Walker’s push for defending traditional marriage puts him at odds with opponents like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—two of the three establishment candidates in the 2016 race now that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is in.
“Governor Bush does not believe amending the Constitution is the right course,” Bush’s spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told the local outlet. “Right now, we should focus on defending religious liberty by protecting those who act on their conscience and appointing judges who understand the limits placed on them by the Constitution.”
Rubio said it’s time for Republicans to follow the Supreme Court ruling and just give in.
“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law,” Rubio said. “As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.”
Rubio did not push for a marriage amendment in his comments and now says he doesn’t support one. Back when he was running for U.S. Senate, Rubio filled out a candidate questionnaire from the Christian Coalition in which he said he did.
That’s at odds with what Rubio said in an April 11 interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt: “I’ve never supported a federal constitutional amendment on marriage.”
“The Christian Coalition, which didn’t return our phone call or email, told MSNBC it stood by its voter guide. A spokeswoman said the guide was compiled from a survey Rubio filled out in 2010,” Politifact wrote about the matter. “The guide was then checked against candidates’ past statements and votes (VoteSmart.org did the same thing, for example, because Rubio would not answer the question about same-sex marriage directly). The group told the network they couldn’t find the survey without looking through their archives.”
Rubio’s spokeswoman Brooke Sammon told PolitiFact, too, that Rubio never supported a federal marriage amendment. “I can’t explain the survey, but I can confirm he’s never supported the FMA (federal marriage amendment),” Sammon said.
University of Central Florida political science professor Aubrey Jewett wonders if Rubio simply supported such an amendment so he could beat former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and former Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) in the 2010 Senate race.
“It is fairly routine for staffers to fill out these voter surveys… and that is probably what happened with the Christian Coalition guide,” Jewett told PolitiFact. “Of course, it is possible that Rubio did for that brief moment say he was in favor of the constitutional amendment in his attempt to burnish his credentials as the social conservative in the race and differentiate himself more from Meek and Crist.”
Nonetheless, Walker now has the inside track with conservatives—and supporting a federal marriage amendment is going to help him box out Rubio and Bush.
On the Obamacare ruling, Walker also ripped Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for having “bailed out” Obamacare both the first time around in 2012 and again in 2015.
“Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts bailed them out the first time and unfortunately his court has bailed them out again,” Walker said on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News program. “It’s precisely why we not only need a president who is going to repeal Obamacare outright but also a president going forward who’s going to make sure that judicial appointments appointed on the Supreme Court and other federal positions are ones who will truly uphold the Constitution and laws duly enacted.”
Bush, on the other hand, while appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, actually defended the reputation of Roberts—who was appointed by his brother, George W. Bush. Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, also appointed the liberal Justice David Souter.
“On Election Day, Governor, Justice Ginsberg will be 83, Justice Scalia, 80, Kennedy, 80, Breyer, 78, so there’ll be a lot, probably, in front of the next president,” Hewitt asked Bush. “Your father appointed Justices Thomas and Souter, your brother, the Chief Justice and Alito. All justices disappoint their presidents sometime, but Souter was like a 90% swing and a miss. How do you avoid Souters?”
“I think the way you do it is that you focus on people that are qualified to be Supreme Court justices that have a proven record of judicial restraint,” Bush responded. “And so I think you have to be all in to fight for people that have a record, because today in America, the minute you have a record, you’re subject to attack. But that’s the best way to prove that someone has a consistency in their view of, in terms of judicial philosophy.”
“I’m curious of your opinion on the Chief Justice,” Hewitt followed up. “He’s an old colleague of mine, Chief Justice Roberts. I disagreed with him yesterday, I agreed with him today. But I know he’s a man of absolute integrity, and that his arguments are always reasonable, even when I disagree with him. Is he still a model for you going forward as he was for President George W. Bush?”
“Well, I liked one of his rulings, and I didn’t like the other, but he is a person of unimpeachable integrity and great intelligence, and I’ve met him a few times,” Bush replied. “And he’s an impressive guy for sure. I think going forward, where we’re left as it relates to the marriage issue is it’s important for all of us to stay engaged, because I think what we need to do is try to make sure that religious freedom and conscience is protected, and also have a society that is just and loving that doesn’t discriminate. And I think if we can’t figure out how to do that, then we’re in a heap of trouble as a nation. I think we can do it, but it’s going to require a lot more than just this ruling to sort this stuff out.”