Last week Herman Cain said he would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage or abortion. This weekend he said he would.
Herman Cain wants to play fast and loose with the constitution. The Republican presidential candidate told Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody this weekend that he supports constitutional amendments banning both abortion and gay marriage.
If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it,” he said when asked if he supports a “pro-life amendment” that “would trump Roe v. Wade.”
As for gay marriage, Cain insisted, “I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also.”
“I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there’s a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and that could cause an unraveling, so we do need some protection at the federal level because of that and so yes I would support legislation that would say that it’s between a man and a woman.”
He says he “used to” believe states should handle marriage as if he had grappled with this issue for years. That “used to,” however, was just last week, when he told NBC News host David Gregory, “I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage.”
Cain either had a complete change of heart or is simply pandering to conservatives. Considering Cain has also tweaked his abortion politics — he came under right wing fire last week for saying the issue should be left to the states — I’m leaning toward the latter. Voters therefore can’t truly know how Cain would handle these issues if he wins the presidency, but they can be sure that he’s an enormous opportunist, constantly altering his policies to suit his audience.
Even worse: he’s willing to use the Constitution to discriminate against people, which is the grossest misuse of our nation’s founding document imaginable.
October 24, 2011 at 11:21 am, Anonymous said:
“I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there’s a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and that could cause an unraveling, so we do need some protection at the federal level because of that and so yes I would support legislation that would say that it’s between a man and a woman.”
I’m sorry…did it really have any teeth to begin with? Mr. Cain is behind and on the wrong side of history on many things…this is just one of them.
What I wouldn’t give for “Reagan-like” Republicans again. Regardless, this pervasive type of mentality that runs through the right (stay out of my business, but get in everyone else’s) is only going to prove the extinction of the GOP. Check the stats…the younger generations don’t give a shit about gay marriage, realize the drug war is a waste and are pro legalization, lean towards more social safety nets (not less), and generally shift the center of politics pushing more moderate Republicans seemingly further to the right.
Twenty years ago, my left leaning beliefs were considered extreme, but these days I find myself squarely in the middle and wondering why I can’t find a single moderate in the GOP that is on the correct side regarding the future. I look over to the GOP Presidential hopefuls and can’t find a single one who I share anything with. It really is a hold your nose and vote group.
The Boomers are going to find themselves a bitter lost and lonely generation surrounded by a youth culture that doesn’t understand how they could ever have supported what they did.
October 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm, Maddog88 said:
Awesome! Could you please take it a bit further and remove women’s right to vote and black people from owning land. All of these problems started when people who should know their biblical place started getting uppity. Much thanks.
November 03, 2011 at 8:51 am, Chip Council said:
Women shouldn’t be able to speak in the church either. Also, there should be a constitutional ban on divorce and tithing should be compulsory. While we are out it, lets outlaw shell fish and polyester and cotton. Its time to go back to our biblical roots!
October 24, 2011 at 2:13 pm, Laura Chandler said:
“Herman Cain will say whatever he thinks audience wants to hear.”
Don’t they all! He is a super extra lame politician, to be sure, though.
Pardon my french, but Herman Cain? Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
No one wants to her it. No one cares! THE ECONOMY. JOBS. THE DEBT. THE WAR.
THIS is what we want to hear about. What is your plan to fix THESE things? Nothing. You don’t want to fix them. The Republicans are interested in maintaining these problems as status quo for the American Plan.
And you don’t get easy either Democrats, because at this point the Democrats are just a friendly version of the same problem above. No one wants to do ANYTHING to fix these problems, because they are getting lots of money and power to keep it as it is. THEY have jobs. They got billions in accumulated wealth the past decade. The Debt has zero effect on them. They aren’t the ones dying or fighting in the wars and their kids won’t be either. #OWS
October 24, 2011 at 2:32 pm, Reasonable Views said:
Every day Cain spends talking about constitutional amendments on social issues instead of 9-9-9 and getting the “engine” of the economy going again is a day he’s wasted and isn’t going to get back. We’ll find out really soon if comments/directional changes that would kill any other candidate affect the Hermanator. This past week was brutal for him, but he’s apparently still hanging in somehow http://bit.ly/nU13gY
October 24, 2011 at 7:15 pm, Anonymous said:
Ron Paul has the issue right. The government simply has no role in defining marriage. Get the government out of it and we won’t have this problem.
Cain says he is for reducing government, except when he wants to push his personal beliefs onto everyone.
October 24, 2011 at 7:38 pm, Anonymous said:
This would not be good for slogreport.com, but you know what it will never happen
October 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm, Shotinhell said:
Umm – The Pres. does not sign Amendments, they are ratified by the states after a two thirds majority vote in congress.
October 24, 2011 at 8:51 pm, Anonymous said:
No fair injecting sense.
(Though the president *can* sign amendments. It just has no legal effect.)
October 24, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Dan Marcum said:
First, neither of the Constitutional amendments he is supporting are discriminatory. Banning abortion extends equal protection to the unborn; banning gay marriage keeps marriage what it always has been. Those are not discriminatory policies because discrimination actually *picks some person or some class of people to hurt* — and neither of the proposed Constitutional amendments hurts anybody.
Second, his newly refined positions are different from what they were before, but not in an opportunist way. They are legitimate developments of the points he previously believed in. He believes that life is to be protected by law, even unborn life, and since not all States (individually) will do that, some kind of Federal-level action is necessary to guarantee the 14th Amendment’s proposition of equal protection for all. So that’s a legitimate development from “State issue” to “Federal issue” to protect the fundamental point he believes in.
And as for gay marriage, he is absolutely right to propose a Constitutional amendment if the interest is in protecting the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, is *pro* States rights, not against them). Because that Act is currently being weakened, and in the current political climate it probably won’t last long. The only long-term protection we can give it (that *I* can see) is to pump it up with Constitutional power. So that’s also a legitimate development from his prior “State issue” position, since at the State level DOMA is being weakened and it must therefore be taken to the Federal level to protect it.
October 24, 2011 at 10:01 pm, Siosilvar said:
Discrimination might pick some class of people to discriminate against, but it doesn’t have to explicitly state “okay, we hate gays, so let’s not let them marry each other.” It can be just maintaining the status quo – just like how poll taxes, land-ownership requirements, etc. maintained the status quo to discriminate against the black vote. It’s still discrimination.
October 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm, Dan Marcum said:
Still, a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is not discriminatory, because it doesn’t pick a class and harm them. It just keeps marriage as what it always has been — that’s all — and the current definition of marriage doesn’t harm homosexuals.
October 25, 2011 at 10:50 am, Lillie Ruby said:
Well, then how are gay couples going to achieve protection at the Federal level? It is discriminatory.
October 28, 2011 at 6:15 pm, Guest said:
By that argument, poll taxes would also not be discriminatory, because it’s not aimed at a class.
October 30, 2011 at 6:10 am, Poetrylovr49 said:
Marriage in the old testament was between a man and several women…so it was not “always between a man and a woman” as you state. It is a discrimination issue and needs to go away. I pay taxes and should be permitted to marry the person I love regardless of the sex of the individual.
November 03, 2011 at 8:56 am, Chip Council said:
doesn’t harm them? You need to talk to some bi-national couples that are not allowed to live in the same country, or same sex couples being assessed an inheritance tax after their life partner dies. Banning gay marriage does harm gays in very cruel ways.
November 03, 2011 at 9:23 am, Hal Warning said:
Would you consider Christians a class? They are allowed Freedom of Religion. Too bad we can’t include Freedom from Religion too…
I personally don’t think Christians should be allowed driver’s licenses. Yeah, I really want someone who believes a mystical unseen power controls their destiny and believes in a glorious afterlife after death to be driving a Hummer behind me on a wet Thursday morning…
October 27, 2011 at 12:23 am, Anonymous said:
The President has nothing to do with amending the Constitution,Congress does.Cain is becoming as big a flip flopper as Romney.
October 27, 2011 at 12:25 am, Anonymous said:
if someone stands on both sides of an issue,they stand on nothing.
October 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm, Jwoody216 said:
Does this guy know that at one time, Black Americans could not get married either. Really Mr. Cain? Maybe one day you will propose that gays and Lesbians jump a broom. Everyone in America should have the same rights if they pay the same taxes. I don’t see you giving a discount on taxes to people without certain rights.
9, 9, 9 = Kiss my behind.
November 18, 2011 at 3:46 am, Cain hater said:
I don’t support Cain, he is an idiot! Just like Obama. He can’t make up his mind and he is a big fat liar.
However, I do support a Constitutional amendment to ban all gay marriages, civil unions, etc. at a Federal level.
February 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm, a1253073 said:
I’ve said that least 1253073 times. SCK was here
February 12, 2012 at 3:42 am, get rid of bad breath said:
Does your website have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail. I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.
February 12, 2012 at 3:51 am, annuity premium tax california said:
Hey this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding knowledge so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
February 12, 2012 at 8:00 am, Melodi Moye said:
I want to convey my appreciation for your kindness for persons that have the need for help on this niche. Your very own dedication to passing the solution along turned out to be exceptionally informative and has consistently permitted workers much like me to arrive at their endeavors. The warm and friendly publication signifies much to me and much more to my colleagues. Thank you; from everyone of us.
February 12, 2012 at 9:11 am, tintenpatronen said:
Some good factors in it report. Encouraging to see facts truly worthy of searching. Keep up the endeavours
February 12, 2012 at 9:14 am, Druckerzubehör said:
Whoah this weblog is fantastic i really like studying your posts. Stay up the good paintings! You realize, a lot of people are searching around for this info, you could aid them greatly.
February 12, 2012 at 9:22 am, can you lose weight without exercise said:
I love reading personal blogs, Mommy blogs, etc. . . What is the best way to find these types of blogs online? The best method I have is just following favorites people have – going to one bloggers “favorites” then the next bloggers favorites, and so forth.. . I’ve tried Google Blogsearch but all that gives me is old news articles, etc. Nothing personal at all.. . How do you search for personal blogs?.
February 12, 2012 at 9:22 am, Triggerpunkte selbst behandeln said:
I like this post, enjoyed this one thank you for putting up.
February 12, 2012 at 9:26 am, viagra für die frau said:
Some truly nice stuff on this internet site, I love it.
February 12, 2012 at 9:47 am, pit tanio said:
Your pieces can not even be anymore amusing considering that it really kept my eyes stuck to your http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/153673/herman-cain-changes-tune-amend-constitution-to-ban-gay-marriage-abortion/. You have incredible talent and are generally fortunate to be delivered with such great presents. Anticipating your next article. pit tanio
February 12, 2012 at 10:20 am, Digital Signage said:
Very fantastic information can be found on website .
February 12, 2012 at 11:35 am, Wedding Photographer said:
Danke für dies Angebote, das Bereich hat mich interessé echt entscheident. Grace hinein das Angebote habe ich beste Sachen entscheident gelernt, alle ich in keinster weise kannte. Danke, bravo oder Respekt.
February 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm, lower body workout said:
I like your site. Very cool. Will come back.
February 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm, que es la balanza said:
Hey! This really is kind of off topic but I need to have some advice from an established weblog. Is it difficult to set up your personal blog? I’m not quite techincal but I can figure points out pretty quick. I’m thinking about creating my own but I’m not confident exactly where to start. Do you’ve any tips or suggestions? Cheers
February 12, 2012 at 3:30 pm, ovale shop said:
Can I move a secondary Tumblr blog to a different account?
February 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm, Marine Surveyor Sydney said:
Enjoyed reading through this, very good stuff, thanks .
February 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm, Nikon said:
I completely realize everything you have said. Really, I browsed by way of your additional content material articles and I feel you happen to be definitely correct. Great job with this online web site.
December 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm, sudhiart said:
*Im impressed, I should say. Truly rarely do I encounter a blog thats both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, youve hit the nail on the head. Your thought is outstanding; the concern is something that not enough individuals are speaking intelligently about. I am really happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.