Leading From the Rear: Carl DeMaio and the Republican Party

Message from the Publisher:

I would have laughed out loud if it wasn’t so sad, Carl DeMaio issued a statement after the Supreme Court ruling that partially said the following “Opposition to marriage equality has cost the Republican Party supporters – particularly among the younger generation. This decision provides a reflection point for the Republican Party. With today’s decision now the law of the land, I encourage Republican leaders to move on and accept the Golden Rule of treating everyone with respect and dignity and standing for the simple notion that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.” A beautiful statement that personifies leading from the rear.

The courage of DeMaio to chastise his party on the day that marriage equality becomes the law in this nation is not noteworthy. It would have been noteworthy had he taken that stand when he ran for City Council or Mayor but that is when DeMaio was politically hiding. Now that marriage equality is decided law, DeMaio wants to wag his finger at his party.  A politician to his core, DeMaio is simply trying to get something on the record for a future run for political office. DeMaio may think that he will be able to point to his “leadership” on this issue in the future but the real story will be that no one in his party listened.  Just look at the reactions of the Republican Party presidential contenders to the marriage equality ruling. Hey DeMaio, based upon your party leadership reactions, you either have no power or influence, or worse, your party has true homophobes in leadership with few notable exceptions. Warning, you’ll be pissed if you read all the way to the end. Remember to take that anger to the polling place.

“I believe that the court should have left the matter to the states but that Americans should also ‘respect’ each other while also protecting religious freedom. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.” Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

“Once again the Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down. Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!” Billionaire Donald Trump

“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.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

“The last 24 hours at the United States Supreme Court were among the darkest hours of our nation.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz

“Today, five unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now is the people’s opportunity to respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate. The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record.” Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum

“In my view you can put (marriage inequality) in the platform, but it will, in my view, hurt us in 2016, because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit of those who believe that opposing same-sex marriage is part of their faith. So no, I would not engage in the constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016.” South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

“This is something that should be decided by the people, not by, as (Roberts) called it, five lawyers. That said, those five lawyers get to impose it under our system.” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

“I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry

“This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be.” Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina

“While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.” Neurosurgeon Ben Carson

“This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. 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.” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio

“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

“The decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

If you were able to make it to the end of this story, congratulations. I would have closed it in disgust. Elections do matter and what a party stands for also matters. Please ask your LGBT friends to explain why they would vote for any of these Republican presidential contenders based upon their response to marriage equality. I am sure you will be enlightened. (Tongue firmly in cheek.)