An important news story by Patrick Condon in the Associated Press confirms what we have been highlighting for a long time -- Republicans who betray their base on marriage place their political future in serious jeopardy:
As some Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature weigh whether to support legalizing same-sex marriage, an analysis of gay-marriage votes from other states shows that GOP lawmakers who backed it often faced consequences, including loss of their seats.
... Republicans inclined to back gay marriage face risks.
"It was largely responsible for my loss," said Jean White, a former Republican state senator in Colorado whose 2011 vote for civil unions became an issue in a primary challenge by a fellow Republican...
According to roll call votes, in the eight times nationwide that state legislatures voted for gay marriage, just 47 Republicans bucked the party line out of many hundreds who voted against it.
Of those 47 Republicans who voted yes starting in 2009, 21 are in office today.
In New York, one of four Republican senators who supported gay marriage is still in the Legislature. One lost a primary, one retired, and one lost the general election after narrowly winning a bitter primary.
A New Hampshire Republican representative lost a primary after her 2009 vote for gay marriage, and in Maryland the former Senate Republican leader relinquished his leadership post when he started working with Democrats on a gay-marriage bill that passed last year.
"I got a lot of flak, a lot," said that senator, Allan Kittleman. He's planning to leave the Senate this year to run for a county office instead.
In Washington, which passed gay marriage in 2012, two of six Republicans who backed the bill are no longer in office.
4 Comments
Republicans need to understand they will not be office when they vote against common sense and the lords truth about marriage.
@M.Jones
Republicans just need to understand they're their to serve their constituents, not the state capital.
I leave the corruption and special interest lobbying for the left.
typo: they're there*
Are you seriously arguing that politicians should harm their constituents 'cuz you'll get them if they don't?
Can't argue on the merits, I see.
But you're not actually even arguing that--you need to compare to a control group for that. What's the rate of Republicans who have retained their seats over that period of time AT ALL?
I have no idea what the answer to that question is, and it's not relevant to the merits or facts of the issue (obviously), but given that you've avoided mentioning it I would guess it doesn't look the way you want it to?
If you have to deceive to argue for your conclusion, that itself says something about your position.