Ohio Gov. John Kasich at Thursday's debate.
Anyone watching the GOP debates Thursday might have noticed a sharp contrast in the candidates' handling of two issues: abortion and LGBT rights. While
the candidates crowed about defunding Planned Parenthood and their enthusiasm for forcing women and girls to carry their babies to term regardless of circumstance (rape, incest, or potential loss of life), they exhibited little zeal for the topic of same-sex marriage.
If anything, Ohio Gov. John Kasich's assertion that he would unconditionally embrace his daughters if they were gay practically won the night on social issues—appealing to moderates on both sides of the aisle. Asked by moderator Megyn Kelly how he would explain his opposition to same-sex marriage to a gay son or daughter, Kasich first noted that the Supreme Court has ruled and "we'll accept it" before adding that he had recently attended the wedding of a gay friend.
"Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or can’t love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith."
Kasich stopped several times for heavy applause, then gave an almost boyish smile upon finishing and realizing he had hit the answer out of the park.
No other candidate jumped in to challenge Kasich's answer. Rand Paul was asked directly what he would do to "ensure Christians are not prosecuted for speaking out against gay marriage."
"Look, I don’t want my marriage or my guns registered in Washington," he said. "And if people have an opinion, it’s a religious opinion that is heartly felt, obviously they should be allowed to practice that and no government should interfere with them."
It surely fell short of the kind of hot-button call and response the GOP's religious zealots wanted to hear.
For more on the GOP surrender, head below the fold.
In fact, it was perhaps telling that only the most marginalized candidates—those in the GOP Jr. debate—chose to really make an issue of suppressing LGBT rights, even though they did it under the guise of "religious liberty." Red-hot candidate Bobby Jindal volunteered that he would take executive action to ensure business owners opposing same-sex marriage could discriminate against gay couples freely.
“I would sign an executive order protecting religious liberty, our First Amendment rights, so Christian business owners and individuals don’t face discrimination for having a traditional view of marriage,” Jindal added.
Rick Santorum, in the throes of a swan song run, joined Jindal in pledging executive action to guard against people being "persecuted by the federal government for standing up for their religious beliefs."
The only prime time debater to leverage "religious liberty" was Ted Cruz, but it was more of a drive-by reference than anything. And the always classy man of God, Mike Huckabee, took a potshot at transgender service members.
"The military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. It’s not to transform the culture by trying out some ideas that some people think would make us a different country and more diverse. The purpose is to protect America."
Yep, it is. That's why we don't kick out qualified service members who are making a solid contribution to the military for some completely irrelevant reason.
Huckabee's ignorance aside, the top GOP candidates demonstrated little appetite for making a name for themselves by railing against LGBT freedom and marriage equality—at least in front of an audience of 24 million viewers.
Opposition to LGBT equality will certainly continue to surface among Republicans in 2016, but it's more likely to be disguised as a crusade for "religious liberty" than the full-throated denunciation of "homosexuality" we have grown accustomed to from GOP candidates.
American women, however, bore the full brunt the GOP's religious fanaticism last Thursday. No filter.