Ted Cruz: gay marriage issue should be decided at the state level

[Likely Voter]

Conservatives see the writing on the wall for SSM and have moved to this new defensive posture. At this point they know that there is never going to be a blanket federal ban so the best they can hope for is that the Fed government doesn't force all the states to accept SSM.

The states rights position is the same one used by defenders of segregation as moves against that swept the country in a similar way 50 years ago.

Of course if you are a evangelical conservative in IA or NH you may want someone (cough-Santorum-cough) to pander to you and tell you they can make it all better and take the gay away.

[Likely Voter]

I would say that one non-religious reasoning for opposing SSM is that it is simply not the government's business to get involved in the financial lives of SS couples.  If we say that marriage laws and benefits are created with the intention to protect women and married mothers, and in effect protect biological children, then SSM falls outside the scope of marriage laws.

Wow, talk about redefining marriage! How do you think it would go if Ted Cruz or some other 2016 Republican says that SSM should be banned because marriage is only for the purpose of making babies.

Of course this specious argument is just some kind of bizarre legal grasping of straws now that the "gays are icky" and "but the bible says..." arguments are out of favor. However it of course ignores quite of few things:
1. Homosexual couples actually can have biological children (via surrogates and artificial insemination)
2. Opposite sex couples that cannot (or chose not to) have children are not excluded from marriage
3. No state or federal laws distinguishes between biological children and adopted children in terms of taxes, benefits, etc.

I expect that if he or anyone else made this argument he will get laughed at (just like the lawyer defending CA Prop 8 got literally laughed at when he brought up the procreation issue during oral arguments at the Supreme Court)

[Likely Voter]

Apparently it is possible in a GOP primary to be attacked for not being anti-gay enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/liz-cheney-gay-marriage-ad_n_4056983.html

Liz Cheney says she is "is not pro gay marraige" but she is being attacked  in the WY primary for having the "leave it up to the states" position. While I don't think Rick Santorum would run such an ad, I could see an outside group running ads in IA against Christie or others who don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (which was part of the GOP platform in 2012).

[Likely Voter]

While everyone agrees that there is movement towards acceptance of SSM and how the "states rights" position is the new normal for a GOP candidate, there can be no doubt that there are some on the religious right who are still as anti gay rights as ever. And remember that both the early states of IA and NH have gay marriage so telling socons there "leave it up to the states" does them no good. They want someone to tell them that they will fight to end SSM in their states (it isn't realistic but pandering is pandering). And with IA being a caucus, those kinds of voters can make a difference. The last two IA caucuses were won by Huckabee and Santorum, drawing off the socon vote. It wont be the defining issue but I wouldn't be surprised if an outside group (like they are doing in WY) came in and tried to make it an issue.