Did Cortez Masto (D-NV) kill any of her chances for higher office?

[Holmes]

Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto has been touted as being a great candidate for either the governor's office, or for senate when (if) Harry Reid were to ever retire. But in a recent brief filed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, she not only defended the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but also compares it to polygamous and pedophilic relationships as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/01/23/nevada-ag-invokes-bigamy-incest-defend-marriage-ban/

So. Does this hurt her chances for higher office? General elections are not fought and won on same-sex marriage anymore, but a Democratic primary is much different situation. What are everyone's thoughts?

[Miles]

I mean, Roy Cooper in NC has to defend laws that he doesn't personally agree with. The comparisons to polygamy and incest are over the top here though.

[Holmes]

I mean, Roy Cooper in NC has to defend laws that he doesn't personally agree with. The comparisons to polygamy and incest are over the top here though.

I'd wager that support for same-sex marriage among Democrats in Nevada is higher than in North Carolina, so I don't think AG Cooper would be hurt too much if he were to defend his state's same-sex marriage ban.

[RogueBeaver]

She's not running for higher office, and Dem primaries aren't usually contested because Reid makes sure they aren't. So probably not.

[RedSLC]

I mean, Roy Cooper in NC has to defend laws that he doesn't personally agree with. The comparisons to polygamy and incest are over the top here though.

I'd wager that support for same-sex marriage among Democrats in Nevada is higher than in North Carolina, so I don't think AG Cooper would be hurt too much if he were to defend his state's same-sex marriage ban.

^^^^
This. Apparently, the democratic AG's of Missouri and Mississippi are in the same situation, along with Mary Landrieu in the Senate. It makes sense for them to do it in those states (especially LA and MS), but I'm pretty certain the majority of Nevada residents support SSM at this point. It makes no sense politically for her to defend the ban.

[TX Conservative Dem]

She has nothing to lose

[Nutmeg]

This is pretty weak, especially coming in the same week as AG Herring's heroism, but I don't think most people would pay attention to a legal filing like this in determining their vote in a future election.

[RogueBeaver]

She's suffered a severe backlash and Reid has already telegraphed his disappointment. No Dem wins a statewide primary without Reid's approval, as we all know. Interesting part is she didn't even have to file a brief.

[Alcon]

I'm the last person to defend anti-gay beliefs, but this is being completely misconstrued.  She gave examples where the state regulates marriage based on the desire to "protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."  When you analogize x to y, you do not claim that they have all of the same traits.  In this case, the category of comparison is things that New Mexico asserts "protect and perpetuate marriage."  That's all this text claims prohibiting gay marriage shares in common with prohibiting consanguinity.  It doesn't mean that all regulations "protect and perpetuate marriage" to the same degree, or in the same way.  It merely says that all regulations exist to "protect and perpetuate marriage" in some way, and that the state has a right to do that.  That may be a substantively incorrect argument, but it's tremendously less offensive and scandalous.

I understand that placing the two items in the same sentence encourages idiots to equate them.  (That's fair, although it's disappointing that we're abandoning analogies to appease idiots.)  However, I don't like the tendency of smart political people to sometimes pretend like they don't understand what an analogy is.