Republicans eyeing the presidency nearly all insist that states should make their own decisions on whether to allow same-sex marriage.

But the latest dispute in Alabama? That’s a topic they’d rather avoid.


When pressed on the fight in the Deep South state, where the chief justice has ordered county officials to ignore a federal court ruling permitting same-sex marriages, likely GOP 2016 contenders reached by POLITICO or interviewed elsewhere have largely tried to sidestep specifics.

Even some of the most conservative hopefuls prefer instead to talk more broadly about federalism and states’ rights, comments that come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right applicable nationwide.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s answer is a typical example: “The problem is, I just don’t know the details of what arguments they are using” in Alabama, he said, adding that while he has “always believed that marriage has always been defined by states and regulated by states and should continue to be,” he would respect the Supreme Court decision.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is pushing a constitutional amendment to require that the federal government defer to the states on same-sex marriage, also avoided discussing the particulars of the Alabama case. “My view is that marriage is a question for the states,” he said.

One notable exception was retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a favorite among the conservative grassroots, who defended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s instructions. “Roy Moore understands the importance of preserving states’ rights in the modern post-Civil War world in which we live,” Carson told POLITICO in an email sent from his spokesman.

The overall cautious responses to the Alabama case expose that there’s a limit to how far Republicans will go to oppose same-sex marriage as they prepare for a presidential election.

For one thing, even as the conservative base still strongly opposes gay marriage, the broader electorate is increasingly open to the idea. A May Gallup poll showed that 55 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, while just 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of self-described conservatives favor it.

Although Moore says he is taking a stand against federal intrusion, a favorite rallying cry for conservatives, experts note note that his legal arguments are shaky at best. His statements also have at times been provocative, making it even tougher for Republicans to line up behind him.

The fact that the latest flashpoint is in Alabama, where the call for states’ rights was part of its civil rights-era resistance to federal desegregation orders, makes the issue more sensitive for the GOP, which has long struggled among minority voters.

Still, it’s striking to see so many Republicans tread so carefully on an issue that less than a decade ago was a big political winner.

In 2006 — two years after incumbent President George W. Bush put Democratic challenger John Kerry on the defensive on the issue — Congress only narrowly voted down a bill to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Seven co-sponsors on Cruz’s amendment to get the federal government out of the marriage business were in Congress at the time — all voted for the bill.

“There’s an understanding that a focus on the marriage equality fight is, No. 1, not a winning issue” for Republicans, said Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.

“You’ll see more and more Republicans, like [former Florida Gov.] Jeb Bush recently, trying to carve out some middle ground,” said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton administration adviser and a gay rights advocate.

Bush did not respond for comment, but said in a statement last month after a federal judge struck down Florida’s ban: “[R]egardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law.”

Others have been even more circumspect.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, an outspoken social conservative who supports Cruz’s amendment, skirted the question repeatedly when asked three times on CNN for his thoughts on the Alabama case. (He never said the word “Alabama” once.)

A spokeswoman for Rick Perry, asked twice about the former Texas governor’s thoughts on the situation, said only: “This is a matter between the State of Alabama and the courts.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker touted states’ rights and his support for Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban in an email to POLITICO when queried about Alabama.

And former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa caucuses with heavy support from evangelical and social conservative voters, railed against “judicial supremacy” in a Newsmax interview, but didn’t say definitively whether Alabama counties should continue to defy the federal ruling. A Huckabee spokesperson didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.

Regardless of the sensitivity surrounding the Yellowhammer State, the Supreme Court’s expected ruling has given some Republicans fuel to warn about the danger of federal intrusion.

“This is an important conversation that is going on in churches and states across the country. I think that the worst thing the federal courts can do right now is shortcut this conversation,” former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, the only female potential 2016 contender on the GOP side so far, said in an email through her spokeswoman.

Jindal, in his CNN interview, noted that a strong majority of his state’s residents support a same-sex marriage ban and warned against courts threatening to “throw out” Louisiana’s decision.

Federal district court Judge Callie Granade ruled late last month that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage — a constitutional amendment approved by 81 percent of voters in a 2006 referendum — was unconstitutional.

Moore, though, ordered that state probate judges defy the federal ruling and uphold the state ban, arguing that since the judges weren’t named as defendants, the ruling didn’t apply to them.

Granade ruled Thursday that Mobile County probate judge Don Davis must award same-sex marriage licenses, a decision that some have suggested sent a strong message to other state judges to do the same.

Before the ruling, probate judges in 23 out of 67 Alabama counties were handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. By Friday, 47 counties were issuing marriage licenses, according to Freedom to Marry, a pro-same-sex marriage group involved in the legal fight.

University of Alabama law professor Ronald Krotoszynski argued that while Moore’s technical argument about judges not being named defendants might have some merit, the federal ruling is clearly binding. “A federal court can issue a binding order against a state judge. Full stop. This is not complicated stuff,” he said.

Krotoszynski said that presidential contenders were likely unwilling to embrace Moore’s position in Alabama due to the shaky legal argument in the case.

And then there’s Moore himself, who has drawn comparisons to former Gov. George Wallace, who invoked the states’ rights defense in arguing against school desegregation in the 1960s.

“There’s definitely resonances between Wallace’s opposition to federal court authority and some of the things chief justice Moore has been saying,” Krotoszynski said, noting both Wallace and Moore’s use of the phrase “tyranny” to describe federal involvement.

In an interview earlier this week, Moore said that even though he has “many friends that are homosexual,” he wouldn’t attend a gay wedding and he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court has the authority to “re-define marriage.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.