USA TODAY International Edition
Conservatives try to regroup
Some want to use court rulings to energize base
Conservatives, their knees buckled by two Supreme Court decisions this week that undercut their agenda, are regrouping and plotting a strategy to use health care and marriage to propel one of their own into the White House in 2016.
“There is sort of that shock of losing. It was not a conservative Supreme Court this week, and that is discouraging to folks,” said Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action for America.
“But they also realize that elections are coming up and there is a contested Republican primary. Most folks we work with and talk to still think there is a real chance to turn things around,” he said.
Heritage Action, the powerful organization of conservative activists, waited just two hours Friday before sending a fundraising email critical of the court’s decision legalizing same sex marriage across the country.
The plea contained a preview of their response on marriage: advocating for legislation to prevent the government from taking ad- verse action against anyone for their religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and woman.
Holler compared the strategy to how conservatives responded to the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, when they blocked federal funding for such procedures. “It’s an early way to push back on the decision,” he said. “We think that’s where this debate is shifting.”
The group is less enthusiastic about a constitutional amendment to limit marriage only to heterosexuals because it is a long and difficult process.
Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, one of the most conservative members of the House, equated the finding of a right to gay marriage in the Constitution to earlier decisions that found a right for people to hold slaves and to perform abortions.
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, characterized the gay marriage ruling as one involving religious liberty. “Today’s ruling cannot and must not be used to coerce a church or religious institution into performing marriages that their faith does not recognize. We should respect the sincerely held religious views of our fellow citizens, just as we respect those on the winning side of this case,” Priebus said.