Currently, the language adopted during the 2012 platform calls the “redefinition of marriage” by state courts an “assault on the foundations of society.” It’s unclear whether or not this language will be eliminated. But the compromise that some delegates are expecting is the addition of “equality language.”…
Jim Bopp Jr., a conservative Indiana delegate on the platform, said the old platform language on same-sex marriage is no longer appropriate since last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry nationwide.
This won’t change the core of the issue, Bopp told CBS News. He also said that adopting friendlier language toward gays and lesbians should not be perceived as a major concession by conservatives.
“Trump has stood with the victims of Islamic terrorist who murdered gay people because they are gay but so did I – that’s not being gay friendly, that’s being human friendly,” Bopp said. “If the question is should they murdered, of course not. But if it’s whether or not we should have gay marriage, it has nothing to do with it. They weren’t killed in Orlando because they couldn’t get married, they were killed because they are gay. And we oppose that.”
Update: Jim Bopp sent the following to the election law listserv in response to this post:
This is so wrong:
First, could someone tell me and, especially you Rick, what this has to do with election law.
Second, your headline is not even close to even describing what the article said.
Third, the only statement that arguably reflects any statement I made in the article is this one, of course ignoring everything else I said:
“Jim Bopp Jr., a conservative Indiana delegate on the platform, said the old platform language on same-sex marriage is no longer appropriate since last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry nationwide.”
Here the CBS Reporter failed to report the detail of my statement, making it grossly misleading. What I said was that the sentence in the 2012 GOP platform that calls for states to adopt putting traditional marriage in their state conventions is now obsolete because of the Supreme Court decision. I then said that what we need to add to the platform, because of the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage. is to call for that decision to be overturned.
Fourth, right after that paragraph, I said:
“This won’t change the core of the issue, Bopp told CBS News.”
So, come on Rick, what a ridiculous headline. Jim Bopp
And here is my response to Jim:
My apologies for drawing the wrong inference from the article’s statement that you believed the old platform language was no longer appropriate. I will update my post with this response from you.
(As for what it has do with election law—-I post items of political interest on my blog on issues beyond election law. Indeed, I spend and have spent a great deal of time discussing Supreme Court confirmations, even though that is not election law. A few years ago we had a listserv discussion about whether I should not circulate those items, and the conclusion of that discussion was that I should still circulate those items.)
Regardless, I do apologize for misunderstanding your position from my reading of the article and will update.