Perhaps team Rudy is reading
Kurtz as well. He apparently sees this an opportunity to remind voters of his pledge on judges. Spokeswoman Maria Comella in response to my question on the Iowa ruling said : “It’s becoming increasingly clear why we need judges who interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench. It’s the reason why Rudy is committed to appointing strict constructionist judges in the vein of Alito, Roberts and Scalia. ” As to the merits of the ruling, she declined comment but reiterated that Giuliani opposes gay marriage.
By my count, that puts three of the top contenders –Rudy, Fred and McCain — in essentially the same boat. They oppose gay marriage but wouldn’t support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Romney would go further and pass a constitutional amendment. If you think the full faith and credit problem has yet to manifest itself (i.e. federal and state courts haven’t yet forced states without gay marriage to honor gay marriages from another state) and think states like Iowa can and should work this out by state constitutional amendment, legislation or court ruling the former approach may seem fine. If not, you’ll like Romney’s approach.
