You'll never know by the answer ben Quayle has been giving to various inquiries. Like Obama don't take a stance and you may get elected, it worked for Obama, why not Quayle? be
Part 1: Definition of Marriage
Ben Quayle is a lifelong social conservative according to his campaign literature.Not according to Politico and The Dirty Scottsdale
Ben has taken many positions that should give social conservatives pause. The definition of marriage is crystal clear to most social conservatives, but Ben’s statements (in italics) are clear as mud.
Center for Arizona Policy (link) June 10, 2010
Q5. Amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as between only one man and one woman. Support or Oppose.
NO POSITION. “Ben supports the Defense of Marriage Act and believes it is sufficient to protect traditional marriage. Constitutional amendment must be reserved for those issues where it is required.”
Arizona Catholic Conference (link) June 10, 2010
Q6. Amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as the union
of one man and one woman. Support or Oppose.
NO POSITION. “Ben supports the Defense of Marriage Act and believes that it is sufficient protection for marriage. Constitutional amendment must be reserved for only those issues where it is required.”
Arizona Republic (link) June 25, 2010
Would you support a federal same-sex marriage amendment?
“I believe that marriage is a state issue. Unfortunately, a few activist judges can overrule the will of the people. DOMA was overwhelmingly approved by bi-partisan majorities in Congress and signed by President Clinton. It was recently invalidated by a federal judge.
I support a federal marriage amendment because we need to keep activist judges from legislating from the bench. However, there are other routes we can take to protect traditional marriage that would be less burdensome than passing a constitutional amendment.”
Quayle Campaign Press Release (link) August 5, 2010
“I am appalled that an activist judge would overrule the people of California who have voted to uphold traditional values and defend the sacrament of marriage. We need judges who interpret the law, not make it up as they go along. Rulings like this one underscore the need for a Constitutional Amendment that will define marriage as between a man and a woman. Until then, we need to elect a Congress that will remove Federal jurisdiction over State marriage laws. I will support legislation to do just that, if I am elected.”
