At a press conference this afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to a question about First Lady Michelle Obama’s comments at various campaign stops yesterday defending same-sex couples right to “love whomever they choose.” Stopping short of indicating support for marriage equality, Carney explained that her comments referred to the President’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act:

CARNEY: She has said this before and has for some time, and that is a reference to the president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act. The president and first lady firmly believe that gay and lesbian Americans and their families deserve legal protections and the ability to thrive just like any family does. The first lady has said she is proud of his accomplishments, including the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ ensuring hospital visitation rights and calling for the repeal of DOMA and obviously our actions on DOMA. And our decision not to defend DOMA is well known.

The only kind of legal protection that would allow same-sex families “to thrive just like any family does” is marriage, so this comment represents perhaps the closest the Obama administration has come to openly supporting marriage equality. As Greg Sargent pointed out today in the Washington Post, the first lady’s rehtoric “was just vague enough to again underscore the confusion that surrounds the White House’s position on this issue,” and Carney’s response only accentuates that confusion. Nevertheless, without a full-throated endorsement, the President presumably continues to “evolve” on whether he personally supports legalizing same-sex marriage.

As the presidential campaign continues, even some Republicans are trying to moderate their party’s stance on women’s issue in the wake of polls showing female voters abandoning the GOP.

Even the Santorum campaign seems aware of the possible danger. Appearing on Piers Morgan last night, Rick Santorum’s wife, Karen, tried to address concerns that her husband is “anti-woman,” noting that when she went on a book tour several years ago, he supported her by staying home “changing diapers and making meals and cleaning the kitchen.” She went on to promise women that, if her husband was elected, they would have “nothing to fear” when it comes to the issue of contraception:

KAREN SANTORUM: It makes me really sad that the media tries to do that to him. They try to make it look like he is something that he’s not. Rick is a great guy, he’s completely supportive of women, he’s surrounded by a lot of very strong women, and I think women have nothing to fear. When it comes to contraceptives, he will do nothing on that issue.

[...]

PIERS MORGAN: When you say he’ll do nothing on the contraception issue, do you mean that, if he was to become President, that he would basically respect a woman’s right to have contraception if that’s what she chose to do?

KAREN SANTORUM: Absolutely. And he has said that.

Watch:

In fact, Rick Santorum has made a point of attacking contraception at several points during the campaign. Last year, he pledged that, if elected, he would end federal funding for contraception, arguing, “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Santorum has also claimed that states have the right to ban birth control, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, and dismissed it as a “minor expense” despite the fact that a year’s supply of the Pill could cost up to $600.

While polls show that most Americans do support women having access to contraception, Rick Santorum and the other Republican candidates have taken the opposite stance throughout the campaign. The notion that women have “nothing to fear” from a Santorum presidency does not match up with his rhetoric.

-Zachary Bernstein

Rick Santorum yesterday tried to explain to Fox News contributor Sandy Rios why Catholic voters do not eagerly support him, despite the fact that he’s Catholic. He claimed he performs better “with folks who do practice their religion more ardently,” as opposed to those who do not “take their faith seriously“:

RIOS: You are doing very well among evangelicals, not so well among Catholics. I have my own theory about that, but I want to know what yours is this.

SANTORUM: I really wish I could tell you. I think the bottom line is that we do well among people who take their faith seriously, and as you know just like some Protestants, some Protestants are not church going, they are folks who identify with a particular religion but don’t necessarily practice that from the standpoint of going to church and the like, and I think, you know, with folks who do practice their religion more ardently I tend to do well.

RIOS: I have to interrupt you, I totally agree. I think you take your faith seriously and for the serious believers, you’e the man.

Listen:

Aside from Santorum’s offensive rebuke of President John F. Kennedy’s perspective on the separation of church and state, what’s more likely at play is that Catholic voters in general disagree with Catholic dogma on social issues. Santorum takes his cues from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but just as the bishops, cardinals, and Pope are not elected by congregants, neither do they represent the perspective of Catholic voters, most of whom support marriage equality, as an example.

In an interview last night with Piers Morgan on CNN, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) explained that marriage equality is settled law in his state and “everybody’s moved on”:

MORGAN: Massachusetts is one of the states that’s approved gay marriage. How do you personally feel about that?

BROWN: Well, it’s settled law in Massachusetts. Quite frankly, everybody’s moved on.

MORGAN: Do people care that much? I mean, those who argue against it say this is like the end of civilization as we know it.

BROWN: Certainly some people care. And others have moved on. But they’re really concerned about how they’re going to pay their mortgage. Both people, gay and straight, they’re wondering about how they’re going to pay their mortgage, or if their kids and families are going to come home safe as they travel around the country and the world.

It’s debt, deficit, taxes, spending, jobs, national security. We’ve moved on. I encourage everyone else to move on. It should be decided state by state basis. I’m focusing on those other things.

Watch it:

Despite his disinterest in discussing the issue, Brown still opposes marriage equality. Just two weeks ago, Massachusetts Democrats were urging Brown to change his position, but he dismissed it as a “social issue.” He has voted to ban same-sex marriage twice before, and he even refused to participate in an “It Gets Better” video for LGBT youth with the Massachusetts Congressional delegation.

Supporters of marriage equality urged lawmakers to preserve New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law at a news conference Monday, just days before the House is expected to take up a measure that would repeal the state’s marriage equality law and re-instate civil unions. Some two-dozen supporters of the pro-marriage ‘Standing Up For New Hampshire Families’ group argued that marriage equality is a civili rights issue and warned legislators against establishing a two-tier system of unions that would transform gay and lesbian couples into second-class citizens:

STATE REP. JENNIFER COFFEY (R): Under the bill, folks who are already married, of which there are approximately 2,000….they stay married. But anybody that falls after them, they’re not really married. So you got this second-class citizen being set-up and inequality of law is something many of us take very seriously.

Watch it:

Under the bill New Hampshire Republicans will take up on Wednesday, same-sex couples would lose their right to marry and could instead enter into civil unions starting March 31, 2013. In the meantime, voters would have the opportunity to respond to a non-binding question as to whether they agree with the legislation. The vote would have no legal impact, but would indicate to lawmakers essentially whether voters like the repeal or not. Should voters approve of the repeal, it proceeds as planned. If they reject it, the legislature would have to act again before March to overturn the measure, but would be under no obligation to do so.

Lawmakers would need to muster a two-thirds majority to pass the repeal legislation, however, as Gov. John Lynch (D-NH) has pledged “stand firm against any legislation that will strip any of our citizens of their civil rights.” At yesterday’s press conference Republican Rep. J. Michael Ball predicted that supporters would fall short of that requirement. “We put this thing off, and put it off and put it off because this is an indication that there are not enough votes to override the Governor’s promised veto,” he said. “And the reason is because there is a large core of Republicans — many of them are very liberty minded — who refuse to roll back the clock here and take rights away from people.”