Gay Marriage Fallout for Linda McMahon?

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Linda McMahon won the endorsement of Peter Wolfgang, one of Connecticut\’s leading social conservatives, because of her views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

But following Sunday\’s debate, when McMahon flip-flopped and announced her support for repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Wolfgang says his Sept. 18 endorsement is \”no longer accurate.\”

\”I\’m still voting for Linda because her victory could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. But because Linda McMahon flip-flopped and now supports a repeal of DOMA–the one federal law that stops Connecticut\’s judicially imposed re-definition of marriage from being imposed on the rest of the nation–my September 18th endorsement of her is no longer accurate,\’\’ Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut wrote on his Facebook page.

McMahon has also repeatedly identified herself as \”pro-choice\” in recent weeks, as Democrats have stepped up their attacks on her for expressing support for the Blunt Amendment.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

20 thoughts on “Gay Marriage Fallout for Linda McMahon?

  1. DR

    Must be lonely to be a social conservative in CT. Even the Republicans support the right of same sex couples to marry. Great to see the GOP making progress…if they continue to support more mainstream social issues like same sex marriage, they will finally be able to get some traction in CT.

    I think most CT Republicans are like me – socially moderate, supportive of individual freedoms (like same sex marriage) and fiscally conservative.

  2. ct gop'er

    If anything, her change of heart will only help her in CT. As we’ve seen for years now, socially conservative candidates just can’t win major office here. The people who think otherwise are living in the past.

    The only way for CT to contribute to a more fiscally responsible state and nation is to forget about big-government social conservatism and focus on fiscal responsibility and individual freedom.

  3. dave

    A little confusing. You no longer support her, but you’re still voting for her. Does he plan on only partially voting for her? Why give someone like this any exposure?

  4. Bill Noble

    I cannot support a candidate who made her millions selling soft porn and degrading women…Wake up people…a senate seat should not be for sale and be won by a person who put morals in the background to make millions but then tries to put morals in the foreground during a bought and paid for political campaign. Do we really want a soft porn queen representing us in congress…What a hypocrite.

    1. Kim

      whose morals are you talking about Bill, yours or everyone elses? Morals are personal.

      Do you have the same viewpoint on Obama? His history prior to election is full of associations and support for America haters.

      Made money debasing women? You are implying that the women in question were forced at gunpoint to be well-paid entertainers. What nonsense

    2. Jennifer

      Figures you’re name is Noble. Get off your high horse Bill. You can’t “sell” anything is there is no market for it. If people don’t like the WWE, then don’t go, there’s no law making you watch it or buying the toys for your children. Apparently the women wrestlers didn’t mind getting paid by the McMahons. Murphy is a deadbeat. How many jobs has he created for CT? Companies are leaving here in droves. McMahon has my vote all the way.

  5. Shawn M Lang

    From what I understand, she didn’t say she supported same sex marriage, she said she supported the US law on it, which is DOMA, and that’s in opposition to same sex marriage. Wha’?

  6. RobbieBobbie

    @dave – He doesn’t endorse her because he doesn’t support same-sex marriage. But, he makes clear that he is still voting for her because she is still the better choice in the race. He wont endorse her/put his name behind her, but at the same time he doesn’t want his withdraw of endorsement to effect people not turning out for her because Murphy is ten times worse. Makes sense.

  7. chris

    when in all seriousness was the last time that a moderate republican won statewide office in Connecticut? Has anyone ever dug deep enough to see just how many social conservatives sit on the sidelines at election time? Linda McMahon had a chance. Deride Pete Wolfgang as you will. As damaged and vulnerable as Chris Murphy is, I predict he wipes the floor with Linda McMahon on election day. She unfortunately doesn’t know what she believes when it comes to social issues.

  8. 29Morgan

    WOMEN OF CT WAKE UP! I am a grandmother and have worked so hard so that my daughters and grandaughters can finally have control over THEIR OWN BODIES. McMahon says she’s pro choice, but in the end she’ll have NO CHOICE, but to join her own party and vote Roe VS Wade down. Please use your common sense on this matter. No one is in favor of abortions, but this is a very serious and life altering decision for a woman and for most of them it is never taken lightly, but at least it is theirs to make, not the gov’t.

    1. Kim

      so killing unborn humans should be legal under all circumstances? That makes perfect sense and is perfectly moral as well.

    2. johngaltwhereru


      Congress cannot “vote Roe v. Wade” down. The Supreme Court must strike down a previous decision.

      The only way Congress could reverse Roe is with a Constitutional Amendment. This would require two thirds of both houses of Congress to vote for the Amendment, the President to sign it,then 75% of the States to ratify the Amendment. In other words, it ain’t gonna happen.

      Therefore, if your decision to vote against McMahon is based on losing your cherished right of convenience, perhaps you should stay home on election day.

      1. Mike Robinson

        Look at me, Chris, I’m an old woman. There is no way I will ever need these services. And if I did, I would just take a private jet to a country where it is legal. Same as anyone else. Why all the fuss?

  9. Dan

    McMahon is right not to support DOMA but for the wrong reason. DOMA is a regulation of marriage. Regulating marriage is not an enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution. It is therefore unconstitutional on the federal level as it is a power reserved to the states or to the people per the 10th Amendment. Her support for repeal ignores the fact Congress cannot repeal a power never granted to them by the Constitution.

Comments are closed.