ABC's Matt Dowd Continues His Leftward Drift, Shocked Court Isn't Eagerly Embracing Gay Marriage

ABC political analyst Matt Dowd on Sunday continued his evolution to the left, complaining about how disconnected the Supreme Court is from public opinion on gay marriage. Dowd, who worked for the Bush administration, appeared on This Week and chided, "To me, it's actually surprising that the Supreme Court is that actually far out of tune where the country is."

He pushed, "So, the country is way ahead on this. So, that's what I don't understand why the Supreme Court seems reluctant to weigh in an issue where the country is already moved on." Dowd, who is often billed as a down-the-line analyst for ABC, mocked the concept of traditional marriage in the past: "...If you want to go to traditional marriage, it wasn't monogamous, races couldn't marry. Women were property and they couldn't give consent."

During the 2012 presidential election, Dowd drifted leftward. On October 16, 2012, he dismissed conservative complaining about how CNN's Candy Crowley handled the second presidential debate.

The former Bush operative hyped, "When you start attacking the ref, or start attacking the umpire, it means you left a lot of plays on the field, and when you see that, you know they know they lost."

On the question of whether the American public is "way ahead" on gay marriage, it depends on how the question is asked. One recent poll had it at 49/46 in favor of same sex unions.

A partial transcript of Dowd's March 31 comments can be found below:  


MATT DOWD: To me, it's actually surprising that the Supreme Court is that actually far out of tune where the country is. The country right now, a majority of the country right now supports same-sex marriage, a vast majority of country. It's moved a lot in the last ten years. The country is more evolved and more consistent on this issue than any other social issue that has come before the Supreme Court. More than it was on interracial marriage. Only 20 percent of people supported interracial marriage when the Supreme Court made that decision in 1967. More congealed on this than civil rights. More congealed on this than abortion. So, the country is way ahead on this. So, that's what I don't understand why the Supreme Court seems reluctant to weigh in an issue where the country is already moved on.

...

10:11

DOWD: The argument to me, that people say this is an institution, a traditional institution for 2,000, 3,000 years, ignores the fact that the institution that, if you want to go to traditional marriage, it wasn't monogamous, races couldn't marry. Women were property and they couldn't give consent. That was the traditional view of marriage for 2,000 years. It isn't this– Marriage has evolved over the course of time. This is just another evolution.

Scott Whitlock
Scott Whitlock
Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center and a contributing editor for NewsBusters.org