Gay Marriage

Gay Weddings Prepare to Crash GOP Primaries

Latest poll has more Republicans saying opposition to same-sex marriage unacceptable.

|

I was tired of all the wedding cake pictures, OK?
Credit: Kiss My Buttercream / photo on flickr

Evidence from recent behavior by the Supreme Court suggests that, as a legal issue, the conflict over gay marriage recognition will be done by the summer (if you've been living in a cave: gays win). Politically, though, public opinion is still nowhere near a consensus. It may not matter for most folks, but it does matter a whole lot for any Republican planning to join the race for president in 2016. Will the Republican party platform still oppose same-sex marriage come 2016? Would base Republican Party voters punish primary candidates who take the wrong side? And more importantly: Which side is the wrong side, politically speaking, these days?

Not helping matters at all is a new poll by NBC News and Marist College. They surveyed a little over 1,000 adults in each of the three states important to the early stages of the primaries: Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire. They evaluated support for various candidates and issues. One segment asked those surveyed whether they found certain political positions to be totally acceptable, mostly acceptable, mostly unacceptable, or totally unacceptable in a candidate.

Some responses were well within what you'd expect. Republican voters found it acceptable for a candidate to want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democratic voters did not. Democrats found it very acceptable for a candidate to support raising taxes on the wealthy, compared to Republican voters (though even so, support broke 50 percent among Republicans in Iowa).

Democrats found it unacceptable for their candidates to oppose same-sex marriage by wide margins in all three states (though a third of Democrats in South Carolina found it acceptable). But surprise: Republicans also mostly found it unacceptable. Iowa Republicans had the highest likelihood of finding opposition to gay marriage acceptable in a candidate at 50 percent. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, the numbers were 43 and 45 percent. Aaron Blake at The Washington Post noticed that deviation from the expected. Blake worries, though that people might have been confused by the question. The poll asked whether the voter found opposition to gay marriage acceptable or unacceptable in a candidate. Blake wondered whether this created a sort of confusing "double negative" question that got false negatives. The Democrats, though, didn't seem to be confused by the question, so I'm not so sure.

No doubt Republican voters will be asked about this question more and more, especially once summer comes around and the Supreme Court rules, so we'll get a better grasp of where Republican voters stand. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, potential candidates like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Mike Huckabee are willing to make opposition of gay marriage recognition part of their campaigns.

Since immigration reform is in the news again today as well, it's worth noting the poll responses there. Those surveyed were asked how they felt about a candidate who "supports immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants." More than 40 percent of Republicans in each of the three states said it was acceptable for a candidate to hold such a position. But then, "immigration reform" is such a chimera of a concept that pretty much any solution could apply.

Advertisement

NEXT: Newspaper in India shut down for printing 2006 Charlie Hebdo cover

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Team Blue is slightly less bigoted than they used to be (in public).

    Team Red is still equally bigoted in private.

    1. because opposition can only be bigoted. I wonder if anybody supporting gay marriage is bigoted.

      1. yes. all of team red.

      2. I do, however, invite you to give an argument against that isn’t bigoted. And the “gov’t shouldn’t be in the business” argument doesn’t fly.

        1. ah, I see; discount the obvious argument. Why, because it’s too obvious? Failing that, how about this: some people want to redefine a term while others want to leave the definition as is. Unless language is now considered bigotry.

          1. it’s not the obvious argument. it is the overused, very bad argument that holds no water.

            1. I had an interesting conversation about this with a friend the other day. Both of us came from religious, Republican backgrounds (on opposite sides of the country) and started arguing in the late ’90s that civil unions for all, marriage for the church was the best possible option. Both of us got massive blowback about it from our religious, conservative social milieu, which we both eventually left.

              At the time gay marriage seemed like a long shot and this solution was more generous to gays than anything the left was willing to push. By the time we’d both left that milieu, gay marriage was beginning to look inevitable and the right started softening on the “get the government out of marriage” position, but the left had hardened on it.

              I wonder if there was ever a point in the middle where ecclesiastical marriage/civil unions could’ve been sold to enough people to make it happen.

            2. Exactly right. It’s just like ending Social Security, ending occupational licensing, ending Medicaid, closing overseas military installations…

              I mean, really, removing the state’s authority from a given area of law and society? What kind of dumbfuck Pollyanna actually buys into that shit?

              1. Your best guess. In how many states has the regulation of marriage been delegated to the states, in their 50 constitutions.

        2. It’s a good challenge. Some initial thoughts:

          Practicality – marriage has served us well as is. Interestingly enough, many libertarians are against a new Constitutional Convention on this basis.

          Grammatically – words have distinct meanings.

          TEAMishly – if academic elistist always adopt positions to confound the hoi polloi, and they’ve adopted this, maybe it’s a bill of goods. Again, switch GM with global warming and many libertarians come down here.

          Again, my comments were offered around the rhetoric in the space, specifically the ad hominem attacks. If proponents of a position constantly paint the slow-to-embrace with the same brush as the resolutely-against, they can’t be surprised that they don’t move minds.

          I would not say that any of these points are “winners”, but I wouldn’t view holders thereof as bigots.

          1. “paint the slow-to-embrace with the same brush as the resolutely-against”

            I’m sorry, is there someone who makes the argument against it that isn’t against it? there is no false dichotomy here.

    2. Parts of Team Lib are also bigoted, especially Ron and Rand Paul.

      1. i should point out that those are both actually team blue players.

        1. Democrats? Apparently, you don’t know who they are.

          1. i use european colouring systems.

            1. Sorry, I just assumed you are American. My mistake.

              1. I am. i’m also medicated and quick enough to fool. it was the u in color wasn’t it.

  2. Those cookies look really good.

    Give them to me or I’ll sue ya.

        1. If you’re not careful we’re going to rename SFing after you.

          1. I wonder if that will incidentally make him an extremely warped and creative person.

            1. There’s only one way to find out…

            2. Noooo! We have enough of that with SF and Derpetologist….and others.

            3. Oh whatever, Jesse. I’ll never be creative enough to stack furniture in a truck, SF christening or not.

        2. Good to see you LD. I though Riven had sawed you into pieces.

          1. No, Florida Man, she just wears his skin when posting as Los Doyers.

            1. That doesn’t sound very halal.

            2. Oh…OH!
              /slowly backs away from Los Doyers suited Riven.

              1. Like you aren’t into it.

                1. Everyone is into it… if you dig deep enough.

                2. Like you aren’t into it.

                  I forgot I told you about my fetish for murderesses.

    1. And give me your lunch money while you’re at it.

      1. I’m sure 10% of your lifetime earnings will be fine, Eddie.

  3. Hey, as long as we keep what is REALLY important on the front burner!

    Gawd – it is going to be nothing but evolution, teh ghey and WAR ON WIMMINZ from our friends in the press isn’t it? Forget war, taxes, regulation, police militarization, Federal overcriminalization, WOD, etc…

    1. Well, Switzy, when you get all truthful about things like this you just make me want to go and bury a claw hammer in my forehead.

    2. You left out RAEP KULTUR. The only reason you would do that is if you’re…A RAPIST!!! Thought-police! Thought-police! I found a thought-criminal! Quick! Take him away before he corrupts us all with his rapeyness!

      1. I…I…am an agent of TEH PAYTREEARKEE!!!!

    3. Real issues don’t keep the TEAMs completely divided and at each other’s throats and not paying attention to what the politicians are actually doing. KULTUR WAR bullshit does.

      1. Real issues don’t keep the TEAMs completely divided and at each other’s throats and not paying attention to what the politicians are actually doing.

        True. But incomplete. Real issues have the potential to go the wrong way against the wishes of the political class.

    4. if they continue to only talk about the issues TEAM BLUE is winning on, pretty much.

    5. ooh, and not going to college.

    6. Meanwhile, CPAC is going to be giving Phil Robertson a free speech award for his achievments in saying mean things to gay people. But yeah, the press is the only reason this stuff stays front and center.

      1. Well, free speech does mean “freedom to say stuff that others don’t like”. You know that, right?

        1. No, the left believes free speech doesn’t include “hate speech”. As defined by the left, of course.

        2. The head of the KKK has the freedom to say stuff others don’t like too. I doubt he’s going to get an award at CPAC for it.

          What is it about Phil Robertson’s speech the makes him deserving of being singled out among every other person in the country for an award?

          1. The head of the KKK has the freedom to say stuff others don’t like too. I doubt he’s going to get an award at CPAC for it.

            That’s because Robert Byrd was a Democrat.

            1. I think he died. I think the KKK probably shifted away from the Democrats when the old school southern Democrats mostly disappeared.

              1. Byrd’s been dead for 5 years. It was mostly a wry observation. Though, I would suspect that privately your average Big Labor thug’s views aren’t the most, ehm, tolerant. Especially towards a certain class of swarthy Latins.

          2. “What is it about Phil Robertson’s speech the makes him deserving of being singled out among every other person in the country for an award?”

            Probably because some stuff he says is unpopular with the better class of people who would be happy to make life difficult for him but he he says it anyway and the people who give the award like what he says.

            1. That doesn’t seem like a very good reason.

              1. To you, no; to the people giving the award it’s reason enough.

                Broadly speaking, it’s the reason anybody gets an award for free speech.

          3. What is it about Phil Robertson’s speech the makes him deserving of being singled out among every other person in the country for an award?

            it mostly shows how far from “freedom of speech” we have strayed. A guy with a megaphone says things that some folks don’t like and people lose their minds. And it’s a guy who cannot cast a vote, cannot spent a single dollar of my money, and cannot send a young man or woman to war. But he questions the gheyz. The award should be a parody, not because of Phil himself but because of how stupid things have become.

    7. Police militarization has been getting a lot of play lately, particularly on the left.

      Is it exactly in the form I’d like? Not really, but it’s better than everyone having their head in the sand about it.

      Although it also means I’m getting Balko-like nut punches in my Facebook feed a lot more.

      1. The nutpunchiest part is the part where you’re like I’VE BEEN ON ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS YOU FUCKS.

        1. Yeah, those Johnny-Come-Latelies! We were against police abuse before it was cool. Now all these poseurs are pretending to like the music.

        2. I’VE BEEN ON ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS YOU FUCKS.

          Except you weren’t on it with a social justice/racism slant. You just cared about bullshit like the constitution, due process, and other dead white male stuff.

          1. You just cared about bullshit like the constitution, due process, and other dead white male stuff.

            Yep. Which TOTALLY makes Nicole the WORST.

          2. Hey, I don’t care about the constitution!

            1. Well, OK then….

            2. Hey, I don’t care about the constitution!

              Of course you don’t, RACIST!

            3. What, you think some fucking words on a piece of paper don’t mean anything?

              1. I know they don’t.

                1. How post modern of you.

          3. OMWC nails it.

        3. Are you saying that John Oliver is not responsible for discovering the injustice of civil asset forfeiture??

      2. Police militarization has been getting a lot of play lately, particularly on the left.

        Has police militarization been getting a lot of play on the left, or have racist cops been getting a lot of play on the left?

        I don’t hang out with lefties, but my general impression is that its the latter.

        1. I don’t hang out with lefties

          So you’re admitting you’re a right winger. I KNEW IT!

          /Botard

          1. I bet he doesn’t even have a college degree!

      3. Not really. Police militarization when used against protected minorities has been getting a lot of play. The Left still loves police militarization when it is used against the right people.

        1. I agree, kind of. There were plenty of people on the left who were already uncomfortable with closer ties between the DHS and police agencies, many of them were shocked by how occutards were treated and that Mayberry PD suddenly had Bearcats.

          Some of them are definitely in it because #BlackLivesMatter, but it is having a bleed through effect with many of them.

          1. Do me a favor and ask them if they were upset when Janet Reno used a tank on those people in Waco.

            1. Umm most of my friends were ~10 when that happened. I’ll certainly ask, but I’m assuming it’ll be “I thought the explosions were cool at the time”

            2. I think the more appropriate question to ask is why almost every member of the Congressional Black Caucus voted to reauthorize the federal program that gave the police tanks.

              1. Because every ghetto has its kapo.

            3. Are there actually people in the world who think that was OK?

        2. Whether you call it “a lot” is an open question. But it has been getting more play outside of libertarian crazy world lately. For example, here in NH there has been quite a bit of debate about some cities getting Bearcats and other military gear. And besides Heroic Mulatto, I’m pretty sure there aren’t any minorities in NH.

          1. True. Though that debate kind of died after the Keene State riots. Too many people started to swoon over the sight of their “protectors” using riot gear to punish those snot-nosed college kids.

            And besides Heroic Mulatto, I’m pretty sure there aren’t any minorities in NH.

            🙂

      4. Is it really more nutpunchy than reading about two dudes getting married? Think about it if you have to. I mean, where do they put the rings? On each other’s dongs? Gross.

        1. Well, of course that’s where they put them. After all, gays need to be able to have sex ALL THE TIME. What else would they do with themselves?

          1. I hear they also bake breadz with zatar.

          2. What else would they do with themselves?
            —-

            smoke weed with Mexicans?

      5. …but it’s better than everyone having their head in the sand about it.

        That isn’t exactly clear though. If the problem is the police are racist, that demands a very different response from if the problem is over-criminalization. And that response might very well be contrary to the interests of liberty. If the conclusion is that control over every aspect of our lives is okay, just that white people get away with too much, I can easily see the resulting policy being pretty godawful. If the conclusion is simply we need to arrest fewer people, without consideration to the nature of the crimes committed, that’s not exactly a win for individual rights.

        1. As I noted with John up above, I agree. I think there are plenty of people who are looking at the same policing trend and coming up with a radically different (and I believe incorrect) conclusion about what is going on. But I don’t think that’s everyone.

    8. Gut Leviathan, and many issues like this will solve themselves when the government loses the power to regulate, oversee, or meddle in.

  4. A gay man getting married is just like Jeffrey Dahmer.

    1. so married gay men are murderous cannibals?

      1. I get Shackford and Richman confused sometimes, my bad.

        1. So you’re saying all gehs look alyke?

          RAAAAAAAAAACIST!

    2. At least Dahmer, you wouldn’t have to worry about the gay wedding cakes/food. He did all his own catering.

      1. wait, are we being forced to bake gay wedding cakes? or wedding cakes made out of gay men? do we have to PROVE they were gay?

        1. It’s a cookbook!

        2. do we have to PROVE they were gay?

          Egyptian doctors have a test for that!

          Turkey just requires that you have a picture of yourself getting penetrated where both the penetration and your face are visible.

          1. what benefit is there to proving this? I mean, where I to have awesome photoshop skills it seems like I could get some easy cash out of a basic shakedown racket…

            1. Avoiding the draft.

            2. It’s a way to get out of mandatory military service in Turkey. The awkward thing is that they keep the images on file and nobody is quite sure what they’re doing with them (although I’m sure we can all agree that some official is fapping to extorted photos of young Turks getting deep dicked).

              In Egypt it’s more about arresting people for indecency and seeing if they’re just incidental homos or chronic homos so they can punish them.

              1. In Egypt it’s more about arresting people for indecency and seeing if they’re just incidental homos or chronic homos so they can punish them.

                I’m sure I’ll regret the answer, but now I’m curious as to the difference between an incidental homo and a chronic homo.

                1. Bicurious versus fa-laming?

                2. the difference between an incidental homo and a chronic homo

                  Only one is real.

                3. The way Islamic countries interpret homosexual behavior is just really different from the way we do. There is reportedly a lot of getting one’s rocks off with other dudes which is frowned upon but ignored, but being explicitly into dudes in unforgivable, and being the penetrated rather than the perpetrator is double plus unforgivable.

                  Sorry, that’s an incredibly insufficient gloss on the topic, but I think it answers what you’re asking.

                  1. “The way Islamic countries interpret homosexual behavior is just really different from the way we do. ”

                    There are a lot of cultures that do that. I find it funny that all those different definitions allow for a lot of ‘getting one’s rocks off with other dudes’. It is especially bad in the ME though.

                4. read kinsey. it’s a matter of scale.

              2. Incidental homos. Nice band name.

              3. I say you have blue eyes.

                – Yes, effendi.

                Are you Circassian?

                – Yes, effendi.

                How old are you?

                – Twenty-seven, effendi. I think.

                You look older. You have had a lot of experience. It’s an interesting face. I am surrounded by cattle. He wouldn’t know an interesting face from a sow’s belly. I have been is Deraa now for three and a half years. If they posted me to the dark side of the moon, I could not be more… isolated. You haven’t the least idea what I’m talking about.

                – No, effendi.

                Have you?

                – No.

                That would be too…lucky.

          2. Turkey just requires that you have a picture of yourself getting penetrated where both the penetration and your face are visible.

            The Turks aren’t that extreme. A picture of yourself dressed as a woman will suffice. Or, if you’re a good negotiator, you can talk them down to a picture of you sucking face with another man.

            1. Klinger was in the wrong army.

      2. I can only eat so much soup.

  5. Work at home jobs- 100% Free, 100% Legitimate

    You will never be asked a single penny.

    You will make at least $80.00 per day- Guaranteed!

    Useful Site…..
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

    1. This one even seems more likable than Bo.

      1. Less Asperger-y as well.

    2. Eighty bucks a DAY? Why, how could I turn down THAT?!

      *quits job, contacts Anon Bot*

      1. PamelaAPine gives me wood.

        1. You wood say that, woodn’t you?

  6. Divorce lawyers win! Government out of marriage!

    1. Ha, like there wouldn’t be divorce lawyers if the government weren’t involved.

      Hilarious.

  7. And more importantly: Which side is the wrong side, politically speaking, these days?

    Profiles in Courage 2015

  8. We truly needed another SSM post. There have been far too few. Thank you, Scott. Could you ask ENB to post something else about abortion?

    1. Well, we haven’t had a millennial poll in a while….

      1. millennials think stuff is good and stuff. They don’t like bad stuff. They DO like impossible stuff.

        1. RISUG isn’t impossible, just stuck in India. Ask millenials about abolishing the FDA.

  9. Politically, though, public opinion is still nowhere near a consensus. It may not matter for most folks,

    I don’t think you can simultaneously claim that we are nowhere near a consensus, and that it doesn’t matter for most folks. If most folks don’t care, then there’s your consensus, after all.

  10. Look, just spitballing here, but if you’re trying to get the rubes in the Republican primaries to support SSM, you might want to assure them that there are safeguards in place to protect business(wo)men against being forced to serve gay “weddings.”

    Hey, just a suggestion.

    1. Because, absent such assurances, these dumb hicks will think that there’s some kind of *link* between SSM and limits on entrepreneurial and religious freedom.

      1. Seriously, I’m arguing against my own interest here, because if the issues could be separated, SSM would get more popular.

        1. Are you OK notorious? You seem to replying to your own post a lot lately.

          1. I post one sentence, then think of another, etc.

            Does that irritate you? Does that irritate you? Does that irritate you?

            1. I’m not touuuchingggg you…

            2. No. I’m not irritated, just something I noticed. Just curious if you were having trouble collecting your thoughts. Not really any of my business I guess.

              1. I’m quick to hit send, then if something else occurs to me I think it would be unfair not to share it with the class.

    2. Buy why would you do that? Libertarians have repeatedly assured me that that public accommodation is a completely different issue from gay marriage. Why would a candidate want to confuse the issue by bringing another issue that has nothing to do with it?

      1. My remarks would be out of place in a libertarian philosophy seminary, since they would explain patiently that these two issues are based on totally different philosophical principles, etc., etc.

        So I’ll give you that.

        My problem is that we’re discussing policy in the real world, outside of the seminar room.

        I’ve made no secret that I would oppose SSM even in its “purist” libertarian form of having the government recognize gay-married couples – even if private parties were totally free of regulation.

        I have simply emphasized that this purist libertarian solution simply does not match the SSM proposals being offered out on the plane of reality.

        And for pointing out these connections, I’ve been accused of hiding a sinister theocratic agenda!

        1. And for pointing out these connections, I’ve been accused of hiding a sinister theocratic agenda!

          Such a shame.
          Theocrats are not the only bigots.

          1. No, secularist fanatics are bigots, too.

            1. If you define secularist fanatics as being anti-religious — itself a bigoted assumption — of course.

              If you mean Jefferson and the Founders, obviously not.

      2. Please explain why you insist on making this connection when people have been successfully sued for public accommodation issues in states that did not recognize gay marriage.

        1. Well, the example I’ve heard cited is Arizona, but now I understand they *do* recognize SSM now. They simply forced SSM recognition on the private sector before engaging in such recognition itself. Doesn’t mean there’s no connection.

          1. If you mean Elane Photography v. Willock, it was NM. But what kind of logic is this? SSM leads to public accommodation lawsuits, except where successful public accommodation lawsuits lead to SSM? Yet again, it sounds like a problem with public accommodation laws and not clearly causal.

            1. The two are linked.

              When state legislatures consider SSM bills, there’s almost always a clause providing a religious exemption. A very limited exemption, and generally not protecting for-profit business. But by having any exemption at all, the sponsors of these bills can’t claim with a straight face that SSM and public accomodations are unconnected.

              1. And the way you explain that link clearly indicates the public accommodation laws were the previously existing issue, not SSM.

          2. It was New Mexico. The point you’re missing is that those laws applied to anti-homosexual discrimination by businesses in general, not strictly relating to gay weddings or marriage. And polling has indicated that support for anti-discrimination laws is higher than support for gay marriage, especially for employment. Although I do recall a poll I saw here had the opposite results when strictly asking about businesses having religious objections to serving gay people. Regardless, anti-discrimination laws already have protected many straight couples from discrimination in many different areas. Why do I never see you complain about that?

            1. “And polling has indicated that support for anti-discrimination laws is higher than support for gay marriage, especially for employment. Although I do recall a poll I saw here had the opposite results when strictly asking about businesses having religious objections to serving gay people.”

              That’s my recollection, too.

              “Regardless, anti-discrimination laws already have protected many straight couples from discrimination in many different areas. Why do I never see you complain about that?”

              For one thing, Reason doesn’t run story after story about the rights of straight couples, so if I comment on the subject, I’d have to go off-topic, which I sometimes do, of course, but not as a routine matter.

              I suppose you are critical of Reason for focusing on gay rights more than on straight rights?

              1. No, because gay rights are a lot more relevant than straight rights at the moment. What rights are straight people lacking based on their sexual orientation? However, people are already affected and have been by laws mandating recognition of straight marriages, so I don’t see how that’s irrelevant to a discussion on anti-discrimination and marriage recognition.

                And please don’t avoid the question – do you actually have a problem with it, or just when it comes to SSM?

                1. “gay rights are a lot more relevant than straight rights at the moment”

                  Ding ding ding – you’ve answered your own question.

                  I don’t quite get your question, but I suppose you want to know whether Lester Maddox of Louis Farrakhan would be able to refuse an interracial couple’s request for a wedding dinner. I think yes, both Maddox and Farrakhan should have that right. Not because I’m against interracial marriage, but because I’m for business freedom.

                  Is this what you’re getting at?

                  1. Yes, it was, and thanks for answering it (though I was speaking more broadly, such as laws requiring spousal benefits and stuff like that, but I’ll assume your position on that stuff is the same).

                    However, as you have made clear here repeatedly, you do not support stopping government licensing of heterosexual marriages just to ensure that nobody is ever subjected to anti-discrimination laws based on their treatment of a straight couple. So why then is that a good reason to not license gay couples?

                    1. Could you clarify what position you’re imputing to me?

                      I *thought* that I said that I would oppose an SSM law even if it met libertarian purity tests and left private businesses alone.

                      Give me an example of such a purist law, and I’ll oppose it.

                      However, I have every right to point out that the SSM laws being enacted on *our* planet, not the Planet of Libertopia, link SSM with violation of business rights.

                      I mean, I assume you’re against the drug was *and* against no-knock drug raids. That doesn’t mean you’re simply mentioning no-knock drug raids as a clever pretense to hide your *real* druggie agenda?

                  2. Look, you can catechize me all you want about my views, just please phrase it in a neutral way, without question-begging. And try to be more clear.

        2. Because since the Supreme Court is likely going to mandate gay marriage via the equal protection laws, gay are about to become a protected class under equal protection.

          Moreover, if it wasn’t for the marriage issue, the people in question wouldn’t have a valid religious objection.

          The fact is that within five years the courts are going to rule the CRA must protect gays just like it does racial and sex. At that point it will be effectively illegal to public disagree with homosexuality in the workplace and by extension most of the public arena. And since this will go against a good number of people’s religious beliefs, we will have the government setting the perimeters of what is acceptable religious belief.

          Also, I also fully expect any church that refuses to do ceremonies to be subject to suit and damages for doing so. it will be very interesting to see which ones stand up and commit acts of civil disobedience. I think a few will, though they will likely receive no support from Libertarians other than some chin rubbing about how what a shame it is and how they really with these people would stop embarrassing everyone on the right.

          1. The fact is that within five years the courts are going to rule the CRA must protect gays just like it does racial and sex. At that point it will be effectively illegal to public disagree with homosexuality in the workplace and by extension most of the public arena.

            And how is this just not the result of changing societal mores? If you’re going to connect this to equal protection re ghey marriage, you’re going to need to show your work.

            1. Among the judicial class sure. In a few states sure. But not in every state.

              And beyond that, since when does changing mores allow the government to deprive you of your Constitutional rights? If mores changed and decided all hate speech should be illegal, would you support that?

              1. And beyond that, since when does changing mores allow the government to deprive you of your Constitutional rights?

                It doesn’t, but that never stopped them before.

                All I’m saying is that I can’t think of anything the SCOTUS has done that wasn’t already changing in society. All they did was codify it with a ruling. They don’t lead, they follow.

          2. Because since the Supreme Court is likely going to mandate gay marriage via the equal protection laws, gay are about to become a protected class under equal protection.

            Which they already are under the laws of several states, and were before those states had gay marriage. None of this is remotely dispositive; the whole argument just comes off as, “broad cultural changes are leading to changes in multiple parts of the law that are only incidentally interrelated.”

            1. They are about to become that way in every state Niki, including states that the voters don’t want that. So the people who are fucked by this won’t even be able to vote with their feet.

              1. I am not remotely in favor of anything to do with public accommodation, but that’s all coming. Period. There’s no way out. So I don’t see the point at all in opposing the SSM component, when I believe it is (a) separable and (b) the best part of the whole deal.

                1. Sure Nikki,

                  And when the law comes for you and makes whatever you hold dear illegal, I will be sure to remember this.

                  I Libertarians hate these people’s guts. I just always thought your opinion of someone didn’t matter when it came to standing up for their right to be that way. I am a bit naive I guess.

                  1. And when the law comes for you and makes whatever you hold dear illegal, I will be sure to remember this.

                    Um…it did that before I was born. And it will continue doing that until I die. I would fully support nonviolent or violent resistance on the part of people victimized by public accommodation laws. They are awful. I just don’t think it has shit to do with SSM.

                2. “So I don’t see the point at all in opposing the SSM component, when I believe it is (a) separable…”

                  It is not separable under the “equal protection” arguments being made. To separate it one must oppose homosexuals being made a protected class.

          3. Because since the Supreme Court is likely going to mandate gay marriage via the equal protection laws, gay are about to become a protected class under equal protection.

            OMFG!

            How could protected classes be considered equal protection?

            IF ANYTHING, protected class law (i.e. civil rights acts, et. al.) could be struck down as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause in the Constitution (provided it applied to the federal government as well as states).

            Protected classes are created by federal and state law, NOT the Constitution. There is NOTHING equal about giving certain groups of individuals MORE (positive) rights than others.

            1. Here are the current protected classes and the LAWS that created them:

              In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered “Protected Classes” by Federal law:

              Race ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
              Color ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
              Religion ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
              National origin ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
              Age (40 and over) ? Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
              Sex ? Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
              Pregnancy ? Pregnancy Discrimination Act
              Citizenship ? Immigration Reform and Control Act
              Familial status ? Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
              Disability status ? Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
              Veteran status ? Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
              Genetic information ? Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

              Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state’s law.

            2. They are also created under the equal protection clause. Go read Brown v. Board sometime. I clearly lack the ability to teach you this stuff or you lack the ability to learn or both.

              1. Brown v. Board didn’t apply to private-sector business relations.

                1. It aplied to the government. And the CRA is a government action. So, they couldn’t have consistent with Brown passed a law that just protected black people from discrimination. They had to protect all races. Saying black people could sue for discrimination but white people or Mexicans couldn’t is no different than saying they couldn’t go to the same school.

                  The SSM case becomes the Brown v Board, only the CRA already exists. The courts will have to read gays into the statute.

                  It is a subtle argument I suppose but it is not a complex one. Fransisco is both too retarded to understand it and too fucking obnoxious to shut the fuck up about something he doesn’t understand and ends up making it harder by shitting on every thread with the one misunderstood point after another.

              2. They are also created under the equal protection clause. Go read Brown v. Board sometime.

                Provide a citation supporting your claim, and I’ll read it.

                1. Read the post above Fransisco and just shut up and stop shitting on the thread. You are too fucking stupid to understand this issue and I am frankly tied of trying to make you smarter.

                  1. No, dipshit. You provide a fucking citation you insufferable cunt!

                    Christ you are a fucking moron! I understand your point completely. AND I FUCKING DISPUTE IT! Shithead!

                    Ruling gay marriage bans unconstitutional under 14A means that states are writing law that doesn’t apply equally to everybody.

                    To become a protected class, CONGRESS, needs to pass a law ADDING gays to the list of people you can’t discriminate against (which I disagree with completely and for every “class”). BUT there is no requirement they do so simply because 14A was the basis for striking down gay marriage bans.

                    That’s like saying the SCOTUS stuck down a law saying John can’t use the public bus citing 14A SO… John is now a protected class and I have to serve him at my private shoe store.

                    You are a fucking imbecile.

    3. Well, that’s definitely what I would do if I were in charge. Unfortunately, I’m not.

  11. OT: FUCK YOU GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING PURVEYORS OF MOTHERFUCKING GIRL SCOUT COOKIES!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO THE DEPTHS OF HELLLLL!

    I just picked up my second order today – box of tagalongs? – GONE.

    Fuck me – I have no self control with these Devil treats! Get thee behind me, Scot Teas! (I wish they still made those)

    OK – back to teh gehs cooking baking and getting married show!

    1. Another victim of the Pentaverate.

    2. Scot Teas are just another name for Trefoils.

      Mmmm…. shortbread!

      *drool*

      1. Oh, come ON! Trefoils are NOT Scot Teas?! Scot Teas? were little bits of sugar-coated heaven in a box. Trefoils are sad memories of Scot Teas?, saved for too long – open – in a humid, dank, musty closet….

        *runs off crying*

    3. *makes note in Almanian!’s file: vulnerable to cookie torture*

    4. My weakness is Krispy Kreme. I ate 1/2 dozen Sunday.

      1. We have them here, of course, but I saw one in Pigeon Forge around last Christmas that had a stupendous line of cars around it. They must’ve fucked up on the business side quite a bit to have had to retract their expansion.

        1. I don’t get it. I hear KK is struggling financially but for me they are the best donut and I know tons of people that like them.

      2. Does KK actually make donuts fresh in each location?

        I’m in Dunkin’ country and they fucking blow. I cannot understand why it is such a popular thing. And they are so dominant that it is hard to find a real doughnut anymore.

    5. Have you tried the new cranberry citrus ones?

      1. No. I’ll have to try it. I usually get my favorites. The original and lemon filled.

    6. I’ve somehow managed to avoid three parents in my office pawning one of the great weaknesses of mankind: Samoas.

      My diet might be happy but nothing else about me is.

    7. Obviously, they have to be banned.

  12. When the Supreme court rules that gay marriage is Constitutionally mandated, the next question is going to be how it is that the CRA protects every other protected class but not gays. For example, you couldn’t consistent with equal protection outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodations or in employment decisions for every but Mexicans. If Congress tried to do that, the courts would just apply the law as written reading out the “except Mexicans” language.

    A court considering the issue will either have to jump through its ass and explain why it is that gays are a protected class when it comes to gay marriage but not when it comes to protection against discrimination or it will have to take the coming Gay marriage decision and use its ruling to read gays into the CRA. I can’t see many courts not doing the latter and frankly, I can’t see much of a legal reason why they shouldn’t.

    1. John, I have a serious question for you regarding your position on marriage. You’ve made it clear repeatedly on these boards that you do not support getting rid of marriage licenses for straight couples, and that you do not want to extend them to gay people because that would require people to recognize marriages contrary to their beliefs. My question to you is, by your own logic, people are currently forced to recognize straight marriages – why are you ok with that, but not with regards to gay marriages?

      1. Follow-up: Catholics routinely have to recognize legal marriages they don’t believe are religiously valid.

        1. Examples?

          1. I seem to recall a Catholic named Thomas More who lost his head because he refused to recognize a marriage.

          2. Catholic municipal employees give marriage licenses to divorced people on the regular, Eddie.

            1. I hadn’t thought about that. I don’t know if there’s been an authoritative ruling by the Church.

              But don’t take Catholic municipal clerks as having the final authority on such issues. Maybe they simply lack St. Thomas More’s courage.

              1. But the good news is soon you won’t have to rely on my speculation, because the Church is having a Synod on the Family this year, which will hopefully rule on many of these situations – divorce, SSM, etc., etc.

                I’ll give you more on that topic as it develops.

        2. Do they have to perform the cerimonies? Not that I have ever seen. They will in the future. There is no way that any church will be able to refuse to do a gay marriage ceremony anymore than they could refuse to do an interracial one.

          You guys are the ones who on every single thread drop the race card. Well, you are about to win. Gay marriage is about to be treated like interracial marriage. I don’t see how you can complain about it now. You wanted it this way.

          1. Are churches banned from refusing to do an interracial marriage? That would seem to be a pretty big violation of religious freedom.
            If that is the case, then it’s a problem now, not a new one that will come up when there is gay marriage everywhere.

            The problem is with the whole idea of protected classes as applied to public accommodations. That is a problem with or without gay marriage.

      2. Cal,

        I have rethought this issue. The entire purpose of government marriage law was to protect the interests of women and children. Before the 20th century women and children were not full citizens and were wards of their husbands and parents. This mean they couldn’t protect their own interests. So, the government via family law did it for them. We have things like community property and forced shares and such to ensure men could not leave their wives and children destitute.

        That justification doesn’t work with regards to women anymore. The law still protects women out of habit and because women are politically powerful. There is however no reason for it. If you let your husband put everything in his name and leave you destitute when he leaves you, that is your fault and the government shouldn’t save you.

        The rational for family law still applies with children. They shouldn’t’ have to suffer because their mother or father is an idiot. The reason why gay marriage makes no sense to a lot of conservatives is because gays can’t procreate. The response is that a lot of straight couples don’t either now.

        1. And that a lot of gay couples have children.

          1. Not a lot. A few. The numbers in comparison to the rest of the country is very small. Regardless, good for them. I really don’t care.

            1. So, fuck those children, then? Children of gay couples shouldn’t get the same protection as anyone else?

              If that is the reason, then why not restrict marriage to people who have children?

        2. The entire purpose of government marriage law was to protect the interests of women and children

          Even though women had no rights.

          1. Because women had no rights. That is the whole point. Without marriage law, a woman had no protection from her husband taking everything she owed and leaving her destitute. We have marriage law to mandate she get a share of things if there is a split.

            1. Not necessarily. Marriage law restricted women’s rights in many cases. In the early days of the country, single women actually had more rights in many respects than married women did.

              1. That is later on. When the common law of marriage was developed, they didn’t.

                To the extent that women’s rights were curtailed, they received protection by restricting men’s rights.

                The whole thing only makes sense if you understand it as the government acting to make sure the all powerful party doesn’t completely take everything from the non powerful one.

                1. In that case, you’re stretching back hundreds of years before the founding of this country. I’m not as familiar with marriage law in those days and how the rights of single women compared to married women, but in any case, in this country marriage law never had the intent you describe.

                  1. Even in the example you give, my point still stands. The married woman had no rights. She was the property of her husband. So the state determined how things were divided if they split so her rights were protected.

                    1. That sounds like an argument against government marriage. It was only necessary because the government did a horrible job protecting the rights of women.

            2. That’s precisely backwards, per your own original comments.
              2.17.15 @ 4:04PM

              If there’s no marriage, then there was obviously no husband.

              What you describe as her being left destitute is precisely the case in marriage law until the mid 19th century or so. Government marriage laws trace to colonial America.

              The entire purpose of marriage law was to subjugate women. For example, her husband assumed legal ownership of any property she might own.

      3. My response to that is, you are right. I would only have government recognized marriages when the union resulted in children. Otherwise, call yourself anything you like, have whatever ceremony, but you are single in the government’s eyes until you have a child. When you do, the government automatically recognizes your marriage and you are subject to family law.

        Gays who adopt? Them too. I am fine with going over the religious objections if the interest is to protect children. You shouldn’t be able to punish the kid because you don’t like the parents.

        That is my position on marriage these days.

        1. I still disagree, but I applaud you for rethinking and reaching a consistent position on the matter.

          1. For me the question is where does the government have an interest. I don’t see how the government has any special interest in a childless marriage over any other couple. You want your wife to go to the head of the immigration line. Big fucking deal. You both chose to get married knowing the facts. The only time the government has an interest there is if you have kids. Then the government has an interest that kids get raised by their parents.

            Conservatives should adopt this approach because it would make marriage mean something again. Post birth control marriage is no longer about kids. It is about some bullshit Disney romance fantasy. Return marriage to its original function, to raise kids. Those who don’t want to do that, should not partake in the legal institution.

            1. Anything except just extending a modern understanding of marriage to gay people, huh?

              1. No Tony, not everyone is like you. Some of us think about these issues and view government as something other than a weapon for punishing those we hate.

                1. You’re like the only one here advocating such a thing.

                2. other than a weapon for punishing those we hate.

                  Umm, but you deny the rights and protections of marriage unless the purpose is to raise children. That may no be hate, but it’s certainly bigotry and a tad barbaric.

        2. I would only have government recognized marriages when the union resulted in children.

          I think that is quite a reasonable position. And one that doesn’t have the equal protection problems of the current regime. I could really get behind that if it were seriously on offer. Government should really only be involved in people’s relationships at all when there is some real interest that needs protecting, like the rights of children.

          As I have made clear many times, I don’t think there is any right to marriage recognition at all. I see it as purely an equal protection issue. Getting rid of the current legal definition of marriage would be just as acceptable as recognizing gay marriages. The whole problem (to me) is treating similarly situated couples (e.g. childless couples) differently.

    2. Though it boggles the mind why you are so goddamn threatened by the possibility of sexual orientation becoming a “protected class,” presumably there’d have to be new federal legislation to include it (as was the case with the Americans with Disabilities Act).

      1. I don’t think you should use ADA to further the gay cause. There are plenty of examples of corruption and coercion with the ADA.

        1. Just saying, it extended the rights of the CRA to disabled people, which was necessary since the CRA lists specifically the classifications it protects.

      2. Of course it boggles your mind Tony. You have never cared for the rights of people you don’t like in your life. Your entire world view is that the government should protect those you like and ruthlessly oppress anyone you don’t. So the idea that I could think that people I don’t agree with have a right to think and act that way is totally beyond your limited comprehension. You will never get it because you only think in terms of how to use politics to benefit you and those like you and punish your perceived enemies.

        1. I’m not the one struggling against all the forces of social evolution and continuing to embarrass myself to maintain a position that gay people are some degree less worthy of full citizenship than straight people, so that’s an odd accusation. I don’t like lots of people. There’s a small sliver of the population I would ever bother to be in the same room with. I still think they should all have access to equality under the law and, say, healthcare.

          If it’s ruthless oppression of the religion to force them to deal with the fact that gay people have legal equality, then I guess I’m for ruthless oppression. But I’m not the one positing that ridiculous dichotomy.

          1. Yes Tony. For you the purpose of government is to oppress the undesirables and reward the people you like.

            We already know that.

            1. Says the guy arguing for the continued government oppression of gay people in favor of Christian sensibilities.

              1. Yes Tony, you think the government should stop people you don’t like from doing such things.

                We get it. You love oppression as long as it fits your purposes.

                1. Yeah I’d like to stop Christian bigots from using government to force me into remaining a second-class citizen. Just like Hitler.

                  1. Yes Tony, you hate Christians and think the government should oppress them for you.

                    We get it. We know who you are. You confirm who you are about 50 times a day.

                  2. tell me again, Tony, where are the camps to which the gayz are being sent? Hitler. Really? Just stop.

                    Many Christians define marriage as one man and one woman. Maybe they would prefer you stop using govt to browbeat them into redefining the term.

                    1. Sorry, but the random and ever-changing preferences of certain sects of religious people do not trump equality under the law in this country. How are Christians being oppressed? By a word’s definition changing slightly? Don’t you think being systematically excluded from a civil institution is a little bit worse of an offense?

        2. You have never cared for the rights of people you don’t like in your life.

          I find it fascinating that Tony and you agree in your fundamental delusion that the marriage debate is about non-discrimination laws, i.e., a violation of freedom of association. Those violations are wrong: Christian fundamentalists shouldn’t be forced to bake gay wedding cakes by government. But those violations have nothing to do with gay marriage, they have to do with anti-discrimination laws.

          In fact, the marriage debate is about government-mandated privileges and handouts; as long as we have those, they shouldn’t be made available based on arbitrary religiously inspired criteria. That is, any two adults should be able to get those privileges and benefits.

          Christian conservatives and progressives both agree that government should restrict freedom of association and define marriage, they simply disagree on the protected groups and the definition.

          The libertarian position is that freedom of association shouldn’t be restricted and government should stop trying to define marriage at all.

          1. The libertarian position is that freedom of association shouldn’t be restricted and government should stop trying to define marriage at all.

            Obviously including one man and one woman.

            That’s not a position, it’s a principle. A libertarian position would be that, as long as government remains involved, then the Constitution forbids states from denying marrige equality. (9th and 14th amendments, plus the Supremacy clause)

      3. Though it boggles the mind why you are so goddamn threatened by the possibility of sexual orientation becoming a “protected class,”
        ——-

        why should it be a protected class? Why can I just not give a shit who you want to sleep with?

        1. You have to care. The entire purpose of government is for Tony’s personal affirmation. Don’t you understand that?

          1. he comes to a libertarian site to argue with people who have no particular quarrel with SSM but everyone else is stupid.

            In a way, it’s funny. Took a long time for backlash to come against the racial warlords and the feminists; the cycle has been shorter with the militant gays.

            1. You’re patting yourself on the back for being a petty, whiny bigot.

        2. If you don’t give a shit then it will obviously have no effect on you. It will only possibly affect you if you plan to illegally discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

        3. why should it be a protected class? Why can I just not give a shit who you want to sleep with?

          I think the nondiscrimination laws are bullshit, but they have nothing to do with gay marriage.

          Gay marriage has to do with government handouts and privileges: taxes, immigration, visitation rights, child support, etc. Those handouts and privileges should be made independent of any form of marriage, but as long as they are tied to marriage, they need to be available to all Americans.

      4. Though it boggles the mind why you are so goddamn threatened by the possibility of sexual orientation becoming a “protected class,”

        Gay marriage has nothing to do with becoming a “protected class”; those are anti-discrimination laws.

        Marriage is about government handouts and privileges, and while we should get rid of those altogether, as long as they exist, the least we can demand is that they are open to everybody.

  13. But surprise: Republicans also mostly found it unacceptable (opposing gay marriage)

    Does that mean Reason will no longer function as the Ministry of Propaganda for Rand Paul?

    Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, potential candidates like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Mike Huckabee are willing to make opposition of gay marriage recognition part of their campaigns.

    For how much longer will Rand Paul be able to hide his own opposition? Or perhaps be damaged by his father’s even stronger opposition?

    1. Show us where Rand Paul touched you.

    2. For how much longer will Rand Paul be able to hide his own opposition? Or perhaps be damaged by his father’s even stronger opposition?

      AFAIK, Rand Paul’s position is the same as Ron Paul’s: he personally disapproves of it but doesn’t think it is the business of the federal government to define marriage. That’s not going to get a lot of gay votes, but it’s fine with me.

      1. It’s not about defining marriage at all, so you too have been brainwashed..

        It’s about equal and unalienable rights, which are guaranteed by the FEDERAL constitution. 9th and 14th Amendments (gasp)

        The Pauls, like all phony federalists, claim that state governments have powers which have NEVER been delegated. That’s not federalism, it’s the George Wallace and KKK version of States Rights.

  14. Interesting that this is supposedly a Republican problem, when I believe opposition to gay marriage runs pretty high in core Dem constituencies: minorities and low income people.

    Why aren’t the Dems being pinned to the wall, in public, on positions that are unpopular with their base? Could it be that this issue isn’t being pursued in an objective fashion by our disinterested media, but is instead of interest to merely as a stick to beat Republicans with in order to advance a position that is broadly agreed on only in certain precincts?

    1. “Why aren’t the Dems being pinned to the wall, in public, on positions that are unpopular with their base?”

      It will become relevant once black voters start shifting to the Republicans. Right now, a Democratic candidate could have sex with a sheep in public and most black voters wouldn’t even *consider* a Republican alternative.

    2. Which Dems are secretly harboring anti-marriage-equality positions?

      Racial minorities vote Dem despite being somewhat less likely to support marriage equality because they vote on things that actually matter to their livelihood. And because Republicans are openly hostile to racial minorities and have been for many decades.

      1. what hostility toward Repubs are you talking about, Tony? A reluctance to subsidize bad decisions like having several kids by different daddies? The welfare state that your side created to effectively eliminate the black father? Which side interred Japanese Americans in WWII? And which was openly connected to the Klan? Hmmmm; not a GOPer in those woodpiles.

        1. Yeah, that barely shrouded racism combined with convenient ignorance of history is a good illustration.

          “Minorities don’t vote for Republicans because they like their government goodies and are too dumb to realize that it’s actually the Dems they overwhelmingly vote for who are bad for them.”

          Yes, quite good regurgitation of the current incarnation of Republican racism. Maybe one day minorities will be dumb enough to fall for it.

          1. Tony you are the most hate filled awful human being on earth. If I really hated homosexuals, your existence would make me happy since I can think of no more embarrassing and hate filled example of one than you. It is almost like you come on here for the single purpose of making gays look like ignorant hate filled bigots.

            1. That would only work on a moron who can’t distinguish an individual from a particular group he belongs to.

              You can practically get Republican political operatives to admit to their decades-long campaign of appealing to white racial resentment. It’s not like I just made it up.

              1. That would only work on a moron who can’t distinguish an individual from a particular group he belongs to.

                Coming from a person who has openly advocated for the subjugation of individuals for the benefit of the collective and who can’t distinguish individuals from the caricatures of the groups to which they belong, created ad-hoc from whole cloth.

                If irony were a rake, Tony would step on, smash himself in the balls, take 2 steps back, and then do it again.

              2. You can practically get Republican political operatives to admit to their decades-long campaign of appealing to white racial resentment. It’s not like I just made it up.

                Yes, you made it up, and now you make up “proof”.

                In fact, Democrats have simply engaged in a decades long campaign of race baiting, claiming that Republicans are hostile to minorities because Republicans refuse to give large amounts of handouts and privileges based on race. Republicans, for their part, have resigned themselves to the fact that wanting to eliminated privileges and handouts for minorities isn’t going to get them any minority votes, so they have stopped trying to appeal to those groups.

                1. What about minorities makes them overwhelmingly more likely to vote for all those Democratic goodies? Are poor whites smarter and more concerned about the country’s long-term fiscal situation?

                  This is such bullshit. Southern strategy. Google. You’re welcome.

      2. “Which Dems are secretly harboring anti-marriage-equality positions?”

        Maybe the ones our current president was so petrified of alienating that he lied his ass off about his firm conviction and belief in traditional marriage?

      3. Which Dems are secretly harboring anti-marriage-equality positions?

        Way to miss the point.

        The issue is politicians with gay marriage positions out of step with their constituents. Much like the “gender gap”, it is portrayed as exclusively a Republican problem, when the Dems have an equal problem.

        With the gender gap, the Dems cannot seem to get a majority of men, in mirror image to the Repubs not being able to get a majority of women. Yet the gender gap is apparently an exclusively Republican problem.

        With gay marriage, there are significant Dem constituencies who are not at all in favor, even though Dem candidates generally are. Yet its an exclusively Republican problem that some Repub candidates have positions on gay marriage that are out of alignment with certain Repub constituencies.

        1. You don’t think that politicians do the math?

          Democratic strategist: “If we get them all upset about the gay marriage issue, we are going to get 90% of the gay vote, regardless of income level or view on taxes.”

          Republican strategist: “If we get them all upset about the gay marriage issue, we are going to get 90% of the Christian conservative vote, regardless of income level or view on taxes.”

          The reason this works out so well for gay marriage and a few other issues, i.e., the reason the parties keep fixating on those issues, is that the single issue voting blocks about balance out.

          1. the reason the parties keep fixating on those issues, is that the single issue voting blocks about balance out.

            What causes you to believe that homosexuals are roughly equal in number to Christian conservatives (at roughly 20% of the population)?

      4. Which Dems are secretly harboring anti-marriage-equality positions?

        Obama for starters. He used to oppose gay marriage. The only reason we got it is because Biden had another case of foot-in-mouth disease and Obama read the polls.

        Republicans are openly hostile to racial minorities and have been for many decades.

        Republicans are openly opposed to handouts or special treatment for racial minorities. They are openly opposed to it because those policies are harmful to minorities.

        Democrats are openly harmful to minorities; that is the issue you should be concerned with.

        1. So why do minorities vote for Democrats? Are they extra stupid?

          And Republicans are against everything that actually works and has a tinge of sanity to it. Stop defending them; they are fucking nuts.

    3. Interesting that this is supposedly a Republican problem, when I believe opposition to gay marriage runs pretty high in core Dem constituencies: minorities and low income people.

      You’re making a bunch of erroneous assumptions.

      (1) Opposition to gay marriage is the minority view across all parties and most voting blocks.

      (2) Minorities and low income people are not such a big voting block among democrats. Furthermore, black voters may dislike gay marriage, but not enough to vote Republican.

      (3) Social liberalism is why the Democrats are called “liberal”; it really is actually ideologically consistent for them. It’s also a good issue for them because the Republican position on marriage is inconsistent with small government and smacks of social engineering and religious establishment.

      The real question is whether social conservatives aren’t more trouble than they are worth for Republicans: they are a small group of voters, their views are way out of step with the mainstream, and they are ideologically utterly inconsistent with Republican views.

      1. The real question is whether social conservatives aren’t more trouble than they are worth for Republicans: they are a small group of voter

        Roughly 20%, which you say is roughly equal to homosexuals.

  15. Let me add another point about “anti-discrimination” laws. These laws tend to ban discrimination based on sex.

    So Patricia asks her private-sector boss for marital benefits for her SSM partner, Sally. The boss admits that if Patricia was Patrick, he’d allow the benefits, but because it’s a woman rather than a man trying to marry Sally, it’s against his policy.

    So Patricia is denied a benefit which a similarly-situated male would get – marital benefits for marrying Sally.

    If the government recognizes SSM, how would this *not* be sex discrimination?

    If the govt *didn’t* recognize SSM, the employer could try and defend himself by saying he’s following the government’s own definition of marriage, but now what defense does he have?

    1. Are patty and Sally hot? That is the most important question.

      1. No. Real life Lesbians don’t look like the ones in the movie sadly.

        1. Then I have no interest in this scenario. Good day sir.

    2. It is. You can’t have SSM without including gays under the discrimination laws.

      1. Er, not really. I can easily enough envision a regime that recognizes SSM and says companies can offer their employees whatever benefits package (including eligibility) they want.

        1. And I’m sure they’re enacting that law as we speak…on the Planet of Libertarian Political Fantasy.

      2. How do you figure that?

        It’s probably not likely to happen. But it is far from impossible or contradictory. Unless you are talking about the laws that apply only to government. Do you think that agents of the state ought to be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

    3. The flaw in your logic is that Patricia discriminated against one sex over the other, not the employer. Private individuals are indeed legally allowed to discriminate in who they associate with or who they f*ck, even under the standards of liberals.

  16. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ???????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  17. The GOP should stop beating a dead horse; this issue just makes candidates appear mean.

    Even better, the GOP should kick out social conservatives, since they are ideologically far closer to progressives and Democrats than to Republicans.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.