Gay Marriage

Matt Welch on Millennials and the Post-Gay Marriage GOP: 'If you're perceived to be intolerant, forget it'

Also, new study proves I might be right!

|

Last night I appeared on MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes to discuss how gay marriage is tying the Republican Party in self-inflicted knots. My bit comes after the 7-minute mark below:

At Fivethirtyeight.com, in a post titled "The GOP May Regret Its Lasting Battle Against Gay Marriage," Harry Enten regresses a bunch of poll numbers and echoes a conclusion I asserted above: "The Republican Party's opposition to same-sex marriage is one of the top positions that may have kept voters from identifying with and potentially voting for the GOP." Excerpt:

Agin' it? You're Republican. For it? Less obvious. ||| Pew/538.com
Pew/538.com

A February CNN/ORC survey found that just 17 percent of Americans said the issue of gay marriage would be "extremely important" in choosing a candidate to support for president — the lowest of any of nine issues tested.

But digging deeper provides a different perspective. Beyond the importance voters place upon it directly, gay marriage may have symbolic power because of the messages it sends to voters about the parties. […]

[L]ook carefully at the chart [to the right]. While gay marriage ranks as the second-most-important issue in predicting whether someone will identify as Republican, it falls to fifth on the list in predicting if someone will call themselves a Democrat.

This may mean that a lot of people who reject the Republican Party because of its opposition to gay marriage aren't lining up with the Democrats either and instead are choosing to be independents. […]

That suggests that there are voters Republicans aren't getting because of gay marriage, and it's why Republicans who have their eye on the general election, like Bush, want to move on from the subject.

Peter Suderman noted Jeb Bush's interesting reaction (and those of many other more withering 2016 candidates) on the day of Obergefell. Reason has also discussed the reactions from Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Also enjoy our Reason TV piece from the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, "Generational Divide: CPAC Gets High and Gay Married":

NEXT: The Case for Polygamy Begins; The Case for the Single Life Needed Too

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. Okay. That sounds nice and all. But the Left tends to own the language and is able to frame any position as being “intolerant”. Moreover, standing up for people’s rights often includes standing up for their right to be intolerant. I don’t see how saying “don’t be perceived as intolerant” is saying anything other than “just roll over and give the left everything it wants”. I am not saying it is easy to stand up to the left. It isn’t. But I don’t see how running and hiding from the charge of “intolerance” is a very good idea.

    1. Yeah, ask them if they believe bakers, tour operators, T-shirt-makers, etc., etc. should be able to choose their customers.

      You’d find a large number of millennials voting against both the 1st and 13th Amendments, or in millennial-speak, “the what, now?”

      1. “ask them if they believe bakers, tour operators, T-shirt-makers, etc., etc. should be able to choose their customers”

        I assume you’re referring to the 120 or so private companies that the Alliance Defending Freedom proudly boasts it has sued to compel them to provide services and/or employment to Christians?

        Oh, whoops, I guess you’re referring to the two (count ’em, two) lawsuits over wedding cakes.

        So one conservative Christian organization (of dozens) has violated the free association risks of 60x as many people as the entire horrible awful gays, and “libertarians” are silent and do nothing.

        This is why real libertarians have such a hard time bringing people into the fold. The unhinged right-wing rhetoric about how evil the left are — and complete and total ignoring of the sins of the right (which, in the case of free association, are far larger in this case) totally debunks the prospect of a principled philosophy and delivers the reality:

        Many conservatives use libertarian rhetoric to cloak their own hatred of other groups in libertarian rhetoric.

        There can be no other explanation for the loud outrage over two wedding cake cases and the total silence over THOUSANDS of recent cases of free association violations driven by religious conservative groups.

        1. There can be no other explanation for the loud outrage over two wedding cake cases and the total silence over THOUSANDS of recent cases of free association violations driven by religious conservative groups.

          Sure there can!

          First time I’ve heard of this!

          You might have brought these instances to the attention of the reason.com staff. You’ll generally find that where there is unreasonable compulsion to provide a service or deny someone reasonable accommodation they’ll give you a fair hearing.

          1. But the commenters more or less uniformly and constantly do nothing but whine hysterically about “the left.” If you’re reading things that lead you to believe that “the left” is the big villain, that gays are more interested in encroaching upon association and property than Christians, then you need to broaden your horizons.

            If you happen to think a) all mainstream news sources are biased toward liberals and never tell the truth and b) you can safely ignore them, then you’re not a libertarian, you’re an unwitting Republican operative.

            1. And you more or less whine constantly about us! Spare me your quaint notions about an even handed media.

        2. I guess you’re referring to the two (count ’em, two) lawsuits over wedding cakes.

          Just because you’re only aware of two such lawsuits doesn’t mean they’re the only lawsuits that have been filed (and you might want to expand your reading list a bit).

          It’s also a little disingenuous to include employment lawsuits on behalf of religious people but not gay people if you’re going to make the comparison of who is more litigious. Particularly since religion is a CRA protected class at the federal level where sexual orientation isn’t (yet). Of course, you’ll find libertarians oppose protected classes of any variety. But then you’d have to be an intellectually curious person who is actually interested in libertarianism rather than a shitty sockpuppet concern troll.

      2. You’d find a large number of millennials voting against both the 1st and 13th Amendments, or in millennial-speak, “the what, now?”

        Well, to be fair, the 1st amendment only applies to Congress, it specifically, explicitly says so.
        If you claim that the 14th Amendment makes it apply to any other entity (via ‘incorporation’) then you are asserting that the Constitution may be amended by methods other than the processes outlined in Art V.

    2. I’m tolerant of plenty of things I highly disapprove of. But I daresay that I am far, far more tolerant and less interested in using brute force to get my views imposed on others than the fucking left-fascists are.

      Sorry, got a little annoyed there for a moment.

      1. Yeah. Maybe the better idea is to try and explain to the yutes that “tolerance” doesn’t mean what they think it does and “intolerance” is not always something to be stamped out or even always a bad thing.

        1. Tolerance only applies to designated victim groups, (Check with your local college professor to find out if you qualify) everyone has to have their rights routinely violated.

          The stupid generation has been spoonfed so much crap about group rights, and identity, I’m not sure if they have any idea what individual rights are anymore.

          1. At some point the Reason staff, who are nearly all over 35 and thus ancient to anyone under 21, obsession with the youth vote is kind of sad. They are starting to sound like that guy who goes back for his college reunion and still thinks he can hang out at the old fraternity. They are just so desperate for the approval of the young.

            1. Well Reason is correct to go after the youth vote. going after youth votes makes sense, conforming to a leftist worldview in a misguided attempt to get the youth vote does not.

              The problem isn’t that the youths reject Libertarianism, or Conservatism for that matter, but that the youths don’t know anything about it. You can live your entire life today without ever hearing a Libertarian or Conservative message. The left so dominates the culture, and school system, and academia, that no other message can be heard.

              Young liberals are completely ignorant on who the other side is, and what they believe.

              1. Plenty of youth study libertarianism and conservatism, which you falsely conflate.

                Many are interested in libertarian ideas… but then they meet fringe-right libertarians like yourself who thunder endlessly against the Democrats while promoting Republicans whose positions on issues are equally bad (and on this issue, orders of magnitude worse).

                The left’s dominance of culture and academia, and the inability of libertarianism to rise up as the counter, is due solely to so many libertarians’ need to get down on their knees and unzip the pants of conservatives (whose values and culture are in demographic armageddon).

                A modern, consistent libertarian movement would attract lots and lots of people… but y’all don’t seem interested in it too much, because deep down, you’re not libertarians yourselves.

                1. Wow…you’re like Tony on some fabulous gay superhero steroids.

    3. It is incredibly easy not to be a bigot. It’s to practice the most rudimentary good manners possible.

      1. Yes Tony., nothing says “tolerant” like demanding the bankruptcy and or arrest of anyone you think is insufficiently “tolerant”. We already knew that is how you feel. You don’t need to remind us.

        1. When did I or anyone else do that?

          Oh are you couching your antigay bigotry with respect to marriage equality in a completely separate discussion about discrimination law, sprinkled with some slippery-slope hysteria, because you can’t make an actual argument on the actual subhect?

          1. Tony. I am not anti-gay. I am anti you. You just think no one likes you because you are gay. No, everyone hates you because you are an ignorant and annoying asshole.

      2. Welcome to the one percent Krugman, and congratulations!

        Here is your monocle, and the frozen babies are in the room over there to your right.

      3. It is incredibly easy not to be a bigot.

        Your privileges; they need to be checked.

      4. It’s incredibly easy to to be a totalitarian fascist as well. Same rules pretty much. Too bad you can’t bring yourself into compliance.

  2. Enough with the Millennial-ism – their thousand-year reign isn’t going to be as nice as you seem to think it will be.

    1. You know who else said he was going to reign for a thousand years?

      1. Fall out boy?

      2. Ming the Merciless

  3. Gay marriage is court mandated and will continue to be until the composition of the court changes. So really gay marriage is not a political issue right now. The political issue is what does that mean. I wonder where Matt thinks the Republicans should stand on that. Should they just walk away from people who reject gay marriage and are about to see their rights stomped in hopes of getting the yute vote?

    1. Interracial marriage is also court-mandated. All you’re saying is the court shouldn’t ever decide anything (especially when you don’t like what they decide).

      People who reject marriage equality are bigots and their opinions don’t deserve to be entertained, especially in law but also in daily life. If you cannot do as much as treat gay people as equal to straight people before the law, then you are by definition an antigay bigot.

      And bringing Jesus in for your defense doesn’t make that any less true.

      1. Tony you are not black. And enjoying people sodomizing you doesn’t make you black.

        1. Sooo it’s OK for a form of marriage equality to be court-mandated if it involves black people?

          I’m struggling to grasp your judicial philosophy.

          1. Tony, I would happily sodomize you. Is that what the problem is? Do I need to come out to Oklahoma and sodomize you? Would it make you feel better? Let you know that I am sufficiently gay affirming?

            1. WHAT DID I STUMBLE INTO?!?!?!

              1. I think Tony just needs love.

              2. We should probably both move along now…..

            2. I need to come out to Oklahoma and sodomize you?

              Wow….taking one for the team!

            3. Please don’t.

              What you can do is think of gays as human beings deserving of all the same rights you gleefully avail yourself of, and not just as caricatures who stick things in their butts.

              1. What you can do is think of gays as human beings deserving of all the same rights you gleefully avail yourself of, and not just as caricatures who stick things in their butts.

                I do feel that way about gays. I think of you as a caricature who sticks things in his butt.

                1. I think of you as a caricature who sticks things in his butt.

                  Perhaps that’s how he so severely damaged his brain.

              2. Tony I am very gay affirming. You know you want me to.

              3. Tony I am very gay affirming. You know you want me to.

            4. John, I’m late to the party (as usual), but I logged in just to say that you won the comments section for the year. That was fucking awesome.

      2. What part of shall make no law don’t you understand, again?

      3. Tony, you seem to be determined to prove John’s point that the left has no idea what tolerance actually means.

        1. I understand what it means and what rightwingers think it means: tolerating Christian bigotry to the extent of codifying in law, and nothing else.

          1. Bake your own fucking cake…..

      4. There is a difference between tolerating something you hate and being forced to accept it as good. It isn’t enough for a person to tolerate legalized gay marriage, simply saying you think it is a sacrament meant for one man and one woman is enough to get the ‘intolerance’ label.

        Christ on a cracker, South Park articulated this point 13 years ago but people like you still don’t get it.

        1. Oh no, Tone-def gets it, he just wants to squish Christians with the BAN HAMMER.

        2. Nobody’s forcing you to think any way. If you’re whining that you are increasingly unacceptable in polite society because gay people are being treated as human beings and you can’t abide that, sorry, that’s how these things go; history will be even less kind, and that is absolutely guaranteed. Bigots always justify themselves with stale appeals to religion.

          1. Yeah, I mean, forcing you to endorse certain types of speech with which you disagree if you want to operate a business or earn a living, for example, certainly isn’t *force*. You can always go live under an underpass if you have unpopular ideas!

    2. “people who reject gay marriage and are about to see their rights stomped”

      Nobody’s rights are gonna get stomped any more than they have been.

      Conservative (and conservatarian) objections to this development are entirely based on the fact that the legal marriage and nondiscrimination law they themselves created will now apply to groups they don’t like.

      There was zero complaining from those groups when gay-owned businesses were fined for refusing to produce anti-gay religious brochures, or when employers fired (or refused to hire) religious individuals whose loud outspoken views at work would be disruptive to a diverse environment, or when “private organizations” like the Boy Scouts reached deep into taxpayer pockets to force non-believers to subsidize religious views that they find repugnant.

      So really, conservatives are just earning the karmic payback that their own statism earned them. And funnily enough, they’re not demanding freedom from it, they’re just demanding that “the gays be put back in their place.”

      Karma, she is a very tough cookie.

      1. Make that “when employers were fined for firing (or refusing to hire) religious individuals whose loud outspoken views at work would be disruptive to a diverse environment”

      2. Nobody’s rights are gonna get stomped any more than they have been.

        Well that’s comforting. You still don’t have freedom of association, but on the bright side, you never had it in the first place!

        Also, this:

        gay-owned businesses were fined for refusing to produce anti-gay religious brochures

        Has literally never happened. The rest of your post is at least only slight misrepresentation instead of an outright lie.

  4. Intolerant isn’t even the right word. It’s not enough to be tolerant. Agreement, Validation, Approval, Endorsement, willingness to persecute and/or excommunicate the heretics. It doesn’t really have any bounds.

    1. Yeah. That is another question I would like Matt to answer. Just exactly what position can anyone take that the left won’t brand as “intolerant”? I sure don’t see one.

      1. Tone-Def has already given us the answer here n

      2. John it’s not even just that. The GOP could agree with 100% of what the progressives want and they will still be branded as intolerant, and large swaths of the American people are unthinking enough to buy every word of it.

        Right now the GOP presidential field is more diverse (In terms of identity AKA the only diversity the left gives a shit about) then it’s been in ages, and yet they are still branded as the party of rich white men. Objective reality, no matter how much it contrasts with the leftist’s narrative doesn’t matter, it won’t fix the GOP’s image problem as long as the left controls so many cultural institutions.

        1. I read this morning where DiBlasio wants to ban smoking in private homes in New York City. But someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are the socially intolerant ones who want the government in your bedroom.

          1. And this is something I wish the GOP would do, and that is to use the Left’s own language against them. Point out the Democrats own puritanical beliefs when it comes to things like smoking.

            Oh course it would also help if the GOP got rid of some of it’s own puritanical impulses, first, and I think that might be gradually happening.

        2. “The GOP could agree with 100% of what the progressives want and they will still be branded as intolerant”

          The GOP is out of touch with America.

          Hell, it’s out of touch with its own under-30 base.

          There’s only so much mystical religious bullshit, bible-thumping, foreign-country-bombing, religion-legislating rhetoric that the average, rapidly secularizing American will take.

          The GOP is dying because the GOP has no place in a modern world where science, rationality, and liberty run the day.

          Libertarians have an opportunity to supplant conservatism as the alternative to progressivism, but instead they’re doing the equivalent of ideological TARP — endless bailouts, excuses and apologia for a bankrupt conservative ideology that is out of place with a modern world.

          “the GOP presidential field is more diverse (In terms of identity AKA the only diversity the left gives a shit about) then it’s been in ages”

          Your contempt for American people aside, the GOP’s problem is that it agrees with your prescription here. Rather than offer any kind of substantive policy platform with which everyday people can engage, it’s a field of “diverse” people who all offer the same old-fashioned boilerplate authoritarian religious nonsense.

          That’s why it’s not selling. And it will only get worse for the GOP in that regard, just as other religious authoritarian parties in much of the developed world have either collapsed or been forced to retool themselves and modernize.

    2. “Agreement, Validation, Approval, Endorsement, willingness to persecute and/or excommunicate the heretics”

      This is nothing new. Christian groups have been very active in pursuing lawsuits against private businesses and individuals who refuse to do business with, hire, or create special accommodations for their constituents under longstanding anti-discrimination laws.

      Most “libertarians” were largely silent on this practice, which extended DECADES.

      They only began complaining when gay people joined the party.

      That’s because they don’t believe in actual free association rights — they just don’t like gay people. Libertarianism is a still-socially-credible fig leaf for their homophobia.

      1. Still waiting for the citations. And it’s nice that you favor the expansion of the state here.

      2. or create special accommodations

        Wrong. The “reasonable accommodation” standard applies, much like the rest of the CRA. Speaking of which…

        Most “libertarians” were largely silent on this practice, which extended DECADES.

        Wrong. You’re mistaking your ignorance for a fact again. That you had your head shoved up your ass during the decades while libertarians were vociferously and vocally opposing protected class legislation is not a fault of libertarians.

  5. intolerant = runs against the grain of progressive policy

  6. Progressives are the most intolerant group there is. Just throw their “intolerant” charges right back in their faces.

    1. ^^^This^^^

      We’re never going to defeat the left by bending to their warped sense of tolerance. The facts are only our side we should use them. Hell how Americans are even familiar with the Libertarian point of view when it comes to politics? Most have never even heard it.

      For far too many Americans the only political points of views they know are the Democrats, and this bizarre caricature of Republicans that gets painted by the media.

      Accepting the left’s world view is not going to change that.

      1. Most people associate libertarianism with Republican conservatism, because so many “libertarians” are actually Republican conservatives and don’t really believe in freedom.

        1. Says the socialist.

        2. Says the socialist.

  7. WAR ON INTOLERANCE!

  8. The gay marriage issue is done for the time being. Unfortunately for proggies, there is a lot of time between now and the next election for the rest of reality to assert itself.

    Premium hikes, Greece, ISIS aren’t going away anytime soon.

    1. Pfft. Look how quickly they generated storm over Confederate flag over SC capitol, and, when GOP wouldn’t bite, moved to flag everywhere, then names, monuments… They can have a goddamn Second Reconstruction and it will last till next election.
      And if it falters, Rape Crisis, War on Women, War on Black People, War on Mexicans, Rising Inequality… there’s plenty of ammo for waging the Culture War, and the factories are producing more in numbers that put WW2 Soviet T-34 production to shame.

      1. Yup. There is always another idiotic distraction to get people fighting and for their idiot followers to feel smug about. It is the only move they have.

        1. It really is just about feeling smug with these people isn’t it? The same type of smug assholes driving around with their Coexist bumper stickers, makes me want to ram right into their smartcars. Much of the left’s success comes from finding a cheap easy meaningless way for idiots to feel better about themselves, and superior to everyone else. Why else do they always portray their opponents as knuckledragging backwood hicks?

          You would think that at some point their causes would reach a level of stupid so great that even these mindless idiots wouldn’t follow it, but we never seem to get there.

          1. The irony is that the very people you say you hate the most feel exactly the way about you. Just replace the “Coexist” with one of those Jesus fish, and the “hicks” bit with “cheese-nibbling elitsts.”

            You’re both different sides of the same coin. You wrangle over identity politics and your hatred for each other because you have no fundamental intellectual or ideological base from which to propose ideas, other than “I hate the lefties because they won the culture war I started (with a lot of libertarian help), let’s just sit and rage impotently about committing violence against them.”

            1. And most of your activists would fit right in to an Occupy riot. I hate lefties because they are slavers. No quantity of rainbows will cover that up.

      2. “The gay marriage issue is done for the time being.” ??? The real conflagration has probably only just started.
        The Court has opened the door for activists to go to every church in the US and demand to be gay married there. And there will be hell to pay if there is any hesitation in meeting their demands. Churches which refuse will be fined and fined and fined by lower courts. And will lose their tax exempt status. And receive any and all other punishments which the government can impose upon them or adapt or invent for the purpose. Asset forfeiture?
        When the Left wins they just increase their demands.
        And what other new rights will have to be discovered in the Constitution now? The list is probably endless.

      3. War on Mexicanso

        Well, that would be one way to resolve our border issues; heck, given how long the issue’s been festering, it’s probably the only solution with a reasonable chance of remedying the situation.

  9. I agree with the points people here make about the left often having a hyperbolic and/or inconsistent definition of “intolerance.” That said, it is absolutely ridiculous to pretend like the Republicans have absolutely nothing to do with their current public image and that it’s all a result of mean leftists making false, unfair statements about them in the media. At some point, the Party of Personal Responsibility needs to take some personal responsibility for their public image.

    1. Re the Stupid Party and the Evil Party, Dark Helmet about had it right. The Left will keep pushing the wedge of totalitarianism behind the metaphorical human shield of worthy causes, and the right will continue stupidly metaphorically* bombing the schoolkids and wondering why everyone hates them.

      *unless we’re talking about our middle eastern policy, in which case drop the metaphorically

    2. “it is absolutely ridiculous to pretend like the Republicans have absolutely nothing to do with their current public image”

      And it’s sadder still to see “libertarians” passionately defending and apologizing for authoritarian right-wingers by arguing that only authoritarian left-wingers are problematic in culture and politics.

      “Party of Personal Responsibility needs to take some personal responsibility”

      The LP is the party of personal responsibility. The GOP is the party of god, guns, wars and bailouts. (Not necessarily in that order). But lots of “libertarians” will go to the mat to defend the GOP’s demographically-imploding brand of peacockish religious authoritarianism and blame its decline on evil Democrats rather than the triumph of logic and reason in the general population.

      Rather than complain about the Democrats, libertarians have an opportunity to supplant the GOP as progressivism’s chief rival. But we won’t, because too many libertarians are busy trying to make nice with hard-right-wing authoritarians in the name of “pragmatism” — despite the profound collapse of that group.

      Old bad habits die hard, I guess.

      1. You do bring up a lot of good points. I wasn’t using the “Party of Personal Responsibility” thing seriously, but just because that’s how the GOP brands itself, so it’s a bit ironic when people try to almost completely absolve them of responsibility for their public image.

        “Rather than complain about the Democrats, libertarians have an opportunity to supplant the GOP as progressivism’s chief rival. But we won’t, because too many libertarians are busy trying to make nice with hard-right-wing authoritarians in the name of “pragmatism” — despite the profound collapse of that group.”

        It’s a tough position – the GOP brand isn’t terribly strong or well-positioned for the future, but they’ve had success at the local and state levels, so I don’t think anyone can say they’re doomed either. I think the GOP is too well-established for the LP to ever supplant it, sadly, which for a lot of libertarians mean the only alternative is taking over the GOP. And I do support libertarian Republicans or at least Republicans with sufficient libertarian leanings for my taste. But this strategy can be dangerous if libertarians become too willing to compromise principles and carry water for anti-libertarian conservatives in the name of “pragmatism.” Also, as you alluded to, you risk libertarianism becoming increasingly associated with negative aspects of the GOP brand the more it intertwines itself with the Republican Party.

      2. Right. Allying with the Left has really reined in the Leviathan. I get that social issues are your thing. too bad you can’t realize the economic devastation coming from the other side.

        1. I don’t think he/she advocated for allying with the left, unless they did elsewhere and I didn’t see it.

          1. You probably missed it while you were kissing his/her ass for slaying the same ridiculous strawman you were.

            1. Love the snark. I offered qualified disagreement with the part of their comment that seemed to suggest libertarians should try to make the LP the new alternative to the Democratic Party, which I think is an idea that has virtually zero chance of working. Reading some of their other comments in this thread, I disagree with plenty of things they’re saying. That was the only comment I had read at the time, and again, I didn’t fully agree with it all. If that = ass kissing then the rest of the thread is a full blown orgy.

              At least for my comment, I don’t see how it’s much of a strawman. This is a post about the GOP and their poor public image in a certain area, which hurts them with a lot of voters, and the vast majority of comments here are about how much the left sucks and how they’re such hypocrites who make unfair accusations against their enemies. This isn’t an outlier either – every time there’s a discussion about the GOP’s public image problems on issues of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, far more people attack the left for unfairly portraying the Republican Party as intolerant or bigoted on these issues than people critique the Republicans for all they’ve done to contribute to their bad brand in that area. On homosexuality especially, the Republicans have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for being viewed as intolerant or bigoted. Their actions have had far more impact on their image in that area than any exaggerations or lies told by the Democrats

      3. The GOP is the party of god, guns, wars and bailouts.

        No it’s not — it’s the party of “all talk”.
        Just look at how they say they need fiscal responsibility, yet continue to raise the public debt; look at how they claim to be against ObamaCare, yet don’t refuse to fund it; look at how they claim to be about Constitutional limitations, yet continue to fund the NSA (whose practices violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments).

        The Republican Party is like Texas; about branding, not actual action. (Remember when TX called up its national guard for that “Display Purposes Only” border security mission?)

  10. If one is looking only how their team can achieve victory, i think the GOP has won here with this decision.

    The left i think did not want the gay marriage issue to be resolved so they could have that card to play still. This may also fire up the evangelicals to vote even though it wont matter in terms of getting over turned. Also the GOP can more likely drop it from their platform while paying lip service to socons

    1. Oh, they can give me “lip service,” all right!

      I’d rather trust a used car salesman in a toupee than a Republican.

      1. Donald Trump?

    2. Evangelicals are a tiny and rapidly shrinking demographic.

      The irony is that the very tools they used to oppress others when they were powerful are now being turned on them… and it is only at that point that “libertarians” who were content to allow gay people, women, atheists, Wiccans, immigrants, Jews, etc. to suffer under statism have rediscovered free association rights.

      Evangelicals are only relevant in politics because of their outsized control over one of the duopoly parties.

      Well, that, plus the willingness of numerous libertarians to apologize for/ignore serious Republican predations while calling out every single Democratic one (even minor ones) as the END OF THE WORLD and WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST.

      1. Let me know when you as a “libertarian” bother to criticize the Left for its bankrupt economic policies.

      2. Um what?

        Are you advocating since people in the past oppressed folks that it justifies lumping future folks in with them and now oppressing them?

        Yikes.

        Not sure about your libertarian point as you seem to be making that up

      3. Libertarians sure are bastards in the alternate reality you’ve constructed out of equal parts fantasy and ignorance.

  11. Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, you may want to reflect on how quickly the Weimar Republic morphed into Nazi Germany.

  12. If you’re perceived to be intolerant, you will not be tolerated.

  13. So will Reason abandon the freedom of association in to pander to millennial sensibilities of tolerance?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.