• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

The GOP’s Gay Marriage Problem

republicans-elephant-flag-shadow

Via Andrew Sullivan comes something  that really ought to be self-evident at this point:

In the latest polling, 81 percent of those under 30 favored marriage equality. I was shocked by the number, but  shouldn’t have been. What we can all forget is that this is the first generation who went through their childhood and teens knowing that civil marriage was an option for gay couples. That generation included gay kids and teens who, for the first time, could see an integrated future for themselves in their own families and society. I have no doubt this has made that generation the least fucked-up, sanest gay generation in history – seeing from the get-go a real and equal and dignified future for themsleves. And their greater self-confidence and self-esteem has been infectious. Their straight peers know them and their orientation and simply find it baffling that they would be denied what every heterosexual has always accepted as a given in their own lives.

That can only mean that, for the young generation, and all those who follow it in the future, the GOP’s aggressive stance and brutal rhetoric against marriage equality simply identifies them as bigots. Some may not be. But that is what they will be seen to be. The report does not advocate changing policy on marriage equality. But I think the premise that it can win the next generation simply by ignoring the question is untenable.

(…)

The over-60, predominantly white, Fox News watching, fundamentalist base cannot budge an inch on gays. Because it’s a religious and not a political position. And so it may soon be a truly fateful day for the GOP: drop the anti-gay policies or become the even angrier old white man party.

How amazing that marriage equality, once wielded by Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove as their key weapon in winning Ohio and the presidency in 2004, now threatens to kill the GOP as a national brand. With every year that passes, every attack on gays is now felt by growing numbers of their own family members, friends, co-workers and neighbors. There’s a multiplier effect here. And gerry-mandering has enabled the GOP to control the House without ever having to grapple with those voters.

Sullivan goes on to say that the best hope for the GOP may be a Supreme Court ruling on the Proposition 8 case that creates a broad right to same-sex marriage nationwide rather than a narrow one (such as the one that the Obama Administration backed in its brief to the Court) that is specific to California or, at the most, those states that recognize civil unions for gays and lesbians but don’t allow them to marry. That way, he argues, the right could turn the argument against same-sex marriage into one over “judicial tyranny” instead of the losing battle over same-sex marriage. In many ways, that’s how the right benefited politically from the Roe v. Wade decision. This time, though, it would only be a temporary victory. Unlike abortion, a broad Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage would essentially be the end of the issue nationwide.  Unlike Roe which left open several areas for state legislation, a Supreme Court decision upholding a right to same-sex marriage would leave little room for state legislative action. Other than fundraising, there isn’t much the GOP would be able to do about this issue. Moreover, strident opposition to a Supreme Court decision that is likely to be popular with the public isn’t exactly going to help the party’s image problem very much.

So, Republicans find themselves with a dilemma. Either they keep up with their strident opposition to same-sex marriage in order to appease their base, while at the same time alienating themselves even further from younger and suburban voters, or they open themselves up to change before they become even more irrelevant to those voters. Perhaps they should hope for that far-reaching Supreme Court decision after all.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    The looming GOP crack-up pleases me to no end.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  2. mantis says:

    Well, according to Saxby Chambliss, legislators need only be concerned with issues that directly affect them. As he said this week, “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.” Of course, the question was asked by Politico dimwits, so they neglected to ask obvious followup questions such as “Are you also against women’s suffrage and the repeal of Jim Crow laws?” After all, those things were for women and blacks, and as such cannot be something Chambliss supports, being the white, male CHUD that he is.

    It is in line with Senator Portman’s about face on his opposition to equality. He found out his son is gay, so he’s looking out for his interests. The basic Republican position now seems to be “If you aren’t exactly like me or related to me by blood, I will do nothing for you. Go f*ck yourselves.” It doesn’t really fit on a bumper sticker, so maybe they can work on it a bit.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0

  3. ptfe says:

    “[O]r they open themselves up to change before they become even more irrelevant to those voters.”

    Past performance is, in this case, I believe an indicator of future results. The Republican brand is built on that 20-some percent that cling to it, plus a pastiche of 20-ish percent that dislike the Democratic brand, grew up within the Republican brand, or buy into some corner of its philosophy. So if they embrace same-sex marriage, they lose their 20-some percent on the front side; if they don’t, they have no hope of growing that 20-some percent on the back end. I suspect they’ll stick to the status quo until the bitter end.

    At this point, it’s probably easier for them to just let the old folks die off than try to change horses mid-stream.

    SSM is just the tip of the iceberg in the gender equality transition, though: transgender equality is turning into a much more significant movement, and it’s much more spectral than the “gay/straight/bi” definitions for relationships. If Republicans have spent this long obsessing over a binary choice of dangly bits that other people sleep next to, how long will it take to figure out what to do with a male-gendered/female-sexed person marrying a female-gendered/female-sexed person? (And bonus points if you can guess what they’ll say about a father giving birth.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  4. Ken says:
  5. de stijl says:

    How amazing that marriage equality, once wielded by Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove as their key weapon in winning Ohio and the presidency in 2004, now threatens to kill the GOP as a national brand.

    Ken Mehlman – the Roy Cohn of the Bush era.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  6. C. Clavin says:

    How about instead of choosiing between voting blocks…the GOP simply chooses the right thing? Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Yet impossible.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0

  7. matt bernius says:

    @ptfe:

    The Republican brand is built on that 20-some percent that cling to it, plus a pastiche of 20-ish percent that dislike the Democratic brand, grew up within the Republican brand, or buy into some corner of its philosophy. So if they embrace same-sex marriage, they lose their 20-some percent on the front side; if they don’t, they have no hope of growing that 20-some percent on the back end. I suspect they’ll stick to the status quo until the bitter end.

    This.

    The fact is that, if they want to change and stay relevant on these issues, the Republicans need to alienate their base to grow their base. Basically they need to give up on the Eric Floraks, Superdestroyers, and others hard line, talk-radio/CPAC conservatives (who, btw, have all but given up on the Republicans already, see every other one of SD’s highly repetitive posts).

    The ironic part is that this is actually a perfect moment for the Republicans to do this. The House is largely protected for Republicans until ~2020 thanks to gerrymandered districts and the fact that the majority of their base will typically vote “R” regardless of who runs.

    As for the Senate, they’re already in the minority and there’s little chance of that changing without a change in the nature of who they are putting up in statewide competitions (see the recent losses in theoretically “red” states). And if done now, it could be well underway by the 2016 race, revitalizing the brand and giving them a real chance of taking back the Whitehouse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  8. SenyorDave says:

    @mantis: If I were interviewing Rob Portman one of my first questions would be: “Does it bother you that it took your son being gay for you to what you now believe is the right thing?”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  9. Nikki says:

    The basic Republican position now seems to be “If you aren’t exactly like me or related to me by blood, I will do nothing for you. Go f*ck yourselves.”

    That’s been the basic Republican position for the last 30 years.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

  10. Ken says:

    @SenyorDave: If I were interviewing him, my first question would be : “Has your recent soul searching led you to change your mind on any other issues, or will that only happen when they directly affect you as well?”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  11. NickTamere says:

    the GOP supports states rights, smaller government, and family values, unless it will cost them religious fundamentalist votes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  12. mantis says:

    @Nikki:

    That’s been the basic Republican position for the last 30 years.

    Good point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  13. matt bernius says:

    One other point… the challenge for the GOP is that “Gay Marriage” problem mirrors the problem that the GOP has on a number of it’s historic wedge issues. Note how the following paragraph also fits the topic of Immigration:

    Republicans find themselves with a dilemma. Either they keep up with their strident opposition to same-sex marriage comprehensive immigration reform in order to appease their base, while at the same time alienating themselves even further from younger and suburban voters, or they open themselves up to change before they become even more irrelevant to those voters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  14. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @mantis:

    “If you aren’t exactly like me or related to me by blood, I will do nothing for you. Go f*ck yourselves.” It doesn’t really fit on a bumper sticker, so maybe they can work on it a bit.

    “Got Mine. Fwck You.” fits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  15. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @NickTamere:

    the GOP supports states rights,

    States have rights? I thought only people had rights. Silly me…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  16. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @mantis:

    As he said this week, “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”

    “Hey Saxby…. I don’t think you have anything to worry about.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  17. Tsar Nicholas says:

    The other side of this coin, however, is the staggering dichotomy between issue-based opinions and partisan, party-based elections. They don’t jibe.

    Take Ohio, Florida and Virginia.

    Recently Ohio and Florida both voted nearly by identical and overwhelming margins (62-38) to ban same-sex marriages. That’s despite the liberal media and despite the minimum voting age being at least a decade too low. Virginia also recently voted by an overwhelming margin to ban same-sex marriages. Of course it goes without saying that if anything the black demographic is more sectarian and more socially conservative than the white demographic. Whether in California or in various places to the east.

    So if people voted in party-based elections in lock step to the ways in which they’ve voted to ban same-sex marriages we’d likely now be discussing Romney’s cabinet appointments and Romney’s judicial nominees. But of course last November Obama won all three states. By narrow margins, granted, but still wins are wins.

    Blacks in Florida voted for Obama 95-5. Blacks in Ohio voted 96-4 for Obama. Blacks in Virginia voted for Obama 93-7.

    The GOP has a race problem, not a gay marriage problem. As in blacks will vote in complete lock step for the Democrat, strictly based upon race. Issues matter not.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 32

  18. gVOR08 says:

    @mantis: The usual version, “I got mine and f*ck you”. does fit nicely on a bumper sticker, but somehow they don’t seem to wish to be honest about this position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  19. David M says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    …blacks will vote in complete lock step for the Democrat, strictly based upon race. Issues matter not.

    Come on, even for you that’s ridiculous.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  20. mantis says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Recently Ohio and Florida both voted nearly by identical and overwhelming margins (62-38) to ban same-sex marriages.

    Ohio voters did that in 2004; Florida voters did so in 2008. You are ignoring the big point here, which is how quickly public opinion has changed and continues to change on this issue. But who here would be surprised to see you ignoring key facts in favor of whatever inane and assuredly wrong point you are trying to make.

    Virginia also recently voted by an overwhelming margin to ban same-sex marriages.

    2006.

    Of course it goes without saying that if anything the black demographic is more sectarian and more socially conservative than the white demographic.

    If by “goes without saying” you mean “is complete nonsense,” then yes.

    The GOP has a race problem, not a gay marriage problem. As in blacks will vote in complete lock step for the Democrat, strictly based upon race. Issues matter not.

    Yes, blacks have no problems with Republicans on the issues at all! Why would anyone think that?

    You’re a moron.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0

  21. gVOR08 says:

    @matt bernius: You’re right, the Rs have to destroy their base in order to save their base. You’re also right that this is the time for them to do it. However, I worry it may not be all that hard. They created the “hard line, talk-radio/CPAC conservatives” and they can recreate them. FOX and the rest have a very good handle on how to manipulate conservatives. Most of the conservatives I know think they have always believed things I know they didn’t believe ten years ago. In another ten they’ll all believe marriage equality would have happened five years earlier if only Obama had accepted their offer of cooperation. Like Eric, SD, and the rest of the boys, they talk tough, but who else they gonna vote for?

    If the establishment party line changes, FOX, the WSJ, the Weekly Standard, National Review etc. will go along with it. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, and that ilk may be a problem. They’re making a lot of money and would make less if they throttled back. However, if there’s one tool GOPs have, it’s money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  22. @Tsar Nicholas:

    As in blacks will vote in complete lock step for the Democrat, strictly based upon race. Issues matter not.

    Woah, woah, woah…..I’ll stipulate that blacks vote in “complete lock step for the Democrat,” but if you think that’s because “issues matter not,” you should review the Republican stand on the issues over the last three or four decades.

    Basically, on the issues, the GOP has a non-white male problem, and even then…it’s a mystery why they still get the poor ones.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  23. Unlike abortion, a broad Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage would essentially be the end of the issue nationwide. Unlike Roe which left open several areas for state legislation, a Supreme Court decision upholding a right to same-sex marriage would leave little room for state legislative action.

    They’ll create the same hurdles to same-sex marriage as abortion: for example, require couples to complete a state “marriage training” course before they can get a license. For the religious, of course, this can be fullfilled by the pre-marriage counseling many churches already required. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, will have to sit through lecturing on how marriage is for the purpose of procreation and how they’re really just a loop hole.

    Or require a blood test for HIV before marriage; and to make sure it’s valid, the couple must prove they’ve not had any “high risk” sexual contacts in the past three months. Of course having sex with each other will be counted as high risk for same sex couples, much as it is for blood donations.

    You’re really underestimating the ability of bigots to be sadistic here.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  24. matt bernius says:

    @gVOR08:
    I don’t think it will be as easy as you think. Fox will definitely make that shift — they are doing it already. But remember that Fox is a media organization, not a personality brand.

    The problem is that all the personality brands depend on audiences. And their most valuable audience is the reliable, radical base. Most can afford to lose progressive Republicans and casual listeners (see the story of Glenn Beck). None can make it without talk media conservatives.

    So, if anything, all of the talkers (with the exception of Hannity) have progressively gone further to the populist right. The Tea Party caucus might be dead in congress, but it’s a lucrative base for the talkers, most of whom, while in the second half of their careers, are still a decade away from retirement. That means that reinvention isn’t in the best interests of their personal brand.

    And when you look at those who are trying to be *slightly* more progressive — again Hannity — the only immigration reform he dares support is Rand Paul’s utterly unworkable “secure the border first” approach. And I don’t think Hannity can be much more progressive on that issue because of how much he’s preached border control for years.

    The current talked generation has made their bed. And the “up and coming” generation (Malkin, Dana Loesch, and others) have based their act on their predecessors’ schtick, so, while they might be able to reinvent, the system that employs them isn’t looking for that reinvention.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  25. David M says:

    Is it really a dilemma though? The odd thing about the whole gay marriage issue, is how little affect it has on most people. Civil unions were legal for a while in Washington and I think gay marriage was approved by the voters last year, but for a lot people, there’s no noticeable change.

    Is it really that hard to imagine the GOP just dropping it as an issue and moving on to their next fake outrage?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  26. matt bernius says:

    @David M:

    Is it really a dilemma though? The odd thing about the whole gay marriage issue, is how little affect it has on most people. Civil unions were legal for a while in Washington and I think gay marriage was approved by the voters last year, but for a lot people, there’s no noticeable change.

    The problem has nothing to do with actual change, noticeable or otherwise. It has to do with promised change that’s been treated as a matter of faith.

    The GOP and it’s surrogates has continually treated any extension of gay rights as having apocalyptic implications for the country. Just a few years ago, removing DADT would *destroy* the military. In many locations, allowing gay marriage is promised to *destroy* the social order.

    When you’ve set the stakes that high, its very difficult to just walk away from the issue. And it becomes even more problematic when your base has completely drunk the kool-aide. So the party is forced to hold onto foolish, extreme positions for far longer than its practical (gay rights, climate change, immigration reform) rather than admit that realistically trying to solve these issues won’t end the world as we know it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  27. HarvardLaw92 says:

    I’m not sure that we need to look much further than the wisdom of playing to a gallery that is essentially dying out. Social conservatism plays to a finite segment of the GOP base, and that segment is arguably 1) declining and 2) voicing increasingly hostile rhetoric that alienates moderates like garlic to a vampire.

    So the GOP has to choose between pandering to a relatively small block of voters that were arguably never going to vote anything BUT Republican to begin with, or broadening its appeal at the expense of alienating some of the social diehards.

    That choice wouldn’t seem to be a difficult one to anyone with a brain, but for reasons passing understanding, the GOP either can’t or won’t admit that it is playing the wrong tune to the wrong gallery.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  28. matt bernius says:

    @matt bernius:

    When you’ve set the stakes that high, its very difficult to just walk away from the issue. And it becomes even more problematic when a significant portion of your base base has completely drunk the kool-aide.

    Fixed with some much needed nuance.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. rudderpedals says:

    @HarvardLaw92: GOP either can’t or won’t admit that it is playing the wrong tune to the wrong gallery.

    Can’t. They’re dancing with the folks what brought them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  30. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @matt bernius:

    The ironic part is that this is actually a perfect moment for the Republicans to do this. The House is largely protected for Republicans until ~2020 thanks to gerrymandered districts and the fact that the majority of their base will typically vote “R” regardless of who runs.

    I’m not so sure about that. While gerrymandering is a concern, Dems picked up seats in both houses in 2012, despite the districts having been newly gerrymandered in 2010/2011.

    At the time, they led the generic congressional polling by something like 2 points. That lead has now broadened to somewhere between 6 and 8 points.

    How well the GOP performs in the midterms, IMO, comes down to how willing their leadership is to see reality and start throwing the TP caucus (yes, I know, it’s hypothetically dead …) in the House under the bus in order to cut some deals.

    They indicated, as far as I can tell, that they’ve gotten that message via their passage of the recent continuing resolution. Quick passage, little debate and Boehner corralling dissent.

    If they keep to that path, they have a shot. If not, and they allow the obstructionists to take control of the agenda again, then they’ll go down in flames in 2014.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  31. Mikey says:

    @mantis:

    Ohio voters did that in 2004; Florida voters did so in 2008. You are ignoring the big point here, which is how quickly public opinion has changed and continues to change on this issue.

    Indeed, there’s been a total inversion of the percentages in nationwide polling since 2008. The percentage opposed then is the percentage in favor now.

    And of course Tsar ignores the results of the 2012 votes on gay marriage:

    Maine: Legalized gay marriage, 53-47.
    Maryland: Legalized gay marriage, 52-48.
    Washington: Legalized gay marriage, 53-47.

    And in Minnesota, voters defeated an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, 52-47.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  32. Tony W says:

    The OTB comment section is a bubble itself – it’s interesting to visit Yahoo news or other “general population” sites where folks of all stripes come to discuss the issues. I am continually struck by the level of sheer stupidity and blind obedience the GOP supporters show toward their masters. It is awe-inspiring, even breathtaking, to see the rejection of logic and reason. Name calling is a completely acceptable form of debate. Fake Obama is real to these folks. Gay people, non-whites, poor people, etc. are all blamed victims – and there are massive numbers of subscribers.

    If the article is about guns, gods or gays you will routinely get 3 or 4 thousand “likes” on some seriously inane comments. Many of these folks, presumably, have children of their own who are lapping this stuff up at the dinner table every night along with their possum stew.

    In short – if the internet is any judge, I think reports of the GOPs demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  33. john personna says:

    @Tony W:

    Contrast Yahoo (old) with Reddit (young) on what gets the up-votes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  34. @john personna:

    I must say I’m amused by the idea that Yahoo now qualifies as “old” media.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  35. grumpy realist says:

    @john personna: Ha. I wonder how many people posting on Yahoo are still using AOL and a dial-up?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  36. David M says:

    @matt bernius:

    The GOP and it’s surrogates has continually treated any extension of gay rights as having apocalyptic implications for the country. Just a few years ago, removing DADT would *destroy* the military. In many locations, allowing gay marriage is promised to *destroy* the social order.

    @Tony W:

    I am continually struck by the level of sheer stupidity and blind obedience the GOP supporters show toward their masters. It is awe-inspiring, even breathtaking, to see the rejection of logic and reason.

    I still think for the reasons Tony W list, the GOP could drop the apocalyptic nonsense that matt correctly identifies as the standard GOP talking points. GOP voters don’t require their politicians to hold coherent policy positions, in fact they probably would punish any that do.

    They’ve largely dropped any attempts to reinstate DADT without any negative electoral consequences. I don’t even there will be a vote to reinstate DADT if the GOP wins the Presidency, Senate and House in 2016. If they can drop DADT as an issue, they can drop their opposition to gay marriage. The GOP has simultaneously campaigned on expanding and cutting Medicare for the last several cycles, why do they need to be any more consistent on gay marriage?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  37. Rafer Janders says:

    @David M:

    The GOP has simultaneously campaigned on expanding and cutting Medicare for the last several cycles, why do they need to be any more consistent on gay marriage?

    Indeed. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  38. Tony W says:

    @john personna: Is that why I spend so much damn time on Reddit these days? That thing is addictive…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  39. al-Ameda says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Recently Ohio and Florida both voted nearly by identical and overwhelming margins (62-38) to ban same-sex marriages. That’s despite the liberal media and despite the minimum voting age being at least a decade too low.

    It’s all a liberal media conspiracy!
    The liberal media has caused millions of Americans to support gay marriage, simply amazing!

    Where would conservatives be, what would they do, if they didn’t have the Liberal Media Conspiracy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  40. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    How does rewarding a group that absolute detest conseratives and everything they stand for help the conservatives.

    Does anyone seriously believe that the organized homosexuals will stop after they get federal recognition of homosexual marriage? The only question is whether affirmative action or hate crime legislation comes next. I suspect that based upon the micro=aggression, thought crime laws in the form of hate crimes will be the next push. Then affirmative action and set asides for after that, the tax exempt status of churches that do not perform homosexual marriages.

    Any conservatives that believes that they will get any advantage or one more vote by giving homosexual activist what they want is a fool.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

  41. al-Ameda says:

    @superdestroyer:

    How does rewarding a group that absolute detest conseratives and everything they stand for help the conservatives.

    Didn’t used to be that way. Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans? Gays used to be Republican voters, that is before the GOP went all in on the hyper morality crowd.

    Why do Republicans have such a hard time with equal protection under the law?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  42. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Any conservatives that believes that they will get any advantage or one more vote by giving homosexual activist what they want is a fool.

    The unspoken subtext from SD’s comment: We’ve treated gays so badly, OF COURSE they’ll come looking for revenge! That’s what we’d do!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0

  43. superdestroyer says:

    @Gold Star for Robot Boy:

    Revenge is somewhat of a core value of the Democratic Party. How else do you explain the repeated appearances of progressives and liberals in front of the Supreme Court arguing that separate and unequal is not only legal but good government policy.

    The idea that homosexuals will not take revenge is laughable. How long do you think before homosexuals go after christian churches or create “thought crime” like laws and regulations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  44. john personna says:

    @Tony W:

    Reddit is fast too. I often see stories on their front page that hit “the blogs” and gain Memeorandum rank a day later.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  45. Barry says:

    @matt bernius: “The ironic part is that this is actually a perfect moment for the Republicans to do this. The House is largely protected for Republicans until ~2020 thanks to gerrymandered districts and the fact that the majority of their base will typically vote “R” regardless of who runs. ”

    I disagree. Right now, the incentives work the other way. If they are in favor with the Tea Party, their seat is secure through 2020. If they fall out of favor with the Tea Party, then they’ll be primaried out in the next election. And the Tea Party/other GOP leadership will be more willing to primary ‘traitors’, since the seat is a secure Republican seat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  46. Barry says:

    Tsar Nicholas: ” That’s despite the liberal media and despite the minimum voting age being at least a decade too low.”

    F*ck you – frankly people like you should not only be banned from voting, but also castrated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  47. Tony W says:

    @Barry: I get your sentiment, but that is going too far dude.

    I disagree with Tsar on nearly everything he/she says – but I demand protection of Tsar’s right to say it, vote and procreate as he/she is able. To do otherwise is truly un-American.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  48. N B says:

    The real problem is that Americans don’t understand WHY the government has any interest in marriage in the first place.

    Does the government really give a crap about affirming who you love? No! Is it really the government’s job to regulate consensual romantic relationships? No! So why does government recognize marriage? That’s the question we ought to be asking. And if Republicans learned to articulate that better and if Democrats would take their fingers out of their ears for one second and keep the words “bigot” and “homophobe” inside for just one g d second this issue just might get resolved.

    Government only cares about marriage because of the unique biological effects that only a sexual union between a man and a woman can create. Recognition of marriage is not about making gays second class citizens. Its about recognizing that there is something unique and important in the sexual union of a man and a woman, that the union can create a new life, which the government exists for the protection of. Two people of the same sex don’t work that way. Its not about hating them or oppressing them, its just about acknowledging a simple scientific fact.

    On top of that, current marriage law IS equal. Gay people are allowed to get married to people of the opposite gender, and straight people are not allowed to marry people of the same gender. There are no stipulations about sexual orientation, only biological complementarity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  49. Mikey says:

    @N B:

    Recognition of marriage is not about making gays second class citizens. Its about recognizing that there is something unique and important in the sexual union of a man and a woman, that the union can create a new life, which the government exists for the protection of.

    Well, I guess since I’ve had a vasectomy, my wife and I must divorce, since our union can no longer create a new life.

    And anyone who, for any reason, is similarly unable to procreate, must be barred from marrying, because the union could never result in a child.

    And of course, if you’re a widow who is past childbearing age, don’t even think about marrying again, because your purpose in life, which is only to push out babies, is no longer achievable.

    Seriously, where do you people get this crap?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  50. matt bernius says:

    @Mikey:
    Not to mention that this sort of simple calculus seems to ignore the concept of inheritance and all the other specialized privileges that come with being married.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  51. G.A.Phillips says:

    Oh the stupidity….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  52. Al says:

    @N B:

    All of the same arguments were made in 1967 and they all failed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  53. G.A.Phillips says:

    F*ck you – frankly people like you should not only be banned from voting, but also castrated.

    Nazi ****tard!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  54. G.A.Phillips says:

    How about we ban and castrate Idot facist miltant perverts?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  55. Surreal American says:

    @G.A.Phillips:

    Hey, what you want to do to yourself is your own affair. Leave us out of it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  56. al-Ameda says:

    @G.A.Phillips:

    How about we ban and castrate Idot facist miltant perverts?

    Did you intend to say:

    “How about we ban and castrate Idot Izod-wearing facist miltant perverts?”

    If so, we agree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. al-Ameda says:

    @al-Ameda:

    “How about we ban and castrate Idot Izod-wearing facist miltant perverts?”

    Actually, 2 more edits …

    “How about we ban and castrate Idot Izod-wearing facist facetious miltant militant perverts?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. Montana says:

    The KKK started the minutemen and then the Teabag Party. Now they control the GOP. Does anyone real believe that minorities will change the view of the GOP. The GOP just wants to send out coconuts out with the same old GOP message of protecting the rich, because they no longer hold a lead on civil liberties because they were the ones who came up and passed the Patriot Act, they were the ones who kidnapped and waterboarded, they were the ones who passed vaginal ultrasound bills throughout the nation (but leave the child abandoned after birth), they are the ones who love hating the gays, they were the ones who passed minority voter suppression laws right before a national election. I think the GOP has written off all minorities, but hey send out your coconuts, but don’t expect winning any elections. The GOP will reap what they have sown!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0