Republican Support For Same-Sex Marriage On The Rise

A new poll of 2016 primary voters shows that even Republicans are coming to accept that gays and lesbians should have the right to get married.

GOP Rainbow Flag

It has been more than two years now since we first started seeing polls showing that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, including the most recent Gallup poll on the issue which showed 55% of Americans support marriage equality a mere 15 years after the same poll showed that more than three-quarters of Americans opposed it. Not surprisingly, this polling has also showed differences across a number of demographic groups. Younger Americans, Americans who are more highly educated, and people who identify as Democratic or Independent are now groups that strongly support the right of gays and lesbians to marry, while older Americans, Republicans, and those who self-identify as conservative have tended to remain opposed. A new poll from NBC News and Marist College, though, has some surprising results when it comes to Republicans:

NBC News and Marist College are out with a batch of new 2016 primary polls. And as you might expect, Common Core, immigration reform, belief in man-made climate change and support for raising taxes on the wealthy are among those with the potential to alienate lots of conservatives.

But according to the polls, so does opposition to gay marriage — an issue on which Bush agrees with basically every other candidate.

The polls, in fact, show that about half of likely GOP caucus and primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina said they find opposition to gay marriage either “mostly” or “totally” unacceptable in a candidate. Fifty-two percent of likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina said opposing gay marriage is either mostly or totally unacceptable, while 47 percent of likely Iowa caucus voters agree.

By comparison, 63 percent of Iowa voters say belief in man-made climate change (and fighting it) is unacceptable, 56 percent of New Hampshire voters say raising taxes on the wealthy is a non-starter, and 52 percent of South Carolina voters say support for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship is a deal-breaker on one level or another.

Voters in all three states find a candidate who supports gay marriage to be about as amenable as one who doesn’t toe the party line on any of these issues.

And while the numbers are surprising, they make some sense. A Pew poll conducted in March 2014 showed 39 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners supported gay marriage. Add the passage of time and the fact that non-Republicans can vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and you’ve got a potentially less anti-gay marriage electorate come next year.

On some level , of course, this isn’t entirely surprising. While previous polling has shown people who identify as Republican more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than support it, those numbers have been changing just like the numbers for the population as a whole have been changing. Thanks to the fact that Republicans are more likely to be religious and politically conservative, it’s no surprise that it has taken longer for them to come along on this issue than other Americans, but it was always likely that they would start to change their minds on this issue just as the general public has, it’s just happened more slowly. The Republican lag on same-sex marriage in polling has also been influenced by the fact that older Americans have been the demographic group most likely to oppose marriage equality, and they also happen to identify as Republican more than other age group. Over time, though, younger age groups are becoming a larger part of the Republican coalition, though. As younger Americans come to be a larger portion of the sub-group of self-identified “Republicans,” it only makes sense that the poll numbers would reflect that change. In other words, the generational changes that have played a large role in the widening public acceptance of same-sex marriage are affecting Republicans as much as they have everyone else, it’s just happened at a slower pace.

More than demographic changes, though, I suspect that a large factor in the changing Republican attitude on same-sex marriage is quite simply the fact that most Republicans, just like most Americans, are coming to realize that the debate on same-sex marriage is essentially over. In just the past two years, we have seen the Defense of Marriage Act declared unconstitutional, something which led to a whole series of court rulings that have made same-sex marriage legal in the vast majority of the country. In addition to those legal victories, voters and state legislatures in a number of states have legalized same-sex marriage, while the last time that a ban on same-sex marriage was passed into law was the North Carolina referendum in April 2012. The Supreme Court has let decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in dozens of states stand, which has opened marriage up to couples in states from Alaska to Florida, including such unlikely places as South Carolina, Kansas, and Alabama. Now, we are mere months away from a Supreme Court decision on the appeal of the only Court of Appeals decision upholding a marriage ban that will, according to all of the available evidence, result in a decision declaring bans against same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. From a handful of states in 2012, we are now at the point where same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states and will likely be legal in the remaining 13 states in a few short months.  Throughout the entire process, many leading Republicans have been largely silent on the issue, and many have been supportive of the expansion of marriage equality.

This poll, I would suggests, reflects an opinion among many Republicans that the best thing that can happen to their party is for the same-sex marriage issue to go away, which is essentially what will happen if the Supreme Court rules as most court observers expect it to. The recent events in Alabama confirm that there will likely still be some element in the Republican coalition that will be strongly opposed to marriage equality, at least for the foreseeable future. This element of the party will likely try to do what it can to mount some kind of counterattack, but this poll, along with others that we have seen recently, seems to suggest that they are unlikely to find many supporters inside the GOP. In the end, Republicans will come to accept same-sex marriage just like the rest of America has, and the social conservatives who exploited the issue in the past will find themselves left out in the cold.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
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. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. C. Clavin says:

    This just in…Republicans cautiously test the 21st century waters…are only a little bit scared.

  2. In 30 years, Republicans will be saying that Same Sex marriage was actually their idea and that it was really the Democrats who opposed it for so long.

  3. C. Clavin says:

    @Stormy Dragon:
    30 years?
    During the ’16 campaign.
    Obamacare too.

  4. stonetools says:

    Obama on same sex marriage:

    “But part of it is also, frankly, that an issue like non-discrimination for the LGBT community is a little bit easier than the issues of inner-city poverty, right? You not discriminating against a gay person may require you to undergo some change of mind, but it doesn’t require you potentially calling on the government to provide more support for impoverished children so they’ve got more day care that’s high quality,” he said.

    So actually , same sex marriage should be easy even for IGMFU libertarian type Republicans, since it doesn’t require them to actually give up anything. Why then, have they made such a mountain of this molehill?Because bigotry makes you stupid, I guess.

  5. OzarkHillbilly says:

    I suspect that a large factor in the changing Republican attitude on same-sex marriage is quite simply the fact that most Republicans, just like most Americans, are coming to realize that the debate on same-sex marriage is essentially over.

    Doug, Doug, Doug… The debate about man made climate change has long been over but that never stopped them from arguing it. No, what has stopped them here is the fact that gays are refusing to allow themselves to be shoved in a closet, and Conservatives have been forced to acknowledge that that nice young man/woman across the street who always helps carry in the groceries or shovel the driveway, or rake the leaves? They aren’t just room mates with that other nice young man/woman who always helps with the… Yeah, they have been forced to face the fact that gays and lesbians are actual human beings and as such are deserving of recognition as such by society.

  6. stonetools says:

    You also have to give the Administration and the movement credit for tackling DADT first, then pushing SSM. Once it became clear that gays were willing to serve in the military and to die for the USA, then it became unfair and mean-spirited to deny them rights all Americans had. Logically, the two issues were unconnected, but the heart has its own logic that logic doesn’t know(to paraphrase Pascal).

    Its not that conservatives have learned anything: its that they were in large part outmaneuvered.

  7. Modulo Myself says:

    Basically, two men could have been married in 1994 and not even a drunk gay-basher yelling about homos would have been dumb enough to believe that a gay marriage was a threat to every straight marriage. The argument was so stupid that the only reason it stuck was due to the fact that ordinary Republicans are extremely weak-minded when presented with factory-made ideas or people, or they are cruel enough to go after gay people and enjoy prejudice and bigotry while pretending to be into values. They’re still weak-minded, so who about some (probably the cruel) having moved on to other venues?

  8. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Somebody tell Ted … He evidently didn’t get the memo

  9. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    So my question is, how to treat those who have changed their positions. Do you welcome them to the right side, or do you beat the living crap out of them for their former positions?

    Judging by past performance, I expect a lot of gloating and insults and denigration on would-be new allies. After all, the IMPORTANT THING is to remember who was right originally, and who was WRONG initially, and that must never be forgotten. Let the new converts grovel and abase themselves a bit before they can be accepted.

  10. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Sort of depends on whether the conversion is genuine, no?

  11. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Why is that important? And who judges what is “genuine?”

  12. Modulo Myself says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    An actual apology would be nice. Both to everybody for wasting their time and to gay people, for harming them.

  13. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Modulo Myself: So it isn’t enough that you get them to stop fighting. It isn’t enough that you get them on your side. You need your ego stroked. You need them to humiliate themselves and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along.

    That’s what you need?

  14. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Let the new converts grovel and abase themselves a bit before they can be accepted.

    Ah, so conservatives are, are… victims.

    Now there’s an original thought.

  15. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Because none of us are Jesus Christ, and we make subjective determinations with regard to the people that we associate ourselves with.

    Speaking personally? I’m glad for the support either way, but if the evidence tells me that it’s being tendered for self-serving reasons, as opposed to a genuine sense of contrition, I’m just not interested in breaking bread with that person.

  16. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Lay off of playing the victim card. It’s boring.

  17. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And my question is do you really think using ALL CAPS and bold typefaces and italics makes your arguments any less insipid?

  18. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Do you welcome them to the right side, or do you beat the living crap out of them for their former positions?

    That’s a good question.

    Snarky answer is that they’ll probably be subjected to the same treatment that Obama has received on the topic. “So you evolved, huh?” Snicker, snicker.

    More serious answer: We give them a high five for “evolving” too.

  19. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I haven’t seen much evidence that anyone is interested in harassing individuals who have changed their mind and now support same sex marriage. I also haven’t seen much evidence the GOP has actually changed their mind. I seem to remember something ugly from Brownback in Kansas recently.

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Here’s my suggestion: take the conversion at face value. Take the victory. Then look for other issues where you can build on that to win them over on that one, too.

    Don’t overextend, don’t make a huge production out of their seeing the light. Don’t get hung up on your own ego and rub their noses in how you were right all along, and how bad they were for being wrong so long.

    There’s a principle in sales: don’t sell past the close. Once the other party agrees, stop pushing. You’ve already gotten what you wanted; pushing more runs a very real risk of changing their mind back. Just say “thank you, I”m glad you made the right choice” and drop it.

    Because there’s always another matter. And you can either go into that next encounter with them feeling OK about the last time they went along with you, or pissed off because they lost the last time?

    “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S Truman

  21. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Poor, poor, Jenos the perpetual victim.

  22. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Pearce: Snarky answer is that they’ll probably be subjected to the same treatment that Obama has received on the topic. “So you evolved, huh?” Snicker, snicker.

    There are differences. For one, everyone knew Obama was lying when he said he didn't support same-sex marriage. For another, I'm talking mainly about the rank and file types, not the top leaders. They don't think they can reverse themselves.

    I"m talking about peeling away their supporters. To steal another idea, sometimes the leaders end up having to follow the followers.

  23. Modulo Myself says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Remorse and regret are just things that They want you to feel.

  24. Modulo Myself says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You’re basically admitting that gay marriage was just another piece on a political chessboard for the right. Why should anyone respect that?

  25. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @C. Clavin: Poor, poor, Jenos the perpetual victim.

    Christ, can you ever not be a colossal dumbass?

    I’m speaking as someone who agrees with you on this issue, but knows the people on the other side and, generally, gets along with them. I’m telling you how I think will best get a significant number of the people I get along with around to the right side on this issue.

    You’re proving my point for me. I’m on your side here, but you have this need to be the hero and make me the bad guy. So you need to turn everything into some kind of macho confrontation where you can put me in my place.

    And what’s worse, you really suck at it.

    So why not hang it up and try something new?

  26. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I do take it at face value, until I have reason to believe otherwise. I don’t expect people to genuflect and rend their garments, but I won’t abide a Janus either.

  27. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Given the radical change in polling data on this since 2000, haven’t we already seen how people who have changed their mind on this issue are treated?

  28. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Modulo Myself: You’re basically admitting that gay marriage was just another piece on a political chessboard for the right. Why should anyone respect that?

    And your side is all perfect? If that’s the case, why was Obama given a pass for being for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it?

    You wanna preserve your precious purity, or you wanna make progress?

    Time to figure out your priorities: the issue, or yourself.

  29. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Know what I think brings people around to this issue faster than anything else? Knowing someone that’s gay. Gays have increasingly stood up and said “we’re here. This is who we are”. People have had no choice but to notice.

    It’s easy to hate “those people” It’s considerably more difficult when “those people” are your kids, your neighbors, and your friends.

  30. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: It certainly can help. Who would’ve expected Dick Cheney to take such a public stance?

  31. An Interested Party says:

    So my question is, how to treat those who have changed their positions. Do you welcome them to the right side…

    At this point, SSM is easy…when those people come around on issues like global warming or remedying income equality, sure, let’s welcome them…

  32. DrDaveT says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You need them to humiliate themselves and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along.

    They don’t need to apologize to me — I’m not the injured party. Unlike you, I realize that it’s not about me.

    Of course we welcome them. If they’re sincere, they will of course want to apologize to the people they insulted and harmed, but nobody’s going to force them.

  33. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    you have this need to be the hero and make me the bad guy. So you need to turn everything into some kind of macho confrontation where you can put me in my place.

    Hmmm. And when you said this to me yesterday:

    But if that’s how you need to compensate for… other shortcomings, be my guest.

    But it’d be better for all concerned, I think, if you just bought a sports car or got hair plugs or something.

    That was what? Mature and reasoned debate? No, it sounds like you need to be the hero and you were engaging in “macho confrontation.”

    If you want to be be though of as a reasonable person, be a reasonable person. As it it, you simply come off as someone endlessly shifting personas and tactics because you are more interested in playing games than having any sort of intelligent discourse. For those of us who enjoy talking/arguing politics on a relatively adult basis, its pretty annoying. Are you only here to annoy people?

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: What was that? I call it “kinder than you deserved.”

    And why am I not surprised you didn’t link to the context of that remark? Oh, yeah, because one of your primary tactics is to take things out of context to present a dishonest representation. Here’s my full comment, where the full context is available.

  35. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Well, the full context of your remark does make you look a bit more petulant and whiny – is that the impression of yourself you are trying to give?

  36. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    You need your ego stroked. You need them to humiliate themselves and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along.

    Of all the crap I’ve seen you post, this is beyond the pale. Asking for an apology is HUMILIATING? It’s degrading someone to expect them to say they’re sorry when they’re wrong? OMGWTF is wrong with you?!

    You and yours are the ego-driven ones. You are still somehow making this about you and your feelings. That a simple act of kindness and manners is considered a punishment by you shows your true colors. People expect others to treat them the way they would treat strangers. If you are a kind person, you assume others are kind as well. If you hold grudges, you think everyone else in the world does too. For you to whine about the poor widdle bullies and how everyone’s going to perceive them for the rat bastards they are instead of the people actually getting screwed by these laws made me die a little inside that people like you have the ability to hurt others in this world.

    I try to be courteous and polite here. I try not to sling arrows or cast aspersion if possible. But you, sir? Go to hell. Thank god your kind is dying out from the inside.

  37. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Right.
    All you do is lie and play the victim.
    Even you claiming to agree with equal rights is about you being a victim.
    Self-aware much?

  38. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Given the obvious fact that the numbers shifted dramatically over a very brief time, it is illogical to assume that we are going to be intolerant of converts since, in effect, the entire country converted and was welcomed into the fold.

    Welcoming former conservatives who’ve belatedly matured is a big part of what we liberals have had to do again and again and again and again and again. We have a regular hospitality suite we keep running full-time to offer acceptance to the slow, the dim, the hateful.

  39. wr says:

    @anjin-san: “Are you only here to annoy people?”

    Is that a rhetorical question, or have you really only just now figured that out?

  40. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along

    When you discover that the other person was right all along and you were wrong all along, this is the appropriate behavior: admit that the other person was right all along and you were wrong all along, and apologize for not figuring this out sooner. This concept is known as ‘taking responsibility.’ Your failure to grasp this concept is a key part of what makes you such a good conservative.

    Which is just another way of saying what was already said better by KM:

    Asking for an apology is HUMILIATING? It’s degrading someone to expect them to say they’re sorry when they’re wrong? OMGWTF is wrong with you?!

  41. anjin-san says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    It will be more interesting to see what they say in the near term. Nationwide marriage equality is coming soon, perhaps even this year. So how do conservatives deal with the reality that one of the great pillars of the “God, guns, and gays” tripod is vanishing before their eyes?

    In his own bumbling way, Jenos is addressing the “how do we spin this?” question that conservatives are facing by trying to construct an alternate universe where principled conservatives are able to, on their own, change with the times, while still upholding their righteous core values. Meanwhile, childish liberals are in the fight because they like to fight, not because they truly care about the gay rights movement. For liberals, marriage equality is simply a means to an end – tearing down the virtuous conservatives, the grown ups in the room.

    So then, it would be impolite of liberals to mention that conservatives have been proved, yet again, horribly utterly wrong. To point out that the long, nasty war the right waged against marriage equality accomplished no good whatsoever, and harmed a lot of people who were guilty only of wanting to be themselves and live their own lives in the process. We can’t mention that the institution of marriage is doing just fine, that we are not raising a generation of emasculated young men, and that beastality is not the national pastime.

    No, we can’t talk about the fact that conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Because that might damage the self-esteem of the bigots that needlessly made this such a messy, ugly process.

  42. Ravi says:

    @anjin-san:

    Who says the “gays” pillar is disappearing?

    It’s just moving on from SSM to photographers, bakers, florists, hotels, restaurants (including bother catering and lunch counters, I presume) and so on. For that matter, as far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any movement on the employment non-discrimination front. Cynically, part of me expects negative movement there: “son of Hobby Lobby” lawsuits about not covering same-sex spouses in employee health plans. Conservatives need not worry. There will still be plenty of ways to demonstrate that they support second-class treatment for LGBT citizens.

  43. Kylopod says:

    Throughout the entire process, many leading Republicans have been largely silent on the issue, and many have been supportive of the expansion of marriage equality.

    Besides Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, who both have deeply personal reasons for their turnaround on this issue, what “leading Republicans” have openly supported SSM? Maybe there are a couple of others I’m not thinking about at the moment, but “many” seems a bit high an estimate at this point.

  44. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Well, those who opposed marriage equality, and then realized that they didn’t really care because it doesn’t affect them but want to claim that somehow they are victims will be mocked and scorned. As well they should be.

    Everyone else… Well, good they came around so quickly. This has been one of the fastest and most sweeping social changes in our history.

  45. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: To allow for it bit of snark: Judging by the discussions on black Democratic constituents, full, snark-free, acceptance of ones previous positions in political discussions should not take more than another 50-60 years.

  46. Rick DeMent says:

    @stonetools:

    You also have to give the Administration and the movement credit for tackling DADT first, then pushing SSM. Once it became clear that gays were willing to serve in the military and to die for the USA, then it became unfair and mean-spirited to deny them rights all Americans had.

    Yep that’s how they did it with civil rights, grant them equality by fiat in the military where they can control the integration, then on to society at large with w brief stop at Major league baseball.

  47. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    For one, everyone knew Obama was lying when he said he didn’t support same-sex marriage.

    No, that little tidbit was revealed by David Axelrod in his book. No one knew it until they read about it on the internet. (I’m assuming very few people actually read Axelrod’s book.) And just because Axelrod said it doesn’t make it so.

    For what it’s worth, Obama disagrees with Axelrod’s account, and you know, maybe the president is lying about that too…..or maybe the president, not Axelrod, is the authority on the contents of his own mind.

  48. Kylopod says:

    @James Pearce: I first heard the charge that Obama was lying about his position on SSM when it was revealed that he signed a pro-SSM petition in 1996. Strictly speaking, that doesn’t prove he was lying, but it makes it pretty damn plausible.

    One thing I noticed a long time ago that garnered surprisingly little attention was that during the 2008 vp debate, Biden seemed to admit he supported SSM before quickly “correcting” himself. He was asked a question about granting benefits for same-sex couples, and he replied that he supported benefits for “committed couples in a same-sex marriage.” When the moderator Gwen Ifill (who seemed a bit baffled) asked him if he supported gay marriage, he then quickly replied, “No.”

    Of course, a lot of this was semantics. Democrats were trying to expand the practical rights of gay couples without explicitly calling the unions “marriages,” and they were moving toward a position which I like to call ASSMINO–Against Same Sex Marriage In Name Only. For example, when Obama officially announced his support for SSM in 2012, he actually didn’t change a single policy position as far as his presidential powers were concerned. He’d opposed DOMA long before that. I’m not saying the announcement wasn’t important; far from it. It basically legitimated and solidified the pro-SSM point of view in the Democratic mainstream. Sometimes, symbolism matters.

  49. stonetools says:

    @Kylopod:

    Maybe there are a couple of others I’m not thinking about at the moment, but “many” seems a bit high an estimate at this point.

    This is Doug trying to engender some respectability for the party he prefers to vote for. Note that nowhere in the article is any praise for the Democrats who spearheaded the movement for marriage equality and paid a high political price for it, while the Republicans cynically exploited the issue for political gain to the detriment of millions of gay citizens.Why, its almost as if the Democrats played no part in the increasing public acceptance of gays as full citizens. Note that if the Supreme Court does decide for marriage equality this summer, four Democratic appointees will be part of that majority and three and likely four Republican appointees will be opposed. So Doug should be thanking the Democrats for making the hard yards in the fight for marriage equality, not belatedly congratulating the Republicans for being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You are welcome, Doug

  50. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So my question is, how to treat those who have changed their positions. Do you welcome them to the right side, or do you beat the living crap out of them for their former positions?

    Speaking for me, I want a full admission that they were wrong, then to have conservatives make amends for those wronged. Conservatives can then join liberals to move for full equality for gays, including laws barring employment discrimination ( I note Doug has been silent on that, which indicates to me that’s still a bridge too far for conservatives).

  51. Jim R says:

    @stonetools:

    This is Doug trying to engender some respectability for the party he prefers to vote for. Note that nowhere in the article is any praise for the Democrats who spearheaded the movement for marriage equality and paid a high political price for it, while the Republicans cynically exploited the issue for political gain to the detriment of millions of gay citizens.Why, its almost as if the Democrats played no part in the increasing public acceptance of gays as full citizens. Note that if the Supreme Court does decide for marriage equality this summer, four Democratic appointees will be part of that majority and three and likely four Republican appointees will be opposed. So Doug should be thanking the Democrats for making the hard yards in the fight for marriage equality, not belatedly congratulating the Republicans for being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You are welcome, Doug

    I’m glad President Obama and most other prominent Democrats decided to join the 21st century in 2012 as well, but really, they didn’t lead on this issue so much as timidly follow once public opinion had already tipped in favor of SSM and the political price they might pay for supporting it was basically null.

    I am glad that equality has become the national consensus so quickly, but that makes the scorn heaped on those who might be “evolving” at a slightly slower rate than, say, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did all the more bemusing to me.

  52. Tyrell says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: So when the climate change in medieval times was the result of human activity ?
    Russian scientists are saying that the earth is going into a mini ice age.And if anyone is an expert on cold climates it would be the Russians.

  53. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    So when the climate change in medieval times was the result of human activity?

    Actually – no.
    But you can believe science, or you can believe the right wing entertainment complex.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
    Personally…science seems like a more reliable source to me. But I know that won’t ever apply to you…someone who like to base his foreign policy views on a make-believe cowboy.

  54. stonetools says:

    @Jim R: 0@Jim R:

    I know lots of liberals like to attack Democrats for their back tracking and cowardice on gay equality, but this definitely isn’t a “both sides do it” situation. Bill Clinton did lead on equality for gays in the military in 1993, and paid a political price for that. Republicans really did condemn Kerry for thinking of gays as equal citizens in 2004, and really did run on an all out anti gay marriage platform that year. They were successful too-so much so that the Democrats were backtracking and equivocating in 2008. Equivocating , though , is different from the anti-gay hate campaign the Republicans have been running up until about 10 minutes ago. ( Heck , some Republicans are still running it-anti gay marriage planks are in the national and most state Republican Party platforms and Huckabee, Cruz, and Santorum are still hard core anti gay)
    Note that Obama did push for DADT in 21009 and 2010-against wall to wall Republican opposition. So no, the Democrats do deserve kudos here.

  55. C. Clavin says:

    @stonetools:
    Right?
    What Jenos is trying to say is that…

    You know…we’ve oppressed these people and marginalized them and made them exist as second class citizens forever because we thought we were so fvcking superior…but we finally saw the light yesterday…so, hey, our bad…let’s move on.
    Whatever you do don’t hold us accountable for our abject ignorance…or use this as a moment to point out that we are most assuredly fvcked up on some of our other catechisms.
    Like…I don’t know…climate change, economics, immigration, creationism, Islam, minimum wages, entitlements, job creators…

    Leapin’ lizards…the list of things they are wrong about is really f’ing long….they say the longest journey starts with one step…maybe accepting gay people as human beings is their first step.

  56. C. Clavin says:

    The polls, in fact, show that about half of likely GOP caucus and primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina said they find opposition to gay marriage either “mostly” or “totally” unacceptable in a candidate.

    Somewhere Larry Craig is sitting in his wide-stance and wishing time hadn’t passed him by.

  57. stonetools says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Conservatives never admit they are wrong, and they are wrong about so effing much. Liberals have been wrong too, but at least they eventually admit they are wrong, and stop repeating their falsehoods. Conservatives just double down with their zombie lies.
    Fortunately, it does seem that truth eventually trickles in through the wall of lies conservative thought leaders erect around their followers. Witness the change on gay marriage. But FSM almighty, it’s a slow process.

  58. C. Clavin says:

    @stonetools:
    You mean like how they still think invading and occupying Iraq was a brilliant idea?

  59. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    You need them to humiliate themselves and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along.

    Conservatives try to avoid taking responsibility for their bad behavior by posing as victims. This involves claiming that they are being victimized by the person who is expecting them to take responsibility for their bad behavior. The brilliant author Pia Mellody has even come up with a fancy term to describe this behavior pattern: “offending from the victim position.” PDF:

    Offending from the Victim Position … Somebody points out a negative aspect of your humanity. … you make up that you’ve been victimized and start offending from the victim position. … You react by … Getting passive aggressive and ACCUSING the person who has confronted you that he/she has victimized you … From this position you will be offending others and think it’s justified

  60. C. Clavin says:

    Speaking of never learning…Jeb Bush has tapped Paul Wolfowitz as a foreign policy advisor. The Party of Stupid rolls on.

  61. James Pearce says:

    @Kylopod:

    Strictly speaking, that doesn’t prove he was lying, but it makes it pretty damn plausible.

    I dunno….the whole “Obama lied” narrative just strikes me as such obvious BS. It’s like saying my Mom was lying when she was trying to live as a married straight woman.

    First you have to try the shoes on to see if they fit.

    @Jim R:

    but really, they didn’t lead on this issue so much as timidly follow once public opinion had already tipped in favor of SSM

    I don’t mind that actually. The right not-so timidly attempted to drive public opinion on this and for them it was a disaster.

    Same-sex marriage is about to be legal nationwide a mere decade after Obama’s predecessor was pushing for a Constitutional amendment banning the practice.

    As Kylopod said, symbolism matters. But so does leadership.

  62. An Interested Party says:

    I am glad that equality has become the national consensus so quickly, but that makes the scorn heaped on those who might be “evolving” at a slightly slower rate than, say, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did all the more bemusing to me.

    Better to be “evolving” than making ridiculous arguments about how SSM somehow hurts marriage as a whole or how the states should decide the issue or any of a dozen other silly reasons to oppose SSM…

  63. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    Instead of giving us lectures about how mean we are, perhaps your time could be better spent talking to these guys.

    KKK Group Issues ‘Call To Arms’ Supporting Alabama Chief Justice

    Soon after Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered Alabama probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a Mississippi Ku Klux Klan group issued a “call to arms” supporting Moore.

    “The Mississippi Klan salutes Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore, for refusing to bow to the yoke of Federal tyranny. The Feds have no authority over individual States marriage laws,” the United Dixie White Knights’ Imperial Wizard, Brent Waller wrote, wrote in a post on the group’s website and on the white supremacist forum Stormfront.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kkk-apology-roy-moore-alabama

  64. superdestroyer says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    Assuming that there will be a Republican Party in 30 years is not supported by any current political or demographic trend in the U.S.

    Once again, a huge win for liberal is viewed is how it affects the junior, irrelevant political party in the U.S. rather than thinking whether achieving a massive political win will encourage social liberal in the Democratic Party (the dominant political party in the U.S.) to trying something else.

  65. @superdestroyer:

    Oh hi, superdestroyer. We were just talking about you.

  66. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    Hey SuperDooper….sorry to hear you got rooked out of the donuts.
    http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/krispy-kreme-wisely-cancels-kkk-wednesday-promotion/

  67. superdestroyer says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    Actully, conservatives are idiots when they defy a judge. They are not going to win in the long run, they embarrass themselves, and they give a massive amount of ammunition to their opponents. If conservatives want to affect policy, they need to win more elections and find ways to convince people they are correct. Of course, what conservatives should have thought about back in the 1990’s is that just passing a law would be pointless because Democrats are very good at ignoring laws they do not like and liberal judges are great at finding away to ignore referendums and legislation.

    What conservatives should have realized is that progressive were very smart when they added citizen lawsuits to the environmental laws. Too bad conservatives did not add citizen lawsuits to every law they pass in order to tie up progressives in court.

  68. Tyrell says:

    @C. Clavin: Fine, just as long as we can still get a free one on our birthday. And their Valentine donut choices are irresistible.

  69. KM says:

    @C. Clavin”

    sorry to hear you got rooked out of the donuts.

    You know, as much as I might disagree with someone, getting donuts revoked is a cruel way to start the day. I cannot rejoice when one is denied so – I believe in peace through pastries. Share the love but hands off my angel cream! 🙂

  70. rodney dill says:

    @C. Clavin: I’m flabbergasted that they didn’t stick with their other promo, however.

  71. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    find ways to convince people they are correct.

    Um…wouldn’t it be easier to actually be…you know…correct?

  72. Tyrell says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: “debate is over” : since when should a science debate ever be over ? Think about those “laws” of physics that you learned in 7 th. grade. Supposedly they couldn’t be broken. Now we have quantum physics which says that those laws can and are being broken. At one time it was an accepted fact that Mars had huge canals and was awash in seas. Then they came out that Mars was dry, no water. Now they are saying that Mars had an abundant supply of water and there could very well be underground supplies. Animal species once thought extinct have been found. Wireless communication was thought to be impossible, now we take it for granted. Time was presented as a constant. Now it has been proven that it is relative to speed.
    I agree that there are some changes going on in the climate and certainly agree that pollution is not good while certainly energy efficiency is good. Where the problem is when a person says “debate closed, just go along with it”. Hypotheses have to be tested, researched, data gathered, and then get different views together. That’s the scientific method.Scientists in Russia or Asia might be finding something different. Why not have a discussion? An interesting story appeared a while back. Scientists in China have found what they say is evidence of a warming era about a thousand years ago. The fact is that there are differing views of credible, renown scientists about the climate of today. Scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists should be listened to, not book writing politicians.
    At no time should someone say “my mind is made up, discussion over” or when it comes to science. Imagine if the Wright Brothers had that attitude, or “it can’t be done, we will never put people on the moon”.
    “Show me your research, let’s have a look”.

  73. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    Now we have quantum physics which says that those laws can and are being broken.

    So you can be in two places at the same time?

    The fact is that there are differing views of credible, renown scientists about the climate of today.

    No…there aren’t, really. There is overwhelming consensus…over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    I agree that there are some changes going on in the climate and certainly agree that pollution is not good while certainly energy efficiency is good. Where the problem is when a person says “debate closed, just go along with it”. Hypotheses have to be tested, researched, data gathered, and then get different views together. That’s the scientific method.

    And that is what has happened. You just refuse to accept it because Fox News told you not to accept it.

  74. KM says:

    @Tyrell:

    This is an appeal to reasonableness that lead to the current BS that is “teach the controversy”. A correct premise applied for a biased purpose. You are correct in one thing – questioning in always a good idea as science seeks clarification in all things. To seek in order to find an answer is proper. However, this is having a desired answer and going in search of a cause: a textbook definition of bad science. You must be able to accept the conclusions you discover even if they are not the ones you seek or want to find. Saying “No, I don’t like that report or that one or that one! Let’s rerun it again to see if it goes my way!” We’ve learned to be wary of people going on about how we need to look into it again since we clearly didn’t get it right the last few decades or so because QUESTIONS. See the vaccine BS for what this kind of thinking leads to on a practical level.

    Madness: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. A great man of science said it. It’s worth pondering.

  75. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    “debate is over”

    It’s never “over”. Darwin is being modified today. But Darwin wasn’t wrong…no matter what Republicans want to think.
    Also…you are confusing technological advancement with basic principles.
    The Wright Brothers figured out how to take advantage of the Bernoulli principle. They didn’t change the principle.

  76. grumpy realist says:

    @Tyrell: So you really think that we’re going to do Just One Last Measurement and discover that the Earth is flat?

    At some point, the consensus collapses to a singularity and if you want to move the accepted view away from that you’d better have some pretty powerful evidence.

    P.S. Newton’s laws work perfectly well for any spacecraft outside the orbit of Mercury.

  77. MarkedMan says:

    I’m late to this but FWIW I think Jenos is more right than wrong. If we put aside the few thousand Republican leaders who actively demagogued this issue and only look at the tens of millions average joes that have changed their minds then ok, it took them longer than me to get to the point where I’m OK with SSM. And maybe it’s because of the differences in how we were raised, maybe because of the different places we live and perhaps I may be more empathetic than some of them (but of course, less than others). But I’m in my 50’s and 30 years ago I wasn’t four same sex marriage. It’s hard to remember what I thought about it back then or whether I thought about it at all but honestly I haven’t payed any price for changing my opinion. In my family and social circle it was a normal progression. So in this great societal change I don’t give myself a whole lot of pats on the back for reaching this point faster than those who started the journey from a different place. As Jenos said in a different way, learn to take ‘Yes’ for an answer.

  78. Kylopod says:

    @James Pearce:

    I dunno….the whole “Obama lied” narrative just strikes me as such obvious BS. It’s like saying my Mom was lying when she was trying to live as a married straight woman.

    If she claimed to be a straight woman, that is lying. I’m not saying it isn’t understandable or justified. Lying means simply saying something that isn’t true. It isn’t synonymous with “being a sneaky bastard.” There are times when lying is the right thing to do.

    Now, the question is: was Obama’s lying about his views on SSM justified? I believe it was understandable. In the 2008 cycle, no serious presidential candidate had ever come out in support of SSM, not even lefty favorites like Howard Dean or John Edwards. Obama was already battling claims by his opponents that he was a fringe candidate, and he probably worried that he risked being turned into a Kucinich type if he took such a position at that point. I personally think he still would have won. But it’s hardly a stain on his legacy, especially given that he did come around during his presidency. Nobody faults FDR for flip-flopping on the US entry into WWII, and I doubt future generations will care about Obama’s 2008 position on this issue either.

    Still, the evidence is pretty clear that he did hide his own beliefs on this issue. That’s not in any way remarkable for a politician, and it isn’t something I consider a major sin. But it is the reality of what he did, and we do no good by pretending otherwise.

  79. DrDaveT says:

    @Kylopod:

    Lying means simply saying something that isn’t true.

    Um, no. Lying means deliberately saying something that you know to be untrue, with intent to deceive. Knowledge matters and intent matters. Kids who get problem #27 wrong on their math test are not lying about the correct answer — they’re just wrong. Wingnuts who sincerely believe that climate change is a liberal conspiracy are not lying about climate change — they’re just wrong.

    And people raised to not even know that homosexuals exist, and who try to make a go of the only kind of relationship they’ve ever heard of, are not lying. I don’t know if that’s the case for JP’s mom, but I’ve known other people in that situation.

  80. Grewgills says:

    @MarkedMan:
    It might be a reasonable argument if anyone was asking for a pound of flesh from the average Republican voter that came around on this issue, but that is simply not happening. That they aren’t being roundly congratulated for their better late than never conversion or that businesses that want to continue to discriminate against same sex couples are being criticized is what he sees as republicans being humiliated. That is transparent bs and that is why he isn’t getting respect on this.*

    * Well, that and his commenting history.

  81. MarkedMan says:

    @Grewgills: Yes, his posting history certainly plays a role. I just want to point out that it is easy to talk past each other here; he points out that vilifying people that took a while to change their position isn’t productive, and some hear him justifying the behavior of the Republicans candidates and strategists in 2004 and saying “let’s put that behind us”. But even if that’s what he meant (for the record, I don’t think it is), that’s not what he said. And the way the responders are attacking him could similarly be read, or misread, as attacking the average Republican grandma in Kansas who hasn’t even really thought much about this until recently, and now that she’s had some time to think, allows as how its really not such a big deal.

  82. MarkedMan says:

    So, is it Gr*wgills that we can never respond to, lest we get cast into the moderation pit? Because I just responded to him and need rescuing…

  83. Kylopod says:

    @DrDaveT: True–I should have been more precise in my definition. But it doesn’t change anything I said about Obama, which is that the evidence suggests he did (deliberately) lie about his views on SSM. He knew he believed in it but chose to claim otherwise to further his political career. (There is a gray area when it comes to self-delusion, or lying to oneself, but I don’t think that was the case here. I believe what he did was a conscious political choice.)

  84. James Pearce says:

    @Kylopod:

    He knew he believed in it but chose to claim otherwise to further his political career.

    I get what you’re saying, but I just don’t think what we know supports this view very well.

    Did Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage help him politically? IE, did it “further his political career?” Supporting same-sex marriage “before it was cool” may have cost him votes, we don’t know, but we also don’t know how many votes he earned from his opposition.

    Obama may have taken the “safe” route on that, not to conceal his true pro-SSM feelings, but because his feelings on the subject were ill-formed and uncertain. Sign a petition, sure. Stake your political career on it…woah,, I don’t know.

    Still, I can’t fault the guy for choosing a political career over being a SSM advocate with no political career. Post-Obama, supporting SSM is the “safe” route.

  85. gVOR08 says:

    @Tyrell: Do you have any idea how tired the rest of us are of hearing these same stupid rationalizations for AGW denial over and over again?

  86. gVOR08 says:

    @DrDaveT:

    Lying means deliberately saying something that you know to be untrue, with intent to deceive.

    The usual bone of contention on this point is Bush “lying” to get us into Iraq. His defenders say he wasn’t lying because he actually believed the intelligence his administration cooked.

    Off topic, but I hadn’t realized ’til yesterday, via Digby, that Jeb Bush was one of the early members of PNAC. That alone should disqualify him for the presidency.

  87. jukeboxgrad says:

    His defenders say he wasn’t lying because he actually believed the intelligence his administration cooked.

    The problem with this defense is that Bush didn’t even honestly convey to us the contents of the cooked intel. Yes, the intel was cooked, but this wasn’t good enough for him. His statements about the intel were cooked even more.

    The proof that Bush lied is not found in what we failed to find in Iraq. The proof that Bush lied is found in comparing what the intel said with what he said the intel said. What he said the intel said is not what the intel said. Link. Which means “intent to deceive” is a proven fact.

  88. RaflW says:

    Only four years ago Scott Walker moved to block hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples in Wisconsin. I’m sure he’s learned to put his finger in the wind on this issue, but his record speaks for itself: treat LGBT people as sub-human, undeserving of even basic compassion. This must not be forgotten in the windup to 2016.

  89. C. Clavin says:

    @RaflW:

    Scott Walker moved to block hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples in Wisconsin

    But as Jenos said…there is no way he should be held accountable for that. Scott Walker is the victim in this…not those miserable LGBT people he treated as sub-humans.

  90. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:
    Here is a fact-check of the latest

    differing views of credible, renown scientists about the climate of today.

    that the Republican Entertainment Complex is ranting about.
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/

  91. RaflW says:

    @C. Clavin: The Party of Personal Responsibility has always been about other people being accountable, not themselves.

    But Doug advances the notion that “an opinion among many Republicans that the best thing that can happen to their party is for the same-sex marriage issue to go away” and I say to hell with that. The GOP used gay marriage as an organizing tool for decades, at the cost of much human suffering.

    They don’t get a free pass because the underlying voter group has shifted.

  92. C. Clavin says:

    @RaflW:
    Don’t forget Brownback…who just last week made discrimination legal in Kansas.
    Brownback is the full Republican monty…tax cuts for the rich…tax increases for the poor…slash education budgets…hell, slash all budgets…and treat people not like you as though they are dirt.

  93. Kylopod says:

    @James Pearce:

    Supporting same-sex marriage “before it was cool” may have cost him votes, we don’t know, but we also don’t know how many votes he earned from his opposition.

    Of course–it’s impossible to know for sure what effect it would have had on his career. But it definitely was widely perceived as a non-mainstream position at that point, and there’s no question that he (or any other Democrat) was taking the safe route by claiming to oppose SSM (while supporting civil unions).

    Obama may have taken the “safe” route on that, not to conceal his true pro-SSM feelings, but because his feelings on the subject were ill-formed and uncertain.

    The problem is that if you examine his statements on the subject over the years, they do not sound ill-formed or uncertain for the most part.

    For example, in 2004 he told a reporter, “What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed…. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name.” That’s a statement of strategy, not ideology, and basically an admission that the issue is largely semantic. (It’s a bit more complicated than that, as civil unions never offered gay couples all the benefits that straight married couples took for granted, a fact Obama glossed over.) He essentially had no problem with gay couples getting married–and he indicated he did have a reason to feel strongly about it, when he mentioned being the product of an interracial marriage–but he felt the best route toward that goal was via civil unions. In essence, he was willing to compromise on the name (for the time being) in exchange for the rights.

    Only later did he start saying things like “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but….” Statements of that kind were a sort of rite of passage for Democratic politicians at the time, where they’d vaguely proclaim their fealty to traditional marriage before quickly shifting to a discussion of the practical benefits that gay couples were being denied. (Look again at Biden’s comment that I quoted before, and you get a sense of the semantic tightrope act many pols were engaging in.) Obama never gave any rationale for his supposed opposition to SSM, and in practice he opposed virtually all attempts to stop gay marriage, from DOMA to Prop 8. His religious views had always been progressive, and he belonged to the first mainline Protestant denomination to endorse SSM. In short, there was nothing in his profile that would explain an opposition to SSM except as a political calculation, which is basically what he admitted before he launched his national political career.

  94. MarkedMan says:

    Can someone pull my comment to grewgills out of moderation?

  95. rodney dill says:
  96. J-Dub says:

    It’s becoming too hard for the Republicans to identify the homosexuals. Some of them look just like old, white men. It’s time to move on to a group that’s easier to identify, like those brown people.

  97. gVOR08 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: The link goes to an old article about Lois Lerner and the IRS.

  98. jukeboxgrad says:

    The link goes to an old article

    This means the link isn’t working properly for you. In your browser, it looks like I linked to an article, but that’s not what I did. I have linked to a comment(s) on that article(s).

    If you look at the link itself, you will notice that it ends as follows: “comment-786734698” (or some similar number). That means it is pointing at a comment on an article, not the article itself. I think you’re running into a problem with Disqus, where under certain circumstances it doesn’t scroll correctly to the proper comment indicated by the link. You might be able to encourage Disqus to find the comment properly if you click the link and then scroll down to the bottom of the page.

    You could also try a different browser. For example, sometimes I find that Chrome handles these links better than Safari.

    This seems to be a somewhat common problem. I have posted the above text quite a few times.

  99. gVOR08 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I’m using Firefox, don’t have Chrome loaded. IE behaves like Firefox, goes to the Lerner headline. Then if I open comments (which NR kind of hides) they may find your comment. Safari on the iPad does the same thing, but once it finds the comment it’s actually better at displaying the whole comment and remaining stable.

    You closed your comment with, “One key sign the GOP is on the road to recovery is when it grows up and deals with its pathetic Iraq history in a serious, honest manner.” Don’t see that happening soon, especially after Jeb’s “foreign policy speech”.

  100. C. Clavin says:

    CPAC is next week…how many LGBT groups are being included?

  101. C. Clavin says:

    Here’s something you won’t read on OTB.
    http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117/obamacare-critics-wrong

  102. Tillman says:

    @MarkedMan: Magnanimity isn’t a political virtue. And one shouldn’t expect it on what are essentially anonymous (or are they, NSA?) comment sections on the Internet.

    @C. Clavin: Bullshit is cheaper to produce (you can in-house it like accounting) and gets roughly the same returns over a decade if used right.

  103. stonetools says:

    @C. Clavin: @C. Clavin:

    Speaking of conservatives admitting they’re wrong, I wonder when Doug will admit he was wrong about Obamacare?

    I bet we each will get a pet unicorn to ride before that happens.

  104. jukeboxgrad says:

    gVOR08:

    I’m using Firefox …

    Thanks for explaining.

    Don’t see that happening soon, especially after Jeb’s “foreign policy speech”.

    Yes, exactly. He had a chance to show some courage, but I guess he has none to show.

  105. stonetools says:

    @MarkedMan:

    So in this great societal change I don’t give myself a whole lot of pats on the back for reaching this point faster than those who started the journey from a different place. As Jenos said in a different way, learn to take ‘Yes’ for an answer.

    Unfortunately, a lot of Republican leaders-including presidential candidates-are still saying no. The point to start celebrating is when a Jeb Bush or a Ted Cruz comes out in favor of SSM or when opposition to SSM isn’t part of the national party platform . The Republican Party is still officially opposed to SSM in every way that matters, at this point. I think Doug is being a tad premature, because he desperately wants the Republican Party to achieve respectability on this issue. But not yet, really.

  106. stonetools says:

    Here is yet another reason for no premature celebrations.

    Last September, Krista and Jami Contreras of Detroit met with Dr. Vesna Roi for a prenatal checkup. Believing they had developed a strong rapport with the pediatrician, the couple returned shortly after the birth of their child for the newborn’s routine wellness appointment. When they arrived, another doctor informed them that, after praying on it, Roi had decided to refuse to treat the 6-day-old baby girl. The reason? Her mothers are lesbians.

    Roi’s willingness to inflict collateral damage on an infant just to express her anti-gay animus obviously makes her a monstrously immoral person, as well as a terrible doctor. And her refusal to treat a gay couple’s child has already earned her a significant amount of warranted ire from the community. (Ire, by the way, is the sole remedy here: Under state and federal law, Roi’s actions were perfectly legal.) Even those conservatives who generally support legalized discrimination against LGBTQ people seem shocked by Roi’s decision. Who, after all, could have enough hate in their hearts to disadvantage a child just because of her parents’ identity?

    Everybody who opposes same-sex marriage, actually.

    So no, there is a lot of work to be done.

  107. Monala says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Here’s why this is an issue: because conservatives have a tendency to try to lay claim to the origins of some progressive belief in order to then denigrate liberals. Hence all their claims that MLK Jr. was a Republican (he wasn’t), that Republicans passed the Civil Rights bill (no, again. Northern Republicans and Democrats passed it; Southern Republicans and Democrats voted against it). Then they use these false claims to say that Democrats are the ones trying to “keep blacks on the plantation.”

  108. KM says:

    @MarkedMan:

    So in this great societal change I don’t give myself a whole lot of pats on the back for reaching this point faster than those who started the journey from a different place.

    Here’s the thing: “backpatting” is an ego thing. Purely emotional and self-driven need to preserve one’s sense of self and pride. The people who are concerned with this issue? The ones who are suddenly finding themselves not as secure as they were in the acceptance of their personal belief in society at large and how others will view them. They care only how others look at them now that they are suddenly unpopular – that the tide has turned on them. Pardon my French, but this is &#*$$% vanity. It’s been dozens of comments since so he’s benefiting from people forgetting so here’s the original reply to Modulo Myself’s asking for an apology again:

    So it isn’t enough that you get them to stop fighting. It isn’t enough that you get them on your side. You need your ego stroked. You need them to humiliate themselves and assure you that you were right all along, and they were wrong all along.

    That’s what you need?

    Jenos’ contention wasn’t “Take Yes for an answer”. It was even pointing out that they were wrong and expecting acknowledgment of that fact is punishment. We are not expected to notice or remember that they were actively (even in a passive-aggressive manner) against real lives being injured. We’re just supposed to sing Kumbaya, hug and move on with our lives. In order to spare Grandma in Kansas who doesn’t have a dog in this fight, he wants someone who did to knuckle under and “graciously” not mention the raging hate and legal oppression ever again because Grandma didn’t think and we can’t alienate her.

    That’s….. stunningly rude and presumptuous. It puts the burden back on the original victim, making them responsible for perpetrator’s emotional state as a priority over their own. You’d flip out if a rape victim was told not to expect an apology from a repentant attacker because of a “need for them to humiliate themselves”. When you are wrong, you say sorry or express regret – you take that hit to the ego because that’s how you demonstrate you are sincere. This cannot be stressed enough – this is not about Grandma. This is about someone who can’t marry the love of their life because of people like Grandma. Grandma can suck it up on this one.

  109. Another Mike says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Which means “intent to deceive” is a proven fact.

    Why did he need to deceive? Whom did he need to deceive?

    Democrats before Iraq War started
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

  110. michael reynolds says:

    @stonetools:
    We are apparently observing radio silence on Obamacare. It’s simply too much stupid for Doug and Dave to admit to. They’re too invested. They dug their holes too deep. News today that corporate America which fought to stop the devastation they were expected to suffer, have met the reality of Obamacare with a shrug. It seems it’s had essentially no effect on profits.

    So no it didn’t kill jobs, no it didn’t hurt profits, no it did not reignite the cost spiral, no it didn’t leave us without doctors, no it wasn’t just sick people who signed up. Wrong across the board. Same as they were on the auto bailout. a whole bunch of wrong followed by a whole bunch of silence.

  111. David M says:

    @michael reynolds:

    It’s the entire GOP as a whole who are ignoring how well Obamacare is working. In fact, most GOP partisans are happily staying busy fabricating stories of it’s impending failure. If it’s just radio silence here, that’s an improvement compared to other places.

  112. jukeboxgrad says:

    Another Mike:

    Democrats before Iraq War started

    Your lazy, superficial and popular non-argument was preemptively addressed in the material I linked. So thanks for being so boringly predictable, and thanks for proving you didn’t bother to look.

  113. Paul Hooson says:

    Better late than never for some of these social conservative rather than economic conservative Republicans.

  114. anjin-san says:

    Erick Erickson Compares Gay Rights Activists To Islamic Extremists

    RedState.com editor-in-chief Erick Erickson wrote Thursday that gay rights activists are akin to violent Islamic extremists, saying that both groups are committed to “destruction.”

    In a post titled “The Line Between Islamic Extremists and Gay Rights Extremists,” Erickson conceded that gay activists “with few exceptions” had not become “physically violent.” But, he said, they are “intent on destroying any who disagree with them.”

    “They will take the homes, businesses, and life savings of any who defy them, Erickson continued. “They will use the tools of the state and mob action through boycotts, fear, and intimidation to make it happen.”

    “The divide between Islamic extremists and gay rights extremists is at death,” Erickson added. “They meet on the line at destruction.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-gay-islamic-extremists

  115. anjin-san says:

    @Paul Hooson:

    economic conservative Republicans

    You can find them the same place you find Passenger Pigeons.

  116. anjin-san says:

    Here’s why the “go slow” approach is totally wrong:

    Three weeks before her younger daughter’s bat mitzvah last spring, Sarah Goodfriend, 58, got startling news: She had ovarian cancer and needed emergency surgery.

    For Goodfriend and her partner of 30 years, Suzanne Bryant, the diagnosis lent urgency to their eight-year battle to marry in their home state, which has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that’s being challenged in a federal appeals court.

    “Our future is uncertain,” Goodfriend said. “We just felt time was of the essence.”

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-first-same-sex-marriage-20150219-story.html

  117. Mikey says:

    @anjin-san: Erickson is saying using the established legal process to bring people into compliance with the law and the Constitution is the same as blowing up their businesses.

    That piece is inane twaddle and Erickson is a pure fool.

  118. gVOR08 says:

    @Paul Hooson: When do the “economic conservative” Republicans start backing away from their crazy?

  119. J-Dub says:

    @anjin-san: In other words, non-violent resistance in the manner of Ghandi and MLK. No wonder right-wingers are against it. “What? No guns? Count me out.”

  120. stonetools says:

    @michael reynolds:

    (Bloomberg) — The biggest entitlement legislation in a generation is causing barely a ripple in corporate America.
    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — otherwise known as Obamacare — is putting such a small dent in the profits of U.S. companies that many refer to its impact as “not material” or “not significant,” according to a Bloomberg review of conference-call transcripts and interviews with major U.S. employers.
    That’s even after a provision went into effect this year requiring companies with 50 or more full-time workers to provide coverage, and after more workers are choosing to enroll in existing company coverage because of another requirement that all Americans get insured.
    “It’s just part of doing business,” said Bob Shearer, chief financial officer of VF Corp., which owns the North Face and Vans apparel brands. “Obamacare has added costs, but not so much that we felt we had to talk about it specifically.”

    It actually goes beyond that. Business is supporting Obamacare in the misbegotten anti Obamacare lawsuit.

    But not a single business group—not the US Chamber of Commerce, not any of the health industry companies and trade groups that opposed the law when it was being drafted—has presented a brief endorsing this lawsuit.

    These outfits are either backing the Obama administration’s attempt to defeat the suit or sitting out this case. Briefs in the case help explain why: Obamacare is working. There’s no better evidence of this than a brief filed on behalf of the government in King by the Hospital Corporation of America, better known as HCA, the largest health care provider in the country (once run by Obamacare foe Florida Gov. Rick Scott). HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is “absurd,” but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.

    Of the OTB bloggers, I expect only James and Scott to actually say that Obamacare is working. They are not ideologically opposed to social safety programs the way Doug is, so they can acknowledge reality.
    All this bodes well for a Supreme Court decision in favor of leaving Obamacare alone. The fact that business is lining up in support of the ACA will likely sway Roberts into upholding Obamacare. He is always in favor of whatever business favors.

  121. gVOR08 says:

    @stonetools:

    Roberts …always in favor of whatever business favors.

    And worried about his legacy, which he has to realize will be destroyed if he creates the chaos repealing Obamacare would cause. The line I’ve heard on his bias is that he always favors the higher socioeconomic status party to the case. Let’s see, the administration and business v scruffy Tea Party types, hmmm. He would also realize that, like abortion, Obamacare is more useful to his party as an issue than it would be as a victory.

  122. C. Clavin says:

    @gVOR08:

    When do the “economic conservative” Republicans start backing away from their crazy?

    You crack me up…

  123. Ken says:

    @superdestroyer: Assuming that there will be a Republican Party in 30 years is not supported by any current political or demographic trend in the U.S.

    Four minutes to Wapner

  124. Moosebreath says:

    @Mikey:

    “That piece is inane twaddle and Erickson is a pure fool.”

    That’s as may be. Erickson is still very influential among movement conservatives and has a decent sized megaphone to spread his inane twaddle.

  125. C. Clavin says:

    @Moosebreath:
    Indeed…you certainly don’t think the wingnuts that have made similar arguments on threads about similar topics — florists, chapels, etc. – came up with the idea on their own, do you?

  126. CB says:

    I swear I just saw a tumbleweed roll through this place. Spooky.

  127. Tyrell says:

    @michael reynolds: I know people who are left out in the cold: don’t qualify for a subsidy but can’t afford any of the plans. I also know of one person who is on the health plan and has cancer. They denied his treatments, said it wasn’t covered !
    The health care plan needs some tweaking, adju, fine tuning, and some parts of it need to be scrapped (mandate, tax penalties, IRS involvement), more choices and options . And lets get everyone on it that wants to be. Drop a lot of the requirements and qualifications. A person with a $13,000 taxable income (not gross) should not have to pay $400 a month for a health plan with a $6,000 deductible !

  128. Matt says:

    @Tyrell: I bet anything they are left out in the cold because their Republican governor refused the medicare extension. I know this because I am in the same position in Texas. I don’t make enough to get subsidies for regular insurance and since my state is run by Republican ideologues I can’t get medicare either. The Republicans have made it a part of their platform to make it as hard as possible on the poor and this is just a continuation of that plan. Want it to end? Stop voting Republican till they get their heads out of their collective asses.

    The mandate HAS to be in there or the whole damned thing doesn’t work. The rest of your complaints are purely ideological related.

  129. David M says:

    @Tyrell:

    A person with a $13,000 taxable income (not gross) should not have to pay $400 a month for a health plan with a $6,000 deductible

    I’m glad you support Obamacare, as it prevents this from ever happening.