Talk Elections

.

No.

Primary voters would be too against it and Democrats in recent times have been notoriously incapable of standing up for what they believe in when it comes down to making a tough choice.

No most Americans are still far too supportive of Traditional Marriage to risk it. Civil Unions however, yes they could.

Of course a candidate supporting the equal treatment of valid marriages could get nominated.

But they would need to pledge to uphold the sanctity of marriage.

The only Republican who supports same-sex marriage, that might get support from the right-wing base is Cheney, and he'd never win the moderates, so I think it's highly unlikely. In the future, who knows.

Democrats... yes it wouldn't be an issue in the primary I think. For example if Gillibrand would run in 2016, I hardly believe it's her stance on marriage that would hurt her in the eyes of Democrats.



 

First you'll need to find a Republican who can uphold it themselves.

Yes, but he'd have to be a genuine conservative on everything else.

Nope, still impossible. It'd be damn near impossible on the Democratic side due to various ethnic groups that reside within the party's tent.

Not in the 2012, but given the Massachusetts example, where in 2003 every major political figure(including Kennedy and Kerry) opposed, where today all three Gubernatorial candidates strongly support it, I expect that by 2020 this will be the case.

The interesting thing is the same effect is going on in California. Despite Prop-8 passing, support for it is now looked upon as a major liability for statewide office.

I actually suspect if Obama gets two-terms and potentially even if he doesn't we will get a Supreme Court ruling on it. I fully expect the GOP to run full boar against it the first presidential election after it, oppose it queltly and focus on other things by the second, and all mainstream Republicans to support it by the third presidential election after legalization.

Oddly, I have a hunch things nevertheless would have moved faster with an unpopular McCain Presidency.

I have little doubt that after 2016 or 2020 most Democratic presidential candidates will support gay marriage.

Obviously that's not happening for the GOP for a while.

Give it another 20 years. Then again, if America is definately on an irreversable decline by then, the gay marriage thing might just go away because aging societies tend to become less cosmopolitan. Look at the Roman Empire/Former Roman Empire (Byzantium). 

Not at issue here, but Byzantium lasted 1000 years and was hardly in irreversible decline until after Andronikus III died. It definitely had periods of decline, but no more so than say France had in the 1650s.

As for the Roman Empire, physical decline meant less not more luxury, and less tolerance for homosexuality. 5th cent Rome was Christian after all, and the Catholic Church was dictating domestic policy. Not to mention that the Germans were fierce social cons.

Agreed. I'm getting sick of these gay republicans scandals popping up. Yes, Jim McCery, Yes Mark Foley, and yes Glen Murphy JR i'm talking about YOU

Larry Craig says "Hi, I have a wide stance!"

Yes, but he'd have to be REALLY conservative on everything else, and it'd require a large amount of candidates running, and would probably only happen as the result of a floor fight at the convention.

It'd be easier for a Democrat to do, but it'd still be hard.

Yes if his opponents were Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachman, and if he was a mainstream conservative on everything else. Even then it would be close.

Democrats are far more accepting of homosexuality -- and oppose homosexual activity when it becomes hypocritical (as from a rhetorical homophobe or campaigns as a "pro-family" right-winger), destructive, or exploitative. Barney Frank is an openly-gay man and leaves his hands off children. Mark Foley was secretly gay and sent salacious e-mails to boys; Larry Craig solicited a cop far from home.

The late Barry Goldwater got it right.
     

The base of the GOP would never allow that.

Actually I wasn't talking just about the gays.

No, I do not see that happening.  They will have no incentive to.

It's going to take a new kind of person to speak about the issue in a different way then it's talked about now.  It's going to take a lot more work from the GLBT community and their families and friends to spread a movement for it across the country.  The Democratic position will continue to be support for states rights, while the Republican position will be opposition.

After marriage equality is enacted nationwide, and it will be, either by a Supreme Court ruling or an act of Congress, how ever long that may take, the issue will no longer be discussed.  The Republicans will try to look diverse, but I do not see gays ever being accepted by the party establishment.

Of course gays will not really grow in population, but their support network (family and friends) a completely heterosexual group, will grow...and that could be a serious liability for the Republicans if they keep this antigay crusade of theirs up.  Today it plays well, but I hope one day it bites them all in the ass.  I sure as hell know I won't be voting for a Republican president, probably ever, unless that candidate is Meghan McCain, who has won the heart of the gay community with her courageous stand in support of marriage equality.

Do you mean true marriage equality?   
Allowing every combination of couples to marry? 

If so then no..

I hate strawman arguments like these.  I am sorry for you if you are so against the possibility that two men or two women could come together in a relationship that is equal to a man and a woman.  That is your choice, fine, however to say that people who want to give our friends in the GBLT community the same rights that we posses is some how analogous to arguing for the allowance of anyone to marry anything.  This is just false and has been an fallacious argument made by fools on your side of this debate for sometime sadly you subscribe to it as well.  You may also have convinced yourself that your life will be affected negatively if our friends in the GBLT community have the same rights, they wont, as you do.  But, give it us rest man no one outside of weirdos and freaks want to legalize anything beyond marriage equality for good loving couples like those in the GBLT community.  In my opinion i would rather see a marriage between a loving gay or lesbian couple than that between a 75 year old and 18 year old.  It sickens me that the latter is accepted nationwide where as the former is frowned upon at best and violently opposed at worst.  But hey if you feel better about you life by bashing those who deserve the rights you take for granted so be it. 

Um... there are only three combinations of couples that I can think of: male-female, male-male and female-female. So yes, marriage equality means all three.

But Lief...if we allow them thar preverts to marry, then the next thing you know -- people are gonna wanna marry a ham & cheese sammich!

Ill take it even one step further.  Say that there is a quality gay republican, who was hardline conservative on every thing else that got past the primary.  I bet there would be a gigantic landslide for that candidate.  And many democrat voters would be picked off because many soft democrats are only democrats because of gay rights issues.

lol

Future RPP voter in Atlasia. You heard it here first.

*sticks flag in the sand*

     You seem rather obsessed with who we might recruit in the future.

I called a few of them in the past with Bgwah as a joke, and now it's kind of like a betting game to me. :P

Excellently put and thank you. :)

The title of this thread, however, amuses me. That's like asking if a skinhead Nazi who supports Jews could be accepted into the American Nazi Party or if a black man could join the KKK. lol

The Republicans have demonized the LGBT community since well forever and I doubt they stop anytime soon. Obviously, a pro-gay marriage Republican would not be nominated anytime soon because the Republican Party is full of nothing but far right-wing conservative Bible thumping hicks and bigots who like to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, whatever that means? Personally I think if you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, you should outlaw divorce. And we all know that if gays marry, then cats and dogs will start marrying each other because animals sure can sign a marriage contract with their cute and cuddly little paws! :P And the way the Republicans link homosexuality to pedophilia is just pathetic. If you look at statistics, it's like 98% of pedophiles are straight. They need new arguments. Their sanctity argument is also running dry; heterosexuals (names like Sonny Bono and Britney Spears pop in my mind) have destroyed that "sacred institution," seeing as how one in two marriages end in divorce, which their Bible clearly states is an abomination, but you don't see the Religious Right up in flames trying to get a national ban on divorce! They pick and choose which sins to condemn while upholding others, which makes them all nothing but a bunch of bigoted and hateful hypocrites. No wonder they vote Republican with leaders like Ensign, Sanford, Craig, etc. etc. and more to "come out" soon! :P (It's a shame we can't bomb these radical Christian fundamentalists like we are doing to the radical Islamic fundamentalists.)

It's more so a generational gap than anything. I think the voluptuous Meghan McCain will lead the way for a new Republican Party that is much more libertarian-leaning and more accepting of diversity not only as it pertains to the LGBT community but to other minorities as well. I guess it runs in her genes, being a RINO, that is. :P