.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:11:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  .
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: .  (Read 3762 times)
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 29, 2009, 05:47:45 PM »
« edited: January 06, 2014, 06:19:15 PM by A dog on every car, a car in every elevator »

.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 06:05:28 PM »

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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 06:09:04 PM »

No most Americans are still far too supportive of Traditional Marriage to risk it. Civil Unions however, yes they could.
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2009, 06:33:37 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2009, 06:35:20 PM by CJK »

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.
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2009, 08:11:28 PM »

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.



 
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2009, 08:40:01 PM »

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

First you'll need to find a Republican who can uphold it themselves.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2009, 12:14:17 AM »

Yes, but he'd have to be a genuine conservative on everything else.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2009, 03:17:00 AM »

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.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2009, 04:25:12 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2009, 04:31:51 PM by Dan the Roman »

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.

Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2009, 04:45:03 PM »

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.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2009, 06:25:46 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2009, 06:27:25 PM by Glowy the Weasel »

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). 
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2009, 06:42:29 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2009, 06:45:58 PM by Dan the Roman »

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.
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2009, 07:06:14 PM »

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

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

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
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2009, 08:08:09 PM »

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

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

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!"
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2009, 09:02:07 PM »

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.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2009, 09:06:00 PM »

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.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2009, 08:14:55 AM »

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.
     
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2009, 04:33:00 PM »

The base of the GOP would never allow that.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2009, 07:18:14 PM »

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

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

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

Actually I wasn't talking just about the gays.
Logged
Hillary 2016
Marienne Boudreau
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2009, 12:20:42 AM »

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.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2009, 05:35:05 PM »

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

If so then no..
Logged
MSG
MSG@LUC
Rookie
**
Posts: 66
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2009, 11:11:10 PM »

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. 
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2009, 11:27:17 PM »

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

If so then no..
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2009, 11:42:00 PM »

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.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2009, 01:21:15 AM »

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!

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.