Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 07:04:49 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  .
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: .  (Read 2659 times)
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2638


View Profile
« on: July 29, 2009, 05:47:45 pm »
Ignore

.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 06:19:15 pm by A dog on every car, a car in every elevator »Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24595
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 06:05:28 pm »
Ignore

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

I can do spaghetti after recalling the steps.
I just had Braum's on Sunday, so I'm good for a while.  Tonight, I had Burger King.
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 06:09:04 pm »
Ignore

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

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



CJK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 636
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2009, 06:33:37 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 06:35:20 pm by CJK »Logged
Swedish Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3747
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2009, 08:11:28 pm »
Ignore

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
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30492
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2009, 08:40:01 pm »
Ignore

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



Real America demands to know.
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9404


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2009, 12:14:17 am »
Ignore

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

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Corporate Worship
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38495
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2009, 03:17:00 am »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1795
United States


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2009, 04:25:12 pm »
Ignore

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.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 04:31:51 pm by Dan the Roman »Logged
ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32343
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2009, 04:45:03 pm »
Ignore

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

MooMooMoo
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12270
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2009, 06:25:46 pm »
Ignore

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). 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 06:27:25 pm by Glowy the Weasel »Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
[/quot
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1795
United States


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2009, 06:42:29 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 06:45:58 pm by Dan the Roman »Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2009, 07:06:14 pm »
Ignore

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

Economic score: -6.80
Social score: -0.97
I'm a crazy Liberal  Troll. LAWL

ndvc ,b., b


CRAZY GAY TROLL LIBRAL FROM ALABAMAS
Alabama is dum redecks!


Gays and minorites are sexeh
Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2009, 08:08:09 pm »
Ignore

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

people suck
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35637
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2009, 09:02:07 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2009, 09:06:00 pm »
Ignore

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

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10032
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2009, 08:14:55 am »
Ignore

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



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14288


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2009, 04:33:00 pm »
Ignore

The base of the GOP would never allow that.
Logged

Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30492
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2009, 07:18:14 pm »
Ignore

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



Real America demands to know.
Hillary 2016
Marienne Boudreau
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2009, 12:20:42 am »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2009, 05:35:05 pm »
Ignore

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

If so then no..
Logged

"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
MSG
MSG@LUC
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2009, 11:11:10 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2009, 11:27:17 pm »
Ignore

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

If so then no..
Logged

Economic score: -6.80
Social score: -0.97
I'm a crazy Liberal  Troll. LAWL

ndvc ,b., b


CRAZY GAY TROLL LIBRAL FROM ALABAMAS
Alabama is dum redecks!


Gays and minorites are sexeh
ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32343
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2009, 11:42:00 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11629
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2009, 01:21:15 am »
Ignore

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 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines