Liberals: Deal or No Deal?

[Stranger in a strange land]

No, because I don't even want the SCOTUS to do that anyway. Better to let the states do it themselves to get some legitimacy to it and then let the courts force the remaining states like Oklahoma and Utah and all that ahead.

IMHO, it's much better if SCOTUS does it 10-20 years from now, once a supermajority of public opinion is firmly in support of gay marriage and more than half the states have already legalized it. Certain states will never legalize gay marriage unless the Feds force them to, but there's a danger in getting too far ahead of public opinion.

Marriage equality is clearly gaining momentum, and most states will have it in 10 years. While equality is important, it's certainly not worth sacrificing a whole host of other issues for something that's coming relatively soon anyway.

[bedstuy]

No way. 

I think ultimately we'll be able to come up with some sort of compromise on recognizing same-sex marriages across state lines, rather than forcing states to grant marriage licenses.  I think that will work well enough, gay people in Mississippi can have their wedding in Mississippi but get their marriage license in another state for example. 

Also, I want to see Republicans keep losing the non-Redneck vote by opposing same-sex marriage and I want to see infighting between the Christian conservatives and semi-sane section of the party. 

[windjammer]

No, controlling the supreme court is much more important than legalizing gay marriage everywhere!

[NVGonzalez]

A more interesting question would be a republican victory in 2016 and universal healthcare. (I would be  yes there)

I would add to the terms of the deal that I would pick the Republican and make it single payer.

[Holmes]

Well, my initial answer was a reluctant yes. But with the Illinois House failing badly on gay marriage this evening, I'm going with an enthusiastic yes.

[King]

I'd like to hope liberals aren't like the religious right and care more about social welfare and investment in infrastructure than gay marriage.  I support equality, but come on, is that worth losing the White House and Congress to Teabaggers?

[Marokai Backbeat]

No deal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If there's any chance the Democratic President would be competent, hell no.

[LastVoter]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

[politicallefty]

Of course not.

A Republican victory in 2016 allows for the Supreme Court to move further to the right than it already is.

That was pretty much what I thought as well. Democrats having a third-consecutive term in the White House would probably mean replacing Kennedy and/or Scalia, giving liberals a 5-4 or even 6-3 majority on the Court. (I think four terms would pretty much lock that in.) Giving Republicans the Presidency in 2016 means replacing Scalia and possibly Kennedy, the latter resulting in a very conservative 5-4 Supreme Court. And that's just dealing with the Supreme Court, not to mention everything else the Presidency affects.

[TNF]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

Why?

[illegaloperation]

The answer is no. I would rather wait until Kennedy and Scalia retires so a Democratic president can appoint their successor.

[pbrower2a]

No. The Republicans would rescind it soon after they make America a great place to be super-rich but a Hell for anyone else. 

[The Mikado]

No, at this point nationwide marriage equality will likely happen by the close of the decade.  The Courts are pretty clearly setting the grounds for the next round of cases, which will be decisive.  DOMA gets struck down this year.  A few years from now, a gay man or woman in government employment gets transferred from a state where he/she is married to one that doesn't have same sex marriage.  That government employee will sue the government on equal protection grounds, having lost the various marriage tax benefits etc. 

The end game on this issue is pretty damn clear.  The wheels are already in motion.

[pbrower2a]

Elect a Democrat in 2016 and the Supreme Court gets a majority of non-corporatists. It's only a matter of time before one of the right-wingers dies or becomes incapacitated.

[LastVoter]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

Change doesn't come from within the system, this scenario opens the door to people burning down the institutions(Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court, maybe even the current frame of government).

[H. Ross Peron]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

Change doesn't come from within the system, this scenario opens the door to people burning down the institutions(Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court, maybe even the current frame of government).

Most of us would rather have reform than revolution, thank you very much.

[LastVoter]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

Change doesn't come from within the system, this scenario opens the door to people burning down the institutions(Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court, maybe even the current frame of government).

Most of us would rather have reform than revolution, thank you very much.

So are you saying the current parties are institutionalized, and should be eternal?

[H. Ross Peron]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

Change doesn't come from within the system, this scenario opens the door to people burning down the institutions(Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court, maybe even the current frame of government).

Most of us would rather have reform than revolution, thank you very much.

So are you saying the current parties are institutionalized, and should be eternal?

No. But I don't see any reason to abandon the Democratic Party in the forseeable future. And the Republican Party simply needs to be brought back at least to its Reagan days, if not its Nixon-Rockefeller era.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd rather take Supreme Court banning gay marriage and a Republican in 2016. There might be some progress after that on the horizon.

The 'things must get worse before they get better' argument?

Change doesn't come from within the system, this scenario opens the door to people burning down the institutions(Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court, maybe even the current frame of government).

That's a rather pessimistic view of you. On the other hand, however, you're too optimistic about people "burning down the institutions". No one is going to do that any time soon, so willingly banning gay marriage and electing a Republican would have no positive consequences.

[badgate]

Deal. A GOP president almost guarantees Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator. But then again, Ted Cruz almost guarantees Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator. So never mind. No deal.

[Peter the Lefty]

No deal.  It's a difficult question to answer, but if the Supreme Court legalized it, then that Republican President would still be able to find ways of making our (LGBT people's) lives miserable if they get a legislative majority.  There's a slim chance of that happening, but we could see federal prohibition of state anti-bullying laws (on freedom of speech grounds), repeal of anti-discrimination protections, etc.  And this is just on gay rights.  We haven't considered if....

A. That president may try to tighten abortion laws.
B. That president may start another war.
C. That president may indirectly attempt to literally kill the poor, elderly, disabled, etc. by destroying their social safety net
D. That president may indirectly destroy the earth (eventually) by repealing whatever environmental laws we have....

You get the idea.  In all of these cases, we're talking about lives (and with the bullying laws as well, if you think about it).  If you could guarantee that the Republican President would do none of those things, we might have a deal.  Because a Republican president who does nothing is essentially no worse than a generic Democrat nowadays.

[Person Man]

For the above reasons, I don't think we can afford another very conservative President. If we get another H.W., who doesn't get much done and potentially appoints moderate to liberal SCOTUS justices when Scalia and Ginsburg retire, it might be worth the deal. Especially when you consider what kind of damage to Constitutional Law and morale a total ruling against Gay Marriage would have.
Seeing that Christie may be the next President, I'll go with deal.

Then again, in a worse case scenario where SCOTUS gets it wrong and there's a Republican Neoliberal Evangelical President, House and Senate in 2017 that's at least as conservative as there were in 2005, our best hope would be that things get much worse before they get better...then again, that's basically where we were in 2005 and we only got 2 years of progress out of it and still another 5 years of pain left from it. I don't think we can afford another set of Bush years.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Deal. A GOP president almost guarantees Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator. But then again, Ted Cruz almost guarantees Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator. So never mind. No deal.

Not worth it, because Cruz is, at the end of the day, just one senator, and one who's disliked by most of his colleagues. Scalia and Kennedy being replaced by young firebrand conservatives - think Cruz, but on the Supreme Court - is a far, far worse outcome. That's not to mention the probability that a Republican President will start a war with Iran, seek to curtail women's rights and gay rights, and weaken environmental protections.