Is the GOP's recent anti-gay bill trend an act of rage?

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's like they know they're on the losing side on this issue so they're angrily lashing out. It's obviously not a winning issue electorally and the coverage it's getting isn't helping them and is just flushing their chances with younger voters even more so. It's like sort of a panic from the anti-gay crowd, they're having a breakdown ala Hitler in that infamous Downfall scene once he realizes that the war is lost and there's nothing he can do about it.

[pbrower2a]

The first two stages of grief, according to Elizabeth Kübler-Ross:

Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Stages_of_Grief

Then come Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

It's clear where the GOP is on gay rights.

"We will never do this again!" is in Stage 3.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It is just that.  I'm not sure the whole 5 Stages Of Grief thing can be applied to a political party, but this is quite obviously some very nasty reactions, showing that the right is still a bunch of sore losers when it comes to social issues. 

[SteveRogers]

The first two stages of grief, according to Elizabeth Kübler-Ross:

Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Stages_of_Grief

Then come Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

It's clear where the GOP is on gay rights.

"We will never do this again!" is in Stage 3.

If that's right, then can we expect the GOP to bargain for civil unions next?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The first two stages of grief, according to Elizabeth Kübler-Ross:

Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Stages_of_Grief

Then come Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

It's clear where the GOP is on gay rights.

"We will never do this again!" is in Stage 3.

If that's right, then can we expect the GOP to bargain for civil unions next?

More likely they'll bargain for the right of legislatures on the state level to allow individuals (most prominently, business owners) to choose to discriminate  (if they want to, of course) based on a very...curious notion of "individual freedom."  Or they'll use the defense of majority rule in the red states (which would be hypocritical for them, but there you go).

Maybe they'll agree to refrain from opposing gay marriage rights, with the understanding that de facto discrimination against less affluent members of the LGBT community (and other groups, frankly) will continue to occur throughout the country.  

To put this all in perspective...look at how much ground the Right has gained on the abortion issue, specifically at the state level.

[AggregateDemand]

It has nothing to do with gay. It has everything to do with the legislature hijacking power from the judiciary by writing new laws.

In fact, the "anti-gay" bills are as much pro-gay as anti-gay. If an anti-gay person can discriminate against homosexuals, homosexuals can discriminate against the anti-gay fundamentalists.

The political optics are bad enough that reasonable people can rule out any social agenda. The obvious agenda pertains to conservative mistrust of the unelected, often-progressive judiciary.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It has nothing to do with gay. It has everything to do with the legislature hijacking power from the judiciary by writing new laws.

You do realize that that is the job of the legislature, right?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Social conservatives know they're losing, and losing quickly. They are in full-blown panic mode and are throwing everything to see if something, anything sticks.

10 years ago a huge number of states approved gay marriage banning amendments, and now the marriage equality proponents are going HAM and targeting pretty much every single state; the four to fall this year were deep-red states after popular vote victories in 2012. Consistent majorities show support for gay marriage increasing every year.

Now SCOTUS is on their side and it's only a matter of time before they have to take the issue up again, and quite possibly for the last time.

[AggregateDemand]

You do realize that that is the job of the legislature, right?

Sure. The job of the state legislature is to preempt the judiciary by passing new state laws anytime a ruling on federal statutes is imminent. Like when Oklahoma passed the anti-Sharia laws. That was a good use of time. Judiciary couldn't have ruled against hypothetical Sharia-law without assistance from the legislature. 

[SteveRogers]

It has nothing to do with gay. It has everything to do with the legislature hijacking power from the judiciary by writing new laws.

In fact, the "anti-gay" bills are as much pro-gay as anti-gay. If an anti-gay person can discriminate against homosexuals, homosexuals can discriminate against the anti-gay fundamentalists.

The political optics are bad enough that reasonable people can rule out any social agenda. The obvious agenda pertains to conservative mistrust of the unelected, often-progressive judiciary.

Why do people keep saying this? That's not what the text of the Arizona bill allowed for at all. The discrimination allowed under that bill was very much a one-way street.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not really "the GOP".  It's a sect of the GOP that's being criticized by many in the GOP.  Look at Arizona; the bill was vetoed for a second time.

[windjammer]

It's not really "the GOP".  It's a sect of the GOP that's being criticized by many in the GOP.  Look at Arizona; the bill was vetoed for a second time.

Yes, but this bill has passed both the house and the senate. And republicans haven't a solid majority: 17-13 in the senate. So, few defections. It's not only a part of the GOP, it's definitely a large part of elected republicans.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I would assume 30% or so of the GOP supports these bills, looking at the Arizona polls.
Anyway, Republicans and social conservatives should focus completely on abortion now, but nooo, somehow two men marrying is top priority....

[7,052,770]

I would assume 30% or so of the GOP supports these bills, looking at the Arizona polls.
Anyway, Republicans and social conservatives should focus completely on abortion now, but nooo, somehow two men marrying is top priority....

That's not really a winning issue either.  Social conservatives should just give up and focus on issues that will make their own lives better (like a minimum wage increase)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I also think their renewed interest in "right-to-work" is an act of rage against Occupy.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

You do realize that that is the job of the legislature, right?

Sure. The job of the state legislature is to preempt the judiciary by passing new state laws anytime a ruling on federal statutes is imminent. Like when Oklahoma passed the anti-Sharia laws. That was a good use of time. Judiciary couldn't have ruled against hypothetical Sharia-law without assistance from the legislature. 

Uh, yes, they could have. Remember the Establishment Clause? And I'm not sure what you mean by your thing on "preempting the judiciary". Could you explain that more simply, please?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not really "the GOP".  It's a sect of the GOP that's being criticized by many in the GOP.  Look at Arizona; the bill was vetoed for a second time.

Yes, but this bill has passed both the house and the senate. And republicans haven't a solid majority: 17-13 in the senate. So, few defections. It's not only a part of the GOP, it's definitely a large part of elected republicans.

The elected Republicans are scared and pandering to the Tea Party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think they're definitely related to all of these recent federal judges rulings for gay marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I also think their renewed interest in "right-to-work" is an act of rage against Occupy.

They've been lying about "right-to-work" ever since Taft-Hartley passed in 1947.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's not like they're not known for being the party of angry old white men or anything. Yes, they are losing, and like most losers when you're losing you begin to cry foul. Gay people having the same rights as straight people? That's an attack on my religious liberties! It reminds me of those people in high school who would say that they couldn't dissect a pig in biology class because it went against their religious beliefs.

[windjammer]

It's not really "the GOP".  It's a sect of the GOP that's being criticized by many in the GOP.  Look at Arizona; the bill was vetoed for a second time.

Yes, but this bill has passed both the house and the senate. And republicans haven't a solid majority: 17-13 in the senate. So, few defections. It's not only a part of the GOP, it's definitely a large part of elected republicans.

The elected Republicans are scared and pandering to the Tea Party.

Of course. I definitely believe that Republicans voters aren't a majority of homophobic, but Republicans elected: yes. The Tea Party is definitely not a minority or a sect, it is definitely an important majority of the GOP elected officials.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It reminds me of those people in high school who would say that they couldn't dissect a pig in biology class because it went against their religious beliefs.

Considering that there are people for whom that would truly be against their religious beliefs, it's not impossible for that to have been the case, tho I would suspect many, if not all, were BSing to get out of dissecting. However, perhaps Missouri is a hidden hotbed of Buddhism or other such religions that hold all animal life sacred. (Some Christian traditions have been opposed to human dissection, but I'm not aware of any that extend that to all creatures great and small.)

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

They lost the marriage battle, but they have to keep this wedge issue alive. Simple as that.

[afleitch]

It’s fairly straight forward. If you cannot stop social change, then you isolate yourself from it. In establishing laws that ensure that you only need associate with whom you wish and be legally protected by that decision, then you buy off some more time. The problem the GOP has was in framing this law as a way in which to protect ‘business’. The problem is, business doesn’t seem to want the law. And big business, which generally seems to be perversely more ‘conscientious' than the GOP is these days, threatened to take their business elsewhere.

[Frodo]

Yes, pretty much.  They (the Religious Right) see the writing on the wall, and know there is little they can do now to stop progress.  

Abortion is pretty much their only refuge left -and they better hope that the Supreme Court doesn't actually go and overturn Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (and by logical extension, Griswold vs. Connecticut) like they have been campaigning for all these years.  The backlash would be so furious (and the revived feminist movement so large and powerful as a result) that they would have no political influence left.