Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[CountryClassSF]

There is no strategy - once SCOTUS imposes  it on our country, that will be it. The next step for conservatives is preventing oppression of the church & free exercise rights

[CountryClassSF]

While I disagree with CCSF's tone, he is correct this time.

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

Only if we strip all clergy of the ability to perform a civil marriage would that be even remotely Constitutional.  I also fail to see the need.  What BLGT couple would want an anti-SSM pastor to solemnize their ceremony?

Well, a lot target the pro-trad'l marriage businesses (and I imagine churches in the future too) for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit.  Or because they want to make a point.
This is probably just a handful of people doing this, but I cannot help but think of Baronelle Stutzman in Washington State - many gay people purposefully requested she service their weddings after learning she was against SSM.

[CountryClassSF]

It is deeply upsetting, but soon the choice for conservatives will be who least demonizes people with traditional values.

[CountryClassSF]

i thought their strategy was pretty obvious: they've just moved on to pushing ~~religious freedom~~ laws and banning trans people from using the correct public bathroom.

I have no problem with transsexuals using the bathroom of their newly assigned gender. Truly don't.  The problem is in California at least, the law allows anyone who "identifies" as the opposite gender to simply waltz into a bathroom of their choice.

We tried in 2014 to repeal via ballot but needed too many signatures in California. We fell just short. We'll try again this year for 2016-- where significantly less signatures will be required

Pacific Justice Institute is still litigating the case I believe.

[CountryClassSF]

Country Class,

Don't get your hopes up that the poll is an outlier. Gay marriage is coming whether we like it or not, whether this poll shows it or not, and whether the Supreme Court says so in June or not. While the details of some minor side-issues haven't quite been decided yet, this one's over; it's a 20 point basketball game with a minute left.

So the question becomes, what now? Where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. I’m not saying don’t vote, but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box. As far as I can tell, no country was ever converted by voting for the right candidate.

To do any of this requires us not to collapse into bitterness and despair but to engage the world and to do it with love. No one has ever been convinced by a despairing rant.  The gulag may indeed be coming, but nothing makes the gulag as horrifying as the fear of the gulag. Your cross may be heavier than most, but it is still yours to carry through the pain. As Christians, we look to imitate Christ, who carried his cross, painful as it was, without a grudge. Carrying a grudge, bitterness, and anger, can only make your cross heavier, not lighter. As painful as it might be, you still have something to offer this world, a purpose in this life. No matter what the law says, no one can take that away.

Your post truly touched me. Thank you.

[CountryClassSF]

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California

[CountryClassSF]

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California

In California, yes. However, we straights are forced to marry unless we're 62 or older. (It's a way to get the benefits of marriage without triggering some side effects towards Federal benefits. So I guess in California, domestic partnerships are now a substitute for SSM: Social Security Marriage.)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/domestic-partners-registry/

Thanks TF!

[CountryClassSF]

Like I said earlier in the thread, there is no strategy - because marriage will be radically redefined for us by black robed judges  - us peons have no recourse other than a Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Republicans have given up on

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally agree!

[CountryClassSF]

I can't believe RINO's on this forum are questioning Mecha's bona fide conservative credentials.

@Wulfric, why do you really feel the validity of other people's marriages need to be put up to a vote?

We are a Republic for the people and by the people.  Since the radical gay movement believes public is on their side, it certainly shouldn't be a problem.

The gay movement didn't have a problem "Voting" on SSM in Washington and Maine and Maryland, did they.

[CountryClassSF]

I am glad that there are some out there that are unafraid to stand up to the homosexualist juggernaut. Society and pop culture have strategized to make a pro-traditional marriage argument socially unacceptable  - especially in gay circles.  It's a form of intimidation and bullying.

[CountryClassSF]

Are polygamists second class citizens? I'd say the best secular argument is "because we can."  If SSM were a guaranteed constitutional right, they'd be being practiced since the constitution was formed

[CountryClassSF]

Why should polygamy be illegal though?

Your argument is consistent - but if "some" marriages are protected by the constitution and "some" aren't, based on "Feelings" -- that's a problem. And the left cannot answer that question. The courts won't either. They'll create a new law.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only difference is there are more people who choose to enter into a gay relationship than in a polygamist relationship. The problem is, if you're going to declare marriage between two people a right, you're re-writing the constitution. It's either a right or it isn't.

This should not be imposed on America in this fashion.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm all for us being treated like human beings. I'm not for a gestapo to try to force an agenda onto the country and redefine a historic institution because of people's "Feelings."

Not being able to marry someone of the same-sex is equal to being non-human? Seriously?

[CountryClassSF]

I am not sure why many supporters of SSM can't support SSM, or legalize SSM, without having it be declared a constitutionally guaranteed right. 

[CountryClassSF]

Having listened to the oral arguments, Kennedy's comments about the reluctance to say the court knowing better is a bit surprising and encouraging, but I am of the belief that they will indeed impose SSM

[CountryClassSF]

They could, in theory, I guess, say that the constitution does not grant a constitutional right to marriage (which to me is not debatable), but do an equal protection argument on states having to recognize out-of-state marriages already + not recognizing in-state same-sex marriages.

And this ruling I'd be more comfortable with because it would not create a slippery slope situation