Why is SSM such a big deal?

[CountryClassSF]

Because being so cruel to a group of people as to an matter that is one of the most important aspect of our lives, marriage, for reasons that have no reasonable public policy basis as shown by the data, and thus seem based on bigotry or  priori religious beliefs that do not have a independent secular public policy rationale based on the data, is shocking to the conscience. I am just saying what others have said in a different way.

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler? Or that there was some acknowledgement (such as Fox News' gay conservative Guy Benson) that the vast majority of trad'l marriage supporters are not bigots?

Gay marriage is a relatively new thing in society. Has the country lacked a conscience until 30 years after the bicentennial when SSM was imposed on Massachusetts?

it's very true that this issue has been settled. So what more is there?

[CountryClassSF]

.... Yeah, so like I said. It's not just about "achieving equality" They now want to make sure those in dissent are marginalized and harrassed. They've gutted the 1st amendment.

[AggregateDemand]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states. Activists don't want to deal with this inconvenient legal hurdle, and they think they can shout their way to victory because, frankly, they're too dumb to find a way around.

2. The problems faced by gay people are faced by all single people, which means this niche issue the Democratic Party is trying to exploit for political gain is actually a populist issue that needs to be addressed, starting with tax code reform.

[CountryClassSF]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states. Activists don't want to deal with this inconvenient legal hurdle, and they think they can shout their way to victory because, frankly, they're too dumb to find a way around.

2. The problems faced by gay people are faced by all single people, which means this niche issue the Democratic Party is trying to exploit for political gain is actually a populist issue that needs to be addressed, starting with tax code reform.

Many on the left have difficulty separating material wants with civil rights. Many times I have seen libs essentially declare any new idea they have to be a civil right.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

.... Yeah, so like I said. It's not just about "achieving equality" They now want to make sure those in dissent are marginalized and harrassed. They've gutted the 1st amendment.

The 1st Amendment was not created to shield your sh**tty views from criticism, as you seem to believe.

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Because being so cruel to a group of people as to an matter that is one of the most important aspect of our lives, marriage, for reasons that have no reasonable public policy basis as shown by the data, and thus seem based on bigotry or  priori religious beliefs that do not have a independent secular public policy rationale based on the data, is shocking to the conscience. I am just saying what others have said in a different way.

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler? Or that there was some acknowledgement (such as Fox News' gay conservative Guy Benson) that the vast majority of trad'l marriage supporters are not bigots?

Gay marriage is a relatively new thing in society. Has the country lacked a conscience until 30 years after the bicentennial when SSM was imposed on Massachusetts?

it's very true that this issue has been settled. So what more is there?

Are you saying you'd support SSM if you feel like SSM supporters were just coddling you more?

[TDAS04]

Civil rights issue.

Frankly, it shouldn't be a big deal.  The LGBT community should be able to take equal protection under the law for granted.  Marriage is not he only issue here, but prohibiting SSM is one of the things that violates equal protection under the law.

[TDAS04]

The idea that marriage is granted by the government doesn't really sit well with me though. It should be a religious sanctum

Legal marriage exists.  Technically, getting rid of marriage as a legal term could be constitutional (as long as legal unions for gay and straight couples are equal), but it's not realistic.  Straight married couples won't be pleased if they're suddenly no longer married and just have a "civil union".  

It seems that opponents of SSM are just proposing this now (even if you support SSM) only because they lost the fight to impose their religious beliefs legally.  I don't think they like the idea of liberal religious institutions being allowed to perform gay marriages.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I would ever agree with the concept of it, but it would upset me much less if there was more respect and no "consequences" (job loss, "shaming,") to having a viewpoint from an openly gay perspective against redefinition of marriage

[CountryClassSF]

The religious liberty involved in this centers around free speech and the imposition of involuntary servitude on bakeries and if the far-left has their way, churches.

[Brittain33]

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler?

Um, no.

[YaBoyNY]

The religious liberty involved in this centers around free speech and the imposition of involuntary servitude on bakeries and if the far-left has their way, churches.

Also, by the way, freedom of speech doesn't protect stupid opinions from being called stupid.

It just protects your right to speak your backwards opinion and our right to laugh at you for having it.

[Torie]

Imagine if Republicans promoted military spending by instructing soldiers to point their guns at the citizenry until they agreed to raise the military budget.

Now you have some vague understanding of how the Democratic Party operates. Terrorize and disrupt until the job is done, even if terrorizing and disrupting are not productive or necessary.

I have not noticed any gun pointing myself by SSM proponents. Rather it has all been ballot box and court action, where SSM proponents having a very high batting average. Yes, I know, you don't really believe your own hyperbole, but I digress. I also haven't noticed the word "Hitler" bandied about much either, and you know the Hitler rule - you invoke his name inappropriately, and you automatically lose the argument out of the box.

[The Mikado]

Lack of marriage equality de jure discrimination against a minority group. To some of us, the very existence of de jure discrimination in the law codes offends our moral senses.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

Until I saw AD's reply below I was thinking he was using a frame of reference similar to mine. Mine is that ever since Lawrence SSM has been legal in all fifty States, and that the current legal and political struggle has been over giving all marriages the same degree of legal recognition and privileges. After all, he's been vocal about his odd view that how governments treat marriage amounts to discrimination against single people.

[bedstuy]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

Until I saw AD's reply below I was thinking he was using a frame of reference similar to mine. Mine is that ever since Lawrence SSM has been legal in all fifty States, and that the current legal and political struggle has been over giving all marriages the same degree of legal recognition and privileges. After all, he's been vocal about his odd view that how governments treat marriage amounts to discrimination against single people.

Ugh.  During slavery, everyone was equal under the law, some people were just more equal than others.  Right?

[CountryClassSF]

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler?

Um, no.

Well, folks like Guy Benson are helping bridge that. He is pro-SSM but also pro-religious liberty. He's the only prominent gay man out there (other than me but hey im not prominent lol) who expresses this. He recently came out, actually.

[Zioneer]

Guys

Guys

GUYS

How hard is it to not respond to CountryClassSF? Use the ignore button for christsake.

Are AggregateDemand and CountryClassSF just ranting ridiculous bigotry and pseudo-intellectuallizations to themselves and everyone who's responding to them? I can't see half the thread since I have both of them on ignore.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Guys

Guys

GUYS

How hard is it to not respond to CountryClassSF? Use the ignore button for christsake.

Are AggregateDemand and CountryClassSF just ranting ridiculous bigotry and pseudo-intellectuallizations to themselves and everyone who's responding to them? I can't see half the thread since I have both of them on ignore.

Yes. CCSF is having gayness shoved down his throat and AD thinks SSM is just a great opportunity to finally let people know about the plight of single straight people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

Until I saw AD's reply below I was thinking he was using a frame of reference similar to mine. Mine is that ever since Lawrence SSM has been legal in all fifty States, and that the current legal and political struggle has been over giving all marriages the same degree of legal recognition and privileges. After all, he's been vocal about his odd view that how governments treat marriage amounts to discrimination against single people.

Ugh.  During slavery, everyone was equal under the law, some people were just more equal than others.  Right?

Wrong. Rather it is that I don't accept that a marriage requires civil recognition to be a marriage. Keep in mind that in the Loving case, it wasn't merely that the Lovings were denied a civil marriage by Virginia, they were found guilty of claiming to be married and living as if they were married. That's why I consider Lawrence to be the same-sex equivalent of Loving. Ever since then it hasn't been a crime for any couple in the US to live in marriage. That's far more important than the residual issues relating to SSM that have been dealt with since then.

[The Mikado]

The idea that marriage is granted by the government doesn't really sit well with me though. It should be a religious sanctum

Where does this view come from? My parents were married by a judge in my mom's living room. This was three decades ago. No religion involved.

[ingemann]

It seem to me the primary reason that SSM became the issue it is, was because Bush decided to use it as wedge issue in the 2004 election. Now I didn't follow American politics that well in the early 2000s, but it seem to me that the Republican more or less transformed it from niche issue to a national issue with their wave of attempted and successful SSM bans around there.

When that was done people had to decided and the problem (for the Republicans) are when you use a civil right issue as wedge issue, you usual end up on the wrong side issue. Many people are not happy about changing somewthing as fundamental as marriage and male homosexuality has both a "ick" factor, but also a religious factor. But on the other hand people don't like politicians who goes full bigot, and they could see in both real life and media, that homosexuals was people too.

So this are something the Republicans only have themselves to blame for, and it's good lesson in how short term gain may cost more down the road, if they embrace the wrong issue.

[Cryptic]

Because people being denied the same civil rights as others and lacking equal protection under the law should be a big deal. Especially when that denial is based solely on religious views that intrude into the public sphere.

[CountryClassSF]

I wish more would listen to dreamboat Guy Benson, who has reached out to opponents of SSM.  One of the *first* things Guy said during his interview with Megyn Kelly is that opposition to SSM does not equate to hating or disliking gays, or bigotry. 

Now, hopefully he will not be co-opted by the left, but he is, to my knowledge, the ONLY openly gay male who is a public figure who says that, despite personal support for SSM

[cinyc]

AggregateDemand and CountryClassSF are trolls.  They shouldn't be engaged on this issue because they're just going to spout nonsense.

I am really sick of this nonsense of calling people who disagree with you trolls and/or putting them on ignore.  Not everyone is a so-called "progressive" who wants to shove their viewpoint on gay marriage down everyone's throat, regardless of legitimate religious objections. 

I have not noticed any gun pointing myself by SSM proponents. Rather it has all been ballot box and court action, where SSM proponents having a very high batting average. Yes, I know, you don't really believe your own hyperbole, but I digress. I also haven't noticed the word "Hitler" bandied about much either, and you know the Hitler rule - you invoke his name inappropriately, and you automatically lose the argument out of the box.

A CEO was forced out of his job for the "crime" of engaging in the political process by donating to the campaign for California's Proposition 8.   Bakers are being forced to bake cakes with messages in support of something they vehemently disagree with.   Some "progressives" label anyone who has legitimate religious objections to gay marriage as "bigots" and "haters", instead of engaging in debate, and try to ruin opponents' lives and job prospects. 

If you don't see that as gun pointing by SSM proponents, I don't know what to tell you.  If you dare disagree with SSM, you are evil incarnate to "progressives".