Why is SSM such a big deal?

[bedstuy]

1.  Marriage is a civil right granted by the government.

2.  Everyone should have the same civil rights under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation.

3.  Same-sex marriage hasn't been recognized in every state, so it is not settled. 

4.  Same-sex marriage has come to symbolize the greater struggle for acceptance and legal equality for LGBT people.  It raises the basic question of whether it's OK to treat people differently because of the sexual orientation and whether being gay is wrong/a choice.  So, the fight for SSM has advanced acceptance and equality for gay people across the board. 

5.  The US still has tons of homophobia and mistreatment of gay people so we have a lot of work to do in general to make acceptance of homosexuality a social norm.  We've come a lot way in the past 10 years, but there are still anti-gay hate crimes, conversion therapy and bullying of gay kids going on.  We can't accept second-class citizen status on any issue or be complacent even when we've had some political success in recent years.  As if it's OK to be homophobic or legally discriminated against in some states.  It's never OK and we shouldn't have to take it any longer.

I have a reasonable counter here.

1. Marriage and the family was instituted before the concept of human government. Thus goes beyond civil rights. (Look at Genesis 2-4 on this)

2. Those who want to change that are trying to undermine cultural and societal norms that have always existed. Thus the burden of proof to change roughly the whole of human history is on the ones trying to change that incontrovertible fact.

3. The Founders to a man agreed with the Biblical view of marriage and family life and shouldn't we at least consider the wisdom of the founders even if many of you want to cast off the Bible and its role in American jurisprudence.

4. For the courts to undermine the will of the people specifically expressed through their legislatures or through voter referendum to codify traditional marriage as the only acceptable marriage in said state is a stain on the very courts themselves

5. The state's who had bans on SSM who had them overturned by federal courts (yes I'm looking at you too California and Prop should have said bans restored and all said "unions" voided from the state records at minimum.

That's nonsense. 

You're wrong for two basic reasons.

One, we have a secular government and a secular Constitution.  What a specific religion has to say about marriage law is irrelevant. 

Two, "we can never change anything!" is a horrible argument.  Marriage law was not static for all of human history.  Women used to be treated like chattel.  We used to have child marriage, polygamy, dowry, dower, no divorce and arranged marriages.  All that has changed and evolved throughout history because society has changed and progressed. 

This is an issue of the shifting of what is an accepted fact.  At one point in America, it was an accepted fact that black people were inferior and deserving of slavery.  It was an accepted fact that women could never be full citizens with equal rights.  Eventually, opinions changed based on a continued national discussion. 

This same process happened with homosexuality.  There has been a national discussion on homosexuality, especially since the 1960s.  My side has won the underlying argument here, since most Americans acknowledge:
1.  Homosexuality is not a choice.
2.  Homosexuality is not immoral or harmful to society.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you have to convince people on those underlying points.  Because, if you concede those two points, opposing same-sex marriage is nonsensical.

[Ban my account ffs!]

1.  Marriage is a civil right granted by the government.

2.  Everyone should have the same civil rights under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation.

3.  Same-sex marriage hasn't been recognized in every state, so it is not settled.  

4.  Same-sex marriage has come to symbolize the greater struggle for acceptance and legal equality for LGBT people.  It raises the basic question of whether it's OK to treat people differently because of the sexual orientation and whether being gay is wrong/a choice.  So, the fight for SSM has advanced acceptance and equality for gay people across the board.  

5.  The US still has tons of homophobia and mistreatment of gay people so we have a lot of work to do in general to make acceptance of homosexuality a social norm.  We've come a lot way in the past 10 years, but there are still anti-gay hate crimes, conversion therapy and bullying of gay kids going on.  We can't accept second-class citizen status on any issue or be complacent even when we've had some political success in recent years.  As if it's OK to be homophobic or legally discriminated against in some states.  It's never OK and we shouldn't have to take it any longer.

I have a reasonable counter here.

1. Marriage and the family was instituted before the concept of human government. Thus goes beyond civil rights. (Look at Genesis 2-4 on this)

2. Those who want to change that are trying to undermine cultural and societal norms that have always existed. Thus the burden of proof to change roughly the whole of human history is on the ones trying to change that incontrovertible fact.

3. The Founders to a man agreed with the Biblical view of marriage and family life and shouldn't we at least consider the wisdom of the founders even if many of you want to cast off the Bible and its role in American jurisprudence.

4. For the courts to undermine the will of the people specifically expressed through their legislatures or through voter referendum to codify traditional marriage as the only acceptable marriage in said state is a stain on the very courts themselves

5. The state's who had bans on SSM who had them overturned by federal courts (yes I'm looking at you too California and Prop should have said bans restored and all said "unions" voided from the state records at minimum.

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Especially pay attention to verse 3, Calvinist.

[Ban my account ffs!]

1.  Marriage is a civil right granted by the government.

2.  Everyone should have the same civil rights under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation.

3.  Same-sex marriage hasn't been recognized in every state, so it is not settled. 

4.  Same-sex marriage has come to symbolize the greater struggle for acceptance and legal equality for LGBT people.  It raises the basic question of whether it's OK to treat people differently because of the sexual orientation and whether being gay is wrong/a choice.  So, the fight for SSM has advanced acceptance and equality for gay people across the board. 

5.  The US still has tons of homophobia and mistreatment of gay people so we have a lot of work to do in general to make acceptance of homosexuality a social norm.  We've come a lot way in the past 10 years, but there are still anti-gay hate crimes, conversion therapy and bullying of gay kids going on.  We can't accept second-class citizen status on any issue or be complacent even when we've had some political success in recent years.  As if it's OK to be homophobic or legally discriminated against in some states.  It's never OK and we shouldn't have to take it any longer.

I have a reasonable counter here.

1. Marriage and the family was instituted before the concept of human government. Thus goes beyond civil rights. (Look at Genesis 2-4 on this)

2. Those who want to change that are trying to undermine cultural and societal norms that have always existed. Thus the burden of proof to change roughly the whole of human history is on the ones trying to change that incontrovertible fact.

3. The Founders to a man agreed with the Biblical view of marriage and family life and shouldn't we at least consider the wisdom of the founders even if many of you want to cast off the Bible and its role in American jurisprudence.

4. For the courts to undermine the will of the people specifically expressed through their legislatures or through voter referendum to codify traditional marriage as the only acceptable marriage in said state is a stain on the very courts themselves

5. The state's who had bans on SSM who had them overturned by federal courts (yes I'm looking at you too California and Prop should have said bans restored and all said "unions" voided from the state records at minimum.

That's nonsense. 

You're wrong for two basic reasons.

One, we have a secular government and a secular Constitution.  What a specific religion has to say about marriage law is irrelevant. 

Two, "we can never change anything!" is a horrible argument.  Marriage law was not static for all of human history.  Women used to be treated like chattel.  We used to have child marriage, polygamy, dowry, dower, no divorce and arranged marriages.  All that has changed and evolved throughout history because society has changed and progressed. 

This is an issue of the shifting of what is an accepted fact.  At one point in America, it was an accepted fact that black people were inferior and deserving of slavery.  It was an accepted fact that women could never be full citizens with equal rights.  Eventually, opinions changed based on a continued national discussion. 

This same process happened with homosexuality.  There has been a national discussion on homosexuality, especially since the 1960s.  My side has won the underlying argument here, since most Americans acknowledge:
1.  Homosexuality is not a choice.
2.  Homosexuality is not immoral or harmful to society.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you have to convince people on those underlying points.  Because, if you concede those two points, opposing same-sex marriage is nonsensical.

You can't appeal to reason with a man who has an immovable hate and fear in his heart.  That he uses Jesus to back it up ensures he nails Jesus and himself up on that cross every day.  Except JCL is the serpent wrapped around Jesus' neck and only J-CLaw will scream "pity me!  Except for you f****ts. I don't like you!"

You gave yourself away with point five, jack law.  Retribution is a nasty thing.

[NeverAgain]

1.  Marriage is a civil right granted by the government.

2.  Everyone should have the same civil rights under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation.

3.  Same-sex marriage hasn't been recognized in every state, so it is not settled. 

4.  Same-sex marriage has come to symbolize the greater struggle for acceptance and legal equality for LGBT people.  It raises the basic question of whether it's OK to treat people differently because of the sexual orientation and whether being gay is wrong/a choice.  So, the fight for SSM has advanced acceptance and equality for gay people across the board. 

5.  The US still has tons of homophobia and mistreatment of gay people so we have a lot of work to do in general to make acceptance of homosexuality a social norm.  We've come a lot way in the past 10 years, but there are still anti-gay hate crimes, conversion therapy and bullying of gay kids going on.  We can't accept second-class citizen status on any issue or be complacent even when we've had some political success in recent years.  As if it's OK to be homophobic or legally discriminated against in some states.  It's never OK and we shouldn't have to take it any longer.

I have a reasonable counter here.

1. Marriage and the family was instituted before the concept of human government. Thus goes beyond civil rights. (Look at Genesis 2-4 on this)

2. Those who want to change that are trying to undermine cultural and societal norms that have always existed. Thus the burden of proof to change roughly the whole of human history is on the ones trying to change that incontrovertible fact.

3. The Founders to a man agreed with the Biblical view of marriage and family life and shouldn't we at least consider the wisdom of the founders even if many of you want to cast off the Bible and its role in American jurisprudence.

4. For the courts to undermine the will of the people specifically expressed through their legislatures or through voter referendum to codify traditional marriage as the only acceptable marriage in said state is a stain on the very courts themselves

5. The state's who had bans on SSM who had them overturned by federal courts (yes I'm looking at you too California and Prop should have said bans restored and all said "unions" voided from the state records at minimum.

That's nonsense. 

You're wrong for two basic reasons.

One, we have a secular government and a secular Constitution.  What a specific religion has to say about marriage law is irrelevant. 

Two, "we can never change anything!" is a horrible argument.  Marriage law was not static for all of human history.  Women used to be treated like chattel.  We used to have child marriage, polygamy, dowry, dower, no divorce and arranged marriages.  All that has changed and evolved throughout history because society has changed and progressed. 

This is an issue of the shifting of what is an accepted fact.  At one point in America, it was an accepted fact that black people were inferior and deserving of slavery.  It was an accepted fact that women could never be full citizens with equal rights.  Eventually, opinions changed based on a continued national discussion. 

This same process happened with homosexuality.  There has been a national discussion on homosexuality, especially since the 1960s.  My side has won the underlying argument here, since most Americans acknowledge:
1.  Homosexuality is not a choice.
2.  Homosexuality is not immoral or harmful to society.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you have to convince people on those underlying points.  Because, if you concede those two points, opposing same-sex marriage is nonsensical.

You can't appeal to reason with a man who has an immovable hate and fear in his heart.  That he uses Jesus to back it up ensures he nails Jesus and himself up on that cross every day.  Except JCL is the serpent wrapped around Jesus' neck and only J-CLaw will scream "pity me!  Except for you f****ts. I don't like you!"

You gave yourself away with point five, jack law.  Retribution is a nasty thing.

Shut up snow, you're biased. This thread is for straights, trying to tell you what's right.

[publicunofficial]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think his point was that voters who are frustrated and unhappy should stop electing the same people over and over again, i.e. try something new for once.  Baltimore is a monolithic left-wing oligarchy, and it hasn't really served them well.

Exactly.

So they should instead vote for a party that only mentions urban centres as a scare story to whip up their base? People won't just vote against their interest for a party that explicitly dislikes them, never mind how long Democrats have been in charge.

And I do feel nervous that many areas are one-party states, but the modern GOP is not a party interested in cities. Perhaps that is why electoral reform will be helpful.

This. The Republicans demonize and fear any group that doesn't vote for them monolithically, and then has the gall to ask why they continue to vote Democrat.

[Torie]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

[The Mikado]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If the Court doesn't want to overturn Windsor and Perry a mere three years after writing them (the same Court with the same membership!), it basically boils down to two options: every state has to recognize same sex marriages but doesn't have to issue them, or every state has to issue them. Perry has them in this box where a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage is motivated by animus and can be overturned, and if they punt (which they won't do, they chose to take this case) the lower court split between the Sixth Court and the other courts will be an impossible dilemma.

Every state has to recognize but doesn't have to issue will be a ridiculous procedural issue, much cleaner to just rule it legal nationally.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If opposite-sex marriage were the same today as it was in the days of the Founders, I might agree with you two. However, civil marriage had already ceased to have distinct gender based distinctions between husband and wife, thus making the transition to civil SSM easier to happen.

[Torie]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If the Court doesn't want to overturn Windsor and Perry a mere three years after writing them (the same Court with the same membership!), it basically boils down to two options: every state has to recognize same sex marriages but doesn't have to issue them, or every state has to issue them. Perry has them in this box where a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage is motivated by animus and can be overturned, and if they punt (which they won't do, they chose to take this case) the lower court split between the Sixth Court and the other courts will be an impossible dilemma.

Every state has to recognize but doesn't have to issue will be a ridiculous procedural issue, much cleaner to just rule it legal nationally.

Yes, it's a mess. That is why I really don't know the best path. I honestly don't. Well of course, having a federal law legalizing same sex marriage from a policy standpoint, done through Congress, F federalism, is by far the best from a policy standpoint, but I digress. It's the legal aspect absent that, that gives me a headache. It makes me feel humble in my ignorance.

[The Mikado]

This would've been far simpler if the ERA had passed...SSM could have been ruled in on gender equality grounds (the ability to marry a woman but not marry a man as gender discrimination). More's the pity about the ERA falling just short of the finish line.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If the Court doesn't want to overturn Windsor and Perry a mere three years after writing them (the same Court with the same membership!), it basically boils down to two options: every state has to recognize same sex marriages but doesn't have to issue them, or every state has to issue them. Perry has them in this box where a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage is motivated by animus and can be overturned, and if they punt (which they won't do, they chose to take this case) the lower court split between the Sixth Court and the other courts will be an impossible dilemma.

Every state has to recognize but doesn't have to issue will be a ridiculous procedural issue, much cleaner to just rule it legal nationally.

Yes, it's a mess. That is why I really don't know the best path. I honestly don't. Well of course, having a federal law legalizing same sex marriage from a policy standpoint, done through Congress, F federalism, is by far the best from a policy standpoint, but I digress. It's the legal aspect absent that, that gives me a headache. It makes me feel humble in my ignorance.

Actually, that gives me an idea, tho I suspect that the Republican led Congress wouldn't like having a political hot potato being handed them by SCOTUS.  If Kennedy decides to be unexpectedly traditional, he might rule (and in such a case I think Roberts would go along with it) that Congress could act to require that same-sex marriages in one state be recognized in others that have no provision for them otherwise.  It looks like it would be a straightforward use of Congress' power under Article IV Section 1 to prescribe how the Full Faith and Credit clause is put into effect.

That said, I doubt Kennedy would be so traditional, especially since I don't think the idea was brought up during the case, tho this court hasn't been shy about giving hints to Congress about what it can do or needs to do, such as it did with the VRA.  Still, for defenders of traditional marriage, that would have had at least a small chance of success to forestall nationwide SSM, at the cost of making SSM an issue in the 2016 Congressional elections.

It also wouldn't offend my Federalist principles as Windsor did and as I fear this case will, tho of course, a simple acknowledgement of civil SSM as a right would be best in my opinion, both in terms of result and process.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This would've been far simpler if the ERA had passed...SSM could have been ruled in on gender equality grounds (the ability to marry a woman but not marry a man as gender discrimination). More's the pity about the ERA falling just short of the finish line.

Doubtful.  Both men and women would have had the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender, so I don't think gender equality would be a viable path to getting SSM recognized by a court that wouldn't otherwise recognize it.  I don't think any of the State ERA's were used to overturn non-recognition of SSM in State courts.

The only area of marriage that I think the ERA might affect would be if at some future date, polygyny were to be recognized as a valid civic marriage, then polyandry would have to also be recognized.

[CountryClassSF]

ERA didn't pass for that reason. Atleast now it's proponents are acknowledging that's what they would have used it for. Remember when Schlafly was called a fearmonger for saying that it would be used to make a case for SSM? Oops.

There's no explicit right to same-sex marriage in the constitution. It's simply going to be yet another  case of left-wing  judges usurping their role as interpreters and creating a new law based on their own personal opinions. Their page in the "civil rights" history book means more to them than upholding their oath.

[Ebsy]

ERA didn't pass for that reason. Atleast now it's proponents are acknowledging that's what they would have used it for. Remember when Schlafly was called a fearmonger for saying that it would be used to make a case for SSM? Oops.

Schlafly is only surpassed in her idiocy by her son.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he's gay and still loves his mom? Really? He's supposed to hate her? Apparently she was so much of an idiot that she truthfully predicted that ERA would be used to further the progressive agenda on other fronts, while progs called her a liar for saying so.

You cannot stand the fact that she loves her son and he loves her. Because it cuts to your narrative that opposition to the gay agenda is rooted in hatred.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While Schafly made that argument, it certainly wasn't the thrust of her argument, nor is it what resonated with the public.  She argued the ERA would lead to women being drafted, unisex public bathrooms, and losing the right to alimony and a preference in child custody when divorce occurred.

The former is a dead issue, the second is silly, and the third has essentially already occurred.

[CountryClassSF]

While Schafly made that argument, it certainly wasn't the thrust of her argument, nor is it what resonated with the public.  She argued the ERA would lead to women being drafted, unisex public bathrooms, and losing the right to alimony and a preference in child custody when divorce occurred.

The former is a dead issue, the second is silly, and the third has essentially already occurred.

Well, according to the articles  during the 1992 GOP convention when they decided to out her son out of spite for her (such kindness), they certainly made it seem as if that was a major part of it.

"In the 1970s she led the successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment
partly by claiming it would pave the way for gay weddings"

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/schlafly.outing.reaction-KNIGHT.RIDDER

I don't think many on the left get this.  She has a son who is gay. She disagrees/disagreed with it at the time. But gosh, by George, they still love eachother.  Indulge Media Matters--is it possible that having a disagreement doesn't mean  hating the person you disagree with?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's because by the 90's the issues on which the opposition to the ERA was fought in the 70's were dead issues while SSM was then starting to become an issue.

[MaxQue]

Nobody cared about gay marriage in the 70's, not even the gay community itself (only the most libertine gays were considering themselves gay at that time and those weren't interested in marriage or union in any ways, because it was a way to normalize them. They still don't, but they are a small minority right now).

[CountryClassSF]

I want to preface this question with an assurance that I am genuinely curious.

Who came up with the concept of same gender marriage ? I know that someone in Minnesota sued for SSM way back in the day. But who decided in the 90s that the definition of what consititutes a marriage be changed? I had never once heard of this concept until my teenage years when it was forced on Massachusetts .

Someone had to have created the idea

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Roman emperor Elagabalus is believed to be the first recorded example of a homosexual marriage.

[Del Tachi]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Go back ten years and your argument is exactly reversed. Conservatives used SSM to juice electoral turnout. Were you making the same argument then?

[bedstuy]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

You can't talk about hatred and intolerance when you want your hatred and intolerance not only tolerated, but enshrined into the law for everyone.  People can't still believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral and that same-sex marriage is evil.  They just don't get the government to abide by their beliefs.

They can take comfort in the fact that marriage is a voluntary act among private citizens so they don't need to get a same-sex marriage unless they want one.

[publicunofficial]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

Hey, remember 2004 when Republicans used calls for the criminialization of homosexual activity as an effort to drum-up electoral support? Good times.

It blows me away when Republicans claim it's hypocritical to support gay rights while not supporting religion's right to infringe on gay rights. It's not hypocrisy, it's consistency.