Why is SSM such a big deal?

[Torie]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

It's 1) hatred or bigotry, 2) based on religious non data based religious dogma, or 3) both. So yes, not all those who oppose SSM are haters or bigots, just adherents to certain religious dogmas. But many of them are. Well I guess a fourth category are those who honestly believe there is a secular case to be made against SSM based on damage to society as a whole, as opposed to animus against gays. Let's call that group the shockingly uninformed, because at this point in the debate, that's what it is.

[Torie]

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.

It's 1) hatred or bigotry, 2) based on religious non data based religious dogma, or 3) both. So yes, not all those who oppose SSM are haters or bigots, just adherents to certain religious dogmas. But many of them are. Well I guess a fourth category are those who honestly believe there is a secular case to be made against SSM based on damage to society as a whole, as opposed to animus against gays. Let's call that group the shockingly uninformed, because at this point in the debate, that's what it is.

So, your point?

Historically, there are eugenicist elements within the pro-abortion community in the United States; however, the entirety of the pro-choice movement is not characterized in such a light.

Opposition to SSM =/= Bigotry 

And that is wrong. But it is a fair comment to point out that much of the opposition to SSM is at bottom rooted in animus against gays, and the desire to keep them in a second class status, and that understandably angers much of the gay community, as well as others. The problem is more acute now, since we are so far down the road, legally, culturally, politically (it is not a career ender most places now to favor SSM), and based on a better understanding of the data and empirical evidence.