Republicans Are Too Angry About Gay Marriage

[Saint Milei]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/republicans-gay-marriage-angry-119711.html?cmpid=sf#.VZclQ_lVhBd

[ElectionsGuy]

That was certainly a good read and I agree with it. Jack Hunter is really someone I've grown to like. I can't wait for the time that the olds in the party and their irrational fears ware off.

[pbrower2a]

The sane approach is that whether or not same-sex marriage offends Christian sensibilities, the ruling is at the least an endorsement of freedom.  To be sure, liberals can easily make such a stance.  They can see the sane conservative side.

Crime against nature? For a real crime against Nature, try global warming. Crime against tradition? Slavery and infanticide used to be traditions, too. 

Does same-sex marriage hurt me if I have no homosexual proclivities? Of course not. It simply means that people who can love only within their own gender can marry and have normal lives. It means that people that I might know in a work setting are happier -- which is better for me. Nobody needs to pretend that a relationship that has all the hallmarks of a marriage isn't a marriage. If the relationship looks like a marriage and acts like a marriage, then it is a marriage.

The topic might as well be settled. There are bigger topics to deal with -- like poverty, labor-management relations,  and of course real monsters in the Middle East (Daesh). 

[CountryClassSF]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

[MaxQue]

Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

You already have religious freedom (1st amendment) and media can say whatever it wants (1st amnedment too!)

[pbrower2a]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

Sure. Case-by-case basis. In my case I consider silence acceptance, or at least acquiescence.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

[SteveRogers]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

Technically, the supreme court could agree to rehear the case (the request would have to be made within 25 days of June 26, 2015). But there's been no evidence that any movement to request they do it even exists, or reason to believe that Kennedy could be persuaded to vote the other way the 2nd time around.

There's also the obvious path of trying to get 67 votes in the senate and 290 votes in the house for a "return it to the states" amendment, that would then have to be approved by 38 of the 50 states. However, the chance of that passing is worse than the chance of Bushie holding a job for a year.

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

[pbrower2a]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

This is not Plessy v. Ferguson, a flawed decision in which "separate but equal" was deemed possible and acceptable despite its inherent absurdity. The refutation of "separate but equal" was obvious: that a social order that mandated separation of the races with grossly-unequal results implied that racial separation in public accommodations and especially education would invariably result in structural disadvantage that proved the establishment or maintenance of "separation" inevitably led to gross inequality.

That same-sex marriage disgusts you? Many people still give dirty looks to a white woman who has a black husband and biracial children.  Loving v. Virginia is not going to be overturned.

Stare decisis reigns in American legal practice.  It prevents legal anarchy.

So it was 'only' a 5-4 decision? Get over it. The dissent is already shabby. The next conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court will see same-sex marriage well entrenched in American life.

Turn your efforts, please, to something less quixotic.

[Torie]

Not as angry as may be depicted actually.

[JohnRM]

This is not Plessy v. Ferguson

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Homosexuals had the right to marry just like everybody else. A gay man had the right to marry a woman and a gay woman had the right to marry a man. On the other side of things, as a straight man, I had not the right to marry another man. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

Moving on...

There will be one final chance to reverse the decision after the 2016 Elections. The Republicans would probably have to win complete control of Congress of at least 38 State Legislatures in order to call a national convention. It could then be proposed to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If 38 of 50 state legislatures approve the amendment; same-sex marriage becomes unconstitutional. Abortion and no-fault divorce could also be addressed at such a convention, though I doubt that conservatives are bold enough to do so. I have my doubts as to whether or not they are willing to call a national convention, but at least they're talking about it in some circles. Personally, I believe that it is the only chance of success that we have.

Do I expect any of it to happen? Absolutely not. Conservatives in this country had indeed surrendered, but they did so, in very real sense, years ago. All that remains is just for show.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

This is not Plessy v. Ferguson

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Homosexuals had the right to marry just like everybody else. A gay man had the right to marry a woman and a gay woman had the right to marry a man. On the other side of things, as a straight man, I had not the right to marry another man. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

lol are people seriously still using this dumbass argument?

[WVdemocrat]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

How can you call yourself a libertarian when you support the government regulating peoples' personal lives?

[CountryClassSF]

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

I wish I shared the optimism. I will support efforts to amend the Constitution, but the bar is very high to do all of that

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

How can you call yourself a libertarian when you support the government regulating peoples' personal lives?

That ended back in 2002 with Lawrence v. Texas. Ever since then SSM has been legal thruout the US, just not civilly recognized everywhere until now. The idea that something doesn't happen without the government giving it its seal of approval is profoundly anti-libertarian.

[Nutmeg]

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Homosexuals had the right to marry just like everybody else. A gay man had the right to marry a woman and a gay woman had the right to marry a man. On the other side of things, as a straight man, I had not the right to marry another man. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

In 1967:

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Blacks had the right to marry just like everybody else. A white man had the right to marry a white woman and a black man had the right to marry a black woman. On the other side of things, as a white man, I had not the right to marry a black woman. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

... or something.

[CountryClassSF]

In 1967:

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Blacks had the right to marry just like everybody else. A white man had the right to marry a white woman and a black man had the right to marry a black woman. On the other side of things, as a white man, I had not the right to marry a black woman. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

... or something.

Loving was discrimination on the basis of race, which violated Civil Rights Act. That's the case I'd make for Loving.  This was literal creation of a new right, a special right. It was legislating from the bench.  Our founders  would be extremely disappointed.

THis country needs strict constructionist judges back on the bench, otherwise we will have at minimum 30 years of progressive reign.

[pbrower2a]

This is not Plessy v. Ferguson

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Homosexuals had the right to marry just like everybody else. A gay man had the right to marry a woman and a gay woman had the right to marry a man. On the other side of things, as a straight man, I had not the right to marry another man. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

Moving on...

For some people a same-sex marriage is the only valid marriage, and anything else is a sham.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...not to mention other parts of the Hard Right agenda, like abolishing the minimum wage, having a national Duty to Starve law, replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Big Business gave in on same-sex marriage. There's no money in a ban of SSM. 

[SteveRogers]

In 1967:

The Supreme Court created new rights with its decision in a very real sense. Prior to their it, no one was being denied their right to marriage. Blacks had the right to marry just like everybody else. A white man had the right to marry a white woman and a black man had the right to marry a black woman. On the other side of things, as a white man, I had not the right to marry a black woman. There was absolutely no discrimination here.

... or something.

Loving was discrimination on the basis of race, which violated Civil Rights Act. That's the case I'd make for Loving.  This was literal creation of a new right, a special right. It was legislating from the bench.  Our founders  would be extremely disappointed.

THis country needs strict constructionist judges back on the bench, otherwise we will have at minimum 30 years of progressive reign.

The court's holding in Loving was based on the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, not the Civil Rights Act. You either agree with that decision or you don't.

[Thomas D]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

Excuse me, But don't the Victors usually dictate the terms of surrender? But I'll play along.

1. You want 'Religious Freedom'?  No. Here's why:

Since the founding of this Nation, these kind of marriages have happened:

Jewish Woman-Christian Man
Atheist Woman-Muslim Man
Muslim Woman-Christian Man
Woman entering her 2nd marriage- Man entering his 3rd marriage
Hindu Woman-Atheist Man

And every combo there within. And yet I NEVER heard about people whining that THESE weddings were against their religious beliefs.

So I must then conclude that 'Religious Freedom' is  code for Gay Bashing.

2. You'd like to stop being called "Haters"?  No.

You are in fact 'Haters' You seem to hate, not gay people, but people who are happy being gay. You want us to cower in our closets. That's fine. You may think that if you wish, But it does, in fact make you a hater.

Thank you.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

We went over this, remember? Your basis for determining what is and isn't sin is a book edited numerous times over the ages, written by many men attempting to fulfill their own personal or cultural ambition. You claim to know god, but she is unknowable.

[SteveRogers]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

[pbrower2a]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

"Sin" is a collection of deeds ranging from minor neglect of social responsibilities (like failing to buy a schlocky, sentimental, overpriced greeting card for Mothers' Day) to monstrous crimes such as the Atlantic Slave Trade. That "sin" is a trivial concept causes me to recall a chain of restaurants pushing cinnamon rolls by changing the "c" to an "s" -- as if the cinnamon rolls were "sinfully" delicious.

Conflating the eating of a cinnamon roll to perpetration of the Holocaust makes the word sin practically meaningless.