Republicans Are Too Angry About Gay Marriage

[SteveRogers]

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

Oh wow. Are you a birther too now? Anyways, good to see that you're at least acknowledging now that the ruling in fact happened, but you're clearly still in the denial stage if you think any of those scenarios are "clear" paths to victory for you.

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

^ Give it up, you lost.

[Torie]

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?

Congress strips the federal courts of jurisdiction on marriage (which they can do). Then states simply reinforce the bans (which they can legally do because our good friend the 10th amendment and 1st Amendment which protects Religious Freedom) could be done now

That's one way

States propose (yes state assemblies can propose amendments) Judicial Reform (see The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin) bye bye Obama justices and Ginsburg (Obamacare, Roe v Wade, and Oberfall vs Hodges promptly overturned by originalist SCOTUS majority ) After GOP presidential win

That's another

Oh there's more

Clerks refuse to issue licenses to gay couples (Texas is doing this in places and others are too) citing religious freedom, case goes to Supreme Court (after said GOP win and removal of said justices) courts rule in favor of clerks and reinstall the bans along the way

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

JCL, please, pretty please, tell me that you're trolling. In exchange, I will do my best to insure that you are given immunity from any death points. Fair enough?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

Receiving government benefits is NOT a human right. This isn't free speech we're talking about here. It is a question of government benefits to encourage a particular form of marriage.

receiving equal access to government benefits as other demographics is.

[Nutmeg]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

Receiving government benefits is NOT a human right. This isn't free speech we're talking about here. It is a question of government benefits to encourage a particular form of marriage.

You're alleging that marriage is primarily an issue of government benefits? Do you actually believe that is why most people seek to get married?

[IronFist]

Republicans actually need to keep being 'hateful' to save voters interest. People must have an alternative to liberal agenda. Because otherwise America will turn into a totalitarian country then where only one opinion prevails.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans actually need to keep being 'hateful' to save voters interest. People must have an alternative to liberal agenda. Because otherwise America will turn into a totalitarian country then where only one opinion prevails.

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land.

Republicans now offer the wrong sort of conservatism -- superstition, crony capitalism, and militarism. If anything, much of the conservative tradition (the part that respects rational thought, insists that the common man have a stake in the system, that probity in business dealings be the norm, that the government not choose winners and losers, that pushes thrift and self-development, and that abhors war as a budget-buster) has gone to the Democratic Party.

Democrats are winning parts of the electorate that demographically fit the Republican Party at least as late as the 1980s. Don't be fooled: if President Obama could get such large parts of the Asian and Hispanic vote, then he was picking up some voters with some conservative and traditionalist tendencies.   

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JohnRM]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

Receiving government benefits is NOT a human right. This isn't free speech we're talking about here. It is a question of government benefits to encourage a particular form of marriage.

You're alleging that marriage is primarily an issue of government benefits? Do you actually believe that is why most people seek to get married?

If it's about love, then why do you need government recognition? What do you care what the government thinks? Do you think marriage would cease to exist in the Catholic Church if the government stopped recognizing them and providing benefits?

Why do YOU think the government recognizes marriage?

Do you know when gay marriage started becoming a serious issue? It was in the early 2000's when the tax code was changed to turn what used to be a tax penalty for being married into a tax benefit. Before that, few people cared about it.

[afleitch]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

Receiving government benefits is NOT a human right. This isn't free speech we're talking about here. It is a question of government benefits to encourage a particular form of marriage.

You're alleging that marriage is primarily an issue of government benefits? Do you actually believe that is why most people seek to get married?

If it's about love, then why do you need government recognition? What do you care what the government thinks? Do you think marriage would cease to exist in the Catholic Church if the government stopped recognizing them and providing benefits?

Why do YOU think the government recognizes marriage?

Do you know when gay marriage started becoming a serious issue? It was in the early 2000's when the tax code was changed to turn what used to be a tax penalty for being married into a tax benefit. Before that, few people cared about it.

So when one part of the couple dies, what is to be done? Of the several million children living with same sex parents why should their parents not get married.

[Brittain33]

It's a good piece from Jack Hunter, but I'd say left-liberals are too angry over gay marriage too, given they are willing to drive people out of their homes over it.  

The bakers were fined $135,000 not for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, but because they shared the contact info of the two women and their children publicly, exposing them to threats of violence against them and their property. Take a few minutes and read the ruling.

I don't think this couple should get a free pass out of court costs and damages for violating the privacy of their customers because you approve of their reasons for originally refusing to serve them.  

[Horsemask]

So much butthurt in this thread

[The Other Castro]

So much butthurt in this thread

*Irony*

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So much butthurt in this thread

*Irony*

If you're doing it right it doesn't have to hurt. Come to think of it, maybe that's CCSF's problem.

[CH86]

The whole gay marriage issue and the opposition to it are both nonsensical, it highlights a struggle for influence waged by rival special interest groups. Thus it is a textbook example of the decline of our political system.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The whole gay marriage issue and the opposition to it are both nonsensical, it highlights a struggle for influence waged by rival special interest groups. Thus it is a textbook example of the decline of our political system.

Tell me, what special interest group is Jim Obergefell a part of?

[CH86]

Another thing about gay marriage legalization, It was not implemented by popular vote but instead was imposed by an unelected supreme court. That brings us to another issue, why have a supreme court in the first place, in my opinion the supreme court needs to be disbanded or at the very least grant the executive branch the power to appoint and remove supreme court judges at the executive's discretion.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Another thing about gay marriage legalization, It was not implemented by popular vote but instead was imposed by an unelected supreme court. That brings us to another issue, why have a supreme court in the first place, in my opinion the supreme court needs to be disbanded or at the very least grant the executive branch the power to appoint and remove supreme court judges at the executive's discretion.

so was interracial marriage.

♪♫you don't get to vote on other people's human rights♪♫

[MaxQue]

Another thing about gay marriage legalization, It was not implemented by popular vote but instead was imposed by an unelected supreme court. That brings us to another issue, why have a supreme court in the first place, in my opinion the supreme court needs to be disbanded or at the very least grant the executive branch the power to appoint and remove supreme court judges at the executive's discretion.

Well, that would transform USA in a dictatorship, with the President being able to decide every lawsuit.

[pbrower2a]

Another thing about gay marriage legalization, It was not implemented by popular vote but instead was imposed by an unelected supreme court. That brings us to another issue, why have a supreme court in the first place, in my opinion the supreme court needs to be disbanded or at the very least grant the executive branch the power to appoint and remove supreme court judges at the executive's discretion.

The assumption is that Congress is more competent than people swayed by electoral campaigns to decide who is competent to judge the Constitution.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

Oh wow. Are you a birther too now? Anyways, good to see that you're at least acknowledging now that the ruling in fact happened, but you're clearly still in the denial stage if you think any of those scenarios are "clear" paths to victory for you.

All of the scenarios have clear ways to victory. If Dr. King were here, he'd be on my side. Your side can't say that.

Just laws square with the moral law of God. This court decision is in full opposition and should be resisted to the full.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

All of the scenarios have clear ways to victory. If Dr. King were here, he'd be on my side. Your side can't say that.

let us not wallow in the valley of despair. i say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, i still have a dream. it is a dream deeply rooted in the american dream. i have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, except the gays, because ewww." i have a dream that one day on the plains of kansas the westboro baptist church will be able to stand up together and beat gay teenagers to death. i have a dream that one day even the state of massachusetts, a state, sweltering with the heat of justice, sweltering with the heat of freedom, will be transformed into a hellhole of hatred and inequality. i have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by who they want to bang. i have a dream today.
—martin luther king, jr., apparently

[Brittain33]

All of the scenarios have clear ways to victory. If Dr. King were here, he'd be on my side. Your side can't say that.

Well, his widow Coretta Scott King, who knew his heart reasonably well, supported both anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation in Dr. King's name, and was an early endorser of same-sex marriage before her death in 2006. While the 1960s were prehistoric times for gay rights--even being gay was illegal in many states until 2003!--we have seen how other civil rights advocates from the era such as John Lewis have evolved.

[SteveRogers]

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

Oh wow. Are you a birther too now? Anyways, good to see that you're at least acknowledging now that the ruling in fact happened, but you're clearly still in the denial stage if you think any of those scenarios are "clear" paths to victory for you.

All of the scenarios have clear ways to victory. If Dr. King were here, he'd be on my side. Your side can't say that.

Just laws square with the moral law of God. This court decision is in full opposition and should be resisted to the full.

You didn't answer the question. Are you a birther? What's the "clear path" to Obama being declared constitutionally ineligible?

[ElectionsGuy]

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

Oh wow. Are you a birther too now? Anyways, good to see that you're at least acknowledging now that the ruling in fact happened, but you're clearly still in the denial stage if you think any of those scenarios are "clear" paths to victory for you.

All of the scenarios have clear ways to victory. If Dr. King were here, he'd be on my side. Your side can't say that.

Just laws square with the moral law of God. This court decision is in full opposition and should be resisted to the full.

You should understand that our founders didn't want our laws to be based on an established religion. When we do, we show favoritism toward that religion, thus making the 1st amendment useless. If you were really for small government, you'd respect that principle.