Republicans Are Too Angry About Gay Marriage

[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). 

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[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.

Technically Lawrence v. Texas is the sin-friendly case you're looking for, but the point is mostly moot as anyone that tries to argue in a court of law using the bible as a main defense is a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Let he who is without fault cast the first stone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sins can fit into two categories in the Old Testament. One set of sins consists of those for which the whole of humanity can be judged harshly for commission -- like murder, rape, theft, fraudulent oaths, perversion of justice. These are universally wrong.

The second are sins against Jewish identity. Worshiping 'foreign' gods or creating a graven image of some god indicate that one is no longer Jewish and no longer part of the Jewish community.

[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.   

[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.

[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.    

Crony Capitalism: Well the top 1% have taken home more of this countries income growth under Obama than they did under Bush W.

Government chooses winners and losers-Remember the energy company "Solyndra" the company "The Obama Administration" gave money to? Well they went broke.

What parts of the electorate are the Dems winning that the GOP used to win as recently as the 1980's? "Postgraduate" is the only demographic I can think of along with "Asians". I just think Asians started voted Dem big time after Newt Gingrich/Republican Revolution of 1994 because the Republicans started to become too Southern for their electoral tastes.

Until recently, as Hispanics joined the middle class they started voting Republican. That is over.

Several "Asian" groups used to be won reliably on anti-Communist appeals. That is over. Even Korean-Americans have drifted D. North Korea is the butt of many political jokes among liberals. Communist insurgencies have faded into irrelevance in most "Asian" communities. 

"Southern right-wing" means white privilege in practice, support of fundamentalist Christianity, and anti-intellectualism. No Asian group has a vested interest in any of those.