TN-MTSU: Tennesseans Oppose Gay Marriage 2:1, Abortion 53-39

[100% pro-life no matter what]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/poll-most-tennesseans-oppose-same-sex-marriage/75495312/

Seems that the Supreme Court is not having an effect in red states- support for gay marriage has actually decreased since the last time they asked this question.

[Bojack Horseman]

Still doesn't change the legal status of SSM.

[King]

Sucks to be them.

[The_Doctor]

Still doesn't change the legal status of SSM.

I had an interesting thought on this. I don't think that the decision in June was the correct one, even though I support same-sex marriage. The reason is that basically, if you argue that equal application of the law is the basis for supporting same-sex marriage, the reality is that you can't, for example, deny same-sex incestuous relationships the legal right to marriage (you could bar them from adopting, maybe). I'd have to reread the Court's decision in June to allow same-sex marriage, but I'm fairly sure it was predicated on the application of the 14th amendment.

What would your argument be against that kind of situation? "It's socially unacceptable and out of line with society's moral expectations?" But that was the same argument that liberals argued that conservatives held in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was widely seen as basing opposition based on what was socially acceptable, and an illegitimate rationale to oppose same sex marriage. Constitutionally, I don't necessarily (and someone should illuminate this for me, please) see the argument against disallowing same-sex incestuous marriages.

What I'm getting at, you need some ability to incorporate socially mainstream views into what our laws are, even if the basis is "it's morally unacceptable." That's why I think that states should have the power to regulate marriage on a state by state basis, empowering them to dictate the law based on popular representational consent.

[RFayette]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/poll-most-tennesseans-oppose-same-sex-marriage/75495312/

Seems that the Supreme Court is not having an effect in red states- support for gay marriage has actually decreased since the last time they asked this question.

Why would it?  The level of support for gay marriage in conservative Reformed and Evangelical Christians was very low before the court decision, and that remains the same (in the church I go to, the SCOTUS case was explicitly mentioned in a sermon regarding America's decay, for instance).  Tennessee has a lot of Evangelical Christians; ergo, it still opposes gay marriage.  It's the secular voters and mainline Protestants/Catholics who changed their mind to a far greater degree.

[Bojack Horseman]

Still doesn't change the legal status of SSM.

I had an interesting thought on this. I don't think that the decision in June was the correct one, even though I support same-sex marriage. The reason is that basically, if you argue that equal application of the law is the basis for supporting same-sex marriage, the reality is that you can't, for example, deny same-sex incestuous relationships the legal right to marriage (you could bar them from adopting, maybe). I'd have to reread the Court's decision in June to allow same-sex marriage, but I'm fairly sure it was predicated on the application of the 14th amendment.

What would your argument be against that kind of situation? "It's socially unacceptable and out of line with society's moral expectations?" But that was the same argument that liberals argued that conservatives held in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was widely seen as basing opposition based on what was socially acceptable, and an illegitimate rationale to oppose same sex marriage. Constitutionally, I don't necessarily (and someone should illuminate this for me, please) see the argument against disallowing same-sex incestuous marriages.

What I'm getting at, you need some ability to incorporate socially mainstream views into what our laws are, even if the basis is "it's morally unacceptable." That's why I think that states should have the power to regulate marriage on a state by state basis, empowering them to dictate the law based on popular representational consent.

The state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting incestuous marriages, as it would cause birth defects and the like. If an incestuous gay couple sued to be able to marry, the courts would rule they have no right to do so, as allowing a gay brother/sister couple to wed would then constitutionally require that heterosexual incestuous couples who are capable of reproduction be allowed to marry, and since preventing incest is a valid state interest, the case is dismissed. That's how I would rule.

It goes back to the same argument Oklahoma made, where if we just banned all marriages, that's how we'd get around having to allow same-sex marriage. If you allowed one group of incestuous couples to wed, you'd have to let them all wed. The law already prohibits incest and doesn't discriminate gay or straight.

[The_Doctor]

Still doesn't change the legal status of SSM.

I had an interesting thought on this. I don't think that the decision in June was the correct one, even though I support same-sex marriage. The reason is that basically, if you argue that equal application of the law is the basis for supporting same-sex marriage, the reality is that you can't, for example, deny same-sex incestuous relationships the legal right to marriage (you could bar them from adopting, maybe). I'd have to reread the Court's decision in June to allow same-sex marriage, but I'm fairly sure it was predicated on the application of the 14th amendment.

What would your argument be against that kind of situation? "It's socially unacceptable and out of line with society's moral expectations?" But that was the same argument that liberals argued that conservatives held in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was widely seen as basing opposition based on what was socially acceptable, and an illegitimate rationale to oppose same sex marriage. Constitutionally, I don't necessarily (and someone should illuminate this for me, please) see the argument against disallowing same-sex incestuous marriages.

What I'm getting at, you need some ability to incorporate socially mainstream views into what our laws are, even if the basis is "it's morally unacceptable." That's why I think that states should have the power to regulate marriage on a state by state basis, empowering them to dictate the law based on popular representational consent.

The state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting incestuous marriages, as it would cause birth defects and the like. If an incestuous gay couple sued to be able to marry, the courts would rule they have no right to do so, as allowing a gay brother/sister couple to wed would then constitutionally require that heterosexual incestuous couples who are capable of reproduction be allowed to marry, and since preventing incest is a valid state interest, the case is dismissed. That's how I would rule.

It goes back to the same argument Oklahoma made, where if we just banned all marriages, that's how we'd get around having to allow same-sex marriage. If you allowed one group of incestuous couples to wed, you'd have to let them all wed. The law already prohibits incest and doesn't discriminate gay or straight.

But in the example I quoted, homosexual same-sex couples are not capable of reproduction. The argument of birth defects being an issue wouldn't apply here. You could bar them from adoption but you couldn't bar them from marriage on the grounds of birth defects. The law discriminates because we hold incest to be an immoral value that we don't condone in society.

Legally speaking, if you simply go by the rubric "People should marry who they love," without regard to moral conventions, you leave yourself open to this kind of challenge. You can say "we ban incest, without regard to sexuality," but your legal argument is predicated on straight incest being banned because they cause birth defects, etc. There's nothing in there to preclude gay incestuous couples because by definition, they can't reproduce.

I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument and I don't think it holds much water. I am not however a fan of the argument that people should marry who they love, with no regard to social conventions. I think that as my example demonstrates, we do put moral constraints on what we consider legitimate love. Even between consenting adults who do not pose by causing birth defects, et al.

[YaBoyNY]

Too bad for them, nobody cares about Evangelical Protestants or their backwards views.

Sorry.

[Rockefeller GOP]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/poll-most-tennesseans-oppose-same-sex-marriage/75495312/

Seems that the Supreme Court is not having an effect in red states- support for gay marriage has actually decreased since the last time they asked this question.

Why would it?  The level of support for gay marriage in conservative Reformed and Evangelical Christians was very low before the court decision, and that remains the same (in the church I go to, the SCOTUS case was explicitly mentioned in a sermon regarding America's decay, for instance).  Tennessee has a lot of Evangelical Christians; ergo, it still opposes gay marriage.  It's the secular voters and mainline Protestants/Catholics who changed their mind to a far greater degree.

That is so bizarre to me that a church leader would give an opinion on a political issue...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/poll-most-tennesseans-oppose-same-sex-marriage/75495312/

Seems that the Supreme Court is not having an effect in red states- support for gay marriage has actually decreased since the last time they asked this question.

Why would it?  The level of support for gay marriage in conservative Reformed and Evangelical Christians was very low before the court decision, and that remains the same (in the church I go to, the SCOTUS case was explicitly mentioned in a sermon regarding America's decay, for instance).  Tennessee has a lot of Evangelical Christians; ergo, it still opposes gay marriage.  It's the secular voters and mainline Protestants/Catholics who changed their mind to a far greater degree.

That is so bizarre to me that a church leader would give an opinion on a political issue...

They don't see it as mere politics.

[DS0816]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/09/poll-most-tennesseans-oppose-same-sex-marriage/75495312/

Seems that the Supreme Court is not having an effect in red states- support for gay marriage has actually decreased since the last time they asked this question.

Can you give us the poll results from all 22 states which carried in 2008 for John McCain?

It will really make the difference.

[Figueira]

I don't care what homophobes in Tennessee think as long as gay couples in Tennessee can get married if they want.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A majority opposed inter-racial marriage well into the 90's.
The world moves forward and can't wait for the bigots.

[Clarence Boddicker]

Ugh, Tennessee seems to be getting more and more backwards.

[Intell]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

[YaBoyNY]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

[Intell]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

[SATW]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

this

x a bisexual/pro-lgbt, pro-lifer.

[YaBoyNY]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

It isn't living though?

People still believe a fetus is alive?

Is this real life?

[Badger]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

It isn't living though?

People still believe a fetus is alive?

Is this real life?

It unquestionably is, yes, and yes.

There are arguments for abortion rights; a fetus not being alive isn't one.

[Intell]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

It isn't living though?

People still believe a fetus is alive?

Is this real life?

A fetus is alive, Science proves this.

[Bismarck]

- People can have abortions for fun if they really want to, TBH (provided that the third trimester has not yet been reached).

- The life of an insect matters more than that of a pre-thalamocortical fetus.

I would imagine most pro choice people would disagree with this statement. Please let some democrat politicians say this. That's an extremely radical position.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

It isn't living though?

People still believe a fetus is alive?

Is this real life?

It not just fantasy. I had a long riff on "Bohemian Rhapsody" that I lost to a bug before I could post it this morning and I don't like how my efforts to recreate it are going. Easy come easy go.

[YaBoyNY]

People should support same sex-marriage whole heatedly, while being steadfastly opposed to abortion, of course.

Nah, normal, good people would be fine with both.

Killing of a living baby, that's fine.

It isn't living though?

People still believe a fetus is alive?

Is this real life?

A fetus is alive, Science proves this.

Not in the human sense it isn't.