At what point will holding anti-gay positions start becoming a liability?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:48:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  At what point will holding anti-gay positions start becoming a liability?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: At what point will holding anti-gay positions start becoming a liability?  (Read 8873 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 05, 2012, 06:46:23 AM »

Given the gradual trend towards Americans supporting gay marriage/civil unions with older voters being replaced by younger voters who tend to be more increasingly supportive at what point will publically opposing gay marriage/civil unions and LGBT rights in general start to become an electorable liability? Has this in fact happened in any state so far?

Thoughts.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2012, 10:56:33 AM »

Not a liability: National Republican primary, very conservative states
A liability: National general election, very liberal states (VT, MA, etc)

We are really nearing the end of opposition to LGBT rights in the US. The public already supports ENDA (I think even Romney supports this?) and the repeal of DADT by huge margins and we're seeing the shift towards supporting gay marriage which will lead to the end of the Defense of Marriage Act (and civil unions).

The speed on which things happen will vary. The fastest I think is if Obama moves on from supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage (again), wins reelection, and Democrats hold the Senate allowing him to appoint more Supreme Court justices and California holds off on legalizing gay marriage at the ballot in favor of letting Perry v. Schwarzenegger reach the Supreme Court who would hopefully give us a Loving v. Virginia-like ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide. It could be over this decade.

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2012, 12:10:25 PM »

I would argue that in more than a few places it's already happening.

Hell, Santorum's Senate career was cut short in Pennsylvania of all places because he was too "anti-gay".
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2012, 02:40:11 PM »

In much of the country already, and nationwide by the 2020's. By 2016 or 2020 we'll see Republican nominees who at least support civil unions.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2012, 06:58:34 PM »

2020s most likely, 2030s if the religious right really digs its heels and shoves money into the  GOP. Hopefully Perry v Schwarzenegger results in a Brown v Board type ruling, but I'd expect opposition from conservatives for at least another decade. 
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2012, 03:13:17 AM »

Apparently during the last NH GOP debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-mitt-romney-gay-rights-gop-debate_n_1192345.html?ref=mostpopular
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2012, 08:26:58 PM »

It already is a liability in many states, which is why most Republicans aren't even talking about social issues as much anymore.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2012, 08:42:37 PM »

In some states it is already a liability and I would argue my home state is one of them.

In the context of a Presidential general election, I predict that 2012 will be the final year that holding anti-gay positions will be a non-liability.  In 2016 I think it will be at least a small liability and full LGBT rights will be the default position of Democratic Presidential candidates.  By 2020 I think support for gay rights will be the view of a solid majority of Americans, though some strong social conservatives will continue to oppose it.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2012, 09:00:46 PM »

Anti-gay positions have already become a liability. Anti-gay marriage positions won't for a few more cycles.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2012, 11:13:06 PM »
« Edited: January 30, 2012, 03:27:47 PM by Fat Boy McGee »

In liberal and swing states, it already is. In conservative states, not until several years after a Loving v. Virginia type thing.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2012, 05:49:15 PM »

Not a liability: National Republican primary, very conservative states
A liability: National general election, very liberal states (VT, MA, etc)

We are really nearing the end of opposition to LGBT rights in the US. The public already supports ENDA (I think even Romney supports this?) and the repeal of DADT by huge margins and we're seeing the shift towards supporting gay marriage which will lead to the end of the Defense of Marriage Act (and civil unions).

The speed on which things happen will vary. The fastest I think is if Obama moves on from supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage (again), wins reelection, and Democrats hold the Senate allowing him to appoint more Supreme Court justices and California holds off on legalizing gay marriage at the ballot in favor of letting Perry v. Schwarzenegger reach the Supreme Court who would hopefully give us a Loving v. Virginia-like ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide. It could be over this decade.

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Don't be glum, chum. As biotechnology and Computer Science becomes more and more sophisticted, we will be give all kinds of fun, new ways to piss off  fundies.  
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2012, 09:14:15 PM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

How about toplessness and nudity on television...uncensored?  This is America -people go apesh**t over this issue.  
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2012, 03:04:54 AM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2012, 03:13:06 AM »

Obama is the only person who is openly anti gay marriage who is winning a statewide Democratic primary in California any time soon.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2012, 10:41:23 AM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2012, 10:51:51 AM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.
Yeah. We're not giving up Wink
Logged
Vermin Supreme
Henry Clay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2012, 05:25:17 PM »

2014 or later
Logged
Vermin Supreme
Henry Clay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2012, 02:56:20 PM »

Probably never. We're just in a phase - much like the LGBT movements of the 1970s.and more


WTF? With states like Maryland and Washington passing LGBT bills, the movement is just getting started to be pick up by mainstream America. Explain how this is a fad that will die out?
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2012, 03:49:01 PM »

Probably never. We're just in a phase - much like the LGBT movements of the 1970s.

Civil rights for Blacks. It was just a phase, man.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2012, 11:53:03 PM »

When they start alienating people over the issue and taking away states' rights to vote on the issue. I'm a big tent conservative who likes to focus on issues the bring people together. There is nothing wrong with taking either side of this issue but to make it a cornerstone of a campaign goes a little far.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2012, 01:37:36 PM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.
Yeah. We're not giving up Wink

I would hope you wouldn't, since I don't actually have that hunger for 'social progress' for its own sake and will probably join you when it comes to issues of re-normalizing eugenics and other such nastiness.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2012, 05:14:35 PM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.
Yeah. We're not giving up Wink

I would hope you wouldn't, since I don't actually have that hunger for 'social progress' for its own sake and will probably join you when it comes to issues of re-normalizing eugenics and other such nastiness.

Obviously Man-on-Dog will be the next cultural war.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2012, 02:08:44 AM »

How do you define anti-gay though? If someone isn't against gays but believes a marriage should be between a man and woman are they anti-gay? I know several gay people and only two that I've ever met have actually supported gay marriage. The others think marriage is for straight people and therefore want no part of what straights identify with. Rather they want their own separate culture and system. I think too often liberals make it sound like they stand for all gays when really the only thing they want to do is appear as sensitive to guilty voters who will look to their stances as heroic. In all reality the only thing that supporting gay marriage does politically is turn an issue into something it's not.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2012, 01:48:09 PM »

I'll be kind of sad once it's all over. I don't think there will ever be another type of issue that enrages the religious right so much Sad

Viewing this as in end in itself is extremely questionable.

Nah, we'll move on to other things like human cloning, genetic modification, and designer babies that will cause just as much uproar. Social progressivism requires an insatiable hunger for "social progress" that will not end at gay marriage. The religious right isn't going to run out of things to oppose any time soon.
Yeah. We're not giving up Wink

I would hope you wouldn't, since I don't actually have that hunger for 'social progress' for its own sake and will probably join you when it comes to issues of re-normalizing eugenics and other such nastiness.

Obviously Man-on-Dog will be the next cultural war.

I doubt it because it would probably make the PETA people angry, fracturing the left.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2012, 05:41:06 AM »

How do you define anti-gay though? If someone isn't against gays but believes a marriage should be between a man and woman are they anti-gay? I know several gay people and only two that I've ever met have actually supported gay marriage. The others think marriage is for straight people and therefore want no part of what straights identify with. Rather they want their own separate culture and system. I think too often liberals make it sound like they stand for all gays when really the only thing they want to do is appear as sensitive to guilty voters who will look to their stances as heroic. In all reality the only thing that supporting gay marriage does politically is turn an issue into something it's not.

There's really a simple solution to it all, and it can be found in virtually every other Western country's way of handling the concept of marriage.

Churches have the right to regulate their ceremonies - including marriage. The difference between the United States and many other countries is that we seem to tie it all together. Even in the US, when you have a religious ceremony, it is separate from the act of applying for your marriage license.

The two have to be considered separate. The current contract of marriage recognized by the state has legal and secular functions and is by definition a state recognition. Basically, it's a civil union. This means the church has no control over defining it; just because it's called 'marriage' doesn't mean it's seamlessly linked to the church in the modern day.

Likewise, churches get to decide what marriages they wish to perform that are recognized by their institutions and congregations. If marriage has a religious component, it can still done in whatever method the church deems fit without government involvement.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.