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

[greenforest32]

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

[greenforest32]

Then why hasn't the GLBT folks tried to make a serious effort to stop us from banning gay marriage via constituitional amendment in Indiana? Also haven't ya noticed when it's been up to a vote of the people of the sovereign states gay marriage loses to traditional marriage every time. Thus Prop 8 in California is constuitional. That judge that said its unconstuitional should be removed. The federal courts have NO JURISDICTION ON THIS MATTER. Marriage is a state/local/church issue. The federal government is prohibited via 9th and 10th Amendment of the Constuition to get involved. I don't see anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 that marriage was a matter that congress (or the federal courts for that matter) could get involved so they need to step aside and let us decide this issue on the  religious/local/state level.

tl;dr - I should be able to make unconstitutional theocratic law and any judge that strikes down my religious law should be impeached.

[greenforest32]

Then why hasn't the GLBT folks tried to make a serious effort to stop us from banning gay marriage via constituitional amendment in Indiana? Also haven't ya noticed when it's been up to a vote of the people of the sovereign states gay marriage loses to traditional marriage every time. Thus Prop 8 in California is constuitional. That judge that said its unconstuitional should be removed. The federal courts have NO JURISDICTION ON THIS MATTER. Marriage is a state/local/church issue. The federal government is prohibited via 9th and 10th Amendment of the Constuition to get involved. I don't see anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 that marriage was a matter that congress (or the federal courts for that matter) could get involved so they need to step aside and let us decide this issue on the  religious/local/state level.

tl;dr - I should be able to make unconstitutional theocratic law and any judge that strikes down my religious law should be impeached.

But the law is constuitional. The law of nature is on my side in this matter. It's not a matter of theocracy or religious law. I'm speaking of natural law. Why do you you desire the state legality of a religious rite for couples who can't propagate the human race because the couple is of the same gender? Why should we be forced to allow what nature holds not to be natural?

No it is quite clearly unconstitutional as marriage is not a legal license to have sex and give birth. And yes it is a matter of religious law for many people as pretty much the only opponents of gay marriage in the US are hard and soft theocrats.

Do you realize that churches have no legal role in marriage in the United States? Do you know what civil marriage is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage#Civil_marriage_in_the_world_currently

Or perhaps you do know and you just object to the concept of civil marriage itself? In either case I can see your desire to have your religion control.

Theocracy.

[greenforest32]

I'm not a theocrat. The government back in the 1800's started to interfere in marriage to deny inter-racial couples that right to marry. These were the same progressives many on the left and some on the right who believed in eugenics. Margret Sanger was one of their champions. They used racism to split the people so they could control the people of that day. The elites want marriage debated because they are trying to attack the first and most legitimate form of government given by our Creator. That would be the family.

Really you are. There's no rational justification for denying same-sex couples the option of civil marriage (that includes the "marriage is a procreation license" argument) so you hide behind "the only change to the discriminatory status quo I support is marriage privatization/civil unions for all (something that isn't going to happen)" cop-out.

Why can't theocrats just be honest and frank about their views?