2020: GOP and SSM
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:20:36 AM
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)
  2020: GOP and SSM
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What will the 2020 GOP platform say about SSM
#1
Embraces SSM
 
#2
Embraces SSM, while supporting the right of churches not to participate
 
#3
Embraces SSM, while supporting the right of closely-held private companies not to participate
 
#4
Takes no postion
 
#5
Supports marriage as 1 man 1 woman
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: 2020: GOP and SSM  (Read 1136 times)
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 13, 2017, 06:57:51 PM »

If I recall, in 2016 the GOP took position 5 (1 man, 1 woman).
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2017, 07:06:27 PM »

Even the California GOP platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

So I'm gonna go with option 5. They won't talk much about it, but they won't embrace SSM.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2017, 09:27:43 PM »

The GOP is a party, not a person, so it does not take a position. Candidates take positions, and various Republicans will take various positions. Many Republicans will continue to oppose SSM and to argue that they wish no state had legalized it by any means. There will be Portman-esque Republicans who will agree that SSM should be legal, but that it should have been left to each respective state instead of being settled nationwide by the Supreme Court. And there will be Republicans who will be completely supportive of what the Supreme Court did. Then again, there will be some who will, as much as possible, avoid talking about SSM.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2017, 10:28:45 AM »

We won't like it, but we'll have more important things to focus on, like the rise of Communism in America.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2017, 10:35:54 AM »

They'll still oppose it 100%,  no doubt about this at all.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2017, 10:42:30 AM »

The GOP is a party, not a person, so it does not take a position. Candidates take positions, and various Republicans will take various positions. Many Republicans will continue to oppose SSM and to argue that they wish no state had legalized it by any means. There will be Portman-esque Republicans who will agree that SSM should be legal, but that it should have been left to each respective state instead of being settled nationwide by the Supreme Court. And there will be Republicans who will be completely supportive of what the Supreme Court did. Then again, there will be some who will, as much as possible, avoid talking about SSM.

This is the only correct answer, IMO.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2017, 10:43:23 AM »

Even the California GOP platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

So I'm gonna go with option 5. They won't talk much about it, but they won't embrace SSM.

Isn't the California GOP actually pretty far-right these days?  I thought they lost a lot of moderats in the 1990s and are now closer to Oregon's and Washington's parties.  Honestly asking, I have no idea.
Logged
Cynthia
ueutyi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 466
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -3.63

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2017, 02:09:50 PM »

MA GOP took ambiguous positions on abortion and SSM. I think it would be 4, but honestly I have no idea.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2017, 05:34:01 PM »

MA GOP took ambiguous positions on abortion and SSM. I think it would be 4, but honestly I have no idea.
They did so on abortion? Oh gosh...
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,669


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2017, 09:12:57 PM »

MA GOP took ambiguous positions on abortion and SSM. I think it would be 4, but honestly I have no idea.
They did so on abortion? Oh gosh...

Even though I take the conservative positions on both, I HATE when abortion and gay marriage are grouped together as if there is some special connection between those two issues.

As for the question at hand, we will be probably nominally against it, but focus more on religious liberty than actively trying to overturn Obergefell.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2017, 09:20:56 PM »

Even the California GOP platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

So I'm gonna go with option 5. They won't talk much about it, but they won't embrace SSM.

Isn't the California GOP actually pretty far-right these days?  I thought they lost a lot of moderats in the 1990s and are now closer to Oregon's and Washington's parties.  Honestly asking, I have no idea.

Good question. It's hard to gauge them since they've had no power beyond winning a weird race with a Hollywood actor being our governor. Aside from that, they've been shut out at all levels of CA state government for awhile now.

The last GOP nominee for governor was very moderate (Neel Kashkari). He openly supported gay marriage, pro choice, pro environment, etc. At the same time, I recall reading about how he did have to fend off a primary challenge in 2014 from a Tea Party Republican for CA governor so yeah...make of that what you will Tongue
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2017, 09:27:11 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2017, 09:30:26 PM by MarkD »

MA GOP took ambiguous positions on abortion and SSM. I think it would be 4, but honestly I have no idea.
They did so on abortion? Oh gosh...

Even though I take the conservative positions on both, I HATE when abortion and gay marriage are grouped together as if there is some special connection between those two issues.
As much as you may hate it, it all comes from the same clauses in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court connects the dots whatever way it wants to.
Look at interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 1967, especially Section 2 of the Court's opinion. That was cited as one of the precedents that justified (to the members of the Roe Court itself)  interpreting the Due Process Clause as a protector of "fundamental rights" not enumerated in the Constitution in Roe v. Wade. And Roe was cited by the Court in justifying (to itself) the decision about "sodomy" in Lawrence v. Texas. Then the decision about "sodomy" was cited as justification for legalizing same-sex marriage in U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges.
I understand how frustrated you must feel, but this is the quality of reasoning we get from the Supreme Court Justices.

As for the question at hand, we will be probably nominally against it, but focus more on religious liberty than actively trying to overturn Obergefell.
"Religious liberty," to me, means the freedom to believe in any religion of your choice. Religious beliefs are about: whether there is a God, are ancient tomes like the Bible, the Koran, etc., the revealed word of God, how do I worship Him, did Jesus die for my sins, and so on. But the belief that homosexuality is immoral, and I am a baker who does not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is not a religious belief, in my opinion. It's a moral belief. Morals are a set of beliefs about how people should behave while they're alive, while religion is a set of beliefs about what is going to happen to your "soul" after you die if you don't behave that way. They are simply not the same thing. If you want to fight for the "right" of bakers to not bake wedding cakes for gay couples, you're actually fighting for the "right" of the baker to believe they're morally superior to the gay couple.
Logged
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2017, 02:59:42 AM »

We won't like it, but we'll have more important things to focus on, like the rise of Communism in America.
lolwut?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2017, 12:31:52 PM »

Option 5: one man and one woman.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2017, 12:34:56 PM »

Even the California GOP platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

So I'm gonna go with option 5. They won't talk much about it, but they won't embrace SSM.

Isn't the California GOP actually pretty far-right these days?  I thought they lost a lot of moderats in the 1990s and are now closer to Oregon's and Washington's parties.  Honestly asking, I have no idea.
No the California GOP on the state level hasn't moved that rightward. The CA Dems on the state level however have move moderately more leftward than the state level CA GOP has moved rightward.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.042 seconds with 13 queries.