• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79389.html

Excerpt from the article said:
“Most Republican Party leaders seem to have lost the stomach for this fight,” said Dan Schnur of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “Some of that results (from) the number of large-scale donors who support same-sex marriage, some of it’s a result in an increasing number of party leaders who support same-sex marriage, and a lot of it is public opinion polling which shows a shift in the way voters feel about same-sex marriage,” he added.

It is, Schnur said, “still an issue that motivates the party base, but it motivates the Democratic base, too.”

It was just eight years ago that Republicans, looking to turn out their base, put gay marriage bans on ballots in key states. The measure in Ohio is widely credited with boosting turnout that benefited President George W. Bush’s reelection effort.

And it was just three years ago that a Maine law allowing same-sex marriage was repealed by voters.

But in recent years, polling and ballot initiatives have shown the American public coming closer to a rough consensus on the issue.

In a Pew Poll released last week, the Democratic base has moved significantly on the issue since President Barack Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, with 65 percent now backing it — making it an easy call for the Democratic convention. Among Republicans, Pew showed less movement, with 70 percent opposed to gay marriage. But equally significant was the figure showing 51 percent of independents supporting gay marriage, along with 48 percent of voters overall, compared to 44 percent against.

“I think that they [the right] know that this issue doesn’t have the same potency that it had in 2004,” said Christopher Barron, co-founder of the gay group GOProud. “The gay marriage issue for the anti-gay marriage right has always been one of those issues of diminishing returns, and it’s gotten to the point now where it’s often a loser.”

“If you’re talking about it, you’re not talking about what people care about,” he added.
Indeed, it is not 2004 anymore with regards to this issue's political usefulness. I sincerely hope that everyone opposed to SSM lives long enough to see it become a reality in more states than it is denied... so they can see how non-falling the sky remains.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Unfortunately, just because it's off the front burners now doesn't mean they won't try to bring it up in the future if they think they can swing some votes their way.

It was just last week that a PA Representative (Kelly?) and a few others publily stated that they agreed with Michelle Bachmann and her witch hunt about the Clinton aide; and tying it all neatly together with 9/11 Terror, Fear Doubt.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Instead of trying to push more government involvement in religion (in violation of the Constitution), we should instead remove the government involvement in religion.

The government should shift to civil unions only and let religions do the marrying. It is a win for everyone but the idiot extremists on both sides. A simple find/replace on forms is all that is needed to make the change.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
At this point the only people who really care about opposition to gay marriage are evangelical mouthbreathers who're guaranteed to vote Republican anyways.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, there are a lot of smart people who think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. Why do you think the government should continue to legislate a religious ceremony into legal force?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
I think it's fantastic that gay marriage will soon no longer be a wedge issue, even in battleground states. That may takes another few years, but it's no longer seemingly decades out, as it may have seemed in 2000 or 2004.

One thing is for sure; history will not look kindly on those that vehemently opposed SSM. It'll be looked at with almost the same disdain as those who denied interracial marriages to blacks.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
It's a start. I wish I could believe the Pubbies were starting to understand that government getting first right of refusal in choosing a spouse is a monumentally bad thing. I suspect it's much more that polling shows the issue to no longer be advantageous.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
No, there are a lot of smart people who think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. Why do you think the government should continue to legislate a religious ceremony into legal force?
Most of those people wouldn't think about or even bring up getting government out of the marriage business altogether were it not for the push for gay marriage.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,772
1,074
126
I still expect anti-gay rhetoric to be a substantial part of the official GOP party platform. It's too much part of the brand for them to simply walk away from it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Most of those people wouldn't think about or even bring up getting government out of the marriage business altogether were it not for the push for gay marriage.
Very true. Until it was shown there was not a problem, people did not see a need to fix anything. But once it was shown there is a problem, it was found the problem is worse than we thought.

The solution is not to make the problem worse, but to fix it completely.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It's a start. I wish I could believe the Pubbies were starting to understand that government getting first right of refusal in choosing a spouse is a monumentally bad thing. I suspect it's much more that polling shows the issue to no longer be advantageous.

People actually still want this. They want the government to say no brother-sister marriages and no polygamist marriages. They want to continue denying rights to these groups in the name of equality.
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
7,503
191
106
Good -

Enough of the fringe social issues like abortion & gay marriage polluting the big issue - The Economy, Taxes, and Unemployment - all should be a focus.

The only reason the Govt needs to monitor gay marriage & polygamy is the abuse the Federal programs like SSI as benefits get handed out based on rights of survivor ship & the like. Govt has to be able to provess the claims.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
Until it was shown there was not a problem, people did not see a need to fix anything. But once it was shown there is a problem, it was found the problem is worse than we thought.
Bullshit. Depending on which you believe, government's involvement in marriage was, either, always a problem that should've been corrected long before "gay marriage" became a phrase on anyone's radar or it is not now and never has been a problem. There is no logically and morally consistent in-between.

For those like you who are saying it's a problem, the reason government shouldn't be involved in marriage is because it is giving legal force to a religious ceremony; something the government shouldn't be doing. This was happening long before anyone ever called for "gay marriage".
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
People actually still want this. They want the government to say no brother-sister marriages and no polygamist marriages. They want to continue denying rights to these groups in the name of equality.
That is because people who want brother-sister marriages or polygamy do not vote Democrat.


Bullshit. Depending on which you believe, government's involvement in marriage was, either, always a problem that should've been corrected long before "gay marriage" became a phrase on anyone's radar or it is not now and never has been a problem. There is no logically and morally consistent in-between.

For those like you who are saying it's a problem, the reason government shouldn't be involved in marriage is because it is giving legal force to a religious ceremony; something the government shouldn't be doing. This was happening long before anyone ever called for "gay marriage".
He is saying it was always true only no one thought of it. Like if your vacation home burns down, you are not going to realize it happened until you go there in the summer.

And the reason they never thought of it is that marriage being between a man and a woman is not some Christian religious idea. Japan has the same definition of marriage.

Liberals have simply decided that marriage has no meaning beyond extorting benefits for your temporary partner. Which is why gay marriage makes sense to them.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
He is saying it was always true only no one thought of it. Like if your vacation home burns down, you are not going to realize it happened until you go there in the summer.
Hmm.. I highly doubt that it was always regarded as true, but I do agree that no one thought of it.

And the reason they never thought of it is that marriage being between a man and a woman is not some Christian religious idea. Japan has the same definition of marriage.
This isn't Japan. This is America... where marriage has almost always been viewed as a religious ceremony by those who participate in it.

Liberals have simply decided that marriage has no meaning beyond extorting benefits for your temporary partner. Which is why gay marriage makes sense to them.
The denigration of marriage cannot be only the fault of liberals. There aren't enough of them to account for the divorce rate.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,659
490
126
For those like you who are saying it's a problem, the reason government shouldn't be involved in marriage is because it is giving legal force to a religious ceremony; something the government shouldn't be doing. This was happening long before anyone ever called for "gay marriage".
His whole "government control of marriage is bad!" spiel sounds like more of an excuse than anything. It completely curtails the actual problem in lieu of a "solution" that will never happen.

Sounds like par for the course for politics.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The denigration of marriage cannot be only the fault of liberals. There aren't enough of them to account for the divorce rate.
That only means that liberalism has infected so called conservatives. Take Newt Gingrich, the Republican's "conservative" option. This is a guy that wanted an open marriage with his 2nd wife.

Since when is wanting an open "marriage" a conservative belief?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
That only means that liberalism has infected so called conservatives. Take Newt Gingrich, the Republican's "conservative" option. This is a guy that wanted an open marriage with his 2nd wife.

Since when is wanting an open "marriage" a conservative belief?
You didn't say liberalism, you said liberals. Liberalism is a concept... "liberals" describes people.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Bullshit. Depending on which you believe, government's involvement in marriage was, either, always a problem that should've been corrected long before "gay marriage" became a phrase on anyone's radar or it is not now and never has been a problem. There is no logically and morally consistent in-between.

For those like you who are saying it's a problem, the reason government shouldn't be involved in marriage is because it is giving legal force to a religious ceremony; something the government shouldn't be doing. This was happening long before anyone ever called for "gay marriage".
Here is an example to help you understand:

You build a house and are very happy with it. Many months after moving in and being completely happy with the home, an unusually heavy rainstorm hits your area. You notice water coming into your basement from one corner of the house. Looking outside, you notice water is pooling by that corner. After the storm is over, you notice the grading is bad and the water is not flowing away from the house like it should.

That problem has always been there, but until it was shown to you (by water in the basement), you did not realize there was a problem. Once shown, intead of blaming the rain (which caused you to notice the problem), you correctly blame the bad gradiing.

Gradiing is government involvement in a religious institution. Rain is the homosexual rights movement. Water in the basement is homosexual marriage.

Until the homosexual rights movement (rain) pushed homosexual marriage (water in basement), we did not notice the actual source of the problem as being the government intrusion in a religious institution (grading next to house).


Hope this clears it up for you.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You didn't say liberalism, you said liberals. Liberalism is a concept... "liberals" describes people.
a liberal is a person that holds liberal values

a conservative is a person that hold conservative values

If a person demonstrates through there actions that they hold liberal values that would make them a?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Gradiing is government involvement in a religious institution. Rain is the homosexual rights movement. Water in the basement is homosexual marriage.

Until the homosexual rights movement (rain) pushed homosexual marriage (water in basement), we did not notice the actual source of the problem as being the government intrusion in a religious institution (grading next to house).
Probably because the idea of marriage being a purely religious institution is a liberal invention.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Liberals have simply decided that marriage has no meaning beyond extorting benefits for your temporary partner. Which is why gay marriage makes sense to them.
Its funny when you make things up, because you are so terrible at it.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
I am in favor of allowing SSM. But sometimes i wish they would maybe attack it from another angle. Forget the word 'marriage' and instead focus on 'civil unions' and paint marriages as bad with a 50% divorce rate. Just to say they dont want to be associated with such a failed system as marraige :)

But im fine with either term. But they may get more support the other way :)
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
I am in favor of allowing SSM. But sometimes i wish they would maybe attack it from another angle. Forget the word 'marriage' and instead focus on 'civil unions' and paint marriages as bad with a 50% divorce rate. Just to say they dont want to be associated with such a failed system as marraige :)

But im fine with either term. But they may get more support the other way :)
The 50% divorce rate is a myth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY