You people hate Obama

[we vs us]

Apparently the people in North Carolina didn't get the memo. Neither have the other 40 plus states where marriage is between a man and a woman or the 30 or so states that have banned same sex marriage.

The director of the Pew polling center was on NPR this morning, talking about this very thing.  In essence, he said that the polling numbers support the contention that 1) "gay marriage" is an activating issue for Republican voters more than Democratic voters; 2) especially with North Carolina -- and in other states as well -- these initiatives tend to be pushed strategically, so that they show up in times and places where the Republican voters are already motivated to show up at the polls.  For instance, in NC, the vote was scheduled over the Republican primary, so GOP voters -- and activist GOP voters, at that -- were already at the polls. 

He also pointed out that there's been a major cultural shift since about the mid 90's, and the movement is almost entirely generational (amongst respondents 40 and under) and with both Democrats and Independents.  The voting bloc that hasn't changed at all since the 90's is the GOP bloc.  Support is low and has stayed low. 

IMO, most of the gay marriage bans/legislation mask a fundamental weakness.  Legislation continues to be enacted because of excellent strategy on the GOP's part, but it doesn't reflect actual public opinion. 

[Conan71]

This also applies to his positions on gun control.  He has worked actively in the past FOR it, and has been absolutely silent in public about it for the last 4 years.  He is still evolving....


I have no problem at all with his evolution about gay rights - been there, done that, got the t-shirt...way back in the 60s - but going back AND forth does seem a little odd.

There is no excuse for the kind of disparity we see today on gay versus straight family units.  Doesn't matter if it is called a marriage or a domestic union, all couples should have the same rights.  And of course, there is one step further to this - should 3 or more people fall in love and want to share their lives as a family, who could possibly justify any government intrusion into their private life?  Where would it be anyone's business but the people involved?

Only the same people who want the government out of big business' hair, but meddling in personal matters as much as possible.  You know who that is....

The government can get involved when it comes to government benefits like Social Security survivor benefits, disability for a spouse, etc.  This raises an interesting question.  If it’s a state’s rights issue, wouldn’t the feds still have to pass legislation allowing for same sex spousal benefits?

It can become rife for abuse and fraud at some point, that’s the point where the government can and should get involved, especially if people suddenly had five spouses to suck up more benefits.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The government can get involved when it comes to government benefits like Social Security survivor benefits, disability for a spouse, etc.  This raises an interesting question.  If it’s a state’s rights issue, wouldn’t the feds still have to pass legislation allowing for same sex spousal benefits?

It can become rife for abuse and fraud at some point, that’s the point where the government can and should get involved, especially if people suddenly had five spouses to suck up more benefits.

Probably.  Details - we already have a mass of "stuff" in place for marriage - it could just extend to domestic partnerships.  I don't see it happening anytime soon.  I think I'll be able to kick back and roll my own before we have equal rights for gays.

The plural marriage....that could be real messy, but so long as I don't have to pay any welfare/foodstamps, etc to support it - which applies to ANY marital arrangement - I don't see that as any of the governments business whatsoever.  It appears to be mostly a religious thing, but even if not, whose business is it other than the people involved?  With all the usual caveats about existing criminal law involving minor children, etc.

[AquaMan]

The government can get involved when it comes to government benefits like Social Security survivor benefits, disability for a spouse, etc.  This raises an interesting question.  If it’s a state’s rights issue, wouldn’t the feds still have to pass legislation allowing for same sex spousal benefits?

It can become rife for abuse and fraud at some point, that’s the point where the government can and should get involved, especially if people suddenly had five spouses to suck up more benefits.

Yeah, I do see it as problematic but solvable. My widowed granny lived with another widower back in the late 60's to game SS. Her entire downtown apartment complex was full of these immoral sinners. Then theres polyamory to deal with. I do think it is all inevitable however and likely sooner than H thinks.

[Conan71]

Probably.  Details - we already have a mass of "stuff" in place for marriage - it could just extend to domestic partnerships.  I don't see it happening anytime soon.  I think I'll be able to kick back and roll my own before we have equal rights for gays.

The plural marriage....that could be real messy, but so long as I don't have to pay any welfare/foodstamps, etc to support it - which applies to ANY marital arrangement - I don't see that as any of the governments business whatsoever.  It appears to be mostly a religious thing, but even if not, whose business is it other than the people involved?  With all the usual caveats about existing criminal law involving minor children, etc.

You already pay for welfare/foodstamps, etc. to support marital arrangements.  Why would polygamy be any different in your eyes?

[nathanm]

If it’s a state’s rights issue, wouldn’t the feds still have to pass legislation allowing for same sex spousal benefits?

No, all the feds have to do is repeal DOMA and married means whatever the state that issued the license wants it to mean.

[Townsend]

No, all the feds have to do is repeal DOMA and married means whatever the state that issued the license wants it to mean.

OK doesn't take the OK marriage licenses all that seriously anymore.

Got married in another country and the state said "good enough".

[guido911]

Probably would've turned out differently if they'd held the vote in November.  There's a reason why some elections are held in low turn-out times.

The other states will start to change as intellect overcomes intolerence.

Who's getting protected anyway?  Marriage between man and woman is happening less and less.

Marriage was originally for financial reasons.  Must be in defense of the god of money.

I do not care about gay marriage because it is not going to affect me. But I wouldn't call people opposing SSM as "intolerant" or lacking intellect. There are many many of us who value tradition, believe family is about procreation and carrying for young, or those who fear a slippery slope. Point is, not all of us have a religious-based opposition to SSM. Some I dare say with more intellect than you or I. After all, at one point the smartest person ever to be president opposed SSM until recently.

As for how the NC vote could have turned out if held in Nov. is nothing but speculation--and sorry, sounds a bit desperate. I think the better argument is that states with larger, more intelligent and tolerant populations like California, New York, Oregon, etc., tilt the majority favoring SSM.

[Townsend]

But I wouldn't call people opposing SSM as "intolerant" or lacking intellect.

We have differing opinions.

[nathanm]

But I wouldn't call people opposing SSM as "intolerant".

I believe the dictionary definition of the world intolerant would say otherwise. That's not to say that intolerance is automatically wrong, but let's call a spade a spade. I guess I'm just not sure what difference it makes who the government issues marriage licenses to, so long as they aren't forcing churches to solemnize them. After all, the government will happily issue a marriage license to two divorced Catholics, even if the Catholic church disagrees with the fact of their divorce.

The government is not and should not be in the business of imposing the views of a religion on society as a whole.

[RecycleMichael]

I do not care about gay marriage because it is not going to affect me.

Very reasonable.

Please explain this to your fellow conservatives.

[Conan71]

I believe the dictionary definition of the world intolerant would say otherwise. That's not to say that intolerance is automatically wrong, but let's call a spade a spade. I guess I'm just not sure what difference it makes who the government issues marriage licenses to, so long as they aren't forcing churches to solemnize them. After all, the government will happily issue a marriage license to two divorced Catholics, even if the Catholic church disagrees with the fact of their divorce.

The government is not and should not be in the business of imposing the views of a religion on society as a whole.

We are still in the first century of the U.S. government trying to replace the church as American’s primary religion.  Give ‘em time to come around. 

[guido911]

Very reasonable.

Please explain this to your fellow conservatives.

I can't. And besides, it's not a liberal/conservative thing to me. In NC, there were large numbers of African Americans that voted in favor of SSM and for prop 8 in CA. Are they conservative? Damned intolerant bigots...

[heironymouspasparagus]

You already pay for welfare/foodstamps, etc. to support marital arrangements.  Why would polygamy be any different in your eyes?

Don't think it would.  The people I personally know in plural arrangements are the same as all the rest of us - go to work, support their family, raise their kids, send the kids to school, support the economy with their participation and taxes, etc.  I have yet to meet any of those fundamentalist types that are in the news with 25 wives and 100+ kids.

[guido911]