Conservatives at crossroads on gay marriage

[memphis]

I continue to be perplexed by the R-liberal state people who refuse to internalize that the mouth foamers are not a marginal faction. They are the core party. You are the marginal faction.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Gay marriage being legal doesn't threaten corporate profits, and being in opposition to legalization at this juncture actually does with the potential for widespread boycotts. It's a no-brainer as to why the Republican Party is moving to accept same-sex marriage - they're essentially being ordered to do so by their financial backers.

We have a winner.

to go a step further, the corporate parties are perfectly happy to have the gay rights issue on the agenda because it is a famed 'wedge issue' and ignites passions and commands attention, yet poses no threat whatsoever to the bases of economic power.  it's utterly amazing how duped the (well-meaning, probably) young liberals are with their #loveislove and equality signs.

If it's a "wedge issue" for anybody it's the middle and upper classes who are most "polarized" on it and other "social issues." More downscale Americans have mostly dropped out of political activism and even voting altogether.

[tpfkaw]

The red avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 40s and 50s talking about how those awful corporate bosses are using "the n[inks]er issue" to provide liberal cover to pass Taft-Hartley etc.  (Which would actually not have been an unfair characterization, "corporate bosses" back then being much less likely to be cartelized government-adjuncts in that time period).  Thankfully enlightened individuals like Wayne Morse, Carl Hayden, Lyndon Johnson et al saw through that evil corporate plot! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s67

[Cory]

The yellow avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 1950's and 60's talking about how those awful Supreme Court Justices are using "the ni[inks]er issue" to undermine states rights with their race-mixing agenda.

[tpfkaw]

The yellow avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 1950's and 60's talking about how those awful Supreme Court Justices are using "the ni[inks]er issue" to undermine states rights with their race-mixing agenda.

I fail to see what you're getting at but your inability to come up with something more original than copying my post is almost touching.

[Ogre Mage]

The best solution for the GOP is the nationwide acceptance of marriages either by forcing states to accept out of state marriages as valid or with a sweeping Anthony Kennedy opinion.  That will take the issue off the table and then they can continue to placate the religious right with more stealthy homophobia. 

Because Roe v. Wade sure did take the abortion issue off the table once the Court had ruled, didn't it? In the short term, Kennedy's broad opinion in Windsor v. US is a strong benefit to those in favor of having the government treat same-sex marriage the same as an opposite-sex marriage, just as Kennedy's opinion ended the criminalization of same-sex marriage ten years ago in the Lawrence case.  However, while Lawrence didn't raise too many hackles because most places had already decriminalized sodomy, Windsor is running somewhat ahead of public opinion, as measured on a state-by-state basis, tho not nearly as far ahead as Roe did.  Still, in the long term, Kennedy going for such a broad opinion has pretty much guaranteed that SSM will still remain a political issue long after it has become legal in all 50 States.

How is Windsor running ahead of public opinion?  It simply brings federal recognition to same-sex marriages which occurred in states where same-sex marriages are legal.  You claim that Lawrence did not raise many hackles because most states had already decriminalized sodomy.  Well, Windsor did not change the marriage laws of ANY state.  So the argument that it is running ahead of public opinion makes little sense.

Don't be so disingenuous.  If Windsor had simply used a federalism argument then I would agree it would not be running ahead of opinion, but it does not.  While it declined to apply it immediately to all 50 states, it used an equal protection argument, and I fail to see how any of the same-sex marriage bans in any of the States can survive Windsor.  It is merely a matter of the lawsuits being filed and won.  It is entirely possible that if the courts move fast enough that by the time of the 2014 elections there will already be some states that have been forced to recognize same-sex marriages via the Federal courts, and by the 2016 elections, they will be recognized by all 50 states.

So while Windsor has not yet changed the laws of any state, it inevitably will and quite soon.

I am merely pointing out that the practical effect of the Windsor decision is hardly revolutionary.  Kennedy even carefully noted that the decision was "confined to those lawful marriages" that the state decided to sanction.  The general public does not grasp the nuances of the federalism vs. equal protection argument.  With regards to planting the seeds for future cases, SCOTUS is not deaf, blind and dumb.  They can see the trend lines on this issue as clearly as anyone, with polls showing support for marriage equality now slightly above 50% and dramatically increasing every year.  I think the landscape will look even more transformed by 2016, if that turns out to be the year SCOTUS finally goes the Loving v. Virgina route.  But the fact they did not do so now is an act of judicial restraint.  Hardly getting ahead of public opinion.

[memphis]

The red avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 40s and 50s talking about how those awful corporate bosses are using "the n[inks]er issue" to provide liberal cover to pass Taft-Hartley etc.  (Which would actually not have been an unfair characterization, "corporate bosses" back then being much less likely to be cartelized government-adjuncts in that time period).  Thankfully enlightened individuals like Wayne Morse, Carl Hayden, Lyndon Johnson et al saw through that evil corporate plot! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s67

This only makes any sense if you suggest that the D avatars on here would discuss gay right as a "f*g" issue, which is clearly not the case. Your point about the cynical motivations of the right remains valid nonetheless.

[Non Swing Voter]

The GOP is between a rock and a hard place here.  The basic GOP coalition has always been the Mods and the Cons, the country club set and the mega church set.  This issue splits that coalition.  Christian fundamentalists will not support gay marriage anytime soon.  It's not a negotiable issue because it goes to religion, culture and sex which most people can't think about with any rationality.  In most states, these conservatives are the preponderance of the GOP so they are going to keep opposition to gay marriage in the GOP platform. 

On the other hand, the country club set is disposed to support gay rights.  The real housewives are on Bravo after all.  Really, almost anyone who qualifies as educated or elite supports gay marriage at this point, certainly among those under 50.  For this group, the GOP's anti-gay rhetoric and platform is going to gradually alienate them. 
 

This is a common analysis from people from in the NE and West Coast. Maybe it's true out there. In the GOP dominated states, there is little distinction between country clubbers and megachurchers. They're usually the same people.  And they've been lining up to vote against equality before the law since the Garden of Eden. Around here, lower class whites are much likely to go to church or to vote at all.

His analysis is correct beyond the Northeast and West Coast.  Where I live (Virginia) - this is also spot on.  Northern Virginia Country Clubbers split from the GOP on this issue.  This and abortion have given Democrats huge vote margins in the DC burbs that have essentially made it impossible for the GOP to win statewide over the last two Presidential elections.

I'd also imagine that analysis is correct for some other important states outside of the Northeast and West Coast: Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, Colorado come to mind.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But the fact they did not do so now is an act of judicial restraint.  Hardly getting ahead of public opinion. 

The only restraint shown in the Windsor decision was not ruling on an issue, the legality of States recognizing only same-sex marriages, that was not before the court at all.  Do you truly think public opinions will have shifted much in two years when the opinions based on Windsor that end the non-recognition by States of same-sex marriage start coming into effect?  I'd be willing to bet that even by 2016 there will still be a majority of the states that do not have a majority in favor of same-sex marriage. (Tho I wouldn't take the bet that a majority would not have a plurality in favor.)

Kennedy has ensured with his Windsor opinion that the Supreme Court will be a major issue in 2016, possibly even the most major issue, tho it would be foolish to predict that this far in advance.

Unless some retire or die in the next three years, the next President is likely to be able to appoint justices to replace Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer.  (Ginsburg has hinted at retiring in 2015, so I'm presuming that Obama does appoint a replacement before leaving office.)  So the ideological balance of the court appear to be up for change in 2016, and the Windsor decision will be central in helping to keep it there.

[memphis]

Heaven forfend the Supreme Court actually protect people's constitutional rights rather than follow the will of the public.

[Cory]

The yellow avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 1950's and 60's talking about how those awful Supreme Court Justices are using "the ni[inks]er issue" to undermine states rights with their race-mixing agenda.

I fail to see what you're getting at but your inability to come up with something more original than copying my post is almost touching.

I was pointing out that you could say the same thing about the "yellow avatars" if you swap a few words. Just showcasing the absurdity of your post.

[tpfkaw]

The yellow avatars in here are rather amusing if you imagine them in the 1950's and 60's talking about how those awful Supreme Court Justices are using "the ni[inks]er issue" to undermine states rights with their race-mixing agenda.

I fail to see what you're getting at but your inability to come up with something more original than copying my post is almost touching.

I was pointing out that you could say the same thing about the "yellow avatars" if you swap a few words. Just showcasing the absurdity of your post.

The "yellow avatars," or rather our historical antecedents, have always been at the forefront in all fights for equal rights.  There is a reason why the Southern Taft delegates shamefully ousted by the Eisenhower "Lily-Whites" were known as the "Black and Tans."  George Schuyler and Zora Neale Hurston were celebrated Old Right public intellectuals, and Oscar Stanton de Priest the first black congressman outside of the South.  Old yellow avatars had more than our share of outspoken women; Hurston, Clare Boothe Luce, Rose Wilder Lane, Lillian Gish, Isabel Paterson, Vivien Kellems, and Freda Utley among many others.  Meanwhile Senate Democrats continued to vote en bloc, including Northern liberals, to strip enforcement provisions from civil rights bills as late as 1960.  So, in short, your statement makes no sense.  Mine is supported by the facts, yours is of some strange revisionist history.

In any event, I was comparing the eagerness of certain elements to throw black rights under the bus in the 40s and 50s to their ideological successors in this thread who seem eager to do the same with the gays.  It is a funny historical coincidence.

[memphis]

What red avatars are eager to throw gays under the bus? What planet are you living on?

[tpfkaw]

What red avatars are eager to throw gays under the bus? What planet are you living on?

Did you somehow miss this whole exchange?

Yeah, the GOP's sole core intent is the entrenchment of plutocracy. Everything else is merely instrumental. Now that the disadvantages of opposing SSM have become greater than the disadvantages, it's not surprising to see the GOP shift.

Gay marriage being legal doesn't threaten corporate profits, and being in opposition to legalization at this juncture actually does with the potential for widespread boycotts. It's a no-brainer as to why the Republican Party is moving to accept same-sex marriage - they're essentially being ordered to do so by their financial backers.

We have a winner.

to go a step further, the corporate parties are perfectly happy to have the gay rights issue on the agenda because it is a famed 'wedge issue' and ignites passions and commands attention, yet poses no threat whatsoever to the bases of economic power.  it's utterly amazing how duped the (well-meaning, probably) young liberals are with their #loveislove and equality signs.

If it's a "wedge issue" for anybody it's the middle and upper classes who are most "polarized" on it and other "social issues." More downscale Americans have mostly dropped out of political activism and even voting altogether.

Not to mention the fact that big money now essentially has a hold in the movement itself, perhaps explaining in part why marriage equality is being pushed for first, as opposed to, say, workplace protections for LGBT Americans, which have scant had a hearing since Obama took office.

+ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175438.0

[Lurker]

What red avatars are eager to throw gays under the bus? What planet are you living on?

Good question. None of the posts wormyguy quotes in answer do this says anything close to what he stated.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pointing out that the GOP doesn't actually care about gays anyway = throwing gays under the bus? LOL wormy, you always surpass yourself in stupidity.

[Hifly]

What red avatars are eager to throw gays under the bus? What planet are you living on?

I staunchly oppose the redefinition of marriage from its factual, literary and historical usage, and I'm not shy to stand by my principles. And supporting this view does not "throw gays under the bus".

[Ogre Mage]

But the fact they did not do so now is an act of judicial restraint.  Hardly getting ahead of public opinion. 

The only restraint shown in the Windsor decision was not ruling on an issue, the legality of States recognizing only same-sex marriages, that was not before the court at all.  Do you truly think public opinions will have shifted much in two years when the opinions based on Windsor that end the non-recognition by States of same-sex marriage start coming into effect?  I'd be willing to bet that even by 2016 there will still be a majority of the states that do not have a majority in favor of same-sex marriage. (Tho I wouldn't take the bet that a majority would not have a plurality in favor.)

Kennedy has ensured with his Windsor opinion that the Supreme Court will be a major issue in 2016, possibly even the most major issue, tho it would be foolish to predict that this far in advance.

Unless some retire or die in the next three years, the next President is likely to be able to appoint justices to replace Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer.  (Ginsburg has hinted at retiring in 2015, so I'm presuming that Obama does appoint a replacement before leaving office.)  So the ideological balance of the court appear to be up for change in 2016, and the Windsor decision will be central in helping to keep it there.

Well, from 2011-2013 same sex marriage was legalized in New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota and California.  And 2013 isn't over yet.  30% of the U.S. population now lives in states with legalized SSM.  That is stunning progress in just a few years.  There are, of course, a number of states which will simply refuse to budge.  And LGBT wanting to make a lifetime commitment shouldn't have to wait 25 years for y'all to finally catch up.

There is almost no chance that the Windsor and Prop. 8 cases will be the "most major issue" in the 2016 campaign, or perhaps you haven't noticed the muted reaction from GOP leaders in Congress to the decisions.  If this is "ahead of public opinion," why aren't they howling in outrage about it?  They know SSM is now a political loser for them.  And if the Right wants to make it a huge issue for 2016, bring it on.

[Holmes]

Please give me strength as I reply to a JCL post...

I'm going to tell you why this issue will still be on the table for a long time. It's a fundamental knowledge of God issue just like abortion. Just about all the young evangelicals I know are staunchly anti-gay marriage. Prop 8 should still be standing as law and on a 6-3 vote. The individual defending it had the proper legal standing as a sovereign citizen of California.

1. Even if your dream scenario did happen and ProtectMarriage did indeed have standing (which they did not), Kennedy's ruling in Windsor effectively laid the groundwork for all constitutional amendments to be struck down, so prop 8 was going one way or another.

2. Are you basically saying any citizen of California had standing in this case? Even if the outcome in no way caused them harm in any capacity (and no, gay marriage does not affect you no matter how bad you want it to)? Because it's a - and I'm sorry for using this term - slippery slope when regular citizens are given standing in cases that decide public policy statewide or nationwide.

[Cory]

I'm going to tell you why this issue will still be on the table for a long time. It's a fundamental knowledge of God issue just like abortion. Just about all the young evangelicals I know are staunchly anti-gay marriage. Prop 8 should still be standing as law and on a 6-3 vote. The individual defending it had the proper legal standing as a sovereign citizen of California.

Who cares?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is almost no chance that the Windsor and Prop. 8 cases will be the "most major issue" in the 2016 campaign, or perhaps you haven't noticed the muted reaction from GOP leaders in Congress to the decisions.  If this is "ahead of public opinion," why aren't they howling in outrage about it?  They know SSM is now a political loser for them.  And if the Right wants to make it a huge issue for 2016, bring it on.

I certainly agree that nationally SSM will probably not be a helpful issue to the GOP, but who says their base will discern that as easily as their leadership does, especially that portion of their base that is in states where being anti-SSM is still a positive politically?  Moreover, Windsor ties into the theme of an overreaching judiciary.  Even four decades later, the public still trails behind our 'enlightened' Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, especially abortion in the second trimester.

The political leadership of both parties did not go "howling in outrage" over Roe when it was first decided, rather it was the backlash against the decision that forced a rethink by the leadership of both parties, with the two coming to different conclusions about how to handle the issue.

SSM has largely gained favorability in the more secular areas of this country, but I do not see it gaining support here in the Bible Belt anywhere as quickly as the rest of the nation.  Indeed, unless the Bible Belt secularizes, it is likely that SSM will remain unpopular with a majority of the voters here.  (Note that I said unless, not until. Secularization is not an inevitable event.)

[Ogre Mage]

There is almost no chance that the Windsor and Prop. 8 cases will be the "most major issue" in the 2016 campaign, or perhaps you haven't noticed the muted reaction from GOP leaders in Congress to the decisions.  If this is "ahead of public opinion," why aren't they howling in outrage about it?  They know SSM is now a political loser for them.  And if the Right wants to make it a huge issue for 2016, bring it on.

I certainly agree that nationally SSM will probably not be a helpful issue to the GOP, but who says their base will discern that as easily as their leadership does, especially that portion of their base that is in states where being anti-SSM is still a positive politically?  Moreover, Windsor ties into the theme of an overreaching judiciary.  Even four decades later, the public still trails behind our 'enlightened' Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, especially abortion in the second trimester.

The political leadership of both parties did not go "howling in outrage" over Roe when it was first decided, rather it was the backlash against the decision that forced a rethink by the leadership of both parties, with the two coming to different conclusions about how to handle the issue.

SSM has largely gained favorability in the more secular areas of this country, but I do not see it gaining support here in the Bible Belt anywhere as quickly as the rest of the nation.  Indeed, unless the Bible Belt secularizes, it is likely that SSM will remain unpopular with a majority of the voters here.  (Note that I said unless, not until. Secularization is not an inevitable event.)

As a gay person and strong SSM supporter, I see some value in letting the issue play out for a few more years.  The swing states are coming around and victories on the ground in those places will mean a lot, politically speaking.  I believe you are correct that the Bible Belt will not accept SSM for a long time (a fact I hinted at in my last post).  And frankly, it is at that point that the Supreme Court will have to step in.  I don't think a Roe style backlash is in the works.  There might have been one if the Supreme Court had used Prop 8 to make SSM legal nationwide this year, but that was not meant to be.

USA Today just did a poll on SSM and the recent Supreme Court decisions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those numbers are a bit on the high end of support of SSM, but in line with the 51%-55% level of support I've seen in other polls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

This suggests the DOMA ruling was reasonably in-line with public opinion.