Contentions The Stunning Public Shift on Same-Sex Marriage

[Valin]

Contentions:

 

Peter Wehner

3/28/13

 

The velocity of change in public attitudes on same-sex marriage–from being unimaginable not long ago to being fairly commonplace today and probably dominant tomorrow–is extraordinary, even unprecedented.

 

One obvious indicator of that is public opinion polls; another is the number of elected officials who are reversing their past position on gay marriage. We’re now at the point where embracing federalism–letting states rather than the Supreme Court decide the issue–defines the most reliably conservative position. Republicans who support same-sex marriage, from former Vice President Richard Cheney to Senator Rob Portman, (thankfully) aren’t in danger of excommunication. In fact, I know of almost no critic of gay marriage who relishes talking about the issue.

 

(Snip)

 

I also believe that a central explanation for what we’re witnessing–and one related to the ingenuity and power of the Sullivan and Rauch arguments–is that they helped reposition the gay rights movement from libertine to conservative, from gays being a threat to our social order and institutions to wanting to be a respected part of them. They didn’t want to uproot marriage, they wanted to share in its blessings.

 

(Snip)

 

There will still be important issues to sort through, including how religious institutions and people of faith who oppose same sex marriage are treated. For example, will orthodox Christian churches and educational institutions, if deemed to be bigoted based on their opposition to gay marriage or homosexual conduct, eventually be treated in law like racist organizations? Will mainstream evangelical colleges one day be dealt with in the same way we did Bob Jones University? (In the early 1980s Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating.) That may not happen. But if it were to occur, the debate could quickly shift in a different direction, from being seen by many as a celebration of individual rights to one that is viewed as an attack on religious liberty.

 

 

 

 

There have been arguments made that this is the ultimate goal of some/many supporters of same sex marriage.

 

 

Now here is an interesting scenario, we could find Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestants, Orthodox Christians Traditional Roman Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox/Conservative Jews all on the same side.

What fun!

[Casino67]

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/why-polls-overstate-support-for-gay-marriage/#ixzz2OskszaKi

[Valin]

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/why-polls-overstate-support-for-gay-marriage/#ixzz2OskszaKi

 

 

That was then....this is now.

[Casino67]

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2OskszaKi

 

 

That was then....this is now.

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2OskszaKi

 

 

That was then....this is now.

 

Was 'then' that long ago? Perhaps I am just too old to accept the premise.

[Valin]

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2OskszaKi

 

 

That was then....this is now.

Voters have had 31 chances to ban gay marriage on the state level, and in 29 of the cases have opted to do so, even in some pretty liberal places, including in California, the state ban before the court today. And in every race but one, pre-election polls have underestimated support for the ban.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2OskszaKi

 

 

That was then....this is now.

 

Was 'then' that long ago? Perhaps I am just too old to accept the premise.

 

B O (Before Obama)

Of course I am basing this on what I see in the popular culture/media. So I could very well be wrong.

[Casino67]

Just Googled it. In 2012, four states had it on their ballot. Three of the four approved SSM by narrow vote. If I didn't read it, I would not have believed it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/gay-marriage-results_n_2074188.html

[Valin]

Just Googled it. In 2012, four states had it on their ballot. Three of the four approved SSM by narrow vote. If I didn't read it, I would not have believed it.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_2074188.html

 

To which I say tp people be careful what you wist for...you just might get it.

[Valin]

[Valin]

Supreme Court entering uncharted territory on same-sex marriage

George Will

3/17/13

 

When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California's ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to "equal protection of the laws," these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science.

 

The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground.

 

(Snip)

 

A brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the California case by conservative professors Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy warns that "the social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology." And research about, for example, the stability of same-sex marriages or child rearing by same-sex couples is "radically inconclusive" because these are recent phenomena and they provide a small sample from which to conclude that these innovations will be benign.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

Contentions:

 

Peter Wehner

3/28/13

 

(Snip)

 

There will still be important issues to sort through, including how religious institutions and people of faith who oppose same sex marriage are treated. For example, will orthodox Christian churches and educational institutions, if deemed to be bigoted based on their opposition to gay marriage or homosexual conduct, eventually be treated in law like racist organizations? Will mainstream evangelical colleges one day be dealt with in the same way we did Bob Jones University? (In the early 1980s Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating.) That may not happen. But if it were to occur, the debate could quickly shift in a different direction, from being seen by many as a celebration of individual rights to one that is viewed as an attack on religious liberty.

 

 

 

 

There have been arguments made that this is the ultimate goal of some/many supporters of same sex marriage.

 

 

Now here is an interesting scenario, we could find Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestants, Orthodox Christians Traditional Roman Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox/Conservative Jews all on the same side.

What fun!

 

 

Krauthammer: Gay marriage cases may presage ‘assault on religion’ [VIDEO]

 

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Inside Washington,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said the two gay marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court could lead to an all-out assault on religion in the United States.

 

“It gets really sticky,” Krauthammer said. “If the court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you got Georgetown University – a Jesuit university [that offers] married student housing. It’s a Catholic University. So [when] it says it’s only going to allow heterosexuals, it will get sued. This will become an assault on religion. And the religions, which I think are sincere in their beliefs, are going to be under assault and under attack.”

 

When NPR’s Nina Totenberg pointed out that same-sex marriage is already legal in the District of Columbia, where Georgetown is located, Krauthammer said the issue is truly national.

 

(Snip)

[SrWoodchuck]

This is an issue of courtesy only: If your wife or girlfriend leaves you for another woman...do you have to hold the door for both of them?

[Casino67]

This is an issue of courtesy only: If your wife or girlfriend leaves you for another woman...do you have to hold the door for both of them?

This is an issue of courtesy only: If your wife or girlfriend leaves you for another woman...do you have to hold the door for both of them?

 

Neither, the first one will punch you out for being sexist.

[SrWoodchuck]

This is an issue of courtesy only: If your wife or girlfriend leaves you for another woman...do you have to hold the door for both of them?

This is an issue of courtesy only: If your wife or girlfriend leaves you for another woman...do you have to hold the door for both of them?

 

Neither, the first one will punch you out for being sexist.

Thanks, @Casino67!

 

I don't have that problem, but may have to revise my "turn-the-other-cheek" policy for some women, to a "No cheek" policy.