How Will Republicans React To Gay Marriage Decision?
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on a marriage equality case tomorrow. At this point, it almost seems anticlimactic. Either the Supreme Court will rule that gay marriage is a constitutional right everywhere in America, or they'll try to punt and say that all states have to recognize all marriages from other states, but don't have to perform their own gay marriages if they don't want to. Either way, gay marriage will become a reality in some awfully conservative states (whether couples have to take a vacation to another state to achieve it or not). The only question now is whether marriage equality will achieve a final and total victory, or just a partial victory. Either way, losing the progress that has already been made seems almost inconceivable at this point.
Perhaps that's too optimistic a read on the situation. We'll see what gets said tomorrow. In June, we'll see what the justices decide. Fair enough. But it's not too early to speculate about the shockwaves this is going to create in the Republican Party. Because as the recent state-level skirmishes have shown, the business community is now diametrically opposed to the Republican Party -- something that doesn't happen every day.
Big businesses were instrumental in getting Republicans in both Indiana and Arkansas to back off from passing new laws which would have codified discrimination against gay people. "That's bad for business," was the response from the giant corporations who do business in these two states. The lawmakers listened.
The Supreme Court decision, when it happens later this year, is quite likely going to set off an argument within the Republican Party -- or, at the very least, that subset of the party who are running for president. Already there have been a few Republican candidates courting the religious right vote by denouncing gay marriage in the strongest possible terms. Look for their voices to get even louder after the court rules. But also keep an eye on who doesn't strongly object to the ruling, because they'll be the ones keeping their own eyes on the future.
Republicans have lost this argument, to be blunt. Acceptance of gay marriage is now the solid majority position in the public at large, and it continues to grow. A few short years ago the public was somewhere around 40 percent for and 60 percent against marriage equality. Now those numbers are reversed, meaning 20 percent of the public has evolved on the issue in a very short time. The issue is a "deal-breaker" for many young voters, meaning even if they agreed with almost everything else a Republican candidate was for, they'd still vote against any candidate stridently against gay marriage.
The youth of America is strongly pro-equality. The business community has also largely evolved, and are also strongly pro-equality. This leaves only the evangelical base voters in the Republican Party who still refuse to alter their views. Pandering to the religious right is almost required for a Republican presidential candidate, but this year it's going to get a lot more costly for Republicans to do so among the rest of the electorate.
There may even be a fight when the official party platform document is put together for the Republican National Convention next year. Anti-marriage equality language in the platform may actually be removed, but not without a very vocal struggle within the party.
Republicans' biggest problem is that they're going to have severely limited options in what they can even propose to (as they put it) "defend traditional marriage" after the court rules. If the United States Supreme Court rules that marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution to all, gay and straight alike, then that means that no law can even be passed to change things. Any law which attempted to do so, whether state or federal, would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. Of course, this is assuming the ruling is a sweeping victory for marriage equality. If this turns out to be the case, then only one route is even possible to change the ruling: amending the Constitution. Ted Cruz, jumping the gun, has already introduced an amendment in the Senate to do so. It's a lost cause, though. The bar is so high for constitutional amendments, and public opinion is so overwhelmingly against the idea that it won't get very far at all. Cruz likely knows this, but does not care since he's always been more interested in getting attention than actually changing any laws.
If the court punts, it'll be a different story. Every state will have to accept gay married people from other states, but the state-level fights over the issue will continue, even in some states where gay people are getting married today. It's pretty hard to imagine the court would take this route, because of the massive confusion which would follow (and because it directly contradicts what the court ruled in the Proposition 8 case). But if they did so, Republican presidential candidates would be in the thick of the fray at the state level.
Right now, the tricky question Republican candidates are getting asked is whether they'd personally attend a gay wedding if someone close to them invited them. But the questions are going to get more direct, once the court rules. If marriage equality does win big in the decision, Republicans will have a golden opportunity to jettison the issue entirely. "Well, the court ruled, there's nothing more that we can do," can be paired with, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I disagree with the court's decision." Once that answer is given, the candidate can pivot to talking about something else.
The smart Republicans will probably take this route. They fought a massive, decades-long war on a social issue, they racked up all kinds of impressive victories along the way (something like 39 states had "defense of marriage" laws on the books, not that long ago), but now the country has rejected their position and has moved on to a completely different viewpoint. Republicans have been losing on the issue for the past three years, and they're about to lose the ultimate battle. The social warriors on the forefront of this fight will likely try to remain somehow relevant to the Republican Party, but even this will ultimately be a losing proposition. As more and more Republican candidates realize that being against gay marriage is now going to hurt them with the electorate much more than it used to help them, the issue will fade from their talking points altogether.
This won't happen overnight, of course. Social warriors are fervent, and they believe they are fighting on the right and moral side of the issue. It's not merely some political issue for them, it's a religious one. Which means some will go on fighting, as fervent as ever.
Nobody can tell what the future will bring, but there are two basic possibilities: Loving v. Virginia and Roe v. Wade. Who today would dare stand up in public and advocate that interracial marriage is against God's will and should be legally banned? The position is now considered downright indefensible by the vast majority of Americans. But it wasn't always that way. When Loving was decided, something like 70 percent of the public were for miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage. But who fights that battle today?
However, Roe v. Wade didn't quietly fade away in the same fashion. Even today the issue is so potent that our new Attorney General's vote in the Senate was held up for months while abortion legislation was fought over. Hundreds of new abortion-restricting laws have been passed just in the past few years alone. And it's been over 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided. So while it'd be comforting to predict that Republicans will just throw in the towel on marriage equality and get over it, this might not happen any time soon.
Republicans might have to lose not just a few presidential elections but some significant statewide races as well (a few Senate seats or governors' offices, in other words) before they truly understand how fast the public's attitudes are changing on marriage equality. There are already voices within the party (mostly politicians with gay children and other relatives) who are urging Republicans to chart a new course on the issue. Their numbers, so far, are pretty small, and their voices aren't all that loud in Republican circles. But they may soon be joined by a whole lot of Republican politicians who just want to put the entire issue behind them. They'll be able to do so quite soon by pinning all the blame on the Supreme Court. Businesses -- a big funder of the Republican Party in general -- are already urging the party to move on. Their donations (and the threat of losing them) may convince a whole lot of Republicans that it's just not worth the effort any more to fight this particular battle.
However, as mentioned previously, this is a religious issue for many in the Republican Party -- both voters and politicians. Religious issues are the hardest to change opinions on, for obvious reasons. Religions aren't generally known for adapting their tenets to the popular will, to put it mildly. Evangelical voters are going to boost at least one Republican presidential candidate into the frontrunner ranks at some point during the campaign, if it's anything like the last one. Count on that candidate (whether it turns out to be Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, or someone else) to make a whole lot of noise about gay marriage, in an effort to force all the other Republicans to take the extremist position. So even if the rest of the party is willing to move on from an issue they ultimately lost on, they won't be able to totally ignore it in 2016. Maybe by 2020 or 2024, but even that's not guaranteed.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"Maybe by 2020 or 2024, but even that's not guaranteed."
They'll keep on hating as long as the billionaires bankroll it. Nobody else matters. It isn't more complicated than that.
It's funny...
Gay activists have made so much progress..
Yet, they are now becoming as intolerant as those they fought against...
Ironic...
Michale
Haha. Terd Cruz's gay buddies are furiously back-peddling. It seems that another Republican talking point has bitten the dust. They claim they were unaware of Terd's ugly, hateful statements about gay people, not that they wanted to talk to him about that subject.
I suppose that wealthy people think they can give their "fee speech" to anybody and there will be no consequences. Wrong. Here's a tip: know your customers. Some of (or maybe most of) them may not want their money to fund GOP hate speech. Stick with the dark money.
What next? Intolerant Big Gay will probably pass a law against christians and hotel owners expressing their sincerely-held hate beliefs. How else will they be as intolerant as the Greedy Old Predators?
It will be interesting to see how the Republican hate mob reacts to The Great Hotel Boycott of 2015. Go Fund Me? I can't imagine them sending their Jesus dollars directly to gay people.
Maybe they'll book their summer vacations on Fire Island to save the hotel queens!
Thanx, JFC...
The point I made in comment #2??
You just proved it factual far beyond anything I could have done myself.. :D
Yer a peach... :D
Michale
It's an interesting dilemma for the Republican party. On the one hand, they want to appear tolerant. On the other, they aren't.
My guess is they'll do what they usually do and try to craft a message that sounds tolerant by being their usual selves.
Change be hard.
I would like to give a quick shoutout to Cincinnati. Jim Obergefell, whose case is the one before the Supreme Court, was the President of our college choir (Not to stereotype gay people but sometimes they are presidents of your choir!).
He's a great person. One of the nicest, funniest people you'd ever meet. It's kind of fascinating to follow the whole thing on his Facebook page too. I mean, what a great thing to be a part of such a big change. Because I've known him forever, I'm also one of the few who can correctly pronounce O-berg(k)-eh-fell. The 'g' sounds more like 'k'.
Anyways, so proud of him and it's very cool to see Cincinnati in the media for something that isn't bad :)
-David
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574
It's an interesting dilemma for the Republican party. On the one hand, they want to appear tolerant. On the other, they aren't.
The dilemma is the same for gay activists..
On the one hand, they want to appear tolerant..
On the other hand, they ain't...
The problem for the gay activists is that they demand tolerance and acceptance and are completely and utterly intolerant to those who won't give them what they want...
Michale
Michale
Haha. Terd Cruz's gay buddies are furiously back-peddling. It seems that another Republican talking point has bitten the dust. They claim they were unaware of Terd's ugly, hateful statements about gay people, not that they wanted to talk to him about that subject.
Of course, the hoteliers knew...
But, being rational and mature adults, they figured they could live in the REAL world and understand that people won't agree on EVERYTHING all the time...
That people can have views that are not good and are not agreeable and people can have views that are good and are agreeable.. That finding common ground is a GOOD thing..
But gay activists want none of that. They don't want no stinkin' common ground..
You either think like they do, EXACTLY like they do on EVERYTHING or else they put a gun to your head until you capitulate...
Is THAT what you people call "tolerance"???
Seriously???
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Is THAT what you people call "tolerance"???
Seriously???"
Michale, really??? Why should we be tolerant of intolerance??? Why should we be tolerant of someone trying to use their religion to justify bigotry or their right to treat someone as less than an equal citizen because their religion tells them so?
Would you be tolerant of a Muslim American trying to impose Sharia law on every other American because that is what their Muslim religion tells them to do? And to discriminate against Christian Americans because as a Muslim they consider them to be infidels? Would you still say we need to be tolerant of their religious belief? That we need to find common ground with them?
So we should give a pass to Fundamentalist Christians trying to do the very same thing regarding gay people?
Would you expect someone who is black to be tolerant of someone's supposedly sincerely held religious belief that supports and promotes slavery???
So why should you expect the same of gay people?
Your religious rights and beliefs stop at the front door of your home or place of worship. Once they go beyond that, then your religious rights start curtailing the rights of other people who do not share your particular religious dogma.
Your beliefs are your beliefs. I could care less as long as people don't try to make laws out of 'em.
-David
It's rather ironic....
Ya'all don't see the GOP attacking one of their own and threatening one of their own for meeting with (OHMYGOD THE HORROR!!!) gay people....
Once again, the GOP takes the Democrat Party to school..
This time, the lesson is tolerance and respect.. :D
Michale
David,
Your beliefs are your beliefs. I could care less as long as people don't try to make laws out of 'em.
{{cough, cough}} Train Wreck Care{{cough cough}}
{{cough}} Carbon laws {cough, cough}
{{cough, cough, cough}} Immigration {{cough, cough}}
The Democrats are up to their eyeballs in making unfair laws according to their beliefs..
But I guess it's OK when Democrats do it, eh?? :D
Michale
JM,
Michale, really??? Why should we be tolerant of intolerance???
Because yer preaching tolerance...
How can you demand tolerance from someone who you refuse to be tolerant of??
There's a name for that..
It's called hypocrisy...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"How can you demand tolerance from someone who you refuse to be tolerant of??
There's a name for that..
It's called hypocrisy..."
Again Michale, I ask you, why should I be tolerant of prejudice and bigotry??? Would you ask a Jew in 1930's Germany to be tolerant of the Nazi marching him off to the gas chamber?
There's a name for that...
It's called idiocy.....
Your religious rights and beliefs stop at the front door of your home or place of worship. Once they go beyond that, then your religious rights start curtailing the rights of other people who do not share your particular religious dogma.
Fine...
Then YOUR political rights and beliefs stop at YOUR front door and at the door of your political action committee...
You CANNOT live your life according to your political beliefs except in your home or your Democrat Church of Worship...
You REALLY want to live by those rules???
Ya'all are ONLY about your rights and no one else's that think differently than ya'all...
The Left whines and cries when a gay couple is discriminated against but cheers the intolerant morons who discriminate against people they don't like or don't approve of....
As I said, if you want tolerance, then you must BE tolerant...
It's THAT simple...
Michale
Would you ask a Jew in 1930's Germany to be tolerant of the Nazi marching him off to the gas chamber?
That's a Godwin and it's ridiculous to even put that on the same planet of what we are discussing...
Again Michale, I ask you, why should I be tolerant of prejudice and bigotry???
Because how you apply it is based on prejudice and bigotry...
So, either you are against prejudice and bigotry in total or you approve of prejudice and bigotry when it's applied to certain people you find politically unacceptable..
You can't have it both ways..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"You CANNOT live your life according to your political beliefs except in your home or your Democrat Church of Worship..."
Now you are being just plain silly! Does my differing political belief or our political disagreement on global warming or whether or not to put a traffic light on the corner of our neighborhood rise to the same level of your fundamental right to exist as a person or as a citizen with equal rights and protection from physical harm? There is a proposition being pushed in California by a religious right wing Christian. to get it on the ballot, who believes that all gay people should be shot in the head.
Is that what you want me to be tolerant of????
Michale wrote:
"Ya'all are ONLY about your rights and no one else's that think differently than ya'all...
The Left whines and cries when a gay couple is discriminated against but cheers the intolerant morons who discriminate against people they don't like or don't approve of....
As I said, if you want tolerance, then you must BE tolerant...
It's THAT simple..."
No Michale, it is NOT that simple. There is a difference between thinking differently, and ACTIVELY working thru either the courts or the political process, to curtail the rights of others and deny them their freedoms. Liberals are not doing either of those such things.
I am thinking about EVERYBODY'S rights, not just the rights of the privileged few right wing Christians who now no longer can get away with trying to get everyone else to live by their own narrow religious beliefs, and when they find they now can't justify their intolerant behavior in the name of their religion, try to claim they are being victimized now and are suffering anti-Christian discrimination, when they are in fact the ones who have been doing the discriminating and can no longer do it!!!
Michale wrote:
"That's a Godwin and it's ridiculous to even put that on the same planet of what we are discussing..."
It's not ridiculous. To put it in an American perspective...
Should a black couple be tolerant of a KKK group, who sincerely hold religious beliefs that give them the right to assemble on the black couple's lawn and light a cross?
Should the gay couple be tolerant of having "faggot" spray painted on their garage? Should the gay couple be tolerant of the right wing politician who uses lies and fears to get a law passed that allows the gay couple to be denied adopting a child, because that child is better off with opposite sex parents who won't try to recruit him into their lifestyle? Should a gay person be tolerant of that kind of thinking simply because it is a sincerely held difference of opinion? No matter how warped and wrong it is in actual reality???
Now you are being just plain silly!
No more silly than yer Nazi/Jew example.. :D
Does my differing political belief or our political disagreement on global warming or whether or not to put a traffic light on the corner of our neighborhood rise to the same level of your fundamental right to exist as a person or as a citizen with equal rights and protection from physical harm?
Does who you prefer to have sex with rise to that level??
No Michale, it is NOT that simple. There is a difference between thinking differently, and ACTIVELY working thru either the courts or the political process, to curtail the rights of others and deny them their freedoms. Liberals are not doing either of those such things.
Really???
What about those who had the right to keep their health plan if they liked it??
What about those who had the right to have their home and property safe from illegal immigrants??
Democrats are ALWAYS using laws to foist their beliefs on those who do not share them..
I am thinking about EVERYBODY'S rights,
No you are not..
Because if you were, you would acknowledge the rights of those christians that you insult and attack...
You are ONLY thinking of the rights of the people who are politically acceptable to you...
Anyone else can go pound salt...
Michale
Should a black couple be tolerant of a KKK group, who sincerely hold religious beliefs that give them the right to assemble on the black couple's lawn and light a cross?
Should the gay couple be tolerant of having "faggot" spray painted on their garage? Should the gay couple be tolerant of the right wing politician who uses lies and fears to get a law passed that allows the gay couple to be denied adopting a child, because that child is better off with opposite sex parents who won't try to recruit him into their lifestyle? Should a gay person be tolerant of that kind of thinking simply because it is a sincerely held difference of opinion? No matter how warped and wrong it is in actual reality???
You keep changing the subject..
We're discussing beliefs, not criminal actions..
To help you to understand...
Should a black couple be tolerant of a KKK group, who sincerely hold religious beliefs and who talk about those beliefs incessantly??
Abso-frakin'-loutly!!!
Should a gay couple tolerate when a couple of gay hotel owners want to meet with a GOP'er because the GOP'er shares some beliefs with the gay hotel owners but the GOP'er also has views that said gay couple don't like???
ABSO-FRAKIN'-LOUTLY!!
To do anything else is to be intolerant of someone else's beliefs..
Now I can't make it any clearer than that...
If you WANT tolerance, then you must BE tolerant...
It IS that simple...
Michale
To help you to understand...
Should a black couple be tolerant of a KKK group, who sincerely hold religious beliefs and who talk about those beliefs incessantly??
Abso-frakin'-loutly!!!
I am also constrained to point out that, when I used this example of a black baker and a KKK birthday party, you agreed with me that the black baker should be forced to service the party...
So, what gives???
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Does who you prefer to have sex with rise to that level??"
Yes it absolutely does. Put it in this perspective by asking the very same question a different way. Does who chose as your mate and life partner rise to that level because you are deeply in love with them?
"What about those who had the right to keep their health plan if they liked it??"
So, if I like my substandard housing just the way it is, I should be able to keep it, even though the renovations I am doing on it makes me bring it up to current code?
"What about those who had the right to have their home and property safe from illegal immigrants??"
Where are your statistics and proof that illegal immigrants are any more responsible for crime than American citizens, in terms of either percentages or proportions?
"Because if you were, you would acknowledge the rights of those Christians that you insult and attack..."
I am not insulting anyone. You are obviously still hung up on the whole Christian cake bake thing. Those Christians can believe gay people are evil incarnate if they want to. Fine, I have no problem with that. But they cannot say, in a PUBLIC business, that because of my belief, I will not serve you. That then infringes on their customer's right to patronage any PUBLIC business of their choosing. Preventing them from doing that, in NO way, harms or prevents them from continuing to hold their religious belief or keeps them from practicing it. They could after all post a sign saying "We believe homosexuality is a sin." and still bake a gay wedding cake, and serve the same purpose. They would still be "witnessing" for their religious belief, without violating the rights of others.
Michale wrote:
"You keep changing the subject..
We're discussing beliefs, not criminal actions.."
Except we ARE discussing actions, and not JUST beliefs. As in the example of the Christian bakers trying to put their beliefs into actions.
"Should a gay couple tolerate when a couple of gay hotel owners want to meet with a GOP'er because the GOP'er shares some beliefs with the gay hotel owners but the GOP'er also has views that said gay couple don't like???"
And actions HAVE consequences. Should other gay people who don't agree also have the right to protest against those gay hotel owners? ABSOLUTELY!
Free Speech is a two-way street. Just because YOU have free speech, it does not protect you from counter protest. I have just as much right to protest against what you are saying, as you have the right to say it in the first place.
"I am also constrained to point out that, when I used this example of a black baker and a KKK birthday party, you agreed with me that the black baker should be forced to service the party..."
So, why can't a straight grandmother, walk into a Christian bakery, and order a cake with two men as a wedding topper on it? Isn't that her right to free speech?
So, why can't a straight grandmother, walk into a Christian bakery, and order a cake with two men as a wedding topper on it? Isn't that her right to free speech?
She can ask...
And the baker can say, "sorry, I can't do that, but here are 4 or 5 lovely places that will do it for you."
What's wrong with that??
Ya'all don't mind it when a gay hairdresser gives a Republican Governor the finger and tells her he won't service her...
So, why is it only politically correct people who are allowed the "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" mantra??
And actions HAVE consequences. Should other gay people who don't agree also have the right to protest against those gay hotel owners? ABSOLUTELY!
The fact that they are protesting IS my point..
The hotel owners wanted to open a dialog!!!
And gay nazis were protesting THAT!!????
They wanted to SHUT DOWN dialog!!???
WTF dood....
The long and short of it is this..
You only want to protect the rights of those who are politically acceptable...
You don't care a whit about the rights of people who don't think as you do...
Michale
Ya'all don't mind it when a gay hairdresser gives a Republican Governor the finger and tells her he won't service her...
OK, that came out WAY wrong... :D
But ya know what I mean..
Michale
So, if I like my substandard housing just the way it is, I should be able to keep it, even though the renovations I am doing on it makes me bring it up to current code?
Yes.. If you were promised that over and over and over and over again for YEARS that, once the new building codes changed, you would still be able to live in your house just the way it is......
Abso-frakin'-loutly you should be able to live in your house just the way it is..
Where are your statistics and proof that illegal immigrants are any more responsible for crime than American citizens, in terms of either percentages or proportions?
Been to the southern border recently??
Michale
What this all boils down to is very simple...
Christians want to run their business and live their lives according to their beliefs...
Ya'all want christians to run their business and live their lives according to YOUR beliefs..
And Democrats are going to legislate it when you can't get it thru dialog..
So much for the claim about Democrats NOT legislating their beliefs...
Michale...
Don't get me wrong, JM...
I completely agree with you.. I think the only criteria for a marriage is that two or more people love each other and want to get married..
So.. I completely believe that you are correct..
The difference between you and me is that I don't think it's right or proper for me to impose MY belief on others who may NOT believe as I do...
*I* don't believe that my beliefs are superior and that they should supersede another person's beliefs..
That's where myself and ya'all part ways..
Ya'all think it's perfectly acceptable to impose ya'alls beliefs on those who do not share them...
I don't...
Michale
This whole issue is about one thing and one thing only..
Acceptance..
Gays want to be accepted by the christian club.. Gays don't care if muslims or buddhists or any other religion discriminates..
Gays want acceptance by the christian club..
And, if they can't get it by the merit of their case or the strength of their character??
They will get it by force of law...
The gay activists are like the nerds in elementary school who are excluded from the cool kids clubs and will run to the teacher and whine and complain until no body wins..
Michale
JohnM,
Please don't play on the strawman's side of the field. Gay people are quite tolerant of the haters. Xians are the majority. We have no other choice. We can't enact laws against them like they do against us.
We even tolerate gay Republican billionaire hotel owners. They can fund as many Republican hate campaigns as they please and nothing will happen to them. OTOH, their hotels will probably suffer (boo hoo). There is nothing intolerant about taking one's business elsewhere. In fact, it's what the xian bakeries, garages, pizzerias, and photographers tell us to do.
Remember that they always strike the martyr's pose, pretending to be persecuted even as they persecute. Projection is their thing.
Gay people are quite tolerant of the haters.
Yea???
Tell that to the poor girl who received DEATH THREATS because she answered a hypothetical according to her beliefs..
Yea.. Gay people are REALLY tolerant to those who disapprove of their lifestyle choice...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that ya'all have yet to provide ANY facts that there is hatred on the Right....
But I can point to tons and tons of evidence of hatred from the Left...
Once again, the GOP is taking the Democrats to school.. :D
Michale
Looks like the SCOTUS oral arguments on the issue really didn't go very well for the gay activist community, eh??
Justice Kennedy raised a VERY good point..
The definition of marriage has been with us for thousands of years..
We are simply to discard it now to appease a disgruntled faction who wants to belong to a club???
Michale
"Hold those arms out wide."
That's their motto.
Michale wrote:
"The fact that they are protesting IS my point..
The hotel owners wanted to open a dialog!!!
And gay nazis were protesting THAT!!????
They wanted to SHUT DOWN dialog!!???"
Are you really seriously trying to get me to believe that the agenda was anything OTHER than promoting Ted Cruz??? How could be be about having a dialog, when the gay hosts did not even know Ted Cruz was against gay marriage until after the fact???
Michale wrote:
"Ya'all want Christians to run their business and live their lives according to YOUR beliefs.."
Not at all. I want them to run their PUBLIC business according to completely neutral secular standards that apply to everyone, regardless of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist or whatever. They can run their PRIVATE business for family and friends from their own home however they please.
Michale wrote:
"Gays want to be accepted by the christian club.. Gays don't care if muslims or buddhists or any other religion discriminates.."
Not true. gays want tolerance, not acceptance. Acceptance is neither required or desired, as a line from the movie "To Wong Fu" says.
What gays want is for Christians to stop actively working against them, plain and simple, that's all.
Michale wrote:
"The definition of marriage has been with us for thousands of years..
We are simply to discard it now to appease a disgruntled faction who wants to belong to a club???"
I thought the only consideration was supposed to be what the U.S. Constitution says? Slavery existed for thousands of years too....
Michale wrote:
"The difference between you and me is that I don't think it's right or proper for me to impose MY belief on others who may NOT believe as I do...
*I* don't believe that my beliefs are superior and that they should supersede another person's beliefs..""
Tell that to the poor girl who received DEATH THREATS because she answered a hypothetical according to her beliefs.."
Michale, do you not see any difference between someone saying " I think homosexuality is a sin and I will live my own life accordingly" and someone else saying "Because my religion tells me you are sinful, I must actively work to insure that you are treated by your own government in the worst way possible based on my beliefs that you do not share." Do you really see no difference in those two examples???
Are you really seriously trying to get me to believe that the agenda was anything OTHER than promoting Ted Cruz???
Ahhhh..
So you know what was in the mind of the gay hoteliers..
Is your name Eskrine? :D
How could be be about having a dialog, when the gay hosts did not even know Ted Cruz was against gay marriage until after the fact???
You guys need to get yer story straight...
JFC says they knew.. You said they didn't...
So, you are saying that the hoteliers CANNOT support Cruz because of that ONE issue???
Ya'all don't support a lot of what Obama does (so ya'all claim) yet you STILL support Obama, right??
Once again, we see one set of rules for the Left and another set of rules for the Right..
Not at all. I want them to run their PUBLIC business according to completely neutral secular standards that apply to everyone, regardless of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist or whatever.
Oh bull.. You don't mind it when gay business owners discriminate against a Christian Republican governor...
Once again.. One set of rules for Left businesses, a different set of rules for Right businesses...
You don't mind discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. As long as it's directed towards the people who, in your mind, deserve it..
Not true. gays want tolerance, not acceptance.
Then gays need to learn to be tolerant as well.. To not go to places where they KNOW they won't be welcome, just to score media points..
What gays want is for Christians to stop actively working against them, plain and simple, that's all.
Christians are not working AGAINST gays..
They are working FOR their beliefs...
I thought the only consideration was supposed to be what the U.S. Constitution says? Slavery existed for thousands of years too....
If THAT is the case, then there IS no case..
Because nothing in the Constitution says ANYTHING about same-sex marriage...
"Because my religion tells me you are sinful, I must actively work to insure that you are treated by your own government in the worst way possible based on my beliefs that you do not share."
The question is moot because no one is saying that..
Michale
As I said above, JM...
You don't need to convince me that gays should be allowed to marry.. I really don't give a rat's ass whether they marry, run a hotel or play tiddley winks...
But one of my biggest strengths (if I may be humble here.. :D) is that I am not enslaved by political ideology so I can see BOTH sides of practically any issue that CW brings up...
Which allows me to state for the record, with absolute certainty that ya'all are very very right.
But I can also state with equal certainty that ya'all are very very wrong..
"Ensign Tuvok, you're absolutely right. But you're also absolutely wrong."
-Captain Hikaru Sulu, STAR TREK VOYAGER, Flashback
Ya'all are right that gays should be allowed to marry and have all the benefits of a marriage that straight people have.
But ya'all are wrong in trying to force people to adhere to your beliefs and compromise their own beliefs and values..
Michale
But ya'all are wrong in trying to force people to adhere to your beliefs and compromise their own beliefs and values..
The Left can't claim to be tolerant but then turn around and be intolerant of other people's beliefs..
The Left can't barge into people's lives and say, "YOU WILL ADHERE TO OUR BELIEFS!!" and expect no pushback..
The gay hoteliers have it right..
The way to do things is to sit down and dialog...
"How can we work together to come to an agreement that takes into account your wants and needs and the needs of our faith and our desire to abide by the rules of our faith??"
But the gay activists don't WANT dialog.. They want vengeance... They are like the thugs in Baltimore who destroy, destroy, destroy...
Dialog is not what they are after.. Vengeance is what they are after..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Because nothing in the Constitution says ANYTHING about same-sex marriage..."
Not specifically true. But the Constitution still applies. It doesn't specifically mention straight marriage either. But the Supreme Court could still use the 14th amendment to define straight marriages by striking down laws making interracial marriages illegal. There is also. the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Both of those are the two questions before the Court now.