Are the Conservative going to shoot themselves in the foot over same-sex marriage?

[columbus]

Buhave tot the very fact that I even contemplated the idea of coming out was landmark.

I hateto sound confrontational. But why would you bother?
You have a solid marriage, blessed by church and state. You can do whatever else you want in private, it's nobody's business.
I have to be out to explain my 20+ year relationship with Doug. Otherwise, I'd feel little interest in sharing my private life with people I don't even know.
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

11 states ban same-sex marriage | ReligiousForums.com

That's a thread from 2004.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd rather go with the candidate that has integrity than some opportunist who flip-flops out of being power-hungry. If they lose, then at least they lost honestly and can sleep at night with a clean conscience. Whereas the liars have to live with their deceit. Although I doubt it bothers them because they're probably psychopaths, anyway.

I don't disagree and I see where you are coming from... but moral integrity does have a use for changing one's mind, too.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hateto sound confrontational. But why would you bother?
You have a solid marriage, blessed by church and state. You can do whatever else you want in private, it's nobody's business.
I have to be out to explain my 20+ year relationship with Doug. Otherwise, I'd feel little interest in sharing my private life with people I don't even know.
Tom

Sorry for answering a question that is so personal and not directed to me, but if Sangha and you both will forgive me, I want to propose a likely reason.

Because it is sad to have to hide major parts of our lives and identities from people that we love.

 

[leibowde84]

But all of those state rulings came from the court system, not the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for marriage as between a man and a woman(albeit several years ago), it was the courts that overturned those amendments.

First of all, in those "few years" support for same-sex marriage has gone up roughly 20% (from 40% to 60%). So, I would argue that the feelings of the country at that time are irrelevant to the current discussion. Second, a major purpose of the SCOTUS is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Throughout our nation's history, there have been many times where states pass unconstitutional laws. Just because a majority votes to make something legal/illegal, does not mean it is legitimate. the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and they have been granted the authority to strike down laws that unconstitutionally discriminate. What is your issue with this process?

 

[leibowde84]

But all of those state rulings came from the court system, not the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for marriage as between a man and a woman(albeit several years ago), it was the courts that overturned those amendments.

The right to marry shouldn't be a state issue anyways. If states have different recognition standards it will impede interstate commerce. If anything, we should have had a national election on the issue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't disagree and I see where you are coming from... but moral integrity does have a use for changing one's mind, too.

Sure. Which is why I'm not a leftist anymore.

 

[gsa]

I don't know any of them well enuf to know what they really believe.
But beliefs do change over time.

Not that radically in that short of a time period I don't think.

But all of those state rulings came from the court system, not the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for marriage as between a man and a woman(albeit several years ago), it was the courts that overturned those amendments.

To be clear, the first of these amendments was adopted in 1998 (Alaska and Hawaii) and the last in 2012 (North Carolina). With the exception of Oregon in 2004, Arizona in 2006, California in 2008 and Minnesota in 2012, most of those amendments were not opposed by any organized or well funded campaign.

Saying that "the people" spoke on this is dubious for multiple reasons: The "people" who spoke were a snapshot from that election, and they were addressing a fundamental right that was not the proper subject of majority vote (courtesy of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision we can confirm this is the case). Moreover, they had changed their minds in many of the states that had passed the amendments, and those repeal campaigns are even more costly and resource intensive than the initial campaigns. The voters were also sold a bait and switch, since the amendment proponents claimed it was marriage that they were "protecting," while the actual text of the amendments was targeting domestic partnership rights and civil unions as well, in most states.

Also, there were legislative enactments in Vermont, Maine, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, New York, New Hampshire and elsewhere prior to the 2015 decision. It was not solely the result of judicial decisions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I hateto sound confrontational. But why would you bother?
You have a solid marriage, blessed by church and state. You can do whatever else you want in private, it's nobody's business.
I have to be out to explain my 20+ year relationship with Doug. Otherwise, I'd feel little interest in sharing my private life with people I don't even know.
Tom

Oh that's the overriding thought, given that the man-loving part of me gives me a quasi-privileged life where I can find shelter in my opposite sex marriage. I've enjoyed that shelter and still do.

I've been approached by folks who have suggested that coming out is good for the community as a whole, so that better visibility is needed throughout. That the more boring pedestrian people who are not straight are noted, that the spectrum of orientations that exist don't seem to be that big a deal over time.

But I've resisted. I have the privilege of coming out for personal reasons and not due to monosexuality orientations creating the either/or situations.

I'm not coming out anytime soon. I still don't feel right about it. But this past weekend I actually contemplated it. Just from the confidence I had with the support from fellow straights around me. Contemplating coming out to the public? That's a first. For real.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh that's the overriding thought, given that the man-loving part of me gives me a quasi-privileged life where I can find shelter in my opposite sex marriage. I've enjoyed that shelter and still do.

I've been approached by folks who have suggested that coming out is good for the community as a whole, so that better visibility is needed throughout. That the more boring pedestrian people who are not straight are noted, that the spectrum of orientations that exist don't seem to be that big a deal over time.

But I've resisted. I have the privilege of coming out for personal reasons and not due to monosexuality orientations creating the either/or situations.

I'm not coming out anytime soon. I still don't feel right about it. But this past weekend I actually contemplated it. Just from the confidence I had with the support from fellow straights around me. Contemplating coming out to the public? That's a first. For real.

Just don't get upset if some people say 'Meh...who cares...'
A bisexual I worked with came out to me at one point, and it seemed to **** her off that I devoted all of about 3 seconds to the topic, and then reminded her it was her shout and my glass was empty.

Whilst I get it might have been a big deal for her (although in this particular case I don't think it was, really), I don't really care who likes to do what with what to who much. Unless I'm somewhere in the mix, of course...lol
So I figured my lack of interest was a good thing, but she didn't really take it that way.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Just don't get upset if some people say 'Meh...who cares...'....

Oh man, I WISH that would be the case.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh man, I WISH that would be the case.

Come here, and I'll not only say 'Meh', I'll let you buy me a beer too.
Yes, I am that damn generous.

 

[muichimotsu]

It seems that the Conservative Presidential Candidates have their panties so twisted that they can't help themselves but destroy their own political aspirations. It is known now that more than 50% of Americans approve of same-sex civil marriage, so how do they think ideas like "constitutional conventions" and/or civil disobedience to the Supreme Court ruling will help them get elected in a national election. It seems to me that they are unable to "deal" with reality in this way. And, every day that they waste time on this issue, they are losing the opportunity to win over the independent voters they will undeniably need.

They're appealing to people's demand for "independence" instead of focusing on rights in a more passive sense. They want to be seen as proactive in vouching for people's positive liberties, ignoring (either intentionally or otherwise) how other people might be affected by it because they over prioritize religious liberty to appeal to the voters who have always cared rather than those like me who skipped the 2008 election and make every effort now to vote every year.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's pretty much undeniable in my mind that the religious segment pretty much makes conservatism a non-possibility for most thinking voters my age. It would actually be sorta scary if they were able to shed their laughable image of senility and fervor.

Depends on if we mean conservativism in the sense of purely social issues and tradition or something more like libertarianism, which is compelling in its own right. Gary Johnson would have my vote in a heartbeat if he keeps the same platform he ran on in 2012.

 

[dust1n]

Depends on if we mean conservativism in the sense of purely social issues and tradition or something more like libertarianism, which is compelling in its own right. Gary Johnson would have my vote in a heartbeat if he keeps the same platform he ran on in 2012.

Ah, to clarify: the biggest obstacle to Republicans achieving whatever economic goal they are trying to achieve, is the social policies they must maintain in order to keep votes.

 

[muichimotsu]

I fail to see how conservatives are shooting ourselves in the foot by holding to our stated beliefs. Now, if they hadn't responded in such a way, I'd be worried.

When you're using a strategy that, as others have pointed out, is counterproductive, all you're getting is self satisfaction, you're not getting any victory in a technical sense. If all you care about is making a theocracy, then perhaps American politics isn't your thing. Maybe preaching is more appropriate for speaking about religious values and conservative ones in the social sense?

 

[muichimotsu]

Ah, to clarify: the biggest obstacle to Republicans achieving whatever economic goal they are trying to achieve, is the social policies they must maintain in order to keep votes.

Unless they acquiesce and merge with the Constitution Party: it's only slightly different, but at least it'd be a change.

 

[dust1n]

Unless they acquiesce and merge with the Constitution Party: it's only slightly different, but at least it'd be a change.

That's actually something I'd expect them to do, but I would expect that to only hurt them harder. The Constitution Party is even more right-wing, pro-religion, and laughably small.

 

[muichimotsu]

At least they'd be honest and not try to have a pretense of moderation: but as someone observed in this thread, that'd be to their detriment. They have to practice deception if they have any hope of getting votes

 

[ShivaFan]

Actually, as the recent news cycle has demonstrated, this isn't really a "main issue" among conservatives (which I count myself among, though I am more internationally oriented than, let us say, a naive Boston liberal or a stuck in the swamp Baton Rouge conservative)...

I know the far left wants to pretend it is, as if the pretender to the throne of "we saved the homosexuals, now worship us and give us your money". First of all, homosexuals should avoid these leftists like the plague, and certainly do not get on the "liberal plantation" of dependency to them - do not do that mistake, inclusive of any rip off conservatives as well (every "bird" club has a few one wingers who flap one wing as say "see! I fanned you in the heat of the noon day sun, now you owe me your life forever" but don't have two wings and thus cannot fly)...

If there is any issue here among conservatives, it isn't the ruling as much as the undemocratic, unlibertarian way it was done. It isn't ONE ruling here, it is MANY rulings from the Court that really should be the role of representative government. Sure, there are some conservatives who have religious objections, but over all we see little, practically no, outrage. It isn't THE conservative "issue", this propaganda from the leftist media and the old legacy phony liberal news is expected, however, another false narrative from the left as part of a phony agenda.

The issues among conservatives are largely economic, anti-intrusive big government, the destruction of localized government, crime, and illegal aliens and of course Islamic terrorism.

Not this.

There is no "outrage". It is a lie that there is. But expected from the liars. You can always find someone who will say "burn the faggots". Among conservatives, liberals, fascists and communists. You will also find among the same someone who will say floridated water causes impotency. So?

Zzzzzzz... (snore)