the conservative case for same sex marriage

[the iron horse]

The best family for a child is a father and mother.

And add love.

That works

 

[Diemen]

The best family for a child is a father and mother.

And add love.

That works

Are you actually going to engage in this discussion or are you just going to repeat the same thing over and over without acknowledging anybody else's comments or questions? If it's the latter, that borders on trolling.

 

[Irvine511]

i know, i know ... the whole "obama plays chess while everyone else plays checkers" might be getting a bit old and seem rather worn in the face of reality, but something like this does make you believe it again:

Obama sees opening in social-issue split
By Sam Youngman - 03/09/11 06:20 AM ET

President Obama loves Iowa.

In 2008, the state’s first-in-the-nation caucus propelled Obama to front-runner status and satisfied lingering questions about his electability.

In 2012, Iowa could help the president divide and conquer his Republican opponents, staining them — fringe and mainstream candidates alike — with the mark of social conservatism at a time when voters care far more about the economy than gay marriage.

The trap was set last month when Obama ordered the Justice Department to stand down in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hot-button social issues are important to Republican Iowa caucus-goers, whom the GOP 2012 crowd is now trying to attract. At a forum on faith Monday night sponsored by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, a number of likely GOP presidential candidates were ready to pounce when the issue came up.

“We have people in Washington, D.C., who say marriage will be defined however we feel like defining it,” former Minnesota GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty said at the forum. “No, it won’t. It should be defined as between a man and a woman.”

The 2012 election, however, is more likely to turn on the economy than on gay marriage.

When then-President George W. Bush and Karl Rove pushed for gay-marriage referendums to show up on state ballots in 2004, the national unemployment rate was 5.5 percent.

The issue was a welcome distraction to talk of the Iraq war, the Patriot Act or the president’s failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

But in 2012, social issues could be a distraction for Republicans at a time when voters are worried about more pressing issues like gas prices, home foreclosures and jobs.

Obama would love for voters to focus on social issues instead of the economy, according to Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova University.

“In some ways, this parallels, but is the reverse of, the Bush 2004 reelection strategy, which focused on security issues and social conservatism,” Brown said. “As long as Bush stayed on his issues, his campaign stayed ahead. When the Democrats were able to steer the conversation toward the economic issues … the GOP found it difficult to defend their track record.”

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) might win the Iowa caucuses. He is spending plenty of time there, and GOP caucus-goers are of the same mind as the anti-abortion-rights, anti-gay-marriage conservative firebrand.

But if 2008 is any guide, winning Iowa would only guarantee Santorum a television show, as it did for that year’s winner, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Democrats know this, and they are delighted to watch Santorum and other likely Republican candidates fall all over themselves to lay claim to the role of the social conscience of the GOP.

Because while Republicans are running to the right on social issues in an effort to win support in Iowa, they could be alienating the independent and centrist voters who will decide the general election. Democrats argue it’s a safe bet that exit polls in November 2012 will not show gay marriage or abortion as the defining issue for the electorate.

“You don’t have to be a political scientist to know people are concerned about the economy,” said one top Democratic official.

Democrats don’t necessarily want to see Santorum win the nomination, and they know such a result is unlikely.

What is likely and welcome in the White House is the effect social-issues candidates will have on the candidates who are in a position to seriously challenge Obama.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might poll well with voters on economic issues, but what will he say about abortion and marriage issues? How much will he talk about them, and how far right will he have to go to prove his conservative bona fides to a small but powerful group of voters who, in the White House view, are totally misrepresentative of the larger electorate?

“The challenge for the more formidable Republican candidates is to resist the temptation to shake the ideological rattles that get big applause,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “If they all jump into the social-issue playpen together, then Obama will have an easier time next fall convincing moderate voters that he is the only adult on the ballot.”

Obama and his team have long sensed opportunity in the identity crisis Republicans are facing as their party tries to balance its new Tea Party zeal for fiscal issues and libertarianism with the socially conservative party of six years ago.

A debate over abortion and gay marriage is just what Democrats want to see happening in Iowa for the next nine months.

“Once you stick your head out on moral issues, you’re labeled,” Santorum said Monday.

He’s right. And the White House will gleefully watch Republicans cover themselves in that label while the rest of the voting public wonders why the GOP is talking about abortion instead of the economy.

Obama sees opening in social-issue split - The Hill's Ballot Box

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Judging from what I've read in our local papers about the conservative meetings here thus far, that seems to be the track they're taking. Even their financial discussions stray into the social conservatism area in spots. And if their babbling on about issues that they seem way more obsessed with than I do is what helps get Obama reelected, I'm not complaining.

Regardless of what they talk about, though, I'm just hoping more and more Americans will finally, FINALLY wake up to the fact that they have absolutely no plan to get us out of our current situation, just like they haven't in years past, and that they'll pay for this very problem in 2012 once and for all.

Angela

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

With the Maryland House of Delegates set to vote on Friday whether to allow same-sex couples to marry, a Baltimore Ravens linebacker decided to weigh in on the subject.

Brendon Ayanbadejo, who has written about his support for gay marriage before, teamed up with Equality Maryland and posted a video voicing his opinion on love and marriage.

"This should not be a subjective issue. Gay and lesbian couples want to marry for similar reasons as we all do: love and commitment," Ayanbadejo said. "It's time to allow them the opportunity to build a family through marriage. It's a matter of fairness. This is why I'm asking Marylanders to join me in supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples."

YouTube - Brendon Ayanbadejo Says Yes to Marriage Equality in Maryland



This is what he wrote before

First and foremost, church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That's it.

It seems that Obama felt the need to embrace Christianity more to fit in. During his presidential campaign he never really sided for or against same-sex marriages. I know the cards were stacked against him with his name and ethnicity but any candidate still has to fit a schoolboy criteria in order to be considered a legitimate candidate. I am at least glad being black is finally off the list as a negative characteristic!

If Britney Spears can party it up in Vegas with one of her boys and go get married on a whim and annul her marriage the next day, why can't a loving same sex couple tie the knot? How could our society grant more rights to a heterosexual one night stand wedding in Vegas than a gay couple that has been together for 3, 5, 10 years of true love? The divorce rate in America is currently 50%. I am willing to bet that same sex marriages have a higher success rate than heterosexual marriages.

Maybe I am a man ahead of my time. However, looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?

 

[Basstrap]

Last night I heard someone comment on the TV show Modern Family, saying that he didn't like it because it "glorified gay marriage"
It seemed strange to me because he's not even a Christian.

I could understand it coming from a Christian, but how can you derive a fear of homosexuality outside of religious morals? (he was raised Christian, however, so perhaps this sort of thing is like the vestigial organ found in evolutionary studies.)

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The best family for a child is a father and mother.

And add love.

That works

And you can eat shit.


Moderators, reprimand me. I had to.

 

[yolland]

You'll probably get more than a reprimand if you keep employing a strategy like that.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But in all seriousness, that logic is the reason that we can't have equality in this world.

 

[yolland]

His logic? Fine, then make that argument. As far it goes I agree. But this is just an internet message board; no one can actually reach through the screen and oppress anyone else, no matter how oppressively familiar their views might feel.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Oh please don't take my comments too seriously. I'm just messing around.

Honestly... gay marriage... whatever let people do whatever the hell they want. Sex changes are legal but gay marriage isn't. What's more extreme between the two?

Also, the notion that the best family for a child is a mother and a father is quite ridiculous. Yes, it is IDEAL. Best? Not even the slightest. Just because you have a mother and a father doesn't mean that they're two good people. It's equal and opposite. Two fathers/mothers doesn't mean two good people.

Yeah, no gay people should influence their children to be gay. That sounds like I'm against gay people, doesn't it? Well here's the catch. No straight people should influence their children to be straight either. Focus should be raising your children to be good people and make them mature enough to make their own decisions.

 

[Pearl]

Last night I heard someone comment on the TV show Modern Family, saying that he didn't like it because it "glorified gay marriage"
It seemed strange to me because he's not even a Christian.

I could understand it coming from a Christian, but how can you derive a fear of homosexuality outside of religious morals? (he was raised Christian, however, so perhaps this sort of thing is like the vestigial organ found in evolutionary studies.)

I've worked and gone to school with guys who could care less about God or religion, yet vehemently oppose homosexuality. I think its a macho, frat-boy issue.

Not surprisingly, those types are guys who go batshit crazy for lesbian action in bars and clubs, but would be outraged if any girl was truly gay.

 

[BoMac]

I've worked and gone to school with guys who could care less[...].

couldn't care less

 

[yolland]

I've worked and gone to school with guys who could care less about God or religion, yet vehemently oppose homosexuality. I think its a macho, frat-boy issue.

Same here. And they're usually the coarsest type of homophobe, in my experience--I think partly because they see it as a simple matter of what's self-evident, "natural" vs. "unnatural," rather than as part of some system requiring theory or doctrine to justify it. Nonreligious people aren't necessarily nonreligious because they're free thinkers who rigorously challenge all received ideas; they can be morally and intellectually inert sheep just like anyone else.

But there are certainly "vestigial organ" thinkers out there too...

 

[Pearl]

couldn't care less

Hey, I'm at work trying to do two things at once

 

[BoMac]

 

[kramwest1]

His logic? Fine, then make that argument. As far it goes I agree. But this is just an internet message board; no one can actually reach through the screen and oppress anyone else, no matter how oppressively familiar their views might feel.

Don't forget about the "psychological terrorism" argument regarding the Phelps in the Supreme Court thread.

 

[the iron horse]

Are you actually going to engage in this discussion or are you just going to repeat the same thing over and over without acknowledging anybody else's comments or questions? If it's the latter, that borders on trolling.

I guess I'm a troll, but I will stand by my belief.

Marriage is important.

Children need a mom and dad.

 

[Diemen]

So no, you're not going to engage in discussion. Got it.

 

[BVS]

I guess I'm a troll, but I will stand by my belief.

Marriage is important.

Children need a mom and dad.

If you don't engage then what are you if you're not a troll?

 

[Canadiens1131]

I guess I'm a troll, but I will stand by my belief.

Marriage is important.

Children need a mom and dad.

Stop being a fag.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess I'm a troll, but I will stand by my belief.

one thing i've learned about some southern baptists is that it's much more important to have "beliefs" than it is to have thoughts or reasons. sure, you could think about something and arrive at a decision, or you could find a reason for thinking something based on logic or whatever, but, really, what's important is what you "believe." why do you need a brain when you've got a gut? why should you engage in challenging yourself when you can shut out all evidence to the contrary and make feel-good declarative statements that are really just assertions of cultural identity?

after all, this was what the Bush presidency was all about. belief, not reason. what i want to be, not what actually is.

belief is enough.

 

[Diemen]

Stop being a fag.

Really unnecessary and out of line.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Support for Gay Marriage Reaches a Milestone: Half of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriages - ABC News

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

 

[kramwest1]

Support for Gay Marriage Reaches a Milestone: Half of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriages - ABC News

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

Win The Future.

 

[Irvine511]

Support for Gay Marriage Reaches a Milestone: Half of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriages - ABC News

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

it's now seen as a vote-getter for the Democrats when it comes to stoking up their base. kind of how bashing gays gets Republicans hard, now fighting for equality gets the Left aroused.

 

[kramwest1]

now fighting for equality gets the Left aroused.

It's sad that this was ever a question mark.

I can't wait to see the polling of those under 30 in the next year and a half. The Republican base is dying, literally.

 

[Irvine511]

It's sad that this was ever a question mark.

what's interesting to me is that even 5 years ago, i would have been perfectly content with civil unions.

but what's been amazing about the ongoing discussion about marriage equality is how i've come to realize just how much i had internalized my own inferiority, my own homophobia, and my own sense that i'm not quite worthy of the same status as heterosexuals.

that's all changed. now, the only acceptable answer is full equality under the law.

 

[BonosSaint]

I thought that civil unions were more tactically viable, with the language catching up with the de facto status soon enough, that civil unions would soon take up the status of marriage and once the reality was there, there would be minimal freaking about calling it marriage and giving it equal status. It is beyond that point now. Full tilt ahead. Good luck.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'd always said it should be full on marriage, exactly the same thing straight people call it. They're going through the exact same legal or religious (if your church is friendly to such things) ceremony as straight people are, they'll experience the same things in a marriage a straight couple would. So I saw no reason why we needed to quibble over calling it different things simply because the genders involved happened to be the sole difference. It just seemed to me calling them different things would make things way more complicated than need be and I just found the idea that some people seemed to think they had some sort of a "claim" to a freaking word incredibly immature and silly. I'm sure the reasoning was most likely along the lines of what BonosSaint said, but as Mark so eloquently said...

It's sad that this was ever a question mark.

Fully agreed.

I can't wait to see the polling of those under 30 in the next year and a half. The Republican base is dying, literally.

Ditto every word of this, too. Took people long enough, but I'm glad they're finally coming around.

Awesome new statistics, very happy to hear that. Cannot wait to see how this bodes for all things related to this issue down the line .

Angela