Now that we're back in power, can we turn the tide on the war on marriage?

That is 100% accurate. The Supreme Court had EVERY opportunity with multiple appellate court decisions based upon "equality", "equal rights" and the 14th amendment. If the Supreme Court was going to rule in favor of gay marriage based upon those concepts, they would have done so.

But they did NOT do so because they're planning on upholding state rights. They're waiting for a disagreement in the lower courts (like the 6th Circuit or the judge in Louisiana) who upheld gay marriage bans and did so based upon the fact that the STATE has the right to define marriage.

And when they get that case, they're going to rule on it and rule in favor of state rights. That means every single state in which a federal judge overturned the will of the people will be overturned and those states will no longer have gay marriage. They will in fact revert back to the legislation that the people passed in which they declared they didn't want to provide protections for gay marriage.

There's no need for republicans to deal with this issue. The Supreme Court will deal with it. And the longer the Supreme Court waits, the more likely Ginsburg outlasts Obama and dies during a Conservative president and if that happens the conservative will place another conservative on the Supreme Court making it 6-3. The likelihood of a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court upholding gay marriage over State rights is essentially zero.

 

lol!!!!

this is what happens when Conservatives get a taste of power

 

A gallup poll is not indicative of the real feelings of Americans. It's easy to answer something on a gallup poll that really means nothing in the affirmative... but people act FAR differently in the privacy of the voting booth.

If homosexuals are so confident that the people support them... then let's vote on the issue. But they don't want to vote because they know they'll lose.

What's hilarious is that it's the white people who are pretty much supporting gay marriage. The minorities whom the liberals depend on do not support gay marriage. Quite the quandary for the liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize 3link is a troll and doesn't actually believe what he's posting right?

 

Then a true Repulbican isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

 

I thought the core of the Republican Party was Libertarianism?

freedom, right?

if that's the case, they should support SSM.

 

That's your opinion. An extremist opinion.

 

I just don't understand the logic behind someone supporting gay marriage.

There is absolutely zero justification whatsoever to support providing gay people marriage benefits. It's completely insane.

Somebody please tell me the difference between giving gay people marriage benefits and giving subsidies to someone who claims to be a farmer but never produces vegetables.

 

its called freedom.

 

I agree. The potential harm to society is too great. Who cares if it makes gays happy?

 

No it most certainly is not.

Nobody is denying them any freedoms. Marriage BENEFITS are not a right. Nobody is stopping them from getting married. They have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is receive marriage benefits.

 

once we allow gay marriage, next we'll allow people marry their dogs, chickens, and roosters.

 

A lot of things make people happy but it is detrimental to society and we don't allow it.

So what?

And I'm sure they would be happy getting free money from other people for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I would to. So would every single person on the planet. So would the couple who wasn't married but has lived together for 35 years.

Free money makes everybody happy

 

Now you're getting it!

 

Actually it's a stone fact...

...and anyone who believes it's extremist to refuse to validate the idea that one man can marry another has, to put it charitably, a serious perceptual deficiency.

 

neither do inter-racial couples, according to your logic.

 

Can you tell me why we shouldn't? If we're going to support gay marriage, why not bestiality?

- - - Updated - - -

That's simply incorrect. Inter-racial couples still provide a benefit to society. They're still able to procreate in and of themselves. They are theoretically capable of EARNING those benefits. Homosexuals are not.

 

Push your own agenda, this one is about a Bible thumper believing laws should be based on the Bible.

Gay couples can adopt and raise children that others did not want, been done many times. So by your guidelines; couples without children are not truly valid as couples? I assume you are single and will be staying that way.

 

No that's incorrect. We are not paying for someone to adopt and raise children. ANYBODY can raise a child. There is only ONE group which is capable of PRODUCING a child in and of themselves. The heterosexual paradigm. Period. That's what we're paying for.

Without having that ability it is IMPOSSIBLE for the couple to earn the benefits we're paying for. Impossible.

Now as far as a heterosexual couple that doesn't procreate for whatever reason... We continue to provide them benefits because there is no economically feasible way to determine whether they're willing and able to procreate before they do so. So if we want to promote procreation in married couples then we're forced to provide it to ALL heterosexual married couples because it's not economically feasible to differentiate between the couple who is not pregnant today and never will get pregnant and the couple who is not pregnant today but will be pregnant tomorrow.

If you can provide an economically feasible way to promote procreation in married couples without providing benefits to those who do not procreate then I'm all ears.

And btw, 3link is a troll. Meaning, he is trying to make fun of people who want to get rid of gay marriage. He recognizes most of them are on the republican side so he creates a thread joking about what the republicans can do to get rid of gay marriage and uses ridiculous arguments like "well the bible says11!!1!!" knowing that they're incredibly easy to defeat in an attempt to make people who want to get rid of gay marriage look stupid.

What you won't see him do is be capable of defending why gay marriage should be allowed, which is actually the position that he believes in.

 

Insofar as the term is grounded in objective reality, there isn't any; but once the idea of subjective morality is accepted, any outrage against the human spirit, small or great, can be rationalized effortlessly.

Only by the enemies of freedom.

 

Please be more specific on what grounds you would impeach a judge for ruling in favor of gay marriage??

 

how does supporting SSM or being ambivilent if it passes, make someone an "enemy of freedom"?

sounds like Nazispeak.

 

So sorry but people do not earn their benefits by breeding. You argument is a complete failure. I defend it because ALL American should enjoy the same rights and benefits, even if YOU do not like it. Get over it, Get a Life of your own and stop attempting to deny others their rights it has zero to do with you I doubt you pay enough into the system to even count so stop making it out as if it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You must define Freedom differently from most Americans. Thankfully Your brand of Freedom is never going to rule this Nation.

 

Earned income tax credit would disagree with you.

 

Here is my best recommendation, to you, and to the entire Republican Party:

Get off the morallst soapbox!

Nix the social issues. Drop 'em. Every last one of 'em. They are costing you votes, not the other way around.

FOCUS ON THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THE COUNTRY. Economy. National Security. Infrastructure.

It's none of your business who shacks up with who. MYOB and you'll get elected. Much with my business and I won't vote for you in a million years.

The social issues are the death of both parties. Look what just happened to the Dems, they got voted in and given a chance, and the minute the country saw what they wanted to do on the social side there was a collective "gasp, what have we done" and now the Dems are all gone again.

The same thing will happen to the Republicans, all these gains will be wiped out two years from now if the party ends up focusing on non-sensical unimportant issues like gay marriage. If "gay marriage" becomes more important than national security or the economy then people will perceive the Republicans as the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*) moralists whose best plan is the demise of the opposing party.

 

Stop pretending to be a conservative. You make a nice strawman, though.