|
Riptor posted:Maine did Maine's marriage law never went into effect, though. Similarly, neither Washington's nor Maryland's marriage laws would go into effect until after the referenda this November.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
This is what we call "moving the goalposts."quote:But opponents said they were confident that the majority of the country believes that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman despite some competitive races this year. Really? I thought the narrative was that same-sex marriage could never win at the ballot box anywhere and that all polls showing otherwise, national or state-level, were a mirage created by social desirability bias? It's kinda loving hard to claim that there's no national trend towards supporting marriage equality when a state that voted against it (Maine) just three years ago is now passing it into law. ...oh, and let's not forget the part about same-sex marriage being political suicide for Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:This is very false, Perry was designed from the early pre-trial stages to be the constitutional test at the Supreme Court on gay marriage case and has about as favorable of a record below as you could want for such a case, including two different rationales for why, one by Walker and one by Reinhardt. This is the case you want certiorari granted for. I see how that description would apply to Walker's ruling, but not to Reinhardt's. As far as I can tell, that one was deliberately tailored to affirm Prop 8's unconstitutionality on the narrowest grounds possible*, for the precise purpose of discouraging the Supreme Court from granting review. Anyway, the order list is out. No decisions from SCOTUS until Friday at the earliest. *In that it ignored questions of scrutiny classification and the inherent constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, and built on the Romer ruling to establish a "precedent" that was only applicable to California, as it was the only state where gays were granted the right to marry, had that right subsequently removed, and retained the same legal rights granted to married couples through an institution with another name (domestic partnerships). Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I think there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court will use these cases to effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide, and that it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision by Justice Kennedy. Man, I hope so. Color me skeptical for now, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
There's a certain narrative that the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v. Wade created a backlash against abortion rights, and that a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing same-sex marriage would have a similar impact on that issue. Neither half of that narrative is correct, but DC political elites seem fairly susceptible to it, including Justice Ginsburg herself. And that's why I don't expect SCOTUS to nationalize same-sex marriage anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Has anyone noticed that when it comes to anti gay marriage and equality, gay men seem to be the only target or at least the first target. Is there a reason for this? Because sticking it in the pooper is ickier than scissoring.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm in the Air National Guard: Let me assure you not only have I spoken to multiple conservatives, but they literally believe that gay rights should go the direction of abortion. I'm sure there are people who will tell you this. Doesn't mean that the issue is capable of generating the same kind of lasting backlash as abortion, or that the politics are that comparable beyond being frequently lumped together as culture war issues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
ponzicar posted:Isn't there a big generational difference for acceptance of gay marriage, while there isn't one for abortion? Which means that the people currently fighting against gay marriage will grow old and die off, and most of their children and grandchildren will be accepting of it. Abortion however, will still be a big issue decades from now. I think it largely comes down to this: if you believe abortion is equivalent to infanticide, the harm caused by it is anything but abstract. For same-sex marriage, even the most ardent opponents can't point to anything but abstract consequences for society as a whole. The entire pivot to "religious freedom" reflects a tacit acknowledgement of this on the part of the anti-gay right - that opposition same-sex marriage can no longer be defended on its own merits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 18:13
|
|