Gay Marriage Supplants Abortion As Social Priority For Conservatives

Washington Post:

As President Obama prepares to name his first Supreme Court justice, conservatives in Washington are making clear that his nominee will face plenty of questions during the confirmation process on the legal underpinnings of same-sex marriage.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[abmabardy]

04:29 PM on 05/26/2009

Ya know, .......

the economy is killing us, way too many people have lost their jobs, and their homes, health care costs are eating up the incomes of those who do still have jobs, we're fighting two painful wars, veterans are coming home to find their so-called benefits dwindling, and the polar ice caps are melting at a rate that may put coastal cities underwater within decades .......

I just don't understand how anyone could get his or her panties tied up in such a tight know over two people who love each other and want to be a family and just have the same shot at happiness that everyone else wants.

Really, people, America has gotten over prejudice based upon religion, gender and race. It's time to get by this latest wave. All prejudice comes from fear of differences, but sometimes there is really nothing to be afraid of, and differences can serve to enrich us rather than divide us, if we let them.

Separate but equal is never equal. It's time to give full equal rights to our gay brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, co-workers and neighbors, our fellow Americans.

[wilray]

02:12 PM on 05/18/2009

Some one mentioned something that made me think. Basically the Righties losing battle regarding gay marriage will end within the decade. I gotta say they're right.. You can look at it a few ways and it all leads to the same conclusion. Whether it's trend analysis or regression analysis, or whether it's looking at actuarial tables, the endgame is within sight. It's inevitable. Cohorts of the age group that is most likely to be against gay marriage will be dead within a decade. This follows the same pattern as it did for civil rights. The only question is whether they will waste their waning years fighting the inevitability of history.

http://kottke.org/09/04/gay-marriage-trends-in-the-us

[johnbdonovan]

07:23 PM on 05/20/2009

I predct the opposite. People in the next few years will wake up to a couple of things: (1) marriage isn't about rights but about special privileges that serve a legitimate social purpose; (2) the heart of the question is whether the gender of parents makes a difference in their upbringing and the answer to that is yes; and, (3) the evidence of social problems points to the absence of one particular gender, the male gender, as the single most important driver. All this points to a revolution against the forces of family disintegration. Economic distress will hasten this outcome.

[Koreboomer]

11:52 AM on 05/18/2009

The only way gay marriage would be legalized everywhere is if the US Supreme Court rules that way, and that won't happen for a long time. When Hatch says he "doesn't want to see another Roe V Wade decision", I think that's what he's talking about.
Remember, before 1973, the right to an abortion was a state decision. I lived then in NY, where it was legal before Roe.
If abortion rights are not outlawed by a right wing Supreme Court, then conservatives would love to see this at least become another "state's rights" issue. That way, many of the backward states where they dominate could conceivably outlaw abortion.

[antaeus]

02:24 PM on 05/18/2009

The difference between the two issues is that marriage is an ongoing contractual relationship, not a single event. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause makes the ability of Texas to deny the marriage of the gay couple who move there from Massachusetts for employment reasons very, very difficult.

The Supreme Court might very well be deferential to states' rights, but not if it means setting up a balkanized country of confusing marriage laws. This isn't as simple as prohibition, which in the early 20th century, and even into the latter portion, saw states with "wet" and "dry" counties.

[Rmath]

09:54 AM on 05/18/2009

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a crap about what CrittersRTasty wants.

[BlackJAC]

09:12 AM on 05/18/2009

Never mind that gay marriage has generated $111 million for the Massachusetts economy in the past five years alone. I guess the Free Marketplace the gops deify is as cherry-picked as Scripture.

[Nyla785]

08:49 AM on 05/18/2009

You know Republicans...any way that's best to divide the country.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

01:48 AM on 05/18/2009

Repigs are addicted to LOSING.
BOTH sides of marriage equality knows it'll be legal in EVERY state within a decade.
ONLY the age group over 65 oppose same sex marriage. Those 65 yo- 35 yo slightly favor SSM, and those under 35 yo don't even know why anyone asks about it anymore.

[Grunty1]

10:29 AM on 05/18/2009

[BOTH sides of marriage equality knows it'll be legal in EVERY state within a decade.]

I think you are overly optimistic on the timeline, but I agree that it will happen.

[wilray]

01:43 PM on 05/18/2009

If it's pretty much those over 65 who are most likely to oppose gay marriage. Then yes a decade sounds about right, I'll have to check my actuarial tables for sure, but otherwise we should be able to stick a fork in it within ten years; it'll be done.

[aspertame2]

12:06 AM on 05/18/2009

You know what would be cool? Progressives could band together and form their own, new religion, based on a charismatic spiritual leader who practiced and preached a life of humility and poverty, who advocated love as the first duty of the faithful, who condemned ostentatious moral authority and distained the covergence of wealth and power with that kind of purported piousness...oh, wait a sec...!!!!

[abmabardy]

04:32 PM on 05/26/2009

: )

He was such a Libeal, wasn't He.

.

[delagirl]

11:45 PM on 05/17/2009

I just find it interesting (not to mention completely disgusting) that the same people who want smaller government and less federal control also think we should allow the federal government to make major decisions for us, like when and if we have children and who we marry. The word hypocrisy does not even begin to explain it!!!

[CrittersRTasty]

12:14 AM on 05/18/2009

I think you misunderstand what we want. We (at least I) DONT want the federal govt to decide the issue of Gay marriage. I want it decided at the state level (yes, in each state) and I want to see it decided by referendum. Does that clarify anything?

[antaeus]

12:38 AM on 05/18/2009

Yes. It shows you're flogging the untenable notion of subjecting human rights to the ballot box.

But it's beside the point. You can want and want and want till you can fairly taste it, but the train has left the station on this one. Pat Buchanan admitted it's a lost fight. Justice Scalia knows it's coming.

It's here.

[BlackJAC]

10:00 AM on 05/18/2009

Four words: "Defense Of Marriage Act." Now sit back down.

[DRaymond]

11:03 PM on 05/17/2009

So just when for the first time a majority of americans describe themselves as pro-life and also a majority of americans are leaning towards tolerance of gay marriage the conservatives decide that Gay Marriage is their number one issue instead of abortion.

Do they have a death wish?

[Tom Joad]

11:10 PM on 05/17/2009

no, they're just stoopid.

[CrittersRTasty]

11:47 PM on 05/17/2009

what leads you to believe that the majority of Americans are leaning toward tolerance of gay marriage? In every state where it's been put on the ballot, it's been voted down.

[Phoebe917]

12:00 AM on 05/18/2009

welcome to this century. why in the world do you care if gay and lesbians marry? it has nothing to do with you or your friends, family etc. i will never understand the conservative christian's preoccupation with this. it is a non-issue. we have so many problems facing this nation and all you people care about is whether or not gays can marry, and abortion. you are a very limited human being. and venturing into crude territory, here, i have never met a man who doesn't want to "do it up the b u t t"

[antaeus]

12:13 AM on 05/18/2009

Maybe a visit to the optometrist in order to better read trend lines would be in order. The opposition to this is overwhelmingly from old people. People under 40 approve it.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? I'll bet a "majority" of big-city liberals would like to get rid of the Second Amendment; it's not going to happen.

[ObamanextPresident]

10:58 PM on 05/17/2009

Here's a question for the rightwing fanatics....

If we could isolate and predict a gay gene BEFORE birth....would you approve of abortions THEN?

paraphrased from Alan Colmes

[wilray]

11:46 PM on 05/17/2009

I like that question. And the fact that it came from Alan Colmes - impressive.

[CrittersRTasty]

12:46 AM on 05/18/2009

Why do you folks always act like everyone who doesnt march in lock-step with you is a monster? Many of us on the Right believe that in limited cases abortion should be legal. We're also okay with an individual's choice to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. We simply dont think that abortion is okay in EVERY circumstance and while we're okay with homosexual couples and the idea of civil unions, we dont think that the term "Marriage" is appropriate.

[Phoebe917]

12:59 AM on 05/18/2009

why? please explain. and i am not being antagonisic here. please explain?

[OrleansCatalan]

01:04 AM on 05/18/2009

1. "You folks?" I mean really!

2. There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle." The word lifestyle infers choice. No one chooses their sexual orientation. I didn't choose to be gay and you didn't choose to be straight.

3. You may believe whatever you want and repeat it daily in the square, but you don't have a right to force your religious beliefs on my CIVIL rights. My religion approves of "gay marriage." Please stop forcing your beliefs on me and my family.

4. Why do you care? Why do you care if I visit my dying partner in the hospital? Why do you care if he is included on my insurance? Why should we be worried about our basic rights every time we cross a state border?

5. If you are so concerned about protecting the term "marriage," why aren't you fighting 3 times as hard to repeal no-fault divorce? There are more straight marriages, WITH CHILDREN, that end in divorce, than there are gay people trying to legally wed. Yet you continue to post on HuffingtonPost, in a thread about Gay Marriage. Why?

[MED1025]

10:55 PM on 05/17/2009

I'm really glad none of these guys read Nate Silver's blog.

[ChelseaC]

10:52 PM on 05/17/2009

The Republicans have no real ideas so why not pick on the gays.So typical...........

[wilray]

10:45 PM on 05/17/2009

Interesting, how the Repugnicants want to hold the line against Gay people getting they're rights, or turn back the clock altogether, yet Cuba is going in the opposite direction towards more tolerance, towards more support of human rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_gays_1;_ylt=AjNYgqXaYZWD6.TK78zOwbqROrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTE2ZTlzb3JwBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDZXYtY3ViYW5nYXlz

[antaeus]

10:17 PM on 05/17/2009

GOP Senator: Judge Nominee, does the "Full Faith and Credit" clause demand that Alabama recognize same-sex marriages from New Hampshire?

Judge Nominee: Blah, blah, blah.

President Obama: Congratulations new Justice Nominee Confirmed (with all the votes you needed)

[ChelseaC]

10:54 PM on 05/17/2009

They're a bunch of A-holes who need a target.