“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Monday, January 19, 2015

Ruling on gay marriage in June, big windfall for republicans?

So GOP reps could be the second biggest winners if the Supreme Court rules favorably in June, on gay marriage. With socially conservative seniors dying off and libertarian-minded millenials coming of age, the nation moves leftward on most social issues, specifically gay marriage and pot legalization. Many GOP lawmakers though, are stuck in red-state districts where the voters are decidedly against gay marriage, therefor the craven candidates have to pretend to be against it as well, in order to get elected, but thereby alienating many young voters who then view them as anachronistic and homophobic. 
A federal ruling that allows gay marriage means smarmy politicians don't have to take a stand at all and the issue will have been removed from local elections.....which will be a good thing in my opinion, because I'm tired of debating it with people who think gays being married is an insult to the sanctity of their 4th marriage.


Bill said...

So, you're:

1. Fine with courts deciding this against state constitutional amendments based on a reading of the US Constitution that would astound the framers; and

2. Think any politician who says he or she opposes this is being a cynical pretender.

Is that right?

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Come on, Bill. Of course politicians are cynical pretenders. That is part of the job description (tongue in cheek).

As regards gay marriage, some are cynical pretenders and some genuinely think it is not in the best interests of the Republic. The latter are right, of course.

Ed said...

Bill, I don't really care if there is a 50-state solution. That would require an amendment wouldn't it?

I'm straight of course, so I don't really have a dog in this particular hunt, except that as a libertarian I think section 1 of the 14th amendment should apply to everybody and why social conservative heterosexuals are obsessed with a word in the dictionary perplexes me.

As simply put as I can, my argument is this: 1-with few exceptions homosexuality is something people are born with. Rarely does anybody choose to be gay as a lifestyle. Every gay friend I've ever had has reported that they knew from their earliest years. 2-the religious interpretation of the definition of a word in the dictionary should not be the basis of public policy.

Because we are not a monotheistic society, I don't think religion has any place in public policy.

Equally, I think what two sober consenting adults want to do to pursue happiness is fine with me as long as it doesn't impede the same pursuit of others.

As far as politicians go, I think they are all cynical pretenders(mercenaries if you will), regardless of the issue, interested only in getting elected. They may not be initially, but once they and their wives get addicted to the DC cocktail circuit and the trappings of power, their primary focus evolves into getting re-elected and little more.

Isaac -- "....not in the best interest of the republic". What possible impedance to your pursuit of happiness could two men or women who love each other entering into a marriage contract, represent, I mean other than making you uncomfortable in general?

David said...

The two women in the post's photograph are NOT gay or lesbian. (I'm not sure why we have a distinction.)

Ed said...

Heh heh, Dave. In the imaginations of straight men, all lesbians look like this.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"What possible impedance....?"

No impedance whatsoever. My earlier comment said that homosexual marriage was not in the best interests of the REPUBLIC.

Two points:
1) Homosexuality is a development disorder (more than likely with both nature and nurture components). We try to cure other development disorders. Why do we celebrate homosexuality?

2) Homosexuality is a public health issue. It causes more sickness, disease and death by far than second hand smoke. If the latter is injurious to the well-being of the republic than the former is more so. Shouldn't we act accordingly?

P.S. I agree with you that religious considerations have no place in the discussion of pluralistic public policy.

P.P.S. I have a health care provider who is a lesbian and she is the best I have ever experienced. I love her. I believe that God sent me to her (or her to me, I'm not sure which).

Ed said...

How many gay people do you know or have heard of that have been "cured" of being gay. That's preposterous.

Public health issue? What in the hell are you talking about, AIDS? That's barely a public health issue now, and it's easily preventable.

And I'm still missing your point of how a relatively limited medical issue is somehow injurious to the republic? AIDS is not even in the top 10. And what does AIDS transmission have to do with marriage? Should we outlaw and aggressively prosecute people who engage in gay sex, I mean if it's injurious to the republic?

So I repeat, why are you so threatened by gay people marrying each other?

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

Aids? Somebody help me here. How/why did aids get interjected into this discussion?

Ed said...

What the hell else could you possibly mean by "not in the best interest of the republic" and "a public health issue"?

The only way a gay person being married can affect you is if you have sex with him and he has an STD, and that has nothing to do with him being married.

Ed said...

OK, here's the solution: All marriages should be civil unions. Then if a couple wants to make their union a religious based one, schedule a church wedding right after.

In a constitutional representative republic, you cannot have the state conferring contract rights onto one group and denying them to others based solely on sexual preference.

Isaac A. Nussbaum said...

"What the hell else could you possibly mean...?"

You really don't know, do you, Ed? I am serially amazed by how forcefully you pontificate on subjects about which you know so little.

Ed said...

Why don't you quit dicking around and say what you mean?