0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But he still thinks it is a state issue
I liked how he called it the "Defense Against Marriage Act".I can't get excited about this since his non-support always rang hollow, especially after stating support as long ago as 1996. I'm still annoyed that he waited until now to speak up. I guess I don't know how to feel about it. I mean, I wanted him to say it. Yet it is underwhelming that he waited until the start of the campaign for his second term to make the statement.For someone I generally respect to play politics with an issue so important and personal for me feels icky and condescending. At least I won't have to hear some BS about "evolving" anymore. Finally. And it obviously it beats the alternative.This issue offers insight into what it must feel like to be a Romney supporter: to have to contend with this "icky" feeling and condescension on each and every issue! What a nightmare that must be.
Now only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.Oh, wait...
Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this. And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).
Quote from: shs96 on May 10, 2012, 05:21:49 AMNow only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.Oh, wait...Huh? Are you suggesting there is "someone" with such power.The only unilateral action I have seen one way or the other is Christie's veto in NJ.
It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up
Quote from: TBideon on May 22, 2012, 07:17:08 AMIt's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss upAs a certified card carrying wacko, I would say we hate Obama more. As I have said before, Gays are irrelevant to most of us. Tedolph
^You just want a beach vacation.
I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.
With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.
Quote from: TBideon on May 31, 2012, 11:51:15 PMWith that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.
As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?
As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?
I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.
Quote from: surfohio on May 31, 2012, 08:57:59 AMI personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case. If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations? Or interracial sexual relations? Or what about a law banning contraceptives? Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not? If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices. If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian. (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).