I for one am firmly against shooting drowning people. I realize this is a controversial opinion but that’s just the kind of guy I am.
And can we make the Democrat look like Phil Collins?
I agree. Strategically the best way forward is to let states adopt SSM laws. Once enough of them have done it and it’s clear that the world has not in fact ended, then the federal government can start pushing for national recognition. “Cowardly but effective” is the way to go!
I’m confident they won’t, but I’ve been wrong before. Remember that time I thought I was mistaken?
It’s not for me to say what they should do. I’m not a Democrat. I think the Democrats should drop their opposition to Second Amendment rights, stop pushing affirmative action in any way shape manner or form, and completely rethink the Affordable Care Act. So I doubt my opinion of what they should do on this issue is particularly insightful.
However, if it’s of any help, I think the GOP should adopt a plank affirming that marriage is a matter of state, not federal, purview, and urge the repeal of DOMA.
If it matters, apparently Nancy Pelosi has come out in support of the idea that the same sex marriage plank be added to the Democrats 2012 platform. I doubt it will happen for the whole party, but it’s a start.
And the lawyer in me would want to rewrite the plank because I think it is too vague and too overbroad. But that’s just me.
Are you serious? Every single GOP candidate has the position that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided and that states should be able to (and should, as policy) outlaw abortion.
Furthermore, here is the abortion plank of the 2008 GOP platform:
[QUOTE=2008 GOP Platform]
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t get much more clear than that.
And, for comparison to the Democratic platform on SSM, here is the GOP plank from 2008:
[QUOTE=2008 GOP Platform]
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
[/QUOTE]
The idea that this is in any way analogous or “just as bad” as the Democratic position (either in 2008 or today) on this issue is laughably absurd.
Here’s where the hypocrisy of the Right drives me nuts.
Note carefully the language: people in each state should have the right “to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.”
But they shouldn’t have the right to reach the opposite decision: “…we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
States have the right to decide this issue, in other words, only if they reach the correct decision.
As much as I disagree with the Republican Party with this - not only the prohibition on SSM but the belief that we all must live our life according to fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, at least they are not hypocritical on the issue. Instead of the weak swimmer = Dems, think of a person who continually claims to be the lifeguard but won’t jump in the water because it’s too cold.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of women-hating, gay-hating, poor-hating minds.
Well, they are hypocritical at least on the state’s right argument - as Bricker pointed out.
Perhaps, but if the Dems are only claiming to be a lifeguard (saying they support SSM) but are actually weak swimmers (because they don’t have the political clout or popular support to pass it) it is probably in the best interest of both them and the drowning person that they stay out of the water.
Have we strained this analogy far enough yet?
You’re right. That’s the least.
[QUOTE=Jas09]
Are you serious? Every single GOP candidate has the position that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided and that states should be able to (and should, as policy) outlaw abortion.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I have to admit that I DIDN’T know that the Pubs had officially adopted this as a plank. It’s not exactly the same as attempting to outlaw abortion by throwing it back on the states to decide individually, but I didn’t know they had officially gone even that far, so my apologies, and I appreciate you pointing that out to me. I really don’t follow the Republican party (or the Democratic one either) anymore, since I rarely vote for the major parties, or if I do (such as Obama in 2008) I vote the person, not the party platform.
-XT
The political position of the water has not yet been asserted and then denied. We’ve got a ways to go. And when this kind of analogy spawns a related “blood in the water” metaphor, this thread will hit 50 pages.
Except in California, DC, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington.
It’s not supposed to be; marriages are supposed to be recognized nationwide, and that’s exactly what happens with hetero marriages. The fact that SS marriages aren’t is an artifact of bigotry, not some legal principle. Because it’s less moral to marry another man than it is to marry a serial killer, apparently.
Which is a major reason why I don’t take “states rights” arguments seriously. Even the people pushing them clearly don’t actually believe them, so why should I?
The problem with the states’ rights argument is the application (or non-application) of the Faith and Credit Clause where I am married in this state but not that one. Plus there are Federal considerations for marriage such as tax filing status, next-of-kin (if in DC), etc. I would even argue that it is a Ninth Amendment issue as marriage is an unenumerated right with the only question of who you have the right to marry: your gay lover? your first cousin? a sister-wife?
If you’re a weak swimmer and can’t rescue a drowning victim, that’s fine. Just don’t pass yourself off as the lifeguard. Why didn’t the 111th Congress at least try to overturn DOMA?
Except in California, DC, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington.
Shit, most conservatives would sit down at the water line and lecture the drowning swimmer about personal responsibility and the nanny-state.
I dd not know that. Ignorance fought.
Why did it get buried in committee?
How many of those were because of propositions (like California) and how many were Legislators and a Governor voting for (and not vetoing) it.
As a Republican I resent this characterization of members of my party. We would calmly explain to the drowning swimmer that we offer everyone equal opportunity to swim to shore.
In New York and Washington, bills were passed through the legislature and signed into law, and that’s apparently going to happen in Maryland soon. In Vermont (which already had civil unions), the legislature passed a bill, the governor vetoed it, and the veto was overidden. I think in DC the law was passed by the city council and signed by the mayor. In the other states I think same-sex marriage became legal because of court rulings.
I believe DC, NY, and Washington are the legislative actions (and maybe Vermont?). California was a court decision following a referendum. NJ passed the legislature and was vetoed by Christie.