You mean the way “the abortion issue” was “settled” by Roe v. Wade? Or do you honestly believe that “a vote for Republicans is a vote to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would ‘reconsider’ it” has never been used in a campaign?
I agree with others, that the gay marriage fight might be over for the Republicans, but they can use the “religious freedom” issue as a rallying point. I don’t know how it will affect the elections though, because I think the Democrats have equally strong rally points to get people to the polls.
Abortion is different from gay marriage in terms of continuing to fight it, because marriage is public and a happy thing. More people will start getting married, everyone will see it doesn’t cause bad things to happen, and people will mellow out about it. Abortion isn’t public, so a lot of people don’t realize how many people they know have had an abortion. Also gay marriage is more cut and dried- it’s either legal or illegal. Abortion can be legal but restricted in a whole lot more ways.
We’ll see what happens when companies start firing people because they get married. Or when people refuse to sell their house to a gay couple. Republicans will resist all attempts to end these discriminatory acts.
Is this satire? 'Cause if not, see here.
Right, that’s what I mean. A few might try to repeal gay marriage laws but I think most will see that battle is over. But Republicans will try to protect “religious freedom”, so you can fire someone because you think Jesus doesn’t want you to have a gay person as an employee. That’s what the big rallying point will be for the next election.
I gotta believe the largest part of the country would like to move on now that these two fractious decisions have come down.
Republican promises to revisit these decisions, to rile up the base, could cost them lots of moderate votes I think.
Trying to turn back time is the fastest way to appear out of touch and stuck in the past, I think. It’s the 21st century, after all.
The general election is all about swing states. Ohio and Florida are the big prizes. Virginia is also worth the fight.
Marriage was already legal in Florida, where a slight majority were in favor anyway.
From the Republicans’ POV:
An argument could be made for Ohio. Although a slight majority of Ohioans favored gay marriage before last week’s ruling, the people against it might be* so virulently* against it that they turn out at the ballot box more than the ‘live and let live’ casual supporters.
So maybe in Ohio, but I doubt it.
In 2011 in Virginia, the split was 47/43 in favor of gay marriage. Maybe a tiny bit more now (4 years’ worth of funerals). So again, it’s an Ohio situation. It’s a real gamble that might just solidify a minority.
From the Democrats’ POV:
Hope that the Republican nominee waves the ‘traditional marriage’ banner, and run scaremonger ads in Florida, Virginia and Ohio 24 hours a day.
You have to dig deeper into the polls. It’s not just whether one is in favor of SSM or not, but whether one thinks the courts should decide. I know most people only care about the result and not the process, but there could be a substantial minority that care about the process. We might be seeing some polls shortly that give us the answer to that. Some results now.
Perhaps. But what would you expect someone like that (who supports SSM but thinks the court should have let the states work it out) to do at election day? I doubt they’ll punish Democrats.
I just can’t see that being a successful motivator to get people to the polls. Are you looking for people in favor of gay marriage, but who feel that SCOTUS overstepped here? Clearly you’re not looking for the opposite - people who are against gay marriage but think the court adjudicated correctly.
Anybody who is in favor of gay marriage, but thinks the court found a non-existent right, is already politically involved enough they were going to vote anyway.
And what kind of 30 second ad were you going to put together to make sure those people voted?
Employing the states’-rights argument is pretty much the same as waving the Confederate flag, and I don’t think you’d find more than a handful of minds left to change on the subject that way.
For pretty much all of the persuadables, I think you’d find the equal-rights and human-dignity arguments that settled this matter to be far more fundamental.
Sure, but if SCOTUS had ruled the other way the lower-court decision that made it legal here would no longer have been valid.
You’re probably right. There aren’t that many people like me-- in favor of SSM, but not wanting the courts to be the ones making the call. And especially not the way Kennedy did it. I suppose the issue of SSM could still play a roll in certain House races, but it’s a losing issue for Republicans at the national level.
There may be more people like you than you think, but I’m not sure we can predict how they would vote based on that opinion.
And the reason there aren’t that many is that most of us are aware we’d probably still have segregated schools if the courts had not stepped in and enforced equal protection. Hoping that Congress or the states will all see the light and move toward it simultaneously is naive at best - that’s why the judicial system is part of the balance of powers in the US system.
A majority of the Court signed that opinion. What’s wrong with it, anyway, other than sloppy writing and avoiding assigning a level of scrutiny?
How? What could a candidate promise to do to reverse the tide?
Propose a constitutional amendment, of course.
Without being laughed at?
Somewhere in Texas, there is a House district that has elected Louie Gohmert multiple times. Lots of boobs vote and they need representation too.
Even Roman Hruska was only in favor of Mediocre Rights.
In case it’s not clear, I respect your position. I haven’t paid enough attention to know if I agree that the 14th amendment means that all states must issue marriage licenses. I thought the question before the court was only if a state had to *recognize *a marriage another state called legitimate.
But 'scare ‘em to the polls!’ messages tend toward the visceral.