Gay Marriage Is Fading as 'Values' Focal Point

The More People See Our Faces... (4.00 / 2)

...the more they support us as equal.  Americans are basically very fair people.  

Marriage equality in New Hampshire begins in just 99 days!  Or just over 2,391 hours from this moment.  I've got to start looking.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:49:51 AM CDT

That's a good thought, Jim (4.00 / 3)

but no matter how often people see women's faces, we aren't anywhere near equal.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 15:44:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe that abortion is still their top issue (4.00 / 5)

because it involves the role of women, and the scariness of women making their own decisions.

The great shame and failure of the "libertarian" movement is that it doesn't seem to care about this.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 18:00:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ron Paul is anti-choice. (n/t) (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 20:34:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ron Paul's a fake libertarian anyway (0.00 / 0)

the anti-choice bit is just an example of it.

A true libertarian would say that's between the patient, the patient's family, and the doctor, and the government has no place in it.

---

by: ElsieElsie @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:40:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"'Protection' of religious 'liberty'." Wink wink, nudge nudge (4.00 / 1)

That's a slightly skewed interpretation of the conservative movement's attitude toward the separation of church and state.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 20:05:16 PM CDT

"Protection of religious liberty" now encompasses gay rights (0.00 / 0)

This is the issue used as a defense against same sex marriage, employment non-discrimination, and hate crimes protections.

It's an umbrella that's overtaking same-sex marriage as a single issue.

---

by: ElsieElsie @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:41:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Protection of religious liberty is a defense OF same-sex marriage. (0.00 / 0)

Freedom of religion includes freedom from other people's religion.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 16:08:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a conservative . . . (4.00 / 6)

I don't understand how being against gay marriage can be considered a conservative stance. We are supposed to be against government intervention and for personal freedom. So how does it make any sense for them to intervene on the issue of marriage. Let people marry who they want to marry, and stay out of it!

I think 50 years from now people will look back on the denying of homosexuals the right to marry as similar to civil rights issues of the past and will not understand what people were so afraid of.  

---

by: eyore33 @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:56:14 PM CDT

Well, think on that. (0.00 / 0)

Here's my explanation:

The Republican Party and conservative movement cannot achieve majority status and power, even regionally, without building a coalition of unlikely groups. One constituency is "free market conservatives," focused on economic and regulatory policy. Another is "national defense conservatives," tending to be more eager to intervene overseas than Democrats. But that still doesn't come close to a majority.

So the Republicans and conservatives have chosen to actively recruit people with extreme views on race, on women's rights, and on gay people.

If you come up with a more convincing explanation, please let us know.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 05:47:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eyore33 And Elwood (0.00 / 0)

Eyore33 -- a thinking conservative!  I like those.  Just like admittedly there are knee-jerk liberals, there are also knee-jerk conservatives.  It's good when we all think these things through and realize that are a lot of shades of gray on issues.  It's okay to be "conservative" on some things, and conservative can mean many things.  It's all how you look at the world, and people.

And Elwood, I think you've nailed it.  Too much of what the Republicans do is coalition-building, of the worst sort.  In the New Hampshire Legislature, I think that at least 1/3rd of the House Republicans would have voted in favor of House Bill 436 if their "party" had not taken the position it did -- that they needed to run against gay marriage in November, 2010.  There are a lot of fair-minded Republicans, and fair-minded conservatives.  

It's the polls and their leadership that too often messes them up, and that's why they're there today blocking health insurance reform, being against choice issues, and wanting to continue discrimination by playing the fear-game with Americans.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 07:08:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And, yet, federally, it's what the Democrats do, too. (4.00 / 1)

This is why Democrats in Congress frequently fail to get anything done -- currently, the Republicans in Congress are only one portion of the usual R coalition, and the remainder of the spectrum, for the most part, now wears a "D" on the ballot.

It's all about those purity tests -- whichever party is focused on ideological purity right now tends to be the one out of power. You don't have to pass a purity test to run for Congress with a D next to your name. You DO if you want to run with an R -- hence few moderate Republicans and a whole mess of blue dogs who are, probably, really just Republicans who wanted power so they ran as Democrats.

---

by: ElsieElsie @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 14:46:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes but (0.00 / 0)

This has been the situation since Two Roads Diverged and Nixon took the Southern Strategy. That's a long time. It has settled into the partisan identities.

The Republican Party has purged, purged, purged anyone from the Rockefeller, or environmental, or Yankee, sectors.

Meanwhile the Dems have a big tent - but with a few parapets blocking access to some groups. There really isn't much room in the tent for anybody running against reproductive rights, against immigrants, or against gays. Sure, there are some people over in the corners who have won with those positions. And they have hit a Glass Ceiling in this party.

Economic issues are different and the parties are WAY too similar. That's why many of us hope that campaign finance changes could help restore a real debate that we need.

But other than that (Mrs. Lincoln) the notion that the "Democrats do it too" is cheap and foolish equivalence.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 18:37:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not using that as an excuse for the GOP (0.00 / 0)

I'm simply saying both parties have long-standing views on the issue that go back a very long time, so I wouldn't say the GOP just has those views for electoral purposes.  

---

by: eyore33 @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 20:47:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not quite that synnical (0.00 / 0)

because both sides seem to abandon their regular philosophy on the issue of gay marriage and the issue of abortion.

For example, while many Democrats believe in a bigger, more involved government, they are pro-choice because they want the government to stay out of the decision.

On the other side, the people who want less government intervention want it in the cases of life and marriage.

I dont think it is really about building a party around coalitions, i think that is just how it plays out generally - on both sides.  

---

by: eyore33 @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:31:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you've got things dramatically wrong. (0.00 / 0)

Liberals and Democrats do not "believe in a bigger, more involved government" as an end in itself.

Since before I was born, liberals have been resisting federal and state government attempts to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We have, much more than conservatives, worked to protect the protections of the Bill of Rights.

The one area where you can make a case against that general proposition is gun control and the 2nd Amendment.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:45:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]