Justin Amash criticized by same-sex marriage advocates, opponents

[jmdrake]

So you're trying to change the law with maybe 25% of the electorate? Half of half is a quarter.

It's the liberals who are "trying to change the law." The conservatives are attempting to hold the line. And despite your claim of "loses at the ballot box", they've done pretty good when the issue comes up for a vote on a state referrendum, including in the "liberal" state of California. This wouldn't even been going to the Supreme Court if conservatives were having the "losses at the ballot box" that you claim. Now have republicans been losing presidential elections lately? Yet. That's because at the presidential level, conservative = "Big government warmonger." And the OP shows why giving into the progressives on this is a lose/lose proposition. You risk losing conservative support, and progressives aren't happy if you try to split the difference. Amash said he's okay with repealing DOMA and that's not good enough for these people. It would be politically smarter to work to bring conservatives around to a sensible position that they can defend long term.

 

[jmdrake]

1. Marriage is a commitment between two people.
2. Marriage is a commitment between two people and one of them must be a man and one of them must be a woman.

Which one looks like more government? Which one looks like more freedom?

Well at least you're no longer calling marriage a "contract". So you believe two people can only be "committed" to each other if they have government license to do so? I'm not asking this to be facetious. (Well...maybe a little). But some who are pushing for gay marriage seriously believe that health outcomes for gays will improve because if they're allowed to get married promiscuity will decrease. Ummmmm......huh?

 

[kylejack]

SCOTUS is about to get fedgov out of the business of defining marriage. Then you can press for abolishing all government recognition of marriage, but I'm not optimistic.

 

[jmdrake]

"And another one down, and another one down, and another one bites the dust."

HEADS UP: I will ridicule and otherwise pillory all "conservatives" who flop-flip on GayMarriage but NOT on legalization of Marijuana.

Justin Amash already is on record supporting medical marijuana.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/18/540431/bipartisan-medical-marijuana-bill/?mobile=nc

 

[jmdrake]

SCOTUS is about to get fedgov out of the business of defining marriage. Then you can press for abolishing all government recognition of marriage, but I'm not optimistic.

So you think the SCOTUS will uphold DOMA? Because otherwise the SCOTUS will be getting the federal government further in the position of defining marriage, only the SCOTUS will be making the definition.

 

[kylejack]

So you think the SCOTUS will uphold DOMA? Because otherwise the SCOTUS will be getting the federal government further in the position of defining marriage, only the SCOTUS will be making the definition.

Incorrect, they will be deferring to state definitions of marriage.

 

[jmdrake]

Incorrect, they will be deferring to state definitions of marriage.

No. States are already allowed to define marriage. What will happen if this law is struck down is that the SCOTUS definition of marriage will then be applied to feder. al benefits. That's what's at stake. The federal government will be more deeply involved in marriage. Now maybe conservatives will will finally say "Screw it. Let's get rid of marriage at the federal level", or they may waste their time an energy pushing for a federal marriage amendment. My guess is the latter. Oh, and the case that's before the SCOTUS? The plaintiff is upset over estate taxes. But with proper planning she could have avoided the tax without marriage. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1.aspx So again we are going more "nanny state." Make sure the federal government does stuff for people that they could (and should) do for themselves. Yeah freedumb!

 

[PaleoPaul]

Don't be silly. ~50% of conservatives are Evangelical.

"Evangelical" isn't quite the same today in 2013 as it was in 2004.

Many evangelicals, especially in the 18-35 range, for example, are more liberal on social issues. Many churches, even some of the allegedly "conservative" ones, are softening their stances on homosexuality. Some of those churches may not be flying a rainbow flag, but their approach to the gay issue is less harsh than before. Some may not even touch the issue at all, even if they're against homosexuality.

 

[jmdrake]

"Evangelical" isn't quite the same today in 2013 as it was in 2004.

Many evangelicals, especially in the 18-35 range, for example, are more liberal on social issues. Many churches, even some of the allegedly "conservative" ones, are softening their stances on homosexuality. Some of those churches may not be flying a rainbow flag, but their approach to the gay issue is less harsh than before. Some may not even touch the issue at all, even if they're against homosexuality.

Support for gay marriage among evangelicals remans low. http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/slide3.php And "softening their stances" on homosexuality is nebulous. Backing away from stupid comments like "9/11 is punishment for America tolerating gays" is a far cry from doing gay weddings at Southern Baptist churches.

And all of this prognosticating on how supposedly "weak" evangelicals are how attitudes are supposedly "shfiting" grossly misses the big picture. Libertarians could be the savoirs of the social conservative movement by pushing the agenda now of getting the federal government out of marriage, education and other spheres. Convince the social conservatives that since they can't win long term at the federal level on these issues that the best bet is to shrink the federal government to its proper size. At the same time you pitch to liberals the same message. Expand "marriage equality" by getting the federal government out. Everybody is happy. Really, no matter what the SCOTUS vote is on the gay marriage cases, the response from the liberty movement should be the same. Get the federal government out.