Now, I happen to believe that if this issue ever goes to the supreme court they will choose a higher scrutiny, and overturn the laws, but that will be a fairly significant departure from the laws of the land we are currently living under. Which is all my point was in saying that it's not without argument- I'm not saying it's a winner, I'm saying it has basis- and the proof it has basis is that it's basically the current law of the land (though likely to change imo if the Supreme's ever take the issue up).
With the North Carolina vote, are the Democrats planning to move their convention out of Charlotte?
To be honest, I've never seen how marriage is beneficial to a primary breadwinner in any way.
While gays have never been considered a suspect class by the courts, they meet many of the traits of suspect classes (immutable characteristic subject to a history of discrimination) and the Court has shown a willingness to protect them to a degree under rational basis review. There's also the argument that any discrimination against gay marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny because the Court has declared marriage a fundamental right, as well as the argument that it should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it effectively discriminates based on gender.
First, Obama reiterated that this was just a personal opinion, whether expectations are raised or not. He emphasized that he still felt that this is a states' issue and he plans no action, executive orders or whatnot on it.
Second, Congress will not address anything on this since it would never pass, for at least 5 years, if they even gauge (incorrectly) that the Constitution in any way regards this as a Federal issue.
Third, any challenge to states' laws as a whole through the courts would again take years.
This is not much different than a President saying he's personally opposed to abortion. Makes certain groups happy, but nothing comes out of it.
One of the interesting subplots to this will be how it affects other Dem politicos.
Dems have long engaged in doublespeak on the topic. Obama's incomprehensible attempt to straddle the fence was just one of many. Now I suspect that fence-straddling may face more scrutiny, and be more difficult to sustain. It will be particularly interesting if Obama loses this election.
a month ago, I thought BO had this election solidly. Now I'm not sure at all with the sputtering economy and now THIS. Damn, what a foolish mistake. I heard he won NC by 14,000 votes in 2008, now that's gone. There's a more than outside chance that this meaningless 'heroic' stance cost him the Presidency.
The Nation is about the most reliable voice for left-wing thinking there is. The linked article seems to think, as I do, that the issue is unclear. Let's watch the seven Dems discussed in the article. If you're correct they will soon follow Obama's lead. If I'm correct they'll carefully study the tea leaves from the election.
As an extension on your point, if Repubs are smart, they'll press the advantage, and try to get black pols to switch at the local and state levels. Doubt this issue alone would do it, but in NC and other Southern states, it might be enough to get across the goal line. Tell a back-bencher Dem from a black district in NC that he's welcome in the GOP, in the majority for the first time post-reconstruction. He can have more clout in the majority than the minority, AND get the ministers off his back.
A big fish like Art Davis, who seems to be itchin' for a switchin' already, would be a bonus.
Obama got huge numbers from young folks in 2008 and it's been widely accepted that he'd be hard pressed to do as well as an incumbent. I can see him using the demographic breakdown of the North Carolina vote as a means to help get out the youth vote: "See, this is what happens when young people stay home and let the seniors decide elections."
Put another way, playing a hypothetical the court can say that gays do not get special treatment b/c they chose to be gay (I'm not arguing this is true- simply saying that the court could argue it) thus differentiating them from women or minorities who did not choose to be that way. That's an argument that I've heard many people advance (you choose your sexual orientation) and that makes them much less likely to be given special treatment by the court if that argument is believed.
Again, as I've stated on here many times, and in real life to friends and the wife yesterday, I have no problem with the government allowing Gay's to marry, and I don't like the Religous Right wing of the Republican party b/c I have enough of a libertarian streak to me that if it doesn't harm someone else I don't give a $#@! what you do.
I think the GOP should stay away from the issue and focus on the economy, for several reasons. First, the economy is going to decide this election, and the issue is a GOP strong point. Play it. Second, the gay marriage issue is tricky politically for both parties. Generally speaking tricky issues are best left alone. Third, long term, the GOP position is a loser. Right now the Dems are in the box, with fence straddling issues. Eight years from now the GOP will be in the box. The GOP shouldn't try to build a coalition on melting ice.
But, I can guarantee you that if you found one of those 12 constitutional law lawyers that practice there they would agree with me that this is far from a settled issue, that for the court to decide that the laws are unconstitutional would require a walk back of present law, and that the proponents of laws prohibitting same sex marriage are not without arguments, which is the ONLY point I'm making here- to disagree with those that act like it's settled law or there are no arguments against it.
Or, put another way, if you think there aren't any arguments supporting the prohibition than I suspect that you will be just as surprised as many on the left were by the oral arguments in the Obamacare case. It's far from settled law that the prohibition is illegal, and in fact the law on point in the SC would seem to indicate that there are real arguments for upholding the law- but I think that they will vote to stike them down.
I don't disagree that the analysis is frequently results oriented. I was simply pointing out that you were misapplying the compelling state interest and rational review concepts.
We are unable to read in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, or in any other provision of that great document, any words or any intendment which prohibit the State from enacting legislation to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, or which denies the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it shall not have a mongrel breed of citizens. We find there no requirement that the State shall not legislate to prevent the obliteration of racial pride, but must permit the corruption of blood even though it weaken or destroy the quality of its citizenship
Last edited by FondrenRoad; 05-10-2012 at 01:28 PM.
I agree with you at the macro level. Romney should handle the issue the way he did yesterday: say it's a state issue, and then challenge reporters to ask him about the "important issues" if they persist. But the GOP's long term demographic deficit isn't tied to an issue; it's tied to lack of support within the black and Hispanic communities. Reversing that starts at the bottom, not with a top down approach.
At the local/state levels, we need to play whatever card gets us in the door.
I have never waivered in my support of gay rights. Hell, as a young pup, I was one of the hundreds of attorneys that worked to have Amendment 2 in Colorado overturned.
But I also remember that despite the efforts of good folks in Colorado to overturn the Amendment, the New York Times and Hollywood led a boycott of the state. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/21/op...o-boycott.html
The baby film industry died in Colorado.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It's time for the Democrats to move their Convention.
We have a $#@!ty economy and crippling deficits. I guess this is another in a long line of distractions to keep from talking about Obama's abysmal record on the economy.
And I think Biden gaffed on this issue, which is why it is an issue. He isn't fit for office. Obama didn't move that far (it's up to the states).
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont