Marriage equality

[Karlis]

As a prominent number of high-profile Republicans speak out in favor of same-sex marriage, there appears to be a growing shift among younger conservatives to be more libertarian toward social issues, including gay-rights.

A Washington Post poll from February shows six in 10 adults younger than 30 support legalizing same-sex marriage, which is a break from religious conservatives.

Read more...

[The Caspian Hare]

Conservative groups are leaning a little more libertarian these days, it seems.

[shadowhive]

Seems like a good thing to me. Hopefully gay marriage will become law across America anyway at some point.

[ninjadude]

Seems like a good thing to me. Hopefully gay marriage will become law across America anyway at some point.

It will. Surveys show that younger generations have no problem with it.

[+DieChecker]

The problem being the youngest voters generally don't vote. While the older more socially conservative voters do vote. The trick will be to get those young voters to vote.

[J.B.]

Well, hopefully it will become accepted nationwide. Quite honestly, progression should look at law as afterthought, instead of forcing every gosh darn point through the legal system. Force it through - people die as the intolerant get frightened to death. Work on the people first - things just open up as the law changes to reflect changing views. Leave it to the States, don't make a national issue of these things.

[UltraThunderMan]

Haha, incredible what the media can do these days.

[SilverCougar]

Conservative groups are leaning a little more libertarian these days, it seems.

Not to terribly surprising. Given how one of the upper members of the repub's came out of the closet..

[Harte]

The problem being the youngest voters generally don't vote. While the older more socially conservative voters do vote. The trick will be to get those young voters to vote.

They don't stay young, you know.

I'm an "older" conservative voter and I have no objections to gay marriage.

Spread the misery, I say.

Harte

[supervike]

This is a good thing. There is plenty I agree with Conservatives on (and there is plenty I disagree with as well) but this issue seems to be one that people are finally seeing the sense of.

My state, has had gay marriage on the books for over a year now. Society has not crumbled here. It doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage....

Edited August 30, 2010 by supervike

[J.B.]

The only "reason" to block gay marriage is religious, and if there is a separation of Church and State as we claim to have, that should not even be a consideration in the debate. People will be who they are. If the law is meant to protect us, rather than subjugate us, it is in the best interests of all around that as many freedoms as safely possible should be upheld.

[Agent X]

Americans don't value freedom and individuality for all, they only value freedom and individuality for white Christians and themselves. America is for white Christians only.

[AROCES]

The problem being the youngest voters generally don't vote. While the older more socially conservative voters do vote. The trick will be to get those young voters to vote.

There is a reason why they don't vote.

[AROCES]

Americans don't value freedom and individuality for all, they only value freedom and individuality for white Christians and themselves. America is for white Christians only.

The country has moved on, I suggest you stop listening to Reverend Jackson for he is just making a living.

[AROCES]

It will. Surveys show that younger generations have no problem with it.

Of course, they are still young.

[+DieChecker]

My state, has had gay marriage on the books for over a year now. Society has not crumbled here. It doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage....

And... did the people of your state vote for it? Would you like the Federal Government to shut down your marriage law? That is what happened in Califonia. They voted and reaffermed their state constitution, which was struck down by the Fed.

The only "reason" to block gay marriage is religious, and if there is a separation of Church and State as we claim to have, that should not even be a consideration in the debate. People will be who they are. If the law is meant to protect us, rather than subjugate us, it is in the best interests of all around that as many freedoms as safely possible should be upheld.

I don't believe that opposition is only religous. The problem is not just religous, but societal and cultural. Do you think that only the Christians voted for "Man and Woman" in California? Religion is a big part, maybe the major reason, but not the only reason.

My dad, for example, is a raging Bigot and Rush Ditto Head and he has never been in a church except for when his children were getting married.

[J.B.]

Then maybe the word religion should be replaced with ignorance? Once you shut off the propaganda machine, you learn that stats about homosexuality's links to crime, disease, all that mess, is about what it is for heteros. In fact, allowing faithful same sex couples to marry would probably help curb problems. All the extra fringe stuff supposedly linked to same sex couples, like BDSM, wouldn't play quite the role it supposedly does once same sex couples were acceptable to society. After all, when you're supposedly on the fringe, what's to stop you from engaging in other activities that are also on the fringe?

[Torgo]

The government shouldn't even be IN the marriage business, gay or straight or monogamous or not. It's quite simply none of their business. They have no right to privilege one kind of interpersonal relationship over others and grant them special rights. Many marriage license laws even emerged out of the eugenics movement to limit who could marry and have children with who to those the state approved of - they have never had a legitimate purpose.

Everything that is currently part of a legal marriage should be obtainable via private contracts. If two people want to be married in a church and the church is willing to marry them, let them do it, but let them go through the same civil channels as anyone else to get the legal results. If two people of whatever gender or relationship want to share power of attorney, etc. but do not want have some sort of ceremony associated with a religious figure, that's fine. The government should not be able to sanction any particular association between people above any other if it is voluntary. Honestly, I don't even think that limits to two parties make legal sense.

[ninjadude]

While the older more socially conservative voters do vote.

A meme that is turned on it's ear. I'm 50.

[shadowhive]

The government shouldn't even be IN the marriage business, gay or straight or monogamous or not. It's quite simply none of their business. They have no right to privilege one kind of interpersonal relationship over others and grant them special rights. Many marriage license laws even emerged out of the eugenics movement to limit who could marry and have children with who to those the state approved of - they have never had a legitimate purpose.

Everything that is currently part of a legal marriage should be obtainable via private contracts. If two people want to be married in a church and the church is willing to marry them, let them do it, but let them go through the same civil channels as anyone else to get the legal results. If two people of whatever gender or relationship want to share power of attorney, etc. but do not want have some sort of ceremony associated with a religious figure, that's fine. The government should not be able to sanction any particular association between people above any other if it is voluntary. Honestly, I don't even think that limits to two parties make legal sense.

Gay coupless at the moent can get private contracts but the fees to do so (in comparison to marriage) are horrendus and they can be overlooked too.

[+DieChecker]

A meme that is turned on it's ear. I'm 50.

Blah. I'm calling BS on that statement. There are some 50 "Blue Dog" Conservative Democrats, but how many Liberal Republicans are there in the Congress? In general, and I can look it up if you really want, older people are more religous, more conservative and less risk taking then the younger generations.

[TFSM]

Blah. I'm calling BS on that statement. There are some 50 "Blue Dog" Conservative Democrats, but how many Liberal Republicans are there in the Congress? In general, and I can look it up if you really want, older people are more religous, more conservative and less risk taking then the younger generations.

Do you really think that anyone who is 50 or older is conservative? I know lots of 50+ people who are liberal.

The funny thing about conservatism is that it gets more and more liberal every generation. Today's conservatives are nowhere near as conservative as those the generation before them.

"Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives"

That being said, it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will become socially acceptable and legal in all states.

[supervike]

And... did the people of your state vote for it? Would you like the Federal Government to shut down your marriage law? That is what happened in Califonia. They voted and reaffermed their state constitution, which was struck down by the Fed.

Discrimination probably shouldn't be put to a popular vote. If that were the case, Blacks wouldn't be allowed in the same schools as whites in the south, and women would never have been able to vote.

This is a issue of equality, nothing more. People are free to be bigoted all they want, but that shouldn't extend to the law of the land.

[venqax]

And... did the people of your state vote for it? Would you like the Federal Government to shut down your marriage law? That is what happened in Califonia. They voted and reaffermed their state constitution, which was struck down by the Fed.

I don't believe that opposition is only religous. The problem is not just religous, but societal and cultural. Do you think that only the Christians voted for "Man and Woman" in California? Religion is a big part, maybe the major reason, but not the only reason.

My dad, for example, is a raging Bigot and Rush Ditto Head and he has never been in a church except for when his children were getting married.

It is a ridiculous idea that keeps getting repeated that all opposition to gay marriage is from the religious right and the only folks against it are religious fanatics. It is obviously untrue, never has been true-- as Calif shows-- but it just keeps getting regurgitated. I guess it must be that libs simply can't imagine any source of moral principles other than a Divine Being (and they don't believe in that!)

[regeneratia]

Conservative groups are leaning a little more libertarian these days, it seems.

I don't see it, yet.

I just don't see it in the current conservatives. They have to let go of the abortion issue before they will be libertarians.