Can the liberals win without playing the fear card? They just lost two of them.

[Coach]

My stance on gay marriage is let the religious groups decide for themselves if recognized in their faith, and let the states decide if they are recognized. A law to make federal should have been passed in congress and signed by the President.

My stance on the Confederate flag is mostly negative.

However both were fear cards used by Democrats even though Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the Confederate flag for Political gain, ad Obama himself said he was against gay Marriage in 2008, and only changed his tuned once he won re-election.

To point these “ fear cards “ have been played for the last time. Now our candidate’s don’t need to worry about answering questions on these topics and the left won't be able to use either talking point issue to get out the vote.

Advantage Republicans.

 

[deljzc]

The debate about marriage isn't about it's religious definition. It's when the federal government got involved LONG ago with encouraging marriage through tax credits and the courts got involved with marriage a LONG time ago giving huge rights to spouses when deciding important family decisions.

The minute the term "marriage" involves advantages and rights as granted by governments/court system then you can no long discriminate against a segment of the population that wants those same rights/advantages. The fact it offends certain religious groups or segments of the population that don't want to be inclusive in those marriage rights, that doesn't matter in the eyes of the court.

And really it all comes down to that. The Supreme Court almost always errs on the side of caution when if comes to allowing state rights vs. federal intervention EXCEPT when if comes to discrimination, then the Supreme Court historically is very willing to stick it's nose into the states' business.

Not sure I see an advantage for either party right now. All the candidates have significant flaws. If I was a betting man, I think Hillary Clinton is the front-runner. She's the smart money. But maybe a Republican candidate can emerge from the primary system and not look too crazy to give her a run for her money (although I doubt that happens). The Republican primaries right now are a joke and what will be said to differentiate themselves will even be more scary.

 

[Djfan]

The government has no place in marriage.

Also, individuals and businesses should be able to say "no thanks." If I get called to DJ a gay wedding, but am not into that, can I say "no thanks" with out getting in trouble?

PC nonsense has gone too far.

 

[deljzc]

The law is very clear. Homosexuality is treated the same way as race.

Can you run a business that says "no thanks" to blacks? Can you be a wedding DJ and say "no thanks" to black weddings or integrated weddings? In most cases the law say you can't do that.

You might not think the two are the same, but in the eyes of the courts they ARE the same. People used religion and the bible to justify segregation too. People used the bible and religion to argue "separate but equal" with the races as well. All those things eventually got struck down in court cases and the whole while exclusive groups moaned and bitched their rights were being infringed on and the death of the constitution.

It just doesn't hold up to critical thinking or history.

The truth is you can't be a business and be "exclusive" to any group. You can't pick and choose who you work for based on gender, race or sexual identity. That's kind of what the whole point of these laws is.

 

[Troglodyte]

This is what I was getting at in reference to the White House being lit up in rainbow colored lights. It was their way of saying "Hillary still needs your vote in November."

I suspect they fear gays won't be motivated to vote now that gay marriage is decided.

 

[Coach]

The debate about marriage isn't about it's religious definition. It's when the federal government got involved LONG ago with encouraging marriage through tax credits and the courts got involved with marriage a LONG time ago giving huge rights to spouses when deciding important family decisions.

The minute the term "marriage" involves advantages and rights as granted by governments/court system then you can no long discriminate against a segment of the population that wants those same rights/advantages. The fact it offends certain religious groups or segments of the population that don't want to be inclusive in those marriage rights, that doesn't matter in the eyes of the court.

And really it all comes down to that. The Supreme Court almost always errs on the side of caution when if comes to allowing state rights vs. federal intervention EXCEPT when if comes to discrimination, then the Supreme Court historically is very willing to stick it's nose into the states' business.

Not sure I see an advantage for either party right now. All the candidates have significant flaws. If I was a betting man, I think Hillary Clinton is the front-runner. She's the smart money. But maybe a Republican candidate can emerge from the primary system and not look too crazy to give her a run for her money (although I doubt that happens). The Republican primaries right now are a joke and what will be said to differentiate themselves will even be more scary.

If the Dem's don not have the anti gay marriage / confederate flag will be flying near you card to play, I expect lower voter turn out for those who viewed this as a reason to get out and vote.

I think the USA needs to be careful about the supreme court deciding these types of issues.

For example, what if the court said Voter ID is mandatory?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The government has no place in marriage.

Oh, it is now cemented in marriage due to Friday's ruling. The Federal Government owns marriage. States no longer have a say.

 

[deljzc]

If the Dem's don not have the anti gay marriage / confederate flag will be flying near you card to play, I expect lower voter turn out for those who viewed this as a reason to get out and vote.

I think the USA needs to be careful about the supreme court deciding these types of issues.

For example, what if the court said Voter ID is mandatory?

Again, the Supreme Court only seems to really get involved when they are deciding on discrimination or the protection of rights of a minority.

This is a 14th amendment issues:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


If a State imposed a Voter ID law and someone brought a suit against it using the 14th amendment as a basis it is not legal, I don't know how the courts will decide. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I doubt the 14th amendment is how they would attack a voter ID law, but maybe they would.

If lower courts are split on how they ruling on supposed Voter ID laws, if some states are restricting the ability to vote and others are not, then yes, maybe this would get to the Supreme Court and yes, maybe they would have to decide in what context voter ID's are legal or not.

From my understanding we're pretty far away on this.

 

[deljzc]

The government has no place in marriage.

You know, this would have probably been the best thing a long time ago. But when governments and courts starting giving privileges (like tax credits) and special decision making and special parental rights, then it became a government institution. Not a religious one.

All these laws don't give a crap what religion thinks of the word "marriage". It only cares what the government and law thinks of the word marriage. And in that context, states can not deny homosexuals the right to have those same privileges and rights that straight married couples have.

Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[MT~Forged]

I tend to believe a bit more Libertarian than most of you. In my opinion there should be a difference between Public and private. Since we are not going to reduce the size of Govt., any dealings you have with them should be equal in all respects.

Now PRIVATE businesses, that is where I feel differently. ANY business owner should have the right to be as homophobic, misogynistic, racist, etc as they want to be. If an old white southern bakery owner wants to not make cakes for Blacks/Gays/Women, they should have a RIGHT to take that stand. If they go out of business because they have limited the pool of prospective clients, they brought it on themselves. If a Church loses their parishioners because of the Clergy's interpretation of their religious documents, so be it.

I do believe the Govt has WAY overstepped their initial powers, but we are not going backwards now.

 

[Shane Falco]

To me, it's to each their own. Now, the biggest problem of this whole thing is the ones who cry out about being 'bullied' really know how to turn it around and bully a business because of what they do/don't believe. They say you can't have it both ways, well, it looks like one side can whilst the other side cannot voice their opinion without being label a biggot.

I tend to believe a bit more Libertarian than most of you. In my opinion there should be a difference between Public and private. Since we are not going to reduce the size of Govt., any dealings you have with them should be equal in all respects.

Now PRIVATE businesses, that is where I feel differently. ANY business owner should have the right to be as homophobic, misogynistic, racist, etc as they want to be. If an old white southern bakery owner wants to not make cakes for Blacks/Gays/Women, they should have a RIGHT to take that stand. If they go out of business because they have limited the pool of prospective clients, they brought it on themselves. If a Church loses their parishioners because of the Clergy's interpretation of their religious documents, so be it.

I do believe the Govt has WAY overstepped their initial powers, but we are not going backwards now.

 

[madinsomniac]

The law is very clear. Homosexuality is treated the same way as race.

Can you run a business that says "no thanks" to blacks? Can you be a wedding DJ and say "no thanks" to black weddings or integrated weddings? In most cases the law say you can't do that.

You might not think the two are the same, but in the eyes of the courts they ARE the same. People used religion and the bible to justify segregation too. People used the bible and religion to argue "separate but equal" with the races as well. All those things eventually got struck down in court cases and the whole while exclusive groups moaned and bitched their rights were being infringed on and the death of the constitution.

It just doesn't hold up to critical thinking or history.

The truth is you can't be a business and be "exclusive" to any group. You can't pick and choose who you work for based on gender, race or sexual identity. That's kind of what the whole point of these laws is.

Not that i dont basically agree with you, but the law does not really treat sexual orientation the same as race at all... in fact though it is true that some states have passed discrimination laws against sexual orientation, i dont believe it completely falls into a federally protected class to date. There is a EEOC thing that is trying to use title VII's references to sex to cover this discrimination, but there isnt a federal precedent for it yet. Its not really a slam dunk though many seem to assume its been covered here.

 

[Djfan]

When black bakeries are required to do KKK cakes, and Jewish bakeries are required to do Nazi cakes, and Muslim bakeries are required to do Israel cakes, then we have reached equality. Only when the government requires everyone to not have beliefs will we be free. Uh huh.

"We reserve the right to not do business with anyone." Just not Conservatives? OK. That's tolerance.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

There are still people who don't like gay weddings and the rebel flag so the Libs will still have an issue to rally around to sue people, but yeah, I think the enthusiasm may not be what it was.

 

[Steelr4evr]

When black bakeries are required to do KKK cakes, and Jewish bakeries are required to do Nazi cakes, and Muslim bakeries are required to do Israel cakes, then we have reached equality. Only when the government requires everyone to not have beliefs will we be free. Uh huh.

"We reserve the right to not do business with anyone." Just not Conservatives? OK. That's tolerance.

But "the gay" is the new normal and those others are just hate groups.