How An Affirmative SCOTUS Ruling On Same Sex Marriage Would Benefit Republicans ( And Hurt Democrats ) (Congress, generation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're a Republican, you'd better hope that the Court rules bans on SSM to be unconstitutional. If you're a Democrat, you better hope they uphold the bans....
Here me out on this seemingly backwards assesment. In a political context only:
The debate over SSM is pretty much a non-starter at this point for the opposing side. At the least, the younger generation is indifferent to the idea of SSM and at most, they are downright supportive, and that gap will only continue to close with time. According to Pew Research, a whopping 61% of Republicans under 30 are now in support of Same Sex Marriage. I don't know if Republicans have figured this out yet, but they need to bring new blood in to the fold if they hope to survive as a political party.
If The court rules that bans on Same Sex Marriage are unconstitutional, this will actually be very beneficial to the Republican Party, as it will take the issue completely off the table and free up Republicans from having to pander to their older, Conservative-minded base, ( while still retaining them as a voter block ) and they can attract a younger, more Libertarian-minded base to the party. An affirmative ruling on SSM will make the Republican Party more attractive to moderates, independants, fence sitters, and middle grounders, as they will be able to take a more objective look at the party with the SSM issue out of the way.
If you're a Democrat however, it's the opposite. It will no longer be an issue that Liberal Democrats can run on and frame talking points around, and actually may have a small but albeit adverse effect on the party.
As a Democrat and a liberal, I hope that the SCOTUS rules that the ban on same sex marriage be unconstitutional because marriage shouldn't be a political tool, it should be a fundamental right for all consenting adults.
As a Democrat and a liberal, I hope that the SCOTUS rules that the ban on same sex marriage be unconstitutional because marriage shouldn't be a political tool, it should be a fundamental right for all consenting adults.
As a Libertarian / Republican, I completely agree with you. My assesment was in a political context only. People have a right to equal protections under the law, gay or straight, no matter the benefit or fallout for either party.
Why would Republicans not want something that would hurt Democrats. Homosexual "unions" are not a partisan issue, they are a human morality issue. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Since I despise both parties, it seems that I win no matter what happens according to your faulty logic, but I do hope that the court decides on the side of right (defending marriage) rather than that of wrong (allowing homosexual perversion to carry the day).
Why would Republicans not want something that would hurt Democrats. Homosexual "unions" are not a partisan issue, they are a human morality issue. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Since I despise both parties, it seems that I win no matter what happens according to your faulty logic, but I do hope that the court decides on the side of right (defending marriage) rather than that of wrong (allowing homosexual perversion to carry the day).
Yeah, you are gonna be in the wrong on this one, the definition of marriage has been changed before in this country and will be changed again when it allows loving same sex couple to the same rights you have to marriage.
If the court rules against SSM, people will be PISSED and Democrats will win big.
If the court rules in favor of SSM, Democrats will have a historical victory under their belts, and they'll win big. Further down the road, Republicans will continue to pass numerous obviously unconstitutional laws against gays, so as to keep the issue alive. Just like they do with abortion. So the issue isn't going away any time soon.
What have the Democrats done for Gays & Lesbians in the USA - Absolutely Nothing.
Where were the Democrats when they completely controlled congress and held the president's office between 2008-2010, in passing any kind of legislation that would mandate equal treatment? Well... nowhere. Obama even said he was against Gay marriage at that time. At least the GOP didn't pretend they were going to do something for Gays & Lesbians in the USA.
Furthermore there is a large block of Democratic voters, the African American church goer, who are firmly against any kind of Gay rights legislation. This is why the Democrats won't move on the issue. They can't risk turning off this large block of consistent voters.
IMO, both parties use the issue for pandering to their base. This is why the matter will be decided in the courts.
What have the Democrats done for Gays & Lesbians in the USA - Absolutely Nothing.
Where were the Democrats when they completely controlled congress and held the president's office between 2008-2010, in passing any kind of legislation that would mandate equal treatment? Well... nowhere. Obama even said he was against Gay marriage at that time. At least the GOP didn't pretend they were going to do something for Gays & Lesbians in the USA.
Furthermore there is a large block of Democratic voters, the African American church goer, who are firmly against any kind of Gay rights legislation. This is why the Democrats won't move on the issue. They can't risk turning off this large block of consistent voters.
IMO, both parties use the issue for pandering to their base. This is why the matter will be decided in the courts.
Really? Even Fox News is aware of what some Democrats tried to do to make SSM legal in the US back in 2008-2010. Here is a history of this bill, unfortunately it has yet to make it out of a committee.
Really. LOL
You don't counter what I said with a couple of web links especially from Fox News. If you can't argue it in your own words, then IMO, I've hit the mark on the head.
You don't counter what I said with a couple of web links especially from Fox News. If you can't argue it in your own words, then IMO, I've hit the mark on the head.
You are aware that those links do point out that the Democrats actually did try to make SSM legal in 2008-2010, and that fight continues on today, though I figure the SCOTUS will make the decision for them....even if you don't want to take the time and learn about the things our Congress is doing.
As for arguing with you, I gave you facts, you have given nothing but opinions that don't amount to anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
