This point struck me while reading this story this morning:
My take is that there are two groups in this country that are energized by same-sex marriage: gay rights activists and anti-gay evangelical "Christians."
Yes, polls over the past few years have trended toward acceptance of marriage equality by the general public, which most people attribute to greater visibility of gays and lesbians. OK, that makes sense: most Americans are basically decent people and want everyone to be treated fairly, but they're not going to think very much about things that don't affect them personally.
On that score, I found this video, of a straight couple in Alabama unable to get a marriage license, particuarly apt: you can see the light bulbs lighting up for this guy:
The point: marriage discrimination didn't affect this couple until they couldn't get a marriage license because the county probate judge thinks gays are icky. You can tell they're decent people who probably think everyone should have the same rights, but now it's real.
So, what does this have to do with Republican hopes for taking marriage off the table in 2016? Simply that the Republican primaries are driven by the teabaggers and the social conservatives, for whom marriage is an issue. The general election is driven by the general electorate, for most of whom it is not. The Republicans are going to have to deal with the economy (which they won't do, except maybe to lie about the recovery and dodge their own role in slowing it down), foreign policy (bomb ISIS and make Benjamin Netanyahu Secretary of State), the ACA (how many repeal votes have they held now? And how many more can they fit in before the election?), and whatever new "scandal" they come up with.
So the hope is not that they don't have to deal with it in the general election, but that they can defuse it as an issue for the primaries, because the majority of voters in the general election are not going to vote based on that issue.
As for defusing it in the primaries, good luck -- there are too many people making too much money off of opposition to gay rights, including marriage, to let it rest until they've squeezed the last possible dime out of it -- at least, until they can get Vladimir Putin to pay for it.
And a look at the kind of backflips the Republican presidential wannabes are going to be using, courtesy of Gov. Bobby Jindal:
I doubt there's going to be much enthusiasm for repealing the Supremacy Clause, but look at what's passing for logic here: we're a nation of laws, but if the Supreme Court overturns a law, he wants a Constitutional amendment to take away its power to do that. (Come to think of it, to make popular referendums on minority rights Constitutional, you'd have to repeal the Bill of Rights.)
Idiot.
The truth is that many Republican strategists are privately hoping the Court legalizes gay marriage. It would remove the issue from the political arena and save Republicans from having to choose between between their evangelical base and a majority of voters in the 2016 election.
My take is that there are two groups in this country that are energized by same-sex marriage: gay rights activists and anti-gay evangelical "Christians."
Yes, polls over the past few years have trended toward acceptance of marriage equality by the general public, which most people attribute to greater visibility of gays and lesbians. OK, that makes sense: most Americans are basically decent people and want everyone to be treated fairly, but they're not going to think very much about things that don't affect them personally.
On that score, I found this video, of a straight couple in Alabama unable to get a marriage license, particuarly apt: you can see the light bulbs lighting up for this guy:
The point: marriage discrimination didn't affect this couple until they couldn't get a marriage license because the county probate judge thinks gays are icky. You can tell they're decent people who probably think everyone should have the same rights, but now it's real.
So, what does this have to do with Republican hopes for taking marriage off the table in 2016? Simply that the Republican primaries are driven by the teabaggers and the social conservatives, for whom marriage is an issue. The general election is driven by the general electorate, for most of whom it is not. The Republicans are going to have to deal with the economy (which they won't do, except maybe to lie about the recovery and dodge their own role in slowing it down), foreign policy (bomb ISIS and make Benjamin Netanyahu Secretary of State), the ACA (how many repeal votes have they held now? And how many more can they fit in before the election?), and whatever new "scandal" they come up with.
So the hope is not that they don't have to deal with it in the general election, but that they can defuse it as an issue for the primaries, because the majority of voters in the general election are not going to vote based on that issue.
As for defusing it in the primaries, good luck -- there are too many people making too much money off of opposition to gay rights, including marriage, to let it rest until they've squeezed the last possible dime out of it -- at least, until they can get Vladimir Putin to pay for it.
And a look at the kind of backflips the Republican presidential wannabes are going to be using, courtesy of Gov. Bobby Jindal:
Well, look, we're a nation of laws. That's why I've said I want the Supreme Court not to overturn our law, and that's why, ultimately, if the Supreme Court were to do this, I think the remedy would be a constitutional amendment in the Congress, to tell the courts you can't overturn what the states have decided.
I doubt there's going to be much enthusiasm for repealing the Supremacy Clause, but look at what's passing for logic here: we're a nation of laws, but if the Supreme Court overturns a law, he wants a Constitutional amendment to take away its power to do that. (Come to think of it, to make popular referendums on minority rights Constitutional, you'd have to repeal the Bill of Rights.)
Idiot.
No comments:
Post a Comment