Americans and Same-Sex Marriage

Originally posted by Delmer
Thanks. That seems like a better way to handle it than any kind of ill-fated attempt at a federal constitutional amendment, pro or con.

It's politics, pure and simple. I'm not at all sure the US Supreme Court as presently constituted would invalidate State amendments banning same sex marriage. And if State courts do, then that is a state matter, not a federal one. But it is about the mobilization of the right wing base for the mid-term elections as I think everybody knows.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's politics, pure and simple. I'm not at all sure the US Supreme Court as presently constituted would invalidate State amendments banning same sex marriage. And if State courts do, then that is a state matter, not a federal one. But it is about the mobilization of the right wing base for the mid-term elections as I think everybody knows.

Yes, of course it's politics, but no doubt it will surface again. If the left takes power it will have it's own base to repay or mobilize and another amendment will be proposed. It just seems to me that the loss of states' rights to the federal government makes it easier and easier for a smaller and smaller group of people, left and right, to abuse the rights of the citizens of the country.

Originally posted by Delmer
Yes, of course it's politics, but no doubt it will surface again. If the left takes power it will have it's own base to repay or mobilize and another amendment will be proposed. It just seems to me that the loss of states' rights to the federal government makes it easier and easier for a smaller and smaller group of people, left and right, to abuse the rights of the citizens of the country.

One of the striking features of what is presently called "conservatives" is how far they have moved away from idea of decentralized power of the Goldwater conservatives. When you have a so-called "conservative" President supporting mandatory educational testing in every State whether the people of the state desire it or not and proposing to override the laws of virtually all the states by placing caps on damages in certain types of lawsuits, you realize that the prior conservative ideology of decentralized government is dead and buried. Both sides of the spectrum now want big government; they just want it to screw with different groups of people.

Originally posted by no1marauder
One of the striking features of what is presently called "conservatives" is how far they have moved away from idea of decentralized power of the Goldwater conservatives. When you have a so-called "conservative" President supporting mandatory educational testing in every State whether the people of the state desire it or not and proposing to override the ...[text shortened]... pectrum now want big government; they just want it to screw with different groups of people.

Absolutely true. I hope the idea of shrinking govenment in all its forms isn't dead but I have no particular hope in seeing that happen. Perhaps some third party charismatic idealist will emerge and get elected and actually downsize government but I just can't see that happening. Perhaps such an idealist will emerge in one of the two major parties, but again I just can't see that happening. In one way or another too many people now draw their checks from government to want to mandate a downsizing. One might hope that advances such as the internet might promote decentralization and downsizing but so far it seems that each advance in communication has simply resulted in more government and an accumulation of more power into fewer hands. Too bad.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Define "many". Would interracial couples be satisfied with having their marriages defined as "civil unions"? Or would they see it as an attempt to discredit their relationships and treat them as inferior (in name only perhaps but that would still have a intended stigma)?How about people who can't have children?

Again, marriage in the legal sen ...[text shortened]... And it is simple invidious discrimination to do so because you don't like a certain group.

Again I agree with you. But when civil unions becomes available guess what me and my partner will do?

Originally posted by bbarr
Er...yes. Far be it from Stanley Kurtz to look for alternate explanations from actual demographers, or worry about inferring a causal claim from correlations.

http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf

Since when is Badgett an "actual demographer"? Or are you referring to specific claims within the briefing? Which ones?

EDIT: More from the Kurtz:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQ4ZjNkMzIxMTMxZGU1YmQzZTE5YWRlODEzZTcxYWI=