Can I get a “Well, DUH!!!” ?
The nation’s highest court is reviewing the constitutionality of states’ gay-marriage bans and is expected to issue a ruling by June.
The court accepted cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, where restrictions about same-sex marriage were upheld by an appeals court in Cincinnati two months ago. The high court will hold 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments in April and decide the issue by the time the current term ends in June.
The justices ordered that the parties to the cases address two questions in their legal briefs: whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.
The country’s first same-sex marriage, the result of a Massachusetts court decision, took place less than 11 years ago. Now, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where same-sex couples are allowed to marry, according to estimates.
Couples may now marry in 36 states and the District. Three in four same-sex couples live in a state where they are allowed to wed, according to estimates by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.
Which is why its widely expected that the Supremes will through this ruling endorse Marriage Equality nationwide — thus taking the issue off the table for 2016, save for Fundies having a cow in perpetuity. (Back to the original fait diver )
This means gay marriage will be making headlines throughout the summer, and that’s likely to lead to uncomfortable questions for candidates who have stumbled on the issue.
Republicans are the stumble-bums. But this piece wants to confect “balance” therefore concocts a phony “Gay Marriage problem” for Democrats, ie. Hillary.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign, for example, is working to defend allegations of flip-flopping on the issue, and two of her likely opponents are already trying to gain traction by calling her out on it.
“Traction” with whom? Why the “Mainstream Media” of course.
“I’m glad Secretary Clinton’s come around to the right positions on these issues,” former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) jabbed Thursday evening. “I believe that we are best as a party when we lead with our principles and not according to the polls.”
Meaning you’d support Marriage Equality even if the polls showed widespread opposition to it?
IN WHAT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE?
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) also piled on.
“I would argue that when Democrats look at my record on all the issues, that they’re going to see that I have been very, very consistent,” he said the same day on MSNBC. “In fact, a lot more consistent than Sen. Clinton. Just today we’re learning more about her flip-flopping on marriage equality.”
“Flip-flopping” is the mediaspeak for changing one’s mind. A “Thought Crime” if there ever was one(Yes I hate Orwell, but it’s still a useful ter.) Once you’ve taken a position you’re supposed to hold to it like grim death. And of you don’t — well then you’re something awful.
O’Malley and Chafee were referring to an NPR interview Clinton gave in 2014, in which she suggested the same-sex marriage question should be dealt with on a state-by-state basis.
“For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states,” Clinton said at the time, according to a transcript.
Which is what Rand Paul says now.
After the Clinton campaign told BuzzFeed on Wednesday that she wants the Supreme Court to strike down gay-marriage bans, reporters accused her of “shifting” her position. However, Clinton’s campaign later told Business Insider that her position hasn’t changed since 2013, when she came out in support of same-sex marriages.
Oh she’s so “SHIFTY!”
Their argument was based on the idea she has supported same-sex marriage, so backing a pro-gay-rights Supreme Court ruling is perfectly consistent with her prior support for individual state laws.
Now, there isn’t much daylight between Clinton and her Democratic opponents on this issue, but Chafee’s and O’Malley’s comments make it clear they believe her past positions are a vulnerability that can be used against her.
Why? Makes no sense — save to the media.
Of course elected officials flip-flopping on gay marriage is nothing new. From President Barack Obama on down, a wide swath of Democratic politicians have had to adjust to the huge shift in public perceptions in favor of additional rights for gays and lesbians.
Yes he changed his mind — and has become the most LGBT-supportive President in American history. But to the “Mainstream” he’s still somehow against “Gay Marriage” in perpetuity. And thus so is Hillary.
Republican White House contenders have also been struggling to strike a balance on the same-sex marriage issue, in which there has been a seismic shift both in the general election electorate and even Republican primary voters.
“Balance” is Republican for “Flip-Flopping.”
According to The Washington Post, a recent Marist College poll indicated that about half of Republican primary voters in key early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — think opposition to gay marriage is unacceptable.
Accordingly, the GOP presidential hopefuls are attempting to thread the needle: All have stated their opposition to gay marriage, but most of them have done so while simultaneously trying to maintain an inclusive tone.
“Thread the needle” ? CUE TODD!
Some are having more success than others.
“Success” = Spin that works
When a judge ordered the Sunshine State to issue same-sex marriage licenses earlier this year, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) called for “respect for the good people” on both sides of the issue. Shortly after, Bush, whose campaign includes a number of pro-gay-rights staffers, had to defend some of his past comments opposing gay rights.
And what did those “pro-gay-right staffers” do? Hide in their Log Cabin of course!
BuzzFeed reported that in 1994 Bush said he was against letting “sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion.” He further said the government is expected to treat some citizens less favorably, including “polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers, and developers without proper permits.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has also had to reconcile his libertarian beliefs with the more socially conservative Republican base. After Indiana and Arkansas attracted controversy in March for their allegedly discriminatory “religious freedom” laws, Paul conspicuously refused to comment. This was despite the fact that he weighed in on plenty of other issues at the time.
Well “other issues” don’t require “flip-flopping”
Other candidates have even been tripped up by seemingly simple questions, such as whether they would be willing to attend a friend or family member’s gay marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) dodged when asked, telling conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he’s never been in that situation.
It’s not a “seemingly simple question” at all. it requires the acknowledgment that LGBT citizens exist — which Fundies are loath to do under any circumstances.
For his part, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who is presenting his campaign as a forward-looking vision for the future, said he would attend a gay wedding.
“Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them,” Rubio told Fusion host Jorge Ramos. “If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives.”
Marco’s clearly anticipating the obvious
However, it’s likely that Rubio would prefer to talk about something else. Another potential GOP contender, former New York Gov. George Pataki (R), was unequivocal about whether this issue was a winner for the Republican field.
“It’s simple: If we allow social issues to dominate the conversation,” former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) said in a campaign ad, “we will elect Hillary Clinton president.”
And now to sing us out, my second-favorite (Delphne Seyrig being Numero Uno) “Late-in-Life-Lesbian”