:Leaden tones: Your life as you knew it is OVER.
It’s frankly adorable that this guy thinks that he has a choice.
Now that the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is the law of the land, a marriage with my boyfriend in New York would be just the same as my brother’s. Like all those people who immediately washed their Facebook profile photos in a rainbow bath, I’m overjoyed at the decision and glad to finally have the choice to get married. But, as of right now, it’s a choice that I’m deciding not to make.
This is the price one pays for mainstreaming one’s identity-group; which is to say, one must mainstream. That means marriage. That means kids. Which, by the way, means much less in the way of disposable income that can be spent on trips and extravagances, like furniture that isn’t kid-resistant. Does Brian Moylan think that his mom nags him now about getting married? Just wait! Continue reading You’ll get gay married and LIKE it, Brian Moylan.
I was just going to put an addendum to Leon’s post here which essentially endorsed his position:
For understandable reasons, most of my fellow front pagers at RedState are opposed to same sex marriage in principle, and are thus dismayed by today’s Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell. For reasons I have set forth before here, I’m in favor of same sex marriage in principle, but I am equally or more dismayed by what the Supreme Court has done today. Many, many shortsighted people who are in favor of same sex marriage are rejoicing at today’s ruling, either because they are unfamiliar with the inherent mischief in allowing the courts to decide policy arguments that are better left to the legislature or because (if they are liberals) they view this as a feature, not a bug.
…but there are apparently people lining up on both sides of the issue that feel the urge to yell at the pro-SSM conservative. So be it: but I’ve already flailed the skin off of one friend who got upset that I simultaneously favored SSM and wanted this case decided differently. I make precisely zero promises about being nicer to people who can’t tell me apart from those… people… on the Right who worked to get this particular 5-4 majority. Frankly, there are about five people on the planet who can pull my chain on this subject, and they’re all related to me by blood, marriage… and, well, my wife can always say what she likes to me, of course. Anyway. You get it, I’m sure.
Although I honestly don’t know why anybody’s bothering. The decision has, as they said, been made.
This is going to raise eyebrows:
Which essentially means this:
This apparently surprised the veteran court-watchers; I’m still trying to process it myself. You’d think that there would have been a four-Justice consensus on the Court to at least settle this issue…
Let’s not get this entire mess out for the record, for once. Let’s just summarize. It is in fact possible to disapprove of Rick Perry’s social-conservative ad without also hating social conservatives, ceasing to support Perry, or viciously and profanely outing (warning: language NSFW) Perry’s pollster. Something that GOProud should have thought about before it made itself radioactive and embarrassed its putative allies on the Right by doing that last one.
Put another way: this was not a good explanation, GOProud. I am a social moderate and same-sex marriage supporter who wanted the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell… and I have no intention of defending your group on this. You guys screwed up. Own it, so that we can move on.
Apparently. Maryland has been trying to pass a SSM bill for years – the last time they tried, its failure was a genuine shock to SSM supporters – and it did look like the latest version (HB 55, the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”) would pass once it made it through the MD Senate (barely) last week. But before it could goes to the House it has to get through their Judiciary Committee… and on Tuesday two critical Democrats refused to show up for the meeting, thus making the vote impossible. It will probably surprise nobody here to read that both Democrats (Tiffany Allston, Jill Carter) are African-Americans who represent African-American districts; it might surprise some to hear that both are co-sponsors of HB 55. I called the Maryland Assembly this morning: they confirmed that the bill is still stuck in committee, which means (among other things) that possibly Rep. Allston hasn’t made up her mind yet after all. Or is just worried that her constituents won’t change their minds anytime soon.
This is not actually funny, although I concede that people opposed to SSM may legitimately beg to differ with me on that. Neither is it a case of ends justifying means – and I will not concede that differing on that is legitimate. The Republic will survive the establishment or non-establishment of same-sex marriages in one or many or all states. What it cannot survive is the establishment of the ‘principle’ that participating in the democratic process requires you to continue to participate [only when you are winning]*. If Rep. Allston’s and Rep. Carter’s constituents don’t like HB 55, then those two legislators need to decide whether they agree with their constituents or not. If they do, they should vote no. If they don’t, they should vote yes.
Either way, Allston and Carter can then deal with the consequences that come from making a choice – a choice, by the way, that they implicitly volunteered to make by running for office. These two are no different in spirit than the state Democrats from Indiana and Wisconsin who are hiding out rather than do their jobs, and they should be treated accordingly.
*[I had somebody point out that I mangled this point horribly. Corrected, and my bad.]
Both Andrew Malcolm and Allahpundit are looking somewhat… askance… at President Obama’s apparent “evolution” on same-sex marriage (SSM). I put “evolution” in scare quotes because there’s no real evidence that he’s actually changed his official opinion on the subject in any way that matters: which should have been apparent from the fact that precisely zero action towards legalizing SSM has been proposed by the President. Congress did pass a DADT repeal*, but there’s been no push for SSM.
And there’s a reason for that:
Bluntly? While the population in general has shifted to disapproving of SSM only within single digits, African-Americans remain opposed to the policy by a two-to-one margin. The President simply does not dare offend that particular demographic. If that means lying – which the President is doing – so be it.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
Continue reading No actual Presidential ‘evolution’ on SSM?
I note this to distinguish myself from Ann Althouse and Joe Sudbay, as both of them did. I regretfully point this out with regards to the former, if not necessarily the latter; I’m as exasperated as she is that the President is being hypocritical when it comes to DADT, same-sex marriage, and pretty much everything else that falls under the category of ‘gay rights.’ And I suppose that I have a certain detached sympathy for the way that the questions that Sudbay asked on this topic were generally answered by the rhetorical equivalent of the metal end of a belt to the face.
Very detached. As I’ve already noted, I didn’t vote for the man, and Sudbay belongs to a site that likes to reflexively blame Republicans for everything from the eventual heat death of the universe to the general lack of the McRib sandwich. I’m not about to pretend that I’m a Buddha or anything.
Via Cynthia Yockey, who I believe also didn’t vote for Obama.
You can practically see the bafflement on the page:
While many conservative organizations immediately decried a federal judge’s decision last week to invalidate the federal ban on recognizing gay marriages, tea party groups have been conspicuously silent on the issue.
The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states’ rights.
Before we go any further: if you look at what happened last week, what happened was that the judge declared Section 3 unconstitutional, and did not address Section 2. Essentially, that means that if the ruling is not appealed then the federal government is no longer obligated to treat only opposite-sex marriages as legitimate. It does not mean that states are now obligated to recognize other states’ same-sex marriage licenses – and, at any rate, the ruling is expected to be appealed anyway. Continue reading #rsrh We all look alike to the WaPo.
Voters in Maine on Tuesday overturned a law allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing a fresh setback to the U.S. gay marriage movement in a race that attracted national attention.
The law was approved by Maine’s Legislature in May but was not implemented after opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a “people’s veto.”
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, votes to reject the law were running at 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent, according to unofficial tallies from the Bangor Daily News.
Owing to the lack of convenient Mormons to demonize, John Aravosis is actually off complaining about OFA and the DNC for not supporting efforts to defeat Proposition 1. He even says he wants an explanation, which is something that I frankly doubt. I think that Aravosis knows why the two groups in question – both of which are fully-own subsidiaries of POTUS, Inc these days – didn’t help; he just doesn’t want to think about the implications, or the way that the current leaders of the SSM movement have more or less permanently made enemies of mainstream conservatives for the ultimate benefit of the Democratic party.
*I wish that they hadn’t succeeded, but it’s their state.
Crossposted to RedState.