If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Dozens of prominent Republicans (none holding or running for any office) file amicus brief with SCOTUS backing marriage equality   (nytimes.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, friend of the courts, Republican, human beings, Theodore B. Olson, same-sex marriages, Bush Justice Department, Ken Mehlman  
•       •       •

4400 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2013 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-26 09:11:28 AM
FTFA: But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform

....and therein lies the problem.
 
2013-02-26 09:16:43 AM
Marriage equality should be a Republican position. On the grounds of equality under law, and on grounds of religious freedom. Good on them for taking the principled stand.
 
2013-02-26 09:48:42 AM
Does this mean that goldiggers will no longer be able to claim half of what they did not work for?
 
2013-02-26 09:51:35 AM
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is a current member of Congress
 
2013-02-26 09:51:46 AM
FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.
 
2013-02-26 09:55:48 AM
it advances conservative values of "limited government and maximizing individual freedom."

This is the part that the real RINOs (Tea Baggers and Bible Pounders) don't get.
 
2013-02-26 09:56:09 AM

thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.


*they're
 
2013-02-26 10:01:37 AM

thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their  unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.


Stop being so hard on the Dems - they are trying hard.
 
2013-02-26 10:04:15 AM

priapic_abandon: thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.

*they're


This is what I get from typing on my iphone before I have any coffee.
 
2013-02-26 10:10:22 AM

Citrate1007: it advances conservative values of "limited government and maximizing individual freedom."

This is the part that the real RINOs (Tea Baggers and Bible Pounders) don't get.


Meh.  That same line is trotted out and proclaimed by every political party.  Not a single damn one of them is willing to actually give up power once they have it.

In the case of one major party, they keep it for themselves until the end of time, and enact new rules to enforce it.  In the case of the other major party, they hand power off to corporations which don't need to operate by the same rules, or any rules.  Other smaller political parties tend to fall between these points, or combine them in wonky ways.

None of them seriously try to take a position of, "you know what, citizens?  we don't need to be in charge of such-and-such anymore, it's back to you now."
 
2013-02-26 10:10:54 AM
Once again. Government even being involved in marriage is asinine. A nebulous contract only defined in divorce is a retarded system. Make prenuptual contracts the norm, stop benefits for marriage, enforce family law as contract law determined by the contract actually signed entering into a partnership. How government treats all marriage is retarded.
 
2013-02-26 10:11:47 AM

hubiestubert: Marriage equality should be a Republican position. On the grounds of equality under law, and on grounds of religious freedom. Good on them for taking the principled stand.


The principled stand would have been when they were in office.  Maybe better late than never, but it's hard to give them a lot of credit since they're only doing it after they're not in power.  As the article points out, Huntsman, who I like, was against it as recently as last year, when running for President.
 
2013-02-26 10:11:57 AM

thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.


Obama held the same position in his first presidential campaign. Shocking.
 
2013-02-26 10:12:26 AM
It's amazing how much easier it is to do the right thing when your job doesn't hang in the balance.
 
2013-02-26 10:15:30 AM
I don't understand why it's not a debate in the Republican party. The ideas of personal freedom and smaller government logically lead to marriage equality. One would expect a deep division on such issues between the Tea Party and the Religious Right based on their propaganda.
 
2013-02-26 10:22:25 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: I don't understand why it's not a debate in the Republican party. The ideas of personal freedom and smaller government logically lead to marriage equality. One would expect a deep division on such issues between the Tea Party and the Religious Right based on their propaganda.


I can't speak for everyone, but this is a debate among the Republicans I know. Usually the older ones, who tie tradition into everything, oppose. Usually the younger ones, who are at the age when they question tradition, support gay marriage for the exact reason you state. I think this is a good thing. It can help break up stagnation and can lead to better choices for folks.

Of course, this may be a California thing. I've been told that a California Republican is a Texas Liberal hippie.
 
2013-02-26 10:24:45 AM

hubiestubert: Marriage equality should be a Republican position. On the grounds of equality under law, and on grounds of religious freedom. Good on them for taking the principled stand.


Not to mention Smaller Government, which none of the modern-day Republicans ever seems to stand for when social warrior religion is involved. Pandering to the churchies.
 
2013-02-26 10:27:21 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: I don't understand why it's not a debate in the Republican party. The ideas of personal freedom and smaller government logically lead to marriage equality. One would expect a deep division on such issues between the Tea Party and the Religious Right based on their propaganda.



Tea baggers don't favor smaller government. They only favor screwing over anyone that isn't them. They're all for subsidies, tax breaks, corporate handouts and medicare when it benefits them.

Its only when you start giving money to "those other people" that they fire up the medicare fraud hoverounds and go riding.
 
2013-02-26 10:28:14 AM
So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Stop being so hard on the Dems - they are trying hard.


Whereas you need to try a little harder.
 
2013-02-26 10:32:16 AM

hubiestubert: Marriage equality should be a Republican position. On the grounds of equality under law, and on grounds of religious freedom. Good on them for taking the principled stand.


It's easy to take a principled stand when you have no stake on the line.
 
2013-02-26 10:42:25 AM

MyRandomName: Once again. Government even being involved in marriage is asinine. A nebulous contract only defined in divorce is a retarded system. Make prenuptual contracts the norm, stop benefits for marriage, enforce family law as contract law determined by the contract actually signed entering into a partnership. How government treats all marriage is retarded.


You seem to not understand how special marriage contracts are.  Standard contract law will not work.  Standard contracts do not bind the behavior of 3rd parties in the ways marriages do, nor can they confer the special rights granted by the government to the couple.

The only thing that is retarded around here is your understanding of marriage.
 
2013-02-26 10:58:41 AM

MyRandomName: thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.

Obama held the same position in his first presidential campaign. Shocking.


Yes, but no matter how much you and the rest of the Tea Partiers hate it, the blah guy is still president - and changed his mind BEFORE the election. Unlike the cowardly Republicans. Which is, of course, one of the reasons he is still President.
 
2013-02-26 11:02:26 AM
Stepping back from any spiritual or religious attachment, it's all about the money insurance companies will have to fork out with all these new formats of "spouses". Follow the money trail. It's not politics, not left or right, it's (campaign) money.
 
2013-02-26 11:43:48 AM

tkwasny: Stepping back from any spiritual or religious attachment, it's all about the money insurance companies will have to fork out with all these new formats of "spouses". Follow the money trail. It's not politics, not left or right, it's (campaign) money.


While I agree with your stance of 'never underestimate the cash motive', I feel like you are missing the giant glaring 'religious right hate' motive as well.

Never underestimate the hate old white middle class people have for anything. It could power suns.
 
2013-02-26 11:51:38 AM
whatever/whoever....this issue needs to be put to bed.  Make it happen and drag us into the 21st century and stop disadvantaging people for their legal sexual preference.
 
2013-02-26 12:17:00 PM

MyRandomName: A nebulous contract only defined in divorce is a retarded system.


Good thing that that's an entirely inaccurate description of the marriage contract!

enforce family law as contract law determined by the contract actually signed entering into a partnership.

The fact that you refuse to accept that this is exactly the status quo and has been for centuries, despite repeated explanations and citations is, at best, troubling.

Obama held the same position in his first presidential campaign.

Breathlessly awaiting your citation that Obama ever supported amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman".

And he came out in support of gay marriage during a tight campaign, which is the exact opposite of whatever point you were trying to make.

"Shocking", indeed.
 
2013-02-26 12:58:54 PM
Proof that Republicans pander to their ignorant base to get in power with no real desire to actual govern.

It's either hypocrisy or a genuine growth in character.. after the fact.  Methinks the former.
 
2013-02-26 01:21:58 PM

Scorpio Rex: Proof that Republicans pander to their ignorant base to get in power with no real desire to actual govern.

It's either hypocrisy or a genuine growth in character.. after the fact.  Methinks the former.


exactly this.  republicans know their party is dead/dying and will obviously do whatever they have to to stay in the game.  f*********ck them.
 
2013-02-26 01:25:58 PM

thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.


Two of them were last in office in the 90s, Jane Swift also over a decade ago. I think we can forgive them.
 
2013-02-26 01:55:23 PM

MyRandomName: thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.

Obama held the same position in his first presidential campaign. Shocking.


Mwwaaahhhhaaaaahhhhaaaa...

Nice...
 
2013-02-26 01:57:41 PM
If you weren't all so silly, you would see that large chunks of Republicans have no problem with pole goblins getting married. A non-issue for all but the crazy right. No worse than your crazy left.
 
2013-02-26 02:30:21 PM

Thunderpipes: If you weren't all so silly, you would see that large chunks of Republicans have no problem with pole goblins getting married. A non-issue for all but the crazy right. No worse than your crazy left.


i.imgur.com

"Pole Goblins" indeed...
 
2013-02-26 02:35:20 PM
man this does not need to turn into a "what you want lesbians to look like versus what they usually look like" thread
 
2013-02-26 03:52:42 PM

hubiestubert: Marriage equality should be a Republican position. On the grounds of equality under law, and on grounds of religious freedom. Good on them for taking the principled stand.


What it is about the Republican platform that makes you think they stand for equality under the law and religious freedom? Because both of those things are in the Democratic platform and not the Republican one.
 
2013-02-26 04:50:57 PM

johnny_vegas: man this does not need to turn into a "what you want lesbians to look like versus what they usually look like" thread


Well if we just outlaw ugly...  Oh wait...
 
2013-02-26 05:24:27 PM

MyRandomName: Once again. Government even being involved in marriage is asinine.


If I were you, I wouldn't draw attention to the fact that I had been this dumb before.
 
2013-02-26 05:26:49 PM

MyRandomName: thornhill: FTFA:

But the presence of so many well-known former officials - including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts - suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

So in other words their unprincipled spineless panderers who care more about getting reelected than doing what they know is the right thing. Shocking.

Obama held the same position in his first presidential campaign. Shocking.


I guess you've forgotten the whole Fark thread when it happened where people were making a big deal out of the "horrible" timing, and speculating that it was Joe Biden's fault for "spilling the beans" early.   I haven't.
 
2013-02-26 05:28:28 PM

kroonermanblack: tkwasny: Stepping back from any spiritual or religious attachment, it's all about the money insurance companies will have to fork out with all these new formats of "spouses". Follow the money trail. It's not politics, not left or right, it's (campaign) money.

While I agree with your stance of 'never underestimate the cash motive', I feel like you are missing the giant glaring 'religious right hate' motive as well.

Never underestimate the hate old white middle class people have for anything. It could power suns.


I seem to recall research showing that a person's best interests (e.g., financial) was actually a pretty bad predictor of how they vote in elections.  Too lazy to look it up right now, though.
 
2013-02-26 05:35:24 PM

Deucednuisance: ...and he came out Joe Biden gave a speech openly supported gay marriage, which forced him to also support gay marriage during a tight campaign, which is the exact opposite of whatever point you were trying to make.

/Made that comply with reality
 
2013-02-26 05:40:59 PM

ciberido: guess you've forgotten the whole Fark thread when it happened where people were making a big deal out of the "horrible" timing, and speculating that it was Joe Biden's fault for "spilling the beans" early. I haven't.


Joe didn't "spill the beans early" he spoke from the heart and to hell with politics. For a politician in such high office, his mental filter doesn't seem to operate very well.

For President Barack Obama and his team, the decision to back gay marriage came down to a choice between two unpalatable alternatives: Support it and brave the backlash in battleground states where the issue could be a liability - or keep silent and be accused by allies of gutlessness and putting politics over principle.

Administration officials said the president planned to announce his support before the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., this September. But they acknowledge that Vice President Joe Biden did, indeed, force their hand.
 
2013-02-26 05:57:31 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: One would expect a deep division on such issues between the Tea Party and the Religious Right based on their propaganda.


Except, based on the polling, the Tea Party are apparently more religiously conservative that the Religious Values voters.

The number 7 and the letter Q!: I can't speak for everyone, but this is a debate among the Republicans I know. Usually the older ones, who tie tradition into everything, oppose.


The trend line is pronouncedly demographic by generational cohort, regardless of party.

The number 7 and the letter Q!: Of course, this may be a California thing. I've been told that a California Republican is a Texas Liberal hippie.


That's true, and the demographic trend (again, across party lines) isn't quite so sharp in the South, but it's still there.
 
2013-02-26 06:15:13 PM

Generation_D: The Irresponsible Captain: I don't understand why it's not a debate in the Republican party. The ideas of personal freedom and smaller government logically lead to marriage equality. One would expect a deep division on such issues between the Tea Party and the Religious Right based on their propaganda.


Tea baggers don't favor smaller government. They only favor screwing over anyone that isn't them. They're all for subsidies, tax breaks, corporate handouts and medicare when it benefits them.

Its only when you start giving money to "those other people" that they fire up the medicare fraud hoverounds and go riding.


I'm one of the "original" Tea Party members (libertarian)...

- supports limited government (as in, going by the Constitution)
- supports states rights (as afforded by the Constitution)
- supports legal abortion (morally, I'd rather marry the girl getting the abortion and care for her)
- supports legalizing marijuana and other drugs (hey, you wanna kill/hurt yourself, go ahead)
- supports Universal Service (I did my part, and still am...)
- supports finding alternatives to the income tax (or the very least -simplifying- it)
- supports private enterprise (problem with the wages? That's what unions are for)
- supports eliminating marriage from government, period. (Why not make it really equal?)
- hate those fatty scooters (and sometimes the people riding them)

Any other things you want me to chime into?
 
2013-02-26 06:27:09 PM

Scorpio Rex: Proof that Republicans pander to their ignorant base to get in power with no real desire to actual govern.

It's either hypocrisy or a genuine growth in character.. after the fact.  Methinks the former.


Perhaps, but Hanlon's Razor would have us assume that it's the later.
 
2013-02-27 12:42:28 PM

BullBearMS: Made that comply with reality


Fine, whatever.

What does that have to do with anything, much less the non-validity of MyRandomName's "argument"?

Especially since the "plan" was to reveal the position prior to the election in any event?
 
2013-02-27 08:27:50 PM

Deucednuisance: BullBearMS: Made that comply with reality

Fine, whatever.

What does that have to do with anything, much less the non-validity of MyRandomName's "argument"?

Especially since the "plan" was to reveal the position prior to the election in any event?


Actually, if you move to the next paragraph of the story quoted above, you'll see that the whole "we were juuuuust about to say we openly supported gay marriage" thing was more a face saving move than reality.

The claims about timing contradict senior Democrats and some Obama campaign officials who have said that Obama was undecided about making an announcement before the election to avoid losing religiously conservative swing voters in states like North Carolina, Ohio and Colorado.
 
2013-02-28 10:05:46 AM

BullBearMS: Actually, if you move to the next paragraph of the story quoted above, you'll see that the whole "we were juuuuust about to say we openly supported gay marriage" thing was more a face saving move than reality.


But did the taking of the position, for whatever reason, adversely affect his election outcome?

(Can't believe I need to spell it out, but OK)

That's that failure in MyRandomName's post that I wanted him to address.

And all you've shown is that some people say one thing, while others say something else about a series of events.

My, how unusual. (something, something, unreliability of eyewitness testimony, something...)
 
2013-02-28 05:45:33 PM

Deucednuisance: And all you've shown is that some people say one thing, while others say something else


It's almost as if politicians lie to save face... Shocking, I now.
 
2013-03-01 09:35:57 AM

BullBearMS: Deucednuisance: And all you've shown is that some people say one thing, while others say something else

It's almost as if politicians lie to save face... Shocking, I now.


And so worthy of sustained comment.

OK, let me try this again.

Two people are in the same room and witness the same event.  Yet when asked about it, their recounting of the event is different.

Does that mean that one of them is "lying"?

Because that's all you've offered.

And the fact remains that the change of position altered exactly nothing.

"It's almost as if" you have to say "Obama bad" regardless of the available facts.

Care for some arugula?
 
2013-03-01 08:25:28 PM

Deucednuisance: Because that's all you've offered.


Biden announced open support for gay marriage over the weekend.

If the Obama administration had previously made the decision to support gay marriage, and Biden just "jumped the gun" as they claimed, then why did they let the press hammer them a couple of days for not matching Biden's position?

If you had really made that decision there would be no possible reason not to simply announce it.

Instead, they tried to ride out all the criticism out and waited until Wednesday before finally giving in and doing the right thing.

President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he was done "evolving" and now supports same-sex marriage was, in retrospect, inevitable. Vice President Joe Biden made it so Sunday, when he remarked almost casually that he had grown "comfortable" with gay marriage.

Biden's comfort level made Obama the nation's least comfortable politician, tied up in a knot of convoluted positions that he had hoped voters on both sides would overlook.

He opposed state laws like the one passed in North Carolina this week denying same-sex couples the right to wed. But even as he opposed anti-marriage laws, he didn't support pro-marriage laws.

It was an awkward straddle, but as long as the issue was out of the spotlight, the president intended to stick with it. Biden's candor made that impossible. The spectacle of the president and vice president disagreeing got in the way of the Obama campaign's planned rollout this week of its basic economic message. And the issue was going to come up again and again - at Thursday night's fundraiser at George Clooney's home in Los Angeles, at the Democratic National Convention in September and at lots of events in between. The Obama campaign understands at least one basic rule of politics: When you're in a hole, stop digging and find a way out.


We have Joe Biden's lack of a high level politician's mental filter to thank for Obama finally supporting gay marriage. I'm not sure why it's so important for you to pretend otherwise.

He even had to apologize for it:

A few hours before President Obama offered his historic endorsement of same-sex marriage on Wednesday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. apologized to the president in the Oval Office for forcing Mr. Obama's hand by airing his own views three days earlier, several people briefed on the exchange said on Thursday.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report