Now There Are 3 Republican Senators Who Support Gay Marriage

[Cigar]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/murkowski.banner.reuters.jpg

In March, Rob Portman of Ohio became the only sitting Republican senator to come out in favor of gay marriage. Then, in April, he was joined by Mark Kirk of Illinois. On Wednesday, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the third, announcing her position in a local television interview and press statement.

Of the three, Murkowski represents by far the reddest state: 55 percent of Alaskans voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, whereas Ohio (narrowly) and Illinois (overwhelmingly) went for Barack Obama. Taken together, the three senators' switches represent the increasingly bipartisan momentum for gay marriage in American public opinion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month found 57 percent of Americans in favor of making gay marriage legal, and 10 of 11 national polls on the subject this year have found more Americans support than oppose the idea.

The senators' positions could have real consequences: A bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act could come to a vote as soon as this year, according to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. At an event hosted by the center-left think tank Third Way on Tuesday, the New York Democrat said such a bill was "very close to the 60 votes we need, closer than people think." She named Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins of Maine as potential swing votes, adding, "There are a few other we're working with, but I won't out them."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/now-there-are-3-republican-senators-who-support-gay-marriage/277021/


Not all at once ... just a little chipping at a time ... chip-chip-chip-chip ... crack ... break

[Mainecoons]

My, you're just full of really big news this morning. Running on empty, eh?

:rofl:

[Micketto]

His life has never been about quality of content..... but quantity of threads created.

[jillian]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/murkowski.banner.reuters.jpg

In March, Rob Portman of Ohio became the only sitting Republican senator to come out in favor of gay marriage. Then, in April, he was joined by Mark Kirk of Illinois. On Wednesday, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the third, announcing her position in a local television interview and press statement.

Of the three, Murkowski represents by far the reddest state: 55 percent of Alaskans voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, whereas Ohio (narrowly) and Illinois (overwhelmingly) went for Barack Obama. Taken together, the three senators' switches represent the increasingly bipartisan momentum for gay marriage in American public opinion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month found 57 percent of Americans in favor of making gay marriage legal, and 10 of 11 national polls on the subject this year have found more Americans support than oppose the idea.

The senators' positions could have real consequences: A bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act could come to a vote as soon as this year, according to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. At an event hosted by the center-left think tank Third Way on Tuesday, the New York Democrat said such a bill was "very close to the 60 votes we need, closer than people think." She named Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins of Maine as potential swing votes, adding, "There are a few other we're working with, but I won't out them."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/now-there-are-3-republican-senators-who-support-gay-marriage/277021/


Not all at once ... just a little chipping at a time ... chip-chip-chip-chip ... crack ... break

Good for them

[Cigar]

Good for them

Bad for The GOP

[Chris]

Bad for The GOP

Why? Republican Support For Gay Marriage Jumps to 52 Percent (http://www.policymic.com/articles/31091/republican-support-for-gay-marriage-jumps-to-52-percent). They're just blowing with the wind.

[jillian]

Why? Republican Support For Gay Marriage Jumps to 52 Percent (http://www.policymic.com/articles/31091/republican-support-for-gay-marriage-jumps-to-52-percent). They're just blowing with the wind.

you mean representing their constitutents?

whatever happened to that whole "we the people" thing?

[Chris]

you mean representing their constitutents?

whatever happened to that whole "we the people" thing?

Not sure I understand your response in the context of the thread. What's it got to do with the claimed "Bad for the GOP"?

[jillian]

Not sure I understand your response in the context of the thread. What's it got to do with the claimed "Bad for the GOP"?

read it in the context of your post.

beyond that, i'm not sure what is confusing you.

thanks.

[Chris]

read it in the context of your post.

beyond that, i'm not sure what is confusing you.

thanks.

My post was posted in the context of the thread. That's how meaning is determined, not flukes of imagination based on cherry picking of "read it [your comment] in the context of your post", which is what I don't understand and you can't seem to explain.

[Cigar]

you mean representing their constitutents?

whatever happened to that whole "we the people" thing?

Yea but not "those" people. :wink:

[Micketto]

Bad for The GOP

Yeah.... 3.....

[junie]

great news for conservatives!
:applause:






The Conservative Case For Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172982691/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage

[junie]

Dozens of Republicans recently broke with the party line to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that argues the conservative case for gay marriage. This comes just weeks before the court hears arguments on cases that challenge the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. Several prominent Republicans who once opposed gay marriage have signed the brief and that could reflect a growing shift within the GOP. News of the Republican brief comes days after the Obama administration filed one of its own, which argued that the Defense of Marriage Act, quote, "violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection."

[Chris]

.

I think it depends on what kind of conservative you are. Social conservatives are more likely stand against marriage for gays, on grounds of preserving tradition, while libertarian conservatives are more like to support it on grounds of preserving liberty. More likely, as it's not a clean cut distinction.

[jillian]

I think it depends on what kind of conservative you are. Social conservatives are more likely stand against marriage for gays, on grounds of preserving tradition, while libertarian conservatives are more like to support it on grounds of preserving liberty. More likely, as it's not a clean cut distinction.

they don't do it to preserve tradition, imo. they do it in furtherance of their religious beliefs. that is why they all talk about 'abomination' and 'sin'.

but we aren't a theocracy and their religious sensitivities really can't form the basis for our laws.

G-d bless the First Amendment.


true conservatives believe you stay the heck out of people's personal business.

[JimH52]

The Baggers won't like this...

[Mainecoons]

But you sure are obsessed with them, aren't you Jimbo? Just can't bear not to mention them at every opportunity.

:rofl:

[Peter1469]

The Baggers won't like this...

The Tea Party(ies) tend to leave such issues to the States. It shouldn't be a federal concern.

[Chris]

they don't do it to preserve tradition, imo. they do it in furtherance of their religious beliefs. that is why they all talk about 'abomination' and 'sin'.

but we aren't a theocracy and their religious sensitivities really can't form the basis for our laws.

G-d bless the First Amendment.


true conservatives believe you stay the heck out of people's personal business.


they don't do it to preserve tradition, imo. they do it in furtherance of their religious beliefs. that is why they all talk about 'abomination' and 'sin'.

But that's only because as a liberal you don't look at things in terms of tradition but oppression.



true conservatives believe you stay the heck out of people's personal business.

Again, from a liberal perspective that looks at things in terms of oppression that makes perfect sense. Thing is from a social conservative perspective that looks at things in terms of tradition, your view makes no more sense than his does to you. Because I'm libertarian I can agree with you about liberties because that's how I look at things, however I see no oppression whatsoever, so I agree but for different reasons.


For more on this see http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13512-Kling-on-the-Three-Languages-of-Politics.



John Haidt looks at this in terms of the difference between what liberals, conservatives and libertarian value. He concludes there are values both share but that there are also values conservatives hold to that liberals just don't conceive of as important. As a result liberals just don't understand conservatives and try to force them and their values into the more limited set of liberal values.

If you like I can give you some links to Haidt's work. Nic is familiar with it, so is Who, and a few others here.

[Chris]

The Baggers won't like this...

And you don't like this:

http://snag.gy/GYE8M.jpg



To be more serious however, the tea parties do not take stances on social issues in order to maintain a focus on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

[Mainecoons]

He's obviously scared to death of them. You can understand why a leftist would fear people who want to restore the Constitution, limited government and the rule of law.