3 ms·
>And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone. You shouldn
by marcoperaza 10y ago
>And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone.
You shouldn't just dismiss the most important argument with a snarky comment. The federal government's powers are enumerated and very clearly do not include marriage. If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. (edit: Because the professional offense-takers are apparently on the prowl, let me clarify: I am referring to the raising of children by their biological parents. Yes, research proves that gay couples are just as good at raising children as straight couples, which is another reason why I support gay marriage. I'm explaining the legal reasoning argued by one of the parties in the case.)
Now of course, the only reason that there was a legal case to begin with is because some states didn't recognize gay marriage. But believe it or not, American political parties do not represent totally coherent strains of thought. The two-party system requires both parties to be big tents that accommodate different interests. The Republican party is an overlapping and often uneasy alliance between evangelicals, social conservatives, libertarians, defense hawks, and nationalists. There are plenty of Republicans who support gay marriage, plenty who don't, and plenty who don't care.
One data point: I consider myself a Republican and I support gay marriage. I actually agree with the court's decision as well. I know many people who share my political affiliation and feel the same way.
As an aside, marriage law is so broken that I'm surprised anyone, gay or straight, even wants to have a legal marriage.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoIf you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? The child-rearing argument is completely broken. If it was true, then marriage of divorced or widowed senior citizens would be forbidden.
- marcoperaza 10y ago>Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? I am not implying that. Did you even read the rest of my comment? Do you really think that this "gotcha! you're a bigot" game is a good way to have a frank conversation? It's really one of the most toxic elements of American politics.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoI'm not trying to play a gotcha game. I was asking a very genuine question because I know there are in fact lots of people in this country (and world) who believe just that. I was also trying to be charitable, assuming I had misunderstood you, and was seeking clarification before saying anything else.