I’m confused. Is your assertion that only Republicans can change their positions on social issues? It has been my experience that, as a general rule, Republicans are unwilling to change their positions on almost anything, right or wrong.
Not that it matters; just curious.
But I will say that the idea that gay marriage somehow threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage is as absurd as the people who want to ban abortions saying that all the legislative roadblocks they sponsor are for the health of the mother.
Or that people feel the need to go to war to protect peace.
How is this even still an issue? The second decade of the 21st century in the United States of America and the Supreme Court is STILL deciding if everyone is equal. We just have to do better than this as a nation. Just have to.
“Bill Clinton signed a bill separate fro Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He also signed a bill declaring Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman.”I’ve addressed that comment days ago on another cartoon. Clinton signed the DoMA as a compromise with Republicans, who were looking to amend the Constitution. Clinton knew that it would be easier to change a law then a constitutional amendment.
Leave marriage for two consenting adults. Churches can have holy unions, sacraments, blessed joinings, or what ever. Atheists can be married, and don’t need a church for that. People that use a church to perform their ceremony still need a marriage license from the government. That makes marriage a civil contract.
There’s been a huge change in ideas about gender in the US, and our friend Tigger gives a good example. A generation ago, it would have been ordinary usage to write, “a Republican has changed HIS mind on Same Sex Marriage since HE learned HIS child is a homosexual”, but Tigger — who is probably a good example of the modern vulgate — writes, "…a Republican has changed THEIR mind on Same Sex Marriage since THEY learned THEIR child is a homosexual.” So Tigger seems to be in favor of epicene pronouns, anyway.
“So that’s what the population of California looks like? They are the ones that voted down gay marriage.”
First off, replace “look” with “looked.” Prop 8 was passed (narrowly) in 2008. It would not pass today. As other cartoonists have portrayed it, support for marriage equality is a “tidal wave”, an “express train,”… I haven’t seen a “snowball” yet, but it would be appropriate.
The reason so many states pushed legislation forbidding same-sex marriage (as well as DOMA) in the last 5-10 years is BECAUSE the population as a whole was shifting to support it, and the Leviticans had to head it off at the pass. And it’s a lot easier to get a law added to the books than to get one removed (although in many cases, an outdated law just stops being observed). Just last year, you could still fall back on the argument that “Every time same-sex marriage has been put to a vote, it has lost.” That’s no longer the case (although I’ve still seemed it claimed, as recently as this week).
And of course, California ALSO has the (state) Constitutional protections for homosexuals that Prop. 8 was rlued (at the California Supreme Court level, the US District Court level, and the Circuit Court of Appeals level) to violate.
^what’s interesting is the rush by the Leviticans (great term, btw) to put DOMA and overreaching their rights to use the law to restrict civil rights of others at a state level has them hoisted by their own petards.It is exactly their hateful actions at the federal and state level that makes this a federal case.prop 8 was the last gasp – much like dred scott.
The GOP keeps saying they need to appeal to a wider electorate, then doing things that slap down women, minorities, gays, and the poor. Why would anyone in their right mind, unless you earn over $400,000 a year, vote for these mean-spirited, poor-bashing, deficit-increasing, infrastructure-destroying demagogues?
"The GOP keeps saying they need to appeal to a wider electorate, then doing things that slap down women, minorities, gays, and the poor. Why would anyone in their right mind, unless you earn over $400,000 a year, vote for these mean-spirited, poor-bashing, deficit-increasing, infrastructure-destroying demagogues?"just to be clear ARodney, Many people who make over 400k a year do NOT vote GOP. some of us humans vote for long term self interest and social justice, not just what’s in our wallet tonite.
I Play One On TV about 11 years ago
I’m confused. Is your assertion that only Republicans can change their positions on social issues? It has been my experience that, as a general rule, Republicans are unwilling to change their positions on almost anything, right or wrong.
Not that it matters; just curious.
But I will say that the idea that gay marriage somehow threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage is as absurd as the people who want to ban abortions saying that all the legislative roadblocks they sponsor are for the health of the mother.
Or that people feel the need to go to war to protect peace.
2011worldchamps about 11 years ago
Government shouldn’t give benifits to any kind of marriage. It is a choice people make, why should they get a break for that?
SABRSteve about 11 years ago
When a Republican changes his mind, it’s called flipflopping. When a Democrat does it, it’s called evolving.
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
How is this even still an issue? The second decade of the 21st century in the United States of America and the Supreme Court is STILL deciding if everyone is equal. We just have to do better than this as a nation. Just have to.
Odon Premium Member about 11 years ago
If your saying gay marriage is a sexual perversion then you are the perverted one.
Odon Premium Member about 11 years ago
We have all evolved let’s not forget the 3/5 rule.
thegreatack about 11 years ago
…they’re religious rights!
Jason Allen about 11 years ago
“Bill Clinton signed a bill separate fro Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He also signed a bill declaring Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman.”I’ve addressed that comment days ago on another cartoon. Clinton signed the DoMA as a compromise with Republicans, who were looking to amend the Constitution. Clinton knew that it would be easier to change a law then a constitutional amendment.
thegreatack about 11 years ago
For which comment?
thegreatack about 11 years ago
kewl.
cjr53 about 11 years ago
Leave marriage for two consenting adults. Churches can have holy unions, sacraments, blessed joinings, or what ever. Atheists can be married, and don’t need a church for that. People that use a church to perform their ceremony still need a marriage license from the government. That makes marriage a civil contract.
Odon Premium Member about 11 years ago
On a 24 hour rotation.
lonecat about 11 years ago
There’s been a huge change in ideas about gender in the US, and our friend Tigger gives a good example. A generation ago, it would have been ordinary usage to write, “a Republican has changed HIS mind on Same Sex Marriage since HE learned HIS child is a homosexual”, but Tigger — who is probably a good example of the modern vulgate — writes, "…a Republican has changed THEIR mind on Same Sex Marriage since THEY learned THEIR child is a homosexual.” So Tigger seems to be in favor of epicene pronouns, anyway.
fritzoid Premium Member about 11 years ago
“So that’s what the population of California looks like? They are the ones that voted down gay marriage.”
First off, replace “look” with “looked.” Prop 8 was passed (narrowly) in 2008. It would not pass today. As other cartoonists have portrayed it, support for marriage equality is a “tidal wave”, an “express train,”… I haven’t seen a “snowball” yet, but it would be appropriate.
The reason so many states pushed legislation forbidding same-sex marriage (as well as DOMA) in the last 5-10 years is BECAUSE the population as a whole was shifting to support it, and the Leviticans had to head it off at the pass. And it’s a lot easier to get a law added to the books than to get one removed (although in many cases, an outdated law just stops being observed). Just last year, you could still fall back on the argument that “Every time same-sex marriage has been put to a vote, it has lost.” That’s no longer the case (although I’ve still seemed it claimed, as recently as this week).
And of course, California ALSO has the (state) Constitutional protections for homosexuals that Prop. 8 was rlued (at the California Supreme Court level, the US District Court level, and the Circuit Court of Appeals level) to violate.
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
^what’s interesting is the rush by the Leviticans (great term, btw) to put DOMA and overreaching their rights to use the law to restrict civil rights of others at a state level has them hoisted by their own petards.It is exactly their hateful actions at the federal and state level that makes this a federal case.prop 8 was the last gasp – much like dred scott.
ARodney about 11 years ago
The GOP keeps saying they need to appeal to a wider electorate, then doing things that slap down women, minorities, gays, and the poor. Why would anyone in their right mind, unless you earn over $400,000 a year, vote for these mean-spirited, poor-bashing, deficit-increasing, infrastructure-destroying demagogues?
KenKen22 about 11 years ago
hehe
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
ARodney said, about 17 hours ago
"The GOP keeps saying they need to appeal to a wider electorate, then doing things that slap down women, minorities, gays, and the poor. Why would anyone in their right mind, unless you earn over $400,000 a year, vote for these mean-spirited, poor-bashing, deficit-increasing, infrastructure-destroying demagogues?"just to be clear ARodney, Many people who make over 400k a year do NOT vote GOP. some of us humans vote for long term self interest and social justice, not just what’s in our wallet tonite.