Political Cowardice: Chris Christie Edition

You're right. But I think someone had to articulate the distinction. Because "legislating morality," on its face, is not wrong.

And what you are talking about is how the California decision was decided: The state couldn't articulate a rational reason why gay marriage hurt anybody else.

 

The narrow holding of the 9th Circuit doesn't necessarily mean the Court will hold on narrow grounds. Every once in a while on big issues the Court decides more than it needs to.

Consider Roe v. Wade, which could have been decided on narrower grounds, but the Court instead created a three-trimester framework under which it held certain regulations applicable. The Court didn't have before it a late-term ban, but it decided issues on such restrictions. (There were all sorts of possible mootness and standing issues that the Court largely glossed over and instead went to the substance of the constitutionality as a central matter.)

Also consider Lawrence v. Texas. The Court could have struck down the Texas statute on Equal Protection grounds because it punished only same-sex anal sex and not heterosexual anal sex. Instead, the Court decided the broader question of same-sex sexual relations.

Now, I think you're <b>probably</b> right, but I would just caution that it's not a foregone conclusion.

 

Right. Didn't mean to imply that the Court couldn't go farther (and re-reading my post, it does read that way). Just don't think it will. Not yet. 10 years from now? Probably. But I don't think the Roberts court has the guts to make this a Brown/Roe/Lawrence-type decision. And, because the 9th Circuit decision is so narrowly written, I still think there's a chance the Court won't touch it.

 

I really don't see it as a party issue. I see it more as a generational and racial issue. That's why politicians on both sides won't touch it.

 

Ohhhh GOP, please please please please please put this arrogant obnoxious fatfuck on the ballot.

 

I did my own research and found this:

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Mr. Obama said. “For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.”

Seems like Obama and Christie are on the same page.

 

What does his faith have to do with it?

 

I've expressed my frustration with both Christie & Obama on this issue.

But, what also frustrates me is the willingness of Democrats & supporters of gay marriage to be completely patient with Obama and his stance on the issue.

When others have suggested that the tide was turning, and that supporters just need to wait a little longer, that idea has been shouted down. We've been told that there is no reason to be "patient" when we're talking about civil rights.

Yet, people here suggest that Obama will come out in support of gay marriage in a second term, and act like that's fine, and politically wise.

It's pure political cowardice, and should not he accepted from Obama any more than it should be accepted in another politician.

The President should be held to account on this issue. His support would be huge. It could actually change public opinion. But, he refuses to do offer it. And, barely anyone cares.

 

You think? I question that. I suspect that the effect might be the opposite - his support would cause the issue to lose a lot of right-wing fence-sitters. Just because it's him.

 

States' Rights!