Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Guynemer]

Shi--

I don't think the Repubs will really try to push an Amendment in an election year. Polls might say that most people are against gay marriage, but they also show that most people really don't give a **** when pushed on the subject, and a consititutional amendment will probably be seen as too extreme.

I'm not saying the amendment wouldn't get passed--there's a pretty good chance it would. But I think it would lead to a big Dem win in November, and the Repubs aren't willing to take that chance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Shi,

Attitudes towards Gays are changing rather quickly. It would be a race to see whether hard liners opposed to gay unions would be able to ram an ammendment home before the tide swings the other way.

I recon there would be a major PR push (in these days of media) that would swing a lot of folks.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Shi--

I don't think the Repubs will really try to push an Amendment in an election year. Polls might say that most people are against gay marriage, but they also show that most people really don't give a **** when pushed on the subject, and a consititutional amendment will probably be seen as too extreme.

I'm not saying the amendment wouldn't get passed--there's a pretty good chance it would. But I think it would lead to a big Dem win in November, and the Repubs aren't willing to take that chance.

I think they will try to push such an amendment now. It's true if this issue were emerging from the Right and it looked like pre-emptive action against gays it might not be popular, but as this issue has arisen from the left and it appears to be nessecary to prevent gay marriage from becoming the law of the land nationwide, it will most likely be very popular, and IIRC polls did indicate support for such an amendment.

This give Democrats the option of either making a stand for their principles and angering swing voters, or selling out their base once again and going forward with approving such an amendment. My bet based on typical Democratic tendencies are on the latter: the base is pissed off enough at Bush that they will believe that they will still support come November, so they will go for the option less likely to anger large amounts of moderates.

[Shi Huangdi]

Attitudes towards Gays are changing rather quickly

Yes, but not in a direction you'd be comfortable with. After Lawrence V. Texas, opposition towards gay marriage, civil unions went up, as did support for anti-gay marriage amendment. If that is the trend opposition to gay rights may climb even higher after this ruling.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Yes, but not in a direction you'd be comfortable with. After Lawrence V. Texas, opposition towards gay marriage, civil unions went up, as did support for anti-gay marriage amendment. If that is the trend opposition to gay rights may climb even higher after this ruling.

Shi,

I personally don't give a rat heiney one way or the other. Live let live that kinna thing. If we're talking an ammendment the longer it takes the longer attitudes will soften as it becomes more and more indoctrinated into mainstream culture via TV media and other outlets.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
DOMA is unconstitutional. It's just that no one has any standing to challenge it yet. First you have to have a married gay couple.

People were against Blacks and whites marrying, but eventually they were forced to accept it. They'll accept this too, especially once a major church accepts it (I'm looking at the Episcopalians).

[Theben]

IMHO more people are wary of a possible amendment than legal gay marriage.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Can I get some love, mindseye?

...er... you know what I mean.

SMACK!

(Slips cigar band over Guynemer's ring finger.)

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I also predict that this will eventually become in the long run the greatest disaster for gay civil rights.

Yeah, just like Loving v. Virgina was the death-blow to inter-racial marriage!

[chequita guevara]

I'm not heedless to BD's warnings. He very well could be right. In fact, I think it's going to be a very close battle. But I think we can win. After all, we just need to stop thirteen states from passing such an amendment. But remember, 37 states (IIRC) have laws saying marriage is between a man and a woman. Don't dismiess BD so carelessly.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


. While true New England states (sorry, I don't consider Connecticut and Rhodes Island part of this club) are rich in history, generally the population is young especially in Massachusetts. Boston at the first appear to be conversative but it's actually a liberal city.

No way, man. I see what you mean about CT, but RI is like Massachusetts-South, they just pronounce some things weird and have weird words for things (like they put gravy on pasta, not sauce). But still, most people outside of New England wouldn't be able to tell the difference between someone from Providence and someone from Boston.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

No way, man. I see what you mean about CT, but RI is like Massachusetts-South, they just pronounce some things weird and have weird words for things (like they put gravy on pasta, not sauce).

My Italian grandfather aways said gravy.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Flubber


ya because thats exactly the same

I'm insulted. You really think I'd be bigoted enough to make such a post and not be joking about it?

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


No way, man. I see what you mean about CT, but RI is like Massachusetts-South, they just pronounce some things weird and have weird words for things (like they put gravy on pasta, not sauce). But still, most people outside of New England wouldn't be able to tell the difference between someone from Providence and someone from Boston.

Ayuh, how truah

[Whoha]

hmm