Showing posts with label Gay Marriage for Americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage for Americans. Show all posts

May 14, 2016

Pew Research: Acceptance and Steady Support for Gay Marriage




Support for same-sex marriage holds steady after 2015 Supreme Court rulingNearly a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unprecedented ruling that determined same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry, a decision that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. While the public’s attitudes toward gay marriage remain unchanged from a year ago, they have changed dramatically over the past two decades.
Now, just over half of Americans (55%) say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 37% remain opposed, according to Pew Research Center’s Marchpoll. A decade ago, the balance of opinion was reversed: 55% were opposed, while 35% were in favor.
 
Conservative Republicans remain broadly opposed to same-sex marriageAnd as was the case a year ago, there remains a substantial divide between partisans on the issue. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to favor gay marriage (70% vs. 33%).
Yet there are key differences within the two parties as well. Among Republicans, 71% of conservative Republicans oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, more than twice the share of GOP moderates and liberals (34%). A 55% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans favor allowing same-sex marriage.
Within the GOP, these ideological differences also are notable across voters’ primary preferences for the party’s 2016 presidential nominee. About half (52%) of GOP voters who back Donald Trump (now the party’s presumptive nominee) say they oppose same-sex marriage, compared with 70% who preferred Ted Cruz and just 37% who backed John Kasich.
Democrats across the board are supportive of gay marriage (70% favor, 24% oppose), with slight differences by ideology and candidate preference. Liberal Democrats overwhelmingly support gay marriage (84%), compared with a smaller majority of their conservative and moderate counterparts (59% favor). And a wide 83% majority of Bernie Sanders supporters are supportive of gays and lesbians marrying legally (just 15% are opposed), compared with a smaller majority of Hillary Clinton supporters (68%).
Younger, more educated, less religious more likely to support gay marriageViews on gay marriage also vary by age, education and religious affiliation.
The March survey finds a familiar pattern in views of same-sex marriage across age categories: People younger than 30 are most supportive (73%), followed by those who are ages 30 to 49 (61%), those 50 to 64 (47%) and, finally, those 65 and older (38%).
Among those with higher levels of education, there is widespread support. A large majority of the public with at least a college degree (68%) say same-sex marriage should be legal. By contrast, those with a high school degree or less education are split on the issue: While 45% favor same-sex marriage, 46% are opposed.
Views also differ across religious groups, as well as by frequency of religious service attendance. White evangelical Protestants are far more likely to oppose than to favor same-sex marriage (68% vs. 27%). By contrast, most white mainline Protestants (64%) and Catholics (58%) favor gay marriage. Among the religiously unaffiliated, 80% favor same-sex marriage, while just 12% are opposed.

Views of societal acceptance of homosexuality

Changing views among religious groups on whether homosexuality should be acceptedToday, a 63% majority say homosexuality should be accepted by society, a share that also has grown over the past few decades. Fewer (28%) say homosexuality should be discouraged. But there are differences on the issue among religious and partisan groups.
Some religious groups have become more accepting of homosexuality over time while others remain steady. Ten years ago, a 77% majority of those unaffiliated with a religion said homosexuality should be accepted by society, and still today fully 80% say this.
Protestants overall are more likely than they were 10 years ago to say homosexuality should be accepted by society (52% now vs. 38% then). However, Protestant groups continue to have different views of this issue. Among white evangelical Protestants, a third (34%) say homosexuality should be accepted by society, a share that has increased 12 percentage points from 2006. And half of black Protestants now think that homosexuality should be accepted by society, up just slightly from 44% a decade ago.
By contrast, a large majority of white mainline Protestants hold the view that homosexuality should be accepted by society, and this share also has increased over time: Fully three-quarters say this now (76%), compared with 53% in 2006.
Two-thirds of Catholics now say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 22% who say it should be discouraged. Views among Catholics have shifted modestly over the past decade: The share that says homosexuality should be accepted is up 8 points from 2006 (58% said accepted then, 31% discouraged).
Increasing shares in both parties say homosexuality should be acceptedWhen it comes to differences among partisans on whether homosexuality should be accepted by society, there has been a persistent 26-point gap between Republicans and Democrats over the course of a decade.
About three-quarters of Democrats (74%) hold the view that homosexuality should be accepted, up from 59% in 2006. Though slightly fewer independents say the same, they have closely mirrored Democrats on this question over the past decade. Today, two-thirds of independents say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while 25% say it should be discouraged.
Over the past year, declining share of conservative Republicans say homosexuality should be discouragedJust about half of Republicans (48%) now say homosexuality should be accepted, a number that has ticked up 15 points from its low 10 years ago. Republicans today are somewhat more likely than they were a year ago to say homosexuality should be accepted by society. Up until a year ago, a majority of Republicans thought homosexuality should be discouraged by society, but views have since become more mixed. While 41% of Republicans now say homosexuality should be discouraged, 48% think it should be accepted by society.
Conservative Republicans remain more likely to say homosexuality should be discouraged than say it should be accepted, but just about half say this today (49%) compared with 63% in May 2015.
By contrast, seven-in-ten moderate and liberal Republicans now say homosexuality should be accepted (71%), which is little changed since May 2015.

September 30, 2015

In Michigan Gay Marriage gets more than Marriage it got No Fault Spousal Benefits



                                                                   




When the US Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban gay marriage earlier this year, it did more than just given them access to marriage certificates. The legal designation of "spouse" opens LGBT couples up to rights and benefits in many areas of the law. That includes Michigan no-fault auto law and third-party negligence actions.

The Resident Relative Provision

Michigan law provides for no fault auto insurance coverage for passengers even if they do not carry individual auto insurance policies. While the first recourse is always a person's own insurance, if she is uninsured, she can look to her immediate family. Pursuant to MCL 500.3114, an auto insurance policy "applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident."

Before the decision in Obergefell v Hodges, if a gay man was injured he would not be able to turn to his partner's insurance policy for help. Even if they had been married in one of the many states that had legalized same-sex marriage prior to the court ruling, Michigan would not recognize his partner as his legal spouse.

This result was particularly harsh when it came to the children of those uninsured gay residents. Under Michigan law, if two men or two women wanted to raise a child together, only one of them could be the legal parent. Whether this was by way of natural child birth using a donor or adoption, Michigan would only grant parental rights to, and therefore the child could only benefit from, one legal mother or father within the couple.

Imagine a case where Joe and Tom are raising Lily, who is Joe's biological daughter. Until Obergefell, there was no way for Tom to become a legal father to Lily. Now imagine that Joe is not insured but Tom is. If Lily were in a car accident, she would not be able to receive benefits from Tom's insurance policy as a resident relative. Instead the claim would progress down the order of priority to the owner of the vehicle in which she was riding.

Now that the court has required states to grant marriage certificates to gay couples and recognize the same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, the Joes and Lilys in Michigan can take advantage of spousal benefits and resident relative benefits of their loved ones' insurance policies. All they need to do to cement protection for their family is get married.

The Legal Significance of a Spouse

A person's spouse has a lot more rights than just auto insurance benefits, though. Under negligence law, a spouse can be the next friend of an incapacitated individual and file suit on his or her behalf. This means that, continuing with the same example, if Tom were to suffer a traumatic brain injury and be unable to file a lawsuit on his own, under Obergefell, Joe is now authorized to file it for him.

Before, as a legal stranger, Joe would have had to turn to Tom's family members for help. Because of the social stigma and the beliefs of certain religions, many members of the LGBT community are not able to rely on their biological family to help them. For this very reason, gay and lesbian couples will often go through added burden and expense to name their partners as health care decision makers. But that does not affect the partner's legal standing to bring suit on behalf of the injured person. The partners need to be legally married to do that.

Spousal Benefits in Third Party Cases

If the injuries resulting from a car accident are serious enough to allow a Third Party lawsuit against the at-fault driver, being the legal spouse of that injured person becomes even more important. That is because spouses have access to a special class of non-economic damages: loss of consortium (or companionship). This damage claim legitimizes the lost emotional and physical support that couples provide one another.

Before Obergefell, if a woman in a same-sex partnership was severely injured, the support she provided to her partner would go unrecognized and uncompensated. The couple would be treated as legal strangers. Once that lesbian couple is legally allowed to marry, however, they are also allowed all of the litigation awards traditionally available to spouses.

Spousal Benefits in Wrongful Death Cases

The most tragic of auto accident cases involve estates, not injured parties. Just like in incapacity cases, the natural person to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of a person's estate is his or her spouse (unless a different personal representative is identified in estate planning documents). No matter how many assets a gay couple owns jointly—homes, cars, boats, even bank accounts—the surviving partner will not have any authority to file a wrongful death action without either a personal representative designation or the legal identity of "spouse."

If a same-sex couple does marry (or their out-of-state marriage is recognized under Obergefell), and an accident later takes one partner's life, the surviving spouse can move forward with a wrongful death action to recover his or her spouse's medical expenses, funeral and burial costs, and non-economic pain and suffering awards. The spouse is also entitled to certain survivor benefits including loss of financial support in the form of lost wages. All of these rights are connected to the word "spouse" and were not available to same-sex couples in Michigan just a few months ago.

Protecting the Family Under Obergefell

The Plaintiffs in Obergefell, and its Michigan counterpart DeBoer v Snyder (which was consolidated into the Supreme Court case), were not just suing for dignity and equality. The lawsuit that changed the way this nation defines marriage was not just about a label. It was about the thousands of state and federal rights that connect to the word "spouse." The Obergefell decision said the state law protections for families and children were "material." Justice Kennedy wrote:
"By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents' relationship, marriage allows children 'to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.' Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."
                  
Under Michigan auto law, that stability comes in part from a child’s ability to collect benefits from both parents and for the child's surviving parent to be able to go to court to recover damages available only to a spouse.

As family lawyers, magistrates and ministers across the Michigan do the hard work of legalizing and legitimizing the committed relationships of thousands of LGBT couples living in Michigan, auto accident attorneys need to be aware of the effect of this decision on the lives of their clients. By being clear on the rights of same-sex spouses and inquiring into the details of their clients' marital history, car accident lawyers can better protect clients and their families from missing out on important spousal benefits and survivor damage claims based on legal marital or parental status.

David Christensen is an experienced personal injury attorney with Christensen Law in Southfield, Michigan. He specializes in helping victims with traumatic brain injury from motor vehicle accidents.

Suggested Citation: David Christensen Gay Marriage and Michigan No-Fault Spousal Benefits, JURIST - Professional Commentary, September 29, 2015, http://jurist.org/professional/2015/david-christensen-spousal-benefits.php.


JURIST Guest Columnist David Christensen froChristensen Law discusses the impact of spousal benefits on the LGBT community. 

June 27, 2015

US Supreme Court Rules ‘Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Right’ Not to be Denied- [Why?]


                                                                       
 On june 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court Ruled for Gay Marriages as a Civil  Right
and determined that to deny them is to discriminate against the individuals
.
With the expected decision of the Supreme Court which occurred this morning, every
 gay/lesbian person in this United States, wether they would ever get married or not, they
 are able to have a government that is color,sex blind. Everyone is the same on the eyes of
 the government. 

This will now start the epoch in which all americans citizens are not discriminated because someone disagree with the way they have sex in private, 


 which should be private(except on TV, just like is ok to have straights do it). Congrats on people that are not getting married but still we fought for this injustice to end. Don’t tell me Im equal when you get more than I do. The ones Not getting married fought for this so we could also be seen as just regular citizens. That is one of the many reasons I supported it. 



I quote Justice Kennedy as it appeared on businessinsider.com  “The state itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects, he wrote in the ruling joined by the courts liberals, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Later on in the opinion, Kennedy wrote,  specially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm."
Anthony Kennedy Scotur
 The decision signifies a major advance in gay rights. It was just in 2003 that Kennedy wrote a majority opinion striking down Texas' sodomy law. Before 2004 no states recognized gay marriage, and that year many states went as far as banning same-sex marriage
In his opinion, Kennedy also addressed the argument that voters should be allowed to decide gay marriage.
"Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights," he wrote. 
Kennedy identified four principles that demonstrate why same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
1. The right to "personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."
2. "The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals."
3. The right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education."
4. Marriage is a keystone of the nation's social order."  

The  public letter sent to my email by the Speaker of the City Council in the City of New York. In a few words Speaker mark makes the case of the meaning and the power behind this decision by the Supreme Court.
Adam Gonzalez

                                                                             



Statement By Speaker Mark-Viverito
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Marriage Equality

"This is an intensely meaningful, historic and affirming day in our nation's history.

Today, the Supreme Court continued our country's march toward a more perfect union and once again proved we are a nation always striving toward fairness, decency and justice. From this moment on and for generations to come, marriage equality is a civil and human right for LGBTQ couples and no one – no matter where you live in this country or who you love – will be denied that right. 

This decision is a cause for celebration, but it also a cause for reflection. This has been an extended struggle going back decades. For a long and unfortunate time, millions of LGBTQ couples were denied the right to marry. In countless election cycles they were demonized, degraded and used as political pawns in electoral games. But through it all, activists and allies persevered knowing that the cause of marriage equality is not only a moral and human right – it is also a constitutional right.

As we celebrate this momentous decision, we must remind ourselves that the struggle for LGBTQ justice is not over. There are too many LGBTQ people suffering from unjust and pervasive discrimination all over the world and we will not rest until those injustices are made right.  New York has been proud to lead the fight for equal rights for the LGBTQ community. From Stonewall to the Marriage Equality Act of 2011, New York has been helped lead the way. We will continue to fight to ensure our LGBTQ community has the same rights as everyone. This means we must pass the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act in New York State and a comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights law in Washington - because discrimination and bigotry are never the answer.  

This outcome is what happens when people persevere and fight injustices. Obergefell v. Hodges now takes its place in the history books. It’s time to rejoice and I thank the dedicated, organizers, lawyers, community leaders and millions of people from every, state and territory all over the country who made this day possible." 


                                                                                      


January 20, 2015

The Supremes are Choosing Two Cases, Is Two better than one?


                                                                      
In announcing Friday it would hear arguments in April on marriage equality, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would address the two fundamental same-sex marriage issues that S.C. federal judges ruled on in November in separate opinions.
Judge Richard Gergel of Charleston ruled that under the 14th Amendment to the constitution, a same-sex couple from Charleston has the same right to be issued a state marriage license and get married as opposite sex couples do.
Judge Michelle Childs of Columbia ruled in the case of a Lexington County couple that the state of South Carolina must recognize valid marriages between same-sex couples who get married in other states.
“It’s like the two cases we have exactly,” said Malissa Burnette, who was one of a team of lawyers who won the historic Charleston decision from Gergel.
“The fact that the Supreme Court will address both those issues underscores why it was important to have two different cases in South Carolina,” Burnette said. “This will resolve the issue for the entire nation, stop all appeals, and there will be consistency.”
John Nichols, one of the lawyers who convinced Childs to rule that South Carolina should recognize the valid out-of-state marriage of a Lexington County couple, said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday makes sense.
“I’m not surprised the court feels the need to settle the issue, now that there’s a conflict,” said Nichols, who represented Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin.
Nichols also pointed out that the 6th Circuit Court’s recent decision has been cited by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson in legal filings as a major reason why he continues to fight to uphold South Carolina’s gay marriage bans.
“It creates uncertainty for the 6th Circuit case to be out there,” Nichols said of the Ohio-based court. "The 6th Circuit created a situation that is untenable - you would have four states in the middle of the country that uphold the ban, while surrounding states are not upholding the ban and are recognizing the validity of these marriages."
Wilson issued this statement Friday: “We have always expected the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this issue. Until the court resolves this important question there can be no finality. We are pleased the Supreme Court is hearing this case.”
A confident Burnette said, “The attorney general always said he would fight in South Carolina until he gets his final ruling. Well, he’s going to get his final ruling.”

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/16/3932844/sc-attorneys-attorney-general.html#storylink=cpy

November 10, 2014

When Would the Supreme Court Hear and Decide Same Sex Marriage?


                                                                           


A decision by a panel of federal judges to uphold anti-gay marriage laws in four states has created a split among the nation's appeals courts and made it very likely the Supreme Court will review the same-sex marriage issue.
But it is unclear whether the matter will reach the justices in time for a decision in June.
Lawyers for same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee said they plan to ask the high court to reverse Thursday's 2-1 ruling from a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
That court found that nothing in the Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. 
It was the first time an appellate court ruled in favor of state bans since a Supreme Court decision struck part of the federal anti-gay marriage law. Most courts have taken that decision to mean states cannot forbid same-sex unions.
The Supreme Court is under no obligation to the take the case, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said a split among the appellate courts would make her court's involvement likely.
Last month, before there was such a division, the justices turned away appeals from five states that sought to uphold their bans, even though same-sex plaintiffs who won in the lower courts also pressed the Supreme Court to intervene.
The effect of the Supreme Court's denial, and a subsequent appeals court ruling in the West, was to permit same-sex marriage or remove the legal underpinnings of state bans in nearly three dozen states.
Some essential things to know about the gay marriage movement and where it’s headed: 
The biggest question now appears to be one of timing.
If both sides can file their written arguments by late December, the justices should have enough time to schedule argument in the spring and decide the matter by late June.
The court usually fills its calendar for the term by mid-January, so if a same-sex marriage case is squeezed out, it would be pushed back into the term that begins next October. An argument in the fall of 2015, and a likely decision in the spring of 2016, could make gay marriage more of an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Another issue for the justices is which case to take.
Federal judges in Kentucky and Michigan struck down each state's gay marriage ban. The cases from Ohio and Tennessee were more limited.
One other possibility is Idaho, which lost its case at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and could appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Idaho's attorney general, Lawrence Wasden, said the state intends to appeal, "but we don't have a firm timeline for when that will happen."
___ How can four Appeals Court decide differently than all the others that have fallen in line?
Federal appeals court have no obligation to fall in line with each other, and indeed, disagreement on important matters is a major factor in Supreme Court review.
The surprising thing has been how one court after another has lined up in support of gay marriage since the Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in Windsor v. U.S. But that decision itself divided the court 5 to 4, and while support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically, there is still significant opposition.
Of course, Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made clear in his ruling Thursday that what he thinks about same-sex marriage as a policy matter is beside the point.
Sutton wrote in his majority opinion that lower courts remain bound by a one-sentence decision dismissing a gay marriage case from Minnesota in 1972, even though other courts have said the decision no longer carries any force. He also disagreed with the other courts when he said judges should let the political process play out, not impose their will through judicial decree.
One last note on judges: All the judges who have voted to uphold anti-gay marriage laws are Republican appointees. Rulings striking down state bans have been made by Democratic and Republican appointees alike.
___ Appeals Courts and Gay Marriage
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has scheduled argument in January in cases from Texas, where a judge struck down the state's ban, and Louisiana, where the ban was upheld.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to review a judge's ruling that state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
Cases also are making their way through courts in five states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis that do not permit same-sex couples to marry. A state judge and a federal judge in Missouri have ruled in favor of same-sex couples, but those rulings do not apply statewide.
By the Numbers:
Same-sex marriage is legal in 32 states, the District of Columbia and parts of Missouri.
Kansas, Montana and South Carolina are continuing their legal fight against same-sex marriage, despite rulings from federal appeals courts that oversee those states that concluded gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry.
Gay and lesbian couples may not marry in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.
The Supreme Court last year struck down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that forbade the federal government to grant tax, health and other benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

October 21, 2014

Religious fundamentalist and Muslim zealots attached by extremism

                                                                         



When social norms change, sometimes they change so fast it's hard to keep up.
Only 10 years ago, ballot initiatives opposing gay marriage were helping Republicans win elections. But two weeks ago, when the Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for
 legal same-sex marriage, the response from Republican leaders was deafening silence.
In Red States, Many See Courts Eroding Their Values  Dec. 23, 2004
They were so quiet, some wondered whether the culture wars had finally ended with a Republican defeat.

Gary Bauer, a longtime social conservative activist, thinks that's nonsense.
"The idea that the culture wars are over is absurd," he says. “A war over the culture
 and the meaning of American liberty will continue to be a major factor in the
 American public debate.”

Other social conservative leaders agree with Bauer. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said if the Republicans don't fight against gay marriage, he'll become an independent. Sen. Ted Cruz promised to introduce a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban gay marriage.
But those views are in the minority. While polls show opinion on some social issues, like abortion, are relatively stable, public opinion on gay marriage has changed —
and changed fast.

Democratic Party Embraces 'Values' DebateOct. 19, 2006
A majority of Americans now accept
 gay marriage, says Peter Levine, a political scientist at Tufts University.
He calls that “a profound generational change."

"In the long run, everyone's going to be for gay marriage," he says, "but in the short term, Republicans have a problem, which translates into a problem of perceived intolerance."
Conservative views on social issues, including gay marriage, are often called the third
leg of the Republican stool, alongside small government and strong defense. So the
party will have to adapt without alienating an important part of its voting coalition, says Ari Fleischer, who was a press secretary in the Bush White House.

"For Republicans, the challenge is if they take the issue uniquely as gay marriage head-on, many Republicans aren't going to want to change, who are older voters," Fleischer says. “Younger Republicans are willing to change on that issue — they already have changed."

The problem for the GOP is that right now there aren't enough young Republicans. Young people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in national elections, and social issues are
one of the main reasons.

Calling For An End To The Culture Wars  Feb. 3, 2009
Kirsten Kukowski is the press secretary for the Republican National Committee, which is trying to help Republican candidates bridge the gap between the party’s base and changing public attitudes.

"For a long time we came across as maybe not as sensitive and not as compassionate on these issues," she says. “And I think a couple of years ago — right after the 2010
presidential election — for people in the RNC specifically, our strategists, a lot of our
 pollsters and a lot of the people around us in these campaigns, we sat down at the
table and said, ‘How do we change how we talk to voters?' "

Republicans are already changing. This year, most Republican candidates in tight races barely mention social issues on the stump. Others have moved to the center, disavowing their previous support for “personhood" amendments, which would give constitutional
rights to embryos. A handful of Republican Senate candidates have joined Planned Parenthood in supporting the idea of over-the-counter birth control.
In addition to RNC operatives, conservative intellectuals are also grappling with
 this problem.

“There's a group of us who are basically conservative but think that mainstream conservatism needs to rethink some of its strategic approaches and policy emphases,"
says Henry Olsen of the Ethics & Public Policy Center. "And we've been called reformicons, and we're fine with that."
Olsen and his fellow reform icons say social issues like gay marriage have to be navigated carefully — very carefully.

Evangelicals' New Chief Says Days Of Moral Majority Over  Aug. 30, 2013: 

“No Republican candidate can be nominated that openly supports
same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean that you need to talk about it in a way that implies disapproval or condemnation of gay and lesbian people. It certainly does not mean that you have to deny certain sorts of federal benefits that presumably could be extended to people without the formal extension of marriage," he says. “That sort of thing is the rhetoric of compassion and inclusion that a Republican candidate to win the presidency ought to pursue."

Gay marriage is where opinion is changing the fastest, but the public is also evolving on other issues, like immigration and climate change. The RNC’s Kirsten Kukowski says the party will debate all of this in the 2016 primary campaign.

“We're going to have a very interesting conversation in the next couple of months,"
she says. “And having been here through the last presidential [election] and then
through the midterms, this is going to be a very important conversation for Americans to have, and for us to have as a party.”

It’s clear where the public is going on issues like gay marriage — but not so clear where the Republican Party will end up. 

by 
npr.org
                                                                                    
SOME COMMENTS:

The Original DB • 13 hours ago
The Republican Party's "perceived intolerance" of same-sex marriage is NOT a short term problem; their rabid intolerance of homosexuals has been the cornerstone of their party's platform for the past thirty years. Most Republican politicians would have no careers whatsoever had they not appealed to the ignorance and fears of their voting base by continually telling them who to hate and blame for their troubles in life. They just don't seem to have any constructive ideas to offer voters.

If the Republican Party cannot evolve on social issues, then it will have no place in our future.
163  •Share › 
Avatar
Ted S  The Original DB • 11 hours ago
Most Republican politicians would have no careers whatsoever had they not appealed to the ignorance and fears of their voting base---As Posted.

I have said it before, and I will shout it to the rafters until all of the U.S. hears it.

Those who appeal to fear as a motivation or persuasion tactic do so for one of two reasons.

One is that their position is too weak to stand on its own merits.

The other is that they are dishonest.
102  •Share › 
Avatar
ben balz  The Original DB • 9 hours ago
Bauer and those wingnuts are dead wrong: they've fully lost the American culture battle and those who cling to outmoded religious fundamentalist ideals in this country are increasingly perceived to resemble their zealot Muslim counterparts in the Middle East and elsewhere.
40  •Share › 
Avatar
Ted S  ben balz • 2 hours ago
Bauer and those wingnuts are dead wrong: they've fully lost the American culture battle--As Posted.

Which is why in another post I compared their mind set to the psychodynamics of those Japanese soldiers who continued to fight on in the Pacific Theatre after the surrender of Japan.

fundamentalist ideals in this country are increasingly perceived to resemble their zealot Muslim counterparts in the Middle East and elsewhere.---As Posted.

Again you are correct. Psychologically, it is referred to as projection and reaction formation.

Or as Shakespeare so succinctly put it all those centuries ago.

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks.
 •Share › 
Avatar
Joe Osborne  The Original DB • 7 hours ago
The Republicans have spent the last 30 years building their campaign strategy on divisive "wedge" issues, banking on homophobia, sexism, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious zealotry to win them elections. It was a "culture war" as they called in the 1980's. They have lost the war, although they are still trying to fight some final battles.

Now they are looking at reversing course, but they've spent the last generation running on this, so if they turn around they lose the (dwindling) base they've built since the 1980's, but if they stay the course they're doomed in the long term.

Jerrymandering and bastions of regressive thought (the deep south comes to mind) will keep them from totally fading out for a long time, but in the long term they are facing obsolesence.
34  •Share › 
Avatar
thabe331  Joe Osborne • 5 hours ago
The Southern Strategy has hurt them in the long run. Distancing themselves from cities has put them in a very unenviable position
13  •Share › 
Avatar
Jeremy Scherr  The Original DB • 12 hours ago
One can certainly hope so. Either way counts as a win for America.
26  •Share › 
Avatar
robmorss  The Original DB • 6 hours ago
The trick for Republicans is to say "leave it to the states" when asked about gay marriage, knowing full well that the momentum is for acceptance of gay marriage, and in the rest of the states, the district courts, or even the Supremes at some point, will simply strike down the bans.

June 19, 2014

Gay Marriage Revolt from Americans? No way GOP Sponsored Poll says the opposite


                                                                           


The Human Rights Campaign is welcoming the National Organization for Marriage to Washington Thursday with a poll conducted by Mitt Romney’s former data director showing just how far the majority of Americans are now from their anti-gay marriage views.
The poll was conducted to coincide with NOM’s rally near the Capitol and march to the Supreme Court, followed by a gala at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel.

Conducted by Alex Lundry through his firm TargetPoint Consulting and obtained by POLITICO, it singled out the views of one person, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who predicted in 2012 — before Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were struck down — that the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage would cause “a revolution. You will see Americans saying, ‘You know what? Enough of this.’ It could explode and just break this nation apart."

Conducting his poll at the beginning of June, Lundry didn’t find much support for that kind of revolt when the quote was read to respondents, with 59 percent overall disagreeing with Perkins. Of people who said they were opposed to gay marriage, 58 percent said they wouldn’t do anything, despite disagreeing and being disappointed in the decision.
“Only one directly mentions the word ‘revolution,’ five voters threaten to leave the country, and a scant fifteen people (3% of opponents) mention any form of protest,” reads a prepared polling memo. “Clearly, there is no real threat of widespread calamity should we extend the freedom to marry to gays and lesbians.”

Support for gay marriage is at 56 percent, with 37 percent opposed, squaring with public polls. Asked to rate the degree of their support, 44 percent said they “strongly” support legalization, with only 28 percent opposed.

Trying for a different measure, the poll also asked people to ask how much money they’d be willing to put toward the effort of either stopping or increasing legalization. On average, supporters said they’d be willing to pay $8,500 whereas opponents would only pay $2,600.

Those feelings are reflected in some of the other answers to the survey: 74 percent of people said their lives wouldn’t change with legalized gay marriage, and among those who did foresee a change, many rated it as one that would be for the better.
The NOM rally and the release of the HRC poll Thursday come as LGBT advocates head to the White House for a meeting about President Barack Obama’s decision to sign a new executive order banning LGBT workplace discrimination and a Justice Department report about the administration’s efforts to broadly interpret last year’s Windsor decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act is scheduled for release.

Author: 

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him