• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?

Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?


  • Total voters
    64
Only until the balance on the Supreme Court changes. If the court should become more right leaning, we could see it challenged again, just like Roe.
 
I think so. I think we now live in a world where SSM is no longer an issue and all arguments, pro and con, are now moot.

Seriously, that's actually difficult to wrap my mind around. All the time and energy arguing about who is and isn't pro/anti SSM and why they are and are not is moot. Like the ruling or not, the issue has been settled and it will never go back. Continuing to dwell on it and argue it, especially on the anti-SSM side is pointless. You're just making yourselves miserable over something that most likely will have zero impact on your life. On the pro side, you have every right to celebrate, but maybe you could try to be happy rather than hateful. C'mon, it's supposed easy to be magnanimous when you win (and you have won).

I, for one, look forward to all the furor settling down. Honestly, this issue felt a little like it tore me in two, understanding arguments on both sides and feeling that there are good hearted and sincere people on both sides, which was probably the most lonely position of all.

Anyway, do you agree with me that once all the victory laps have been run and all the anger has subsided (and it will with time - it always does), this is essentially a dead issue?

Now what are we gonna talk about?

Getting a simple poll together and sorry about the weird font (I hope it's not huge) - that happens sometimes when I save something to my iPad then copy/paste it later.

You're kidding right? Right? Look at abortion. Has it been a "dead issue" despite a SCOTUS ruling?
 
SSM is not in danger of being overturned, but just as Roe v Wade is settled law, its not a "dead" issue. You'll see both sides of the issue campaign raise money,
 
I grant that Canadians are saner people when it comes to politics, but here in Canada we've recently celebrated 10 years of SSM and it's never discussed by anyone outside of wedding planners and divorce lawyers.

It will be a dead issue in the US in no time, but fringe elements will still try to expand gay rights and fringe elements will still try to stop them so on the fringes it will smolder, but even American fanatics have short attention spans so the next problem will soon take up all the air.
 
It should be, but the conservative corporate interests will keep the issue alive for a long time for use as a weapon of mass distraction. They want people to endlessly argue about school prayer, abortion, sex ed, flag burning and SSM because it will take attention away from the issues that would threaten their financial interests if there was greater public awareness of their practices and intentions.
 
In a generation or two, all the backwards people who are squealing that they can't be "forced to accept it" will be gone and this kind of bigotry will be seen as absurd, just like what happened with interracial marriage. That's when this will be a dead issue.
 
No, they're not economic rightists. They're not full on economic leftists either. They're pragmatic. They want the opportunities of capitalism, but if they run into trouble along their path to prosperity they want a good safety net to protect them from failure as well. Center-left, perhaps.

Socially, they seem like liberal/progressives on the surface, but in many instances they seem more libertarian-ish... more concerned with individual liberty (as opposed to identity politics). Many, for instance, are strong supporters of 2A rights, more commonly seen as a conservative or libertarian issue.

I suspect we're going to find them to be a rather unique voting demographic over the next couple decades as they come to power, who defy most of the conventional labels and ideologies in favor of a pragmatic pursuit of their preferred condition.


Sorry but I don't agree here at all (Nor does the data). I could humor your attempts to categorize younger Americans as Libertarian or Conservative but the problem is we have the polls. We have their voting records. And they're unanimous. Younger Americans en-mass voted for Obama if they voted at all. They also support socially liberal positions that traditionally have even been opposed by Libertarians such as economically Left policies of Obama.

Your attempts to declare younger Americans as "uncountable" are not fooling anybody. They're social liberals and you simply don't like it. I've noticed on this forum that it's in fashion among conservative posters to label themselves "Independents" and "Libertarians" and then you read their posts and it's the most mainline Republican talking points you can imagine. Again, nobody's being fooled friend.
 
In a generation or two, all the backwards people who are squealing that they can't be "forced to accept it" will be gone and this kind of bigotry will be seen as absurd, just like what happened with interracial marriage. That's when this will be a dead issue.

If history repeats itself, the Democrats will become conservative and the Republicans will become liberal, and the Democrats will repeatedly point out that Republicans blocked same sex marriage the whole time.
 
If history repeats itself, the Democrats will become conservative and the Republicans will become liberal, and the Democrats will repeatedly point out that Republicans blocked same sex marriage the whole time.

I hope not. People pretending that the Dixiecrats had anything to do with liberals is really obnoxious.
 
Only until the balance on the Supreme Court changes. If the court should become more right leaning, we could see it challenged again, just like Roe.

I don't think so. I think cultural SSM is very different from abortion. Within a generation or two support for SSM will, I think, be near total. I don't think you will see much vitriol aimed at it save for a few select niches of interest.
 
as far as i'm concerned yes

There will be disagreements about how this debate transpires in the rest of the world, but american posters at least have little influence over that.

There will be attempts to disobey the court, for instance the texas AG and governor saying they'll offer free lawyers to public officials who are charged with contempt. However, these are obviously impotent political posturing that will have little to no effect on gay couples
 
I don't think so. I think cultural SSM is very different from abortion. Within a generation or two support for SSM will, I think, be near total. I don't think you will see much vitriol aimed at it save for a few select niches of interest.

That's exactly right. The polls on abortion have moved hardly at all, whereas SSM has gone from 60-40 against to 60-40 in favor in a mere decade.
 
It should be, but the conservative corporate interests will keep the issue alive for a long time for use as a weapon of mass distraction. They want people to endlessly argue about school prayer, abortion, sex ed, flag burning and SSM because it will take attention away from the issues that would threaten their financial interests if there was greater public awareness of their practices and intentions.

Yeah but if they want to win they'll have to move on from this a lot sooner than you think. In fact i figured by 2016 they'd be hating on immigrants instead, but the hispanic demographic made them reconsider that.

But you're right, the last thing the party of the 1% can afford is to allow economics to become the focal point. In fact, they're better off losing elections to bought off centrist dems than to lose elections to communists or whatever. THAT would threaten their interests a lot more than losing to hillary.
 
I think so. I think we now live in a world where SSM is no longer an issue and all arguments, pro and con, are now moot.

Seriously, that's actually difficult to wrap my mind around. All the time and energy arguing about who is and isn't pro/anti SSM and why they are and are not is moot. Like the ruling or not, the issue has been settled and it will never go back. Continuing to dwell on it and argue it, especially on the anti-SSM side is pointless. You're just making yourselves miserable over something that most likely will have zero impact on your life. On the pro side, you have every right to celebrate, but maybe you could try to be happy rather than hateful. C'mon, it's supposed easy to be magnanimous when you win (and you have won).

I, for one, look forward to all the furor settling down. Honestly, this issue felt a little like it tore me in two, understanding arguments on both sides and feeling that there are good hearted and sincere people on both sides, which was probably the most lonely position of all.

Anyway, do you agree with me that once all the victory laps have been run and all the anger has subsided (and it will with time - it always does), this is essentially a dead issue?

Now what are we gonna talk about?

Getting a simple poll together and sorry about the weird font (I hope it's not huge) - that happens sometimes when I save something to my iPad then copy/paste it later.
I don't think it's a dead issue. States can still refuse to issue gay marriages, and I suspect lesbian couples will rais the divorce rate.
 
A fair point, G, one that I had considered but there is a difference in that Roe left open the possibility of restricting abortion and I think most of the challenges to Roe argue that they fall within acceptable restrictions.

Roe isn't going anywhere. It has in fact been a decided issue for 40 years. By a "dead" issue, you're talking about the backlash...

In that regard i don't see it the same. Even many who support legal right to abortion do not think highly of those who get abortion (aside from rape). With the many options of birth control, it's increasingly seen as avoidable.

Gay couples on the other hand really don't have any alternative to marriage. It seems that more and more voters have come to believe homosexuality is "immutable" (as kennedy put it), thus they realize that denying SSM is cruel and unamerican. I don't even see it as a matter of liberal vs conservative. 'Family values' can include gay people

I'd like to hear of one other social issue, ever in this country, that has undergone a 20 point swing in a single decade. It's certainly not abortion
 
It'll take another year, perhaps two, for the dust to settle. By "dust," I'm referring to attempts by various states to try work-arounds, such as only allowing religious clerks to officiate weddings and other such nonsense. Unfortunately I can't find the article anymore, but there's a bunch of tactics they'll be trying for a while.

I could be proven wrong in time, but i still see these as political sideshows without any practical effect. Part of the ruling is that they have to recognize marriages from other states. Even if *every* county clerk in say oklahoma refused to issue marriage licenses, a gay couple could travel across the border to get hitched. They shouldn't have to, and it'll bring about more lawsuits, but it's nowhere near as big a roadblock as before

In addition, any clerk who refuses will also have to refuse hetero couples, which will leave those voters enraged. Otherwise the clerk can be personally sued and arrested

The supreme court has spoken. It's over
 
I don't think it's a dead issue. States can still refuse to issue gay marriages, and I suspect lesbian couples will rais the divorce rate.

No they can't LOL, did you even read the decision - "it is so ordered" etc
 
There will be dolts fighting a rearguard action for a while. They'll tire of losing or get sued into silence.
 
I could be proven wrong in time, but i still see these as political sideshows without any practical effect. Part of the ruling is that they have to recognize marriages from other states. Even if *every* county clerk in say oklahoma refused to issue marriage licenses, a gay couple could travel across the border to get hitched. They shouldn't have to, and it'll bring about more lawsuits, but it's nowhere near as big a roadblock as before

In addition, any clerk who refuses will also have to refuse hetero couples, which will leave those voters enraged. Otherwise the clerk can be personally sued and arrested

The supreme court has spoken. It's over
Just like Roe was the last word on abortion, right? ;)
 
Yes, it was. 40 years later it still stands
Roe was not the word. There was another supreme court case on abortion after it, which wasn't the last word either. After Planned Parenthood v Casey we got the Unborn Victims Of Violence Act, verious states passed all kinds of legislation regarding parental consent, ultrasounds, and Texas closed most of the abortion clinics in the state by requiring the atending physician to have hospital admithing privileges.

Roe wasn't the last word on abortion at all. This won't be the last word on gay marriage, either.
 
Since AG Paxton of Texas told the clerks not to issue same sex marriage licenses if they believed it wrong I guess it is not a dead issue. Some still want a fight.
 
I don't think this is over by any means. In fact, I expect the lawsuits to fly, especially as they relate to religious freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom