Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think there are two reasons.
1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.
This obviously, is changing.
2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...
That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.
Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.
Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree 
-spence |
Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.
"with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives "
We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.
"remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree
"
Not in my case.
i think this hurts Obama slightly more than it helps him. Which means one of two things. Either he is politically brave, or he has stupid advisers.
The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?