Posted on 10/07/2014 6:59:44 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
To see how the politics of gay marriage has changed in this country in 11 years, revisit this Nov. 19, 2003 New York Times piece after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay denounced what he said was a “runaway judiciary”; the Republican National Committee said the decision “could be an issue” in the upcoming presidential contest; and an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate predicted the subject “is going to come up again and again.” And, well, in 2004, a strong argument can be made....
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Yep.
And if you can’t say anything good, spend your efforts winning elections and packing that court with right-thinking justices.
They did not approve gay marriage, just refused to deal with the issue. Every justice counts, and we need a Senate firewall to keep more Ginsbergs off the bench.
What can they say?
It was imposed by Romney (GOP),
just like ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE.
Sort of like when your kids are out doing burglaries and beatings, and otherwise acting up, and you, the parent know the kids are behaving badly. Refusing to deal with them is not the same as approving.
I'm reminded of the maxim, "silence is approval." Granted, it is not literally true.
Oh but they are going to take the Senate....... So they can be lead by Mitch McConnell and John McCain.... Yeah that's what conservatives want. Yeah that's the ticket!
Iirc it takes four Justices to agree for the Court to hear a case. I’m guessing Alito, Scalia and Thomas wanted to hear the case, Kennedy (who we know is pro gay marriage) and Roberts (who we assumed is) voted with the Libs to keep it off the docket.
I’m glad you brought up Ginsburg as your example. I see her hand at work here. While she’s a pro abortion extremist, she’s actually anti Roe v Wade. In her belief the Court should have left abortion alone, letting the states and lower courts hash it out for several more years until there was societal critical mass on the issue and the Court could have ruled in a less divisive environment.
That seems to be the strategy here. Yes, the Court will eventually hear a case and will eventually rule on it (in favor of it). But only once such a ruling will be seen as an afterthought (by most Americans anyways) on what is a well-established “right” and practice.
The GOP is DEAD. They stand for nothing.
How you gonna get a firewall when the only choice is between the Democrat Party and its wholly owned subsidiary the Gope? There is no Resurrection for the Republic. It has passed.
lol What. You thought the GOP was conservative? Wanna buy a bridge?
Interesting that they ruled just before the election.
Ted Cruz is not an option for most of us. We have to vote for Democrats or Democrat-Gopes. Cruz cannot do it alone and he has no backup.
In English the past for "lead" is led. Or were you making a reference to their density?
Well duh.... I was typing fast.
The Dems know there are an awful lot of GOPers just fine with gay marriage, especially the youngest voters.
Trust me, the GOPe is elated with the Supreme Court’s inaction here and the resulting mandatory legalization of gay marriage. It has been taken off the table as a political issue so for them the matter is resolved and they didn’t have to take the heat (either way) by voting on it. They couldn’t care less what the actuall result was, theyre just grateful for the political cover.
Yes. I think you have a salient point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.