In one sense, it’s good to have a clear demarcation between the degenerate fag states and real America, in case Obama gets re-elected and the option of secession becomes an increasingly appealing course of action.
Secession doesn’t sound so appealing when the fact comes along that it does not solve the base problem. I have spoken about the same for the few dissappointed political figures who suggested breaking up Arizona to have separate red and blue states in response to Arizona SB 1070, it creates plenty of problems for what you supposedly solve. In addition, sexuality can be concealed, if any secession did occur, we would find ourselves with any “closet homosexuals” that were already there coming in and campaigning for their “rights” just as they did before. There is no alternative to living where you live, believing what you believe, enduring, and defending faith as needs be.
In addition, I would advise against suggesting secession on FR, most of us understand the urge, but the drawbacks of secession (division, smaller weaker forces to defend or believe in something, etc.), outweigh any perceived benefits.
Not much point in getting deeply invested in opposition to gay marriage".
Demographics are destiny on this one - this year as predicted we crossed the line between minority and majority support for such unions on a national basis, and you can predict within a reasonable margin of error when such legislation will be passing in various state.
The most recent estimate I've seen posits that Mississippi will be last holdout, legalizing such unions sometime between 2032 and 2035.
Likely well before that most if not all states will have some form of some form of civil union or full marital status because not having such is going to become an increasing competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses.
For example my wife works for an F-100 multinational where the majority of gays and lesbians are "out" and there is a strong anti-discrimination policy on the basis of sexual orientation, and there is just no chance that this company is going to be establishing major new facilities in states that don't recognize some form of marital rights for such employees - many of whom are highly placed in the company.
Also, we are rapidly going to get into problems aligning benefits, rights and responsibilities between various states, it's going to be a real mess for example when one state refuses hospital visitation rights to a "spouse" entitled to them in their state of residence - it's bad publicity, bad press, and it's rapidly going to be seen as a bad idea.
Of course, you can talk secession - the problem is that within 10 or 15 years rural areas rural would have to start seceding from urban areas *within* most (likely, all) Red States... as by that time there will be majority voter support for some form of marital status and most of them.
And in the meantime - to the extent that this is a touchstone of conservative policy - it means that you are alienating large numbers of younger voters who might otherwise be a natural conservative constituency.
Nope, time to let this one go.