Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
6. that's true, but saying that it should be enforced through the courts
Fri May 11, 2012, 07:01 AM
May 2012

would have lost him the election- period.

look, you have to see this as a tipping point. Already in the Senate, they're moving on ENDA and DOMA. Since the President announced his support for marriage equality, Senator Reid and Senator Reed have announced their support.

The President, if re-elected will almost surely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Justice to the SC- and maybe one who will tip the balance on the court. He will certainly have the opportunity to name scores to the Federal Bench.

The old axiom, that politics is the art of the possible holds true here, just as it did for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 when he supported the stop of the spread of slavery but not outright abolition.



And no, the standard republican position on abortion is that it should be outlawed on the federal level.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

du rec. nt xchrom May 2012 #1
I think I get it. vaberella May 2012 #2
Great if you spend the rest of your life in that state that recognizes you marriage HockeyMom May 2012 #5
I know. vaberella May 2012 #8
Bipartisanship? mmonk May 2012 #3
when ANYONE says "leave it to the states" they almost always mean "we'd lose at the federal level." unblock May 2012 #4
Stare Decisis HockeyMom May 2012 #12
that's true, but saying that it should be enforced through the courts cali May 2012 #6
It's the Constitution that did that, not the President. n/t pnwmom May 2012 #7
Exactly. Historically, it's been viewed as a power reserved to the states. pinboy3niner May 2012 #10
That decision already happened: Loving v. Virginia. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #11
You misunderstand his point. Skinner May 2012 #17
They don't need to. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #18
I agree. hack89 May 2012 #20
I don't understand your point. Skinner May 2012 #24
Congress has nothing to do with it. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #26
Ok, then. I agree. Skinner May 2012 #28
Religion should be taken out of marriage. LiberalFighter May 2012 #22
AMEN ! SoCalDem May 2012 #30
Maybe this is what he has to do... Zorra May 2012 #9
So we would have marriage equality but also military dictatorship? EFerrari May 2012 #27
Thanks. Yes, there is, however Zorra May 2012 #29
my two cents Ship of Fools May 2012 #13
Because, as the law now stands, it IS The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #14
Barney Frank... SidDithers May 2012 #15
Here is why: Because marriage has always been a state issue. Skinner May 2012 #16
I would think that the protection of civil rights would trump any claim that states have Bonobo May 2012 #19
Some day, the protection of civil rights WILL trump any claim that states have. Skinner May 2012 #23
Some federal laws are more about what states can't do loyalsister May 2012 #21
A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority Zorra May 2012 #25
I think the issue is two fold.......... mrmpa May 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If marriage is a civil ri...»Reply #6