Please answer this question "yes" or "no."

[Pab Sungenis]

61. Three reasons.

First, both abortion and same-sex marriage are extremely controversial issues in the political arena.

Second, the reasoning in Roe and in Loving are basically rooted in the same place: the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Neither right (privacy nor marriage) is expressly stated in the Constitution but are recognized as fundamental rights which cannot be unduly restricted.

Third, the Democratic Party (although some refuse to admit it) have made abortion a litmus test. And rightly so. We wouldn't and shouldn't dream of nominating someone who did not believe in the Constitutional underpinnings of Roe.

Yet because it's politically expedient the right of LGBT*.* to equal protection under the law gets thrown under the bus by a Democratic appointment to the Court and a Democratic President does nothing.

When Bush nominated someone to the Court who turned out to be less than 1,275% against abortion and activists complained, he yanked her nomination quickly. When Obama nominated someone to the Court who disdained a fundamental right when applied to LGBT*.* she was lauded and confirmed.

I will never forgive Obama for not pulling her appointment, and I will never forgive my Senators for voting to confirm her. I won't necessarily vote against them but I will never be able to fully trust them again.

And for all of the people on here who voted "no," none of you have any right to ever tell me that we have to vote for Obama because otherwise the Supreme Court is lost for a generation. Thanks to Obama, the Court already is lost for at least a generation as far as LGBT*.* people are concerned. And the more you hammer away at the Court as an issue, the further you drive the wedge between the Party and a loyal part of its base who were gleefully discarded until they turned their back on the Party at the midterms.