Votes on Gay Rights Never Match Public Opinion.

[Goggindowner]

As for true public opinion goes, I think the overwhelming majority of people most likely fall in to the "what other people choose to do with their lives is their business" field of thought. That is the attitude of almost everyone I know, including myself. If a gay couple wants to get married, their ability to do so in no way diminishes my relationship with my wife, or my day to day life in anyway at all, really. Let 'em have at it. All this political posturing and stupid law making is just that. Stupid. If the federal government makes a decision on this, the states aren't going to be able to do much about it, anyway.

Live and let live, I say.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Agreed. Regardless of why he decided to publicly come out in support of gay marriage, he did. He could have said Biden's crazy or beat around the bush and never made a statement one way or the other, but he said he thinks gays should be allowed to marry. If I'm not mistaken, the first active president in history to say it on the record?

Obama has always been for marriage equality. The "civil unions" thing was just political calculus. In a sense... he just came out of the closet.

[Mister Mets]

Maddow brought this issue up, and it's something I've pondered since Prop 8 in California.

Personally I think it's because the bigots are more passionate about their position than your *average* person who supports marriage equality. I think many, perhaps most supporters of marriage equality are somewhat casual about it. I live in NC but I'm registered to vote in CA, so I couldn't vote on the recent measure.

The Republicans know full well the shift taking place in public opinion. They're gettin' while the gettin's good. These state-by-state constitutional amendments are a preemptive measure to make change take place more slowly.

There are a few possibilities for the discrepancy.

It could be that the groups opposed to gay marriage are better able to get out the vote, by being more organized and/ or more motivated. Older voters tend to vote more than younger voters, and they tend to be more socially conservative.

The other possibility is that people will tell the pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear. Which will mean that public opinion polls won't actually reflect public opinion.

[David Walton]

Just a quick thought about the president's announcement he supports same-sex marriage:

Lot of people seem, I think, overly concerned how the president got to this interview (struggling with the thought Biden's interview really forced him President Obama to take this step). Personally, I don't much care what got him to do this; I'm just happy he did. Having a systemic bias against any group of people based on their sexual preference is stone age type thinking, and in no way, shape, or form is living up to the promise of the country. Imposing some people's sensibilities and/or religious beliefs on others, denying some their ability to pursue happiness because it makes others uncomfortable, is about as wrong as it gets.

I spent 20 plus years defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it's moments like this in history, when our people begin to live up to the ideas espoused in those documents, that make it seem like that was a worthwhile way to spend a good portion of my life.

The floodgates are open and there's no going back now. It's really just a question of who will find themselves on 'the wrong side of history' in the coming years, and how they'll try to spin that role after they've lost the battle. It's going to be hard for the Republicans to say, "We were always on your side!" on this one, even though they could really run with the 'keep goverment out of your life' angle if they chose.

Last night a local news affiliate devoted something like a 1/3rd of their broadcast to a conversation between a lesbian pastor and a Baptist minister opposed to gay marriage.

[Artemis Assassin]

Do Americans have sth like a legal partnership for gays already? I'm from Austria and we had this discussion a few years ago and though most people were pretty sure that a marriage law would get passed or at least hoping so, our politicians made a step beck and gave gays the softened version of a legal partnership with some of the same rights as marriage. Oo

[king arthas]

Wait I have a question how can you be a lesbian pastor if Christianity is against gays? It just doesen't make sense to me for gays to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I mean I can get gays being atheist, Buddhist or other religions that don't have anything against gays. But it just seems weird to me, kind of like a black guy joining the KKK, or a jew joining the Nazis.

[Nick Soapdish]

It took full effect the moment the Supreme Court made its decision. Virginia's law against miscegenation remained on the books until 2000, but it was completely unenforcable. By the same token, if the Supreme Court were to at some point decide in favor of Same Sex Marriage nationwide, many if not all of the so-far 30 state laws banning such marriage would likely remain on the books for some time. Changing laws won't change hearts and minds, that takes time, but it's a start.

Edit: Ah, I think I've misunderstood what you were getting at mike.

Yeah, if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided that same sex marriage was legal, same sex marriage would be legal tomorrow. It's clear full equality nationwide would take forever if left as a state-to-state issue, but it's only a matter of time before it's taken out of their hands.

I'm pretty sure that Loren has brought up before that laws against miscegenation were only on the books in about a third of the states by the time of Virginia-Loving. Some hadn't ever bothered to have such laws and others had been repealing them. So it wasn't quite as dramatic as people seem to think (or at least as dramatic as I thought).

[David Walton]

Wait I have a question how can you be a lesbian pastor if Christianity is against gays? It just doesen't make sense to me for gays to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I mean I can get gays being atheist, Buddhist or other religions that don't have anything against gays. But it just seems weird to me, kind of like a black guy joining the KKK, or a jew joining the Nazis.

Not all Christians interpret Scripture in a way that's hostile to homosexuality.

[Nick Soapdish]

Do Americans have sth like a legal partnership for gays already? I'm from Austria and we had this discussion a few years ago and though most people were pretty sure that a marriage law would get passed or at least hoping so, our politicians made a step beck and gave gays the softened version of a legal partnership with some of the same rights as marriage. Oo

Not on a federal level. Some states do, but they don't get all of the rights and it doesn't transfer between states except for other states that have the same laws.

Wait I have a question how can you be a lesbian pastor if Christianity is against gays? It just doesen't make sense to me for gays to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I mean I can get gays being atheist, Buddhist or other religions that don't have anything against gays. But it just seems weird to me, kind of like a black guy joining the KKK, or a jew joining the Nazis.

Christianity isn't against gays. Some interpretations of passages of the Bible are against gays, but there is disagreement about how those translate and they aren't proscriptions directly from God, but as passed along by people - often written down hundreds of years later which allows plenty of time for errors and personal opinions to get in.

[jesse_custer]

Christianity isn't against gays. Some interpretations of passages of the Bible are against gays, but there is disagreement about how those translate and they aren't proscriptions directly from God, but as passed along by people - often written down hundreds of years later which allows plenty of time for errors and personal opinions to get in.

Plus, it's silly how people emphasize the hell out of a few passages while ignoring so many others. There's little consistency in backing up one's overwhelming distaste for homosexuality with the Bible.

[David Walton]

Plus, it's silly how people emphasize the hell out of a few passages while ignoring so many others. There's little consistency in backing up one's overwhelming distaste for homosexuality with the Bible.

Very little consistency. And there's also translation issues. Some of the passages might not be referring to homosexuality per se but rather prostitution between adults and boys, which is another thing entirely.

[Paradox]

Christianity is made of tons of different little sects. Some are far more progressive than others.

[Matt Algren]

Do Americans have sth like a legal partnership for gays already? I'm from Austria and we had this discussion a few years ago and though most people were pretty sure that a marriage law would get passed or at least hoping so, our politicians made a step beck and gave gays the softened version of a legal partnership with some of the same rights as marriage. Oo

Federally, no. On the state level, it depends on what state you live in. Most don't. Some, like Ohio and North Carolina, which just passed a state constitutional amendment two days ago, have laws that specifically outlaw recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships as well as marriage proper by state, city, and municipality governments.

Wait I have a question how can you be a lesbian pastor if Christianity is against gays? It just doesen't make sense to me for gays to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I mean I can get gays being atheist, Buddhist or other religions that don't have anything against gays. But it just seems weird to me, kind of like a black guy joining the KKK, or a jew joining the Nazis.

Watch the documentary For The Bible Tells Me So. Netflix has it streaming. It has a pretty good examination of the issue and spends a lot of time talking to Gene Robinson, the gay Episcopal bishop from New Hampshire, as well as gay-accepting Catholic and Lutheran families.

As of last year, the United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Lutheran (USA), and Presbyterian denominations all allow ordination of LGBT people.

[Matt Algren]

I'm pretty sure that Loren has brought up before that laws against miscegenation were only on the books in about a third of the states by the time of Virginia-Loving. Some hadn't ever bothered to have such laws and others had been repealing them. So it wasn't quite as dramatic as people seem to think (or at least as dramatic as I thought).

That may be true in the Northeast and West, but especially in the South, Loving v. Virginia had a major impact. Nationally, interracial marriage only gained majority support in public polls in 1997, and some states refused to remove inoperable anti-miscegenation amendments from their constitutions until alarmingly recently. Alabama's was only repealed in 2000.

[Shellhead]

Not all Christians interpret Scripture in a way that's hostile to homosexuality.