No Matter What Supreme Court Decides On Gay Marriage, Republican Party Is On Wrong Side Of History!

The Supreme Court may decide to deal with the issue of gay marriage in a very narrow sense, rather than a broad sense, due to the possibility that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito may influence Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to join their side, as they do about 70 percent of the time.

But no matter what happens, the Republican Party will suffer, since the momentum of history is moving the nation toward acceptance of gay marriage, with young people having no problem accepting it, and senior citizens, a majority of whom oppose it, soon to be gone from the scene. And the Republican Party officeholders caving in to their conservative evangelical Christian base will marginalize them very soon.

It is interesting that Republicans NOT in office, more than 100 of them, have endorsed gay marriage, while only Ohio Senator Rob Portman has been willing, among Republican officeholders, to back the concept. So such hate mongers and extremists as Bryan Fischer, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, and Tony Perkins hold undue sway over the party, and the effect will be that the GOP will be unable to compete on an even basis for the Presidency and the Senate, although they may be able to hold on to the House of Representatives, due to gerrymandering which helps to set up rural districts that will continue to resist cultural change.

But again, in the long run of history, the Republican Party is painting itself into a corner, and burning their bridges behind them, as the population changes and social attitudes become more tolerant.

29 comments on “No Matter What Supreme Court Decides On Gay Marriage, Republican Party Is On Wrong Side Of History!

  1. D March 26, 2013 11:58 pm

    I just finished through watching on Blu-ray the 2012 Oscar-winning “Lincoln.” What a flip-flop of today’s two parties! The Democrats, back then, were on the wrong side of history.

    I believe Ohio U.S. Sen. Rob Portman moving in support of marriage equality is the beginning. I anticipate that Maine U.S. Sen. Susan Collins will also move. Part of it, cyncially, has to do with the fact that Collins’s Senate seat is scheduled for next year’s midterms election. And given her state (along with Maryland and Washington) broke new ground with last year’s elections to support same-sex marriage … she’s liable to flip. I also anticipate that New Hampshire U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, up for re-election in 2016, may make the move as well. (Admittedly, I don’t know where she is on the “conservative” bar. But given Theodore Olson’s conservative argument for this issue, and that Ayotte doesn’t hail from a state advantageous for Republicans, I wouldn’t be surprised if she flips along with Portman and, as mentioned, Collins.)

    According to (03.26.2013 @ 11:55 p.m. ET), there are ten from the Democratic caucus of U.S. senators not yet “on board.” That they have not yet “declared support.” They are: Arkansas’ Mark Pryor; Delaware’s Tom Carper; Florida’s Bill Nelson; Indiana freshman Joe Donnelly; Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu; North Carolina’s Kay Hagan; North Dakota freshman Heidi Heitkamp; Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey; South Dakota’s Tim Johnson; West Virginia’s Joe Manchin.

    The seats of Pryor, Landrieu, Hagan, and Johnson are scheduled for next year’s elections. If one is to be a weasel about these things, and assume that all three might lose re-election next year over support of same-sex marriage, Hagan is the one in the best position to survive. But it doesn’t matter. Arkansas and Louisiana weren’t friendly to President Obama in either of his elections (even though at least one of the two would have carried for an-otherwsie-nominated Hillary Clinton); so their support wouldn’t make a difference.

    So, this is may way of saying that I anticipate more Democrats will get on board. Have fun guessing the order.


    To reiterate: This issue is moving strongly in the direction of marriage equality. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see those undeclared Democrats come through with declared support (nearly all or every one left). And it wouldn’t surprise me if the two other Republicans from the U.S. Senate also come on board. What would be truly surprising is if Pennsylvania’s junior Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey declared his support before the state’s senior Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey emerged with his.

  2. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 8:27 am

    If the Republicans are on the wrong side of history and the momentum of history is moving the nation toward changing the definition of marriage,then why not accept the vote of the people? It’s curious that in the states where they changed the definition of marriage you generally don’t see the opponents rush to the courts like spoiled brats because the lost. But on the other hand whenever the proponents of such change lose, they rush to the courts!

  3. Ronald March 27, 2013 8:45 am

    Juan, it should not be up to the “people” to decide what basic human rights a person has! There should be no limitations on basic freedoms, including the right to vote, the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to marry, etc. When interracial marriage was declared constitutional in Loving V. Virginia in 1967, a vast majority in public opinion polls were opposed, and a substantial percentage even today would be so. It is NOT up to those who are prejudiced, ignorant, or hateful to determine what my rights or your rights are! That is “direct democracy” gone wild!

  4. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 9:16 am

    Ron: But this is not about a right, is about a definition. Everyone, gay, straight or whatever, has a right to “Marriage” , but I ask what is marriage? Who defines it? You and I and everyone else does not have a right to marry their sister or brother or more than one person of the opposite sex? Is that denying our fundamental right to marry? And this is not the same as interracial marriage, because as I have said before there are no differences between between humans of different races. But there are differences between a male human being and a female human being that are the essence of the definition of marriage. And Loving did not change the definition of marriage, it just overturned a discriminatory clause that prohibited blacks from marrying whites (blacks could marry Asians and so forth,the only ones excluded from marrying people from other races were whites), but did not change the male -female basis for marriage because that is what marriage has always been defined as, the union between a male human being and female human being. The differences between the two is the essence of the definition of marriage. What you a proposing is to change a definition. It would be like me saying I want to “purchase” a certain house, and when I got to the realtor he says the price of the house is $300 k, and I say but I want to purchase it for free! And I insist on changing the definition of “purchase” to acquiring something for free! It is my right! My fundamental right to have a house! You are discriminating against me because of tradition that say I have to have money to purchase a house, because of the traditional definition of the word “purchase”! You are prohibiting me from entering into a contract to “purchase” a house because I am poor! I am being discriminated! And I could go further , even if the owner of the house wanted to sell it to me for free, he could not use the word purchase in the contract!!! He would have to use the word donation! Its the same argument people are making against the definition of marriage! Now, you are lucky because society in some places are willing to change the definition of marriage more than they would be willing to change the definition of “purchase” (though we got into the housing bubble because government did try!). But to have a court change the definition is outrageous.

  5. Ronald March 27, 2013 9:18 am

    Juan, to compare “Marriage” to “Purchase of a Home” is preposterous, and not worthy of an intelligent lawyer as you are! Come on, give me a break!

  6. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 10:08 am

    Ron: It was just to make a point that we are talking about a definition. You know better than that, please. In any event I am curious to know what your definition of marriage is?

  7. Ronald March 27, 2013 11:55 am

    My definition of marriage is a commitment based on love and acceptance of each other’s strengths and faults, and a desire to spend one’s life together in full loyalty to each other’s interests, whether healthy or sick, until death separates the two people involved!

  8. James March 27, 2013 2:01 pm

    The Republican part here just does not want to change their views. From a purely strategical aspect the change on views here would gains some votes in upcoming elections. It would behoove Republicans to accept this change and change in the future.

  9. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 4:06 pm

    Ron: I am ashamed of you! How can you put forth such a discriminatory and exclusive definition of marriage? Why are you limiting only to two people and excluding those who were born through no fault of their own as polyamorous? Why are you limiting marriage only between two people? Why are you so full of hate and bigotry? Why won’t you let people be happy and free to choose how many spouses they wish to share, love and have? Why are you forcing you views and limiting love in marriage to only 2 people! Seriously Ron, I thought you were for civil rights! I never would have imagine that you would discriminate so much. You have such an antiquated idea of marriage and family and you wish to impose it on the rest!

  10. Ronald March 27, 2013 4:20 pm

    HAHA, you are hilarious, Juan, dripping with sarcasm! 🙂 LOL At first, I was taken aback, but then realized you are saying what you state as a comedy routine!

  11. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 6:01 pm

    LOL I can assure you that in a few years it will not be a laughing issue for the polyamorous community! In any event , my point is that no matter what definition you have of marriage it can always be viewed as “discriminatory” and “exclusive”.

  12. Young Progressive March 27, 2013 6:31 pm

    I define marriage that way as well Professor.

  13. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 8:32 pm

    Well Young, then you too are discriminatory and exclusive, plus bigoted! LOL!

  14. Ronald March 27, 2013 8:58 pm

    Come on, Juan, let’s be civil and dignified! And I suggest you NOT look in the mirror! 🙂

  15. Young Progressive March 27, 2013 9:20 pm


    I second what the Professor said. Be civil and dignified or he might ban you.

  16. Young Progressive March 27, 2013 9:55 pm


    The key difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage is that gay marriage permits equality between spouses; polygamy does not.

  17. Juan Domingo Peron March 27, 2013 10:25 pm

    @Young: I’m curious to know what kind of equality are you talking about? Polyamorous people love each other equally and differently! Sometimes its a triad, one women and 2 men or 1 man and 2 women. It can even be more that 3 people, 4! Two men and two women! There is actually no pre-established limit.

  18. Juan Domingo Peron March 28, 2013 9:10 am

    @Young: Oh but I am not talking about polygamy in that old fashion male centered traditional sense but in a modern polyamory western sense which is happening today not only in the US but in many countries. First, not only a man can be in union with more than one woman but a woman with more than one man and the relationships can be various. Also a woman may be bi and is perfectly happy with a FMF triad family as well as a man who is bi in a MFM or even gays/lesbians in a MMM or FFF traid! Or more. Also assets in case of divorce would be evenly divided among everyone, none of this man gets all from his wives or woman gets all from her husbands. In any event there would be no “he has more sex than she” as the article states. But I must insist if that were the case, it is a private arrangement and as such they have the fundamental constitutional right to be recognized by the state/government. What do you , anyone or the government cares how much sex is going on? As long as alimony and assets are equally divided then all this equality issue is resolved. Don’t you think we all have a fundamental right to decide how we want to form our families and that is should be recognized by the state/government?

  19. Idol Girl March 28, 2013 1:40 pm


    The most common form of polygamy is one male with multiple wives. I’ve never heard of one female with multiple husbands. That must be rather rare. Anyway, the women in this type of marriage arrangement are basically being used for breeding purposes. As a woman and a strong supporter of feminine rights, I find this to be demeaning.

  20. Juan Domingo Peron March 29, 2013 10:32 am

    A draft statement for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released from an anonymous hacker and dated April 1, 2013, reveals the potential 2016 presidential candidate will become the first presidential hopeful of either party to formally endorse legalizing polygamy, polyamory and adultery.
    Clinton is also lending her name to a new coalition being formed by a number of celebrities including former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, South Carolina ex-Governor Mark Sanford, and golfer Tiger Woods.
    The Clinton draft statement for April 1 reads this way:
    Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights and the guiding principles of my faith. Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block of our society. A great joy, and yes, a great responsibility.”
    For example, I have learned much from the wisdom of my great friend Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa. Jacob, as you can see here, is the world’s most prominent polygamist, having married his lovely sixth wife, Gloria Bongi Ngema. Ms. Bongi Ngema already shares First Lady duties by accompanying the president on official trips, along with President Zuma’s three other current wives. In truth, President Zuma’s several wives have shared their husband with much more grace than I shared my own husband with Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones or the many other women, famous and unknown, that were my husband’s various attractions.
    I owe each and every one of those women an apology. I was unaware at the time just how bigoted were my reactions, and I was wrong to have felt as I did.
    My great friend Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has, as I know was reported years ago, four wives, seven sons and fifteen daughters. He is a wonderful man who has provided me with much wisdom on this subject. And of course, our British allies, the United Kingdom, have begun the long journey to civil rights and fairness by legalizing polygamy for Muslims in the UK.
    A few years ago, Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the first serious love of her life. I wish every parent that same joy. To deny the opportunity to our own daughters and sons to have multiple partners solely on the basis of how many they love and when they love them is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential, as Bill has so often said to me.
    I know that many in our country, like my friend Maria Shriver, still struggle to reconcile the teachings of their religion, the pull of their conscience, the personal experiences they have in their families and communities. And people of good will and good faith will continue to view this issue differently. So I hope as we discuss and debate, whether it’s around a kitchen table or through flying dishes, as Bill and I have occasionally discussed the issue of multiple partners for so many years, or in the public square, we do so in a spirit of respect and understanding.
    For those of us who lived through the long years of the civil rights and women’s rights movements, the speed with which more and more people have come to embrace the dignity and equality of Polygamous, Polyamorous and Adulterous Americans has been breathtaking, and inspiring. We see it all around us, every day, in major cultural statements and in quiet family moments. Who can forget Big Love, the touching HBO series on plural marriage? Or the sheer joy of Ellen DeGeneres celebrating the reality TV show Sister Wives, the true story of the courageous Kody Brown and his four wives? As Ellen noted on her show that day, “I don’t judge because I really believe whatever works for somebody should work for somebody and its nobody else’s business.”
    Amen to Ellen.
    In my own personal life, I can never forget the wonderful and deeply courageous women who have made my marriage to Bill so richly diverse and distinctly memorable, whether in our days in Arkansas or the White House. But the journey is far from over, and therefore we must keep working to make our country free, fairer and more chilled out.”
    Over the years I have come to realize the sheer bigotry, not to mention futility, of keeping people from loving the people they want to love.
    There is no reason in the world my marriage can’t be shared with Monica, or as I call her “Sister Wife Number 17” not to mention with Gennifer (Sister Wife Number 5), Paula (Sister Wife Number 6) and, well, not to bore with names, Sister Wives Number 2, 3, 4 and 7 thru 16.
    Over time, I must say my husband and I have reached agreement that adultery laws are antiquated relics. I mean, who’s kidding whom, right?”
    Clinton’s stunning statement comes on the heels of the blockbuster news she is to be the honorary chair of a new human rights organization called Proud, Polygamous, Polyamorous and Adulterous Too (“PP —PAT” for short). Serving as honorary co-chairs with Clinton will be her husband, former President Bill Clinton, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, golfer Tiger Woods and polygamist Kody Brown. Particularly notable is that Clinton tried to enlist Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, a GOP 2016 presidential prospect, as an honorary co-chair. Senator Paul’s office issued a statement that fell short of endorsing PPPAT but calling for Americans to “embrace liberty in the personal sphere.”
    PPPAT is also challenging the Human Rights Campaign’s support for what it calls the “LGBT” community, saying the HRC’s refusal to include polygamists, polyamorists, and adulterers effectively and ironically makes the longtime human rights group guilty of discrimination.
    “It’s outrageous Establishment BS,” said PPPAT Executive Director Mary Ralph Pelosi, the longtime San Francisco activist who identified herself as the openly bisexual cousin of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Aiming her remark directly at the Human Rights Campaign and liberal gay rights groups, Mary Ralph Pelosi said: “What’s the point of being bisexual if I can’t have a husband and a wife? To shut the door on the civil rights of polyamorists is outright bigotry and a violation of our civil rights. It is a disgraceful attack on marriage and relationship equality.”
    A covering e-mail also released by the anonymous hacker was a simple one-line sentence from former Secretary Clinton to her staff. It read:
    After long and intense discussions with my husband, I finally decided: “What the hell.”
    There was also one last e-mail, an incoming e-mail from Bill Clinton to Hillary. It read:
    “Go baby!!!!”

  21. Ronald March 29, 2013 10:48 am

    Are you being serious, Juan? I have not heard of this, but I must say if Hillary does what you have said she will do, that would certainly kill any chance of her winning the White House, as I cannot believe that Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Mark Warner, Deval Patrick, and any other potential Democratic nominee for President would adopt the same stand!

  22. Juan Domingo Peron March 29, 2013 11:10 am

    Ron: LOL!!!! Look at the date of the draft statement! I thought a bit of humor was necessary after this contentious week! LOL!!!!

  23. Ronald March 29, 2013 11:12 am

    OHHH, WHACK! You pulled one on me, dammit it! LOL Is this from ONION? 🙂

  24. Juan Domingo Peron March 29, 2013 11:14 am

    No not from Onion.

  25. Idol Girl March 29, 2013 11:16 am


    That was sooooo funny I forgot to laugh 😉

  26. Ronald March 29, 2013 11:18 am

    And I feel foolish, and must get back at Juan, somehow! 🙂 LOL So, Juan, did you conjure that up, or where was it found? 🙂

  27. Juan Domingo Peron March 29, 2013 1:18 pm

    Of course I didn’t conjure it up, though to tell you the truth I had thought about Hillary and polygamy these days, especially since I was posting about the right to have more than one spouse. So imagine my surprise when I read this piece written by Jeffrey Lord! LOL ! It was just too tempting to pass by.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.