Republican attended gay son's wedding days after voting against same-sex marriage

Well, that's true but only because of a 5-4 decision that almost certainly would have gone the other way in front of the current Court. Even after the Supreme Court ruling, there were various counties that were refusing to issue licenses and refusing to comply with it because they were so upset by it. Reversal is certainly possible.

 

There are all sorts of ironies in individuals holding positions about public issues that would seem at odds with who they are or should be personally. I would submit, and I know this is controversial, that perhaps the most radical feminist in history, measured by his actions versus the acceptable standards of his time, was Jesus of Nazareth. But many of his purported followers hold precisely opposite beliefs.


On a similar note, Emperor Paul I of Russia remains a symbol for the Russian Imperial Movement, which has substantial overlap with far right wing movements worldwide, including this country, for the proposition that women should not exercise power, only men. Paul I was the son of Catherine the Great, who always makes the short list of the most powerful women in history and was an ardent believer that women should exercise power. She pursued full equality about as strongly as someone could in her time and position


The world is full of contradictions

 

What is it you think this federal law would be mandating?

 

Firearms; age of consent; abortion; marijuana; just off the top of my head.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I'll give you marijuana, but Firearms? Every conversation I recall revolves around the second amendment making states rights moot. It's actually quite the opposite, there, how many state laws have been shot down due to SCOTUS telling states they DONT have the right regulate firearms as they see fit? The abortion debate roughly fits with this, since it is the religious right trying to force their beliefs on everyone else ... and that was shot down because SCOTUS says people don't have a constitutional right to privacy. Can't recall any major debates about the age of consent.

 

Thats the thing.

A federal law would only mandate states recognize the marriage (as they may do now, perilously). It preserves individual choice and gives their marriage legal equality. There is no comprehensible downside to giving people equality. It’s very much in line with all other civil rights protections the federal govt has imposed on would be slave states. People who didn’t like interracial marriages were never forced to interracially marry, this is essentially similar, if you don’t like “gay marriage” so what? Who cares?

Social conservatives want the power of the state to deny individual choice. All this hiding behind “states rights” is horseshit when that desired “right” of the state is actually for the state to take away the full and inalienable right of the individual to peruse their individual liberty on equal terms. Cloak it in whatever you want (states rights, religious belief, whatever), doesn’t matter. Individual rights > “states rights” any day that ends in y.

 

To be even clearer, this bill doesn't actually require states to legalize gay marriage if Republican SCOTUS overturns Obergefell. It only requires states to give full faith and credit to the marriage laws of other states. Basically, Alabama could prohibit gay marriage, but if the couple went to New York and got married, Alabama couldn't refuse to recognize a valid New York marriage. That is fully within the federal government's powers.

 

Look man. Maybe thats his thing. Maybe he hates gays and wants his son burned at thee stake.

I'm just saying none of us know and all I see is a guy willing to lay his political views down for the sake of his son.

As to your question, Abortion is the most common use of the states rights argument in my view. Not a bigoted topic to anyone that I know of.