I just don’t understand how you can say it is baseless left wing hysteria when powerful and influential Republicans are literally saying they want to do exactly that. That is the basis. If republicans weren’t saying they want to come after gay marriage, no one would be worried. But they are.
Baseless would be saying that Democrats want to come after gay marriage. Obviously there is no basis for that statement. But when powerful Republicans literally say exactly that they want to end gay marriage, it forms the basis for concerns that they will follow through.
Just last month the Texas Republican Party had a convention and declared “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”, which sets the debate about homosexuality back decades. What about the Texas Republican Party platform is left wing media hysteria? What about the position that homosexuality is “abnormal” signals to you that Republicans aren’t coming after gay rights? We’re not talking about a single justice or senator here; we are talking about a state party platform, in a state controlled entirely by that party.
Well, groups are made up of large numbers of people, so we can’t understand the direction of those groups by looking at the opinions of those groups by looking at a relative handful of people (or rather, we can via polling, but that’s not what you’re describing).
Anyway, “abnormal lifestyle choice” isn’t a “decades” setback. Homosexuality has only been mainstream for a little more than a decade, and even then about half of Republicans have opposed it.
Honestly, people who are so concerned should focus on making the Democrats electable again, because we’ve tried enormous amounts of left-wing spin from every epistemological institution and all manner of divisiveness and that hasn’t worked particularly well so far.
We can understand the directions of groups by looking at their elected leaders. Take the US House for instance: just today those representing the GOP in the US House voted overwhelmingly against a bill protecting same-sex marriage at the federal level. Today!
I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs?
How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need?
I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it?
And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.
Baseless would be saying that Democrats want to come after gay marriage. Obviously there is no basis for that statement. But when powerful Republicans literally say exactly that they want to end gay marriage, it forms the basis for concerns that they will follow through.
Just last month the Texas Republican Party had a convention and declared “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”, which sets the debate about homosexuality back decades. What about the Texas Republican Party platform is left wing media hysteria? What about the position that homosexuality is “abnormal” signals to you that Republicans aren’t coming after gay rights? We’re not talking about a single justice or senator here; we are talking about a state party platform, in a state controlled entirely by that party.