What if a Republican president were elected in 2016? How do you think that would negatively impact LGBT peoples, Women's reproductive rights, et cetera? But mainly pertaining to LGBT concerns. It's time to start lively debate in Oasis' forums!
is that the party will have imploded by then! Or... that could be just wishful thinking...
I'm kind of hoping that the party will just fade away due to their inward conflicts in ideology and actions. It seems like they've become irrelevent, it's quite sad in a sense.
It is hard to say, since there is no Republican Party right now, but several.
The Tea Party/lunatic fringe obsessed with the issues you mention is becoming the small, vocal part. But a significant number seem to want to get the party to move away from social issues, since they are losing propositions.
Of course, if you're Republican and you say that, you get attacked by the Tea Partiers.
Seems like the party has to rally or risk having no shot in 2016. A good indicator will be the next Congressional elections, if that results in Republican losses, they will need to figure something out.
On LGBT issues, I usually think that a Democrat in office means optimism and little advancement, and a Republican means pessimism and little change. A lot of our advancement is judicial at this point, and few anti-gay laws remain on the books.
Even in today's gridlock the Senate passed a trans-inclusive ENDA today, on its way to the House, so there are few issues left to advance, and everything they try and take away, the courts typically reverse in time. It's becoming a non-issue, as it should be. Technically, it was only made into an issue to get anti-gay voters to get to the polls and vote, so if you didn't care for the Republican, and they got you there to stop those nasty fags, you'd probably vote Republican while you were there, etc.
This issue is over soon.
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles
Ah… ENDA! Thankfully, the Toomey amendment (expansion of the religious exemptions) failed to make it through the Senate yesterday! But, I find it quite maddening that any organization holds sufficient political clout to be able to extract such a concession! The basic religious exemption remains, and this concession essentially eviscerates ENDA!
I wish that the rationale for religious exemptions could be explained… in a manner that demonstrates it will result in benefits for all… not just that it promises more Repub votes! It's logic fails miserably! If ENDA in its current form passes the House today (or whenever)… it will prove a lawyer's dream: interminable lawsuits!
See these related articles:
The religious exemption has been in there since the beginning, but they also got a similar exemption for the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. So, I don't see it as eviscerating ENDA.
This law has existed with that exemption for the past 40 years that they've been trying to get it passed, and right now you can be fired by ANY employer for being gay in 29 states. So, I wouldn't hold up ENDA for religious employers at the risk of every other person in 29 states that doesn't work for a religious employer.
Their logic breaks down pretty easily, though, if you flip it around and ask whether someone should be able to fire someone for their religious beliefs.
The reason this didn't pass last time, though, was its trans inclusion. They could not get the amount of votes in the House with that in there. And, it was withdrawn to hold out for that inclusion to pass the House by Kennedy, if I recall properly.
I wasn't really in favor of that decision, and with the current House, who knows what will happen... if the Republicans that want to elect a President anytime soon get their way, they will pass this to show they are living in the present day. Although, the House has indicated they have no plan to bring this up for a vote anytime soon, if at all.
But we've not yet seen how it's going to work in whatever form it is eventually passed! The fact that a religious exclusion has always existed in the various iterations of an ENDA bill is hardly relevant. I am confident, however, that the exemption will remain. What Toomey wanted (and didn't get!) was an expansion covering peripheral organizations.
You say that you wouldn't want to see the bill fail if the religious exemption remains.
I hope you didn't think I felt otherwise! With so many re-elections being dependent on that exemption... there's no alternative! It's just a sad fact!
However… when a religious exemption is exercised, I feel that the individual/organization should be required to show that the anti-LGBT stance is clearly expressed in that religion's openly-published doctrine!
That is our system. We pass things, then they go live in the real world and, based on how that works, we fix things. Those fixes can come from challenges up to the Supreme Court or lawmakers amending things.
There is this new notion that we always pass things that are perfect on day one, if one were to believe the Obamacare opposition, but I see no proof of that...
and he isn't very anti-gay. So ligbit should be good forever.
... was anti-gay until very recently. He threatened to veto the marriage equality bill, but then didn't, and previously was on the fence about the law banning conversion therapy.
Of course, for the GOP, this makes him light years ahead of the Tea Party faction. ;-)
Chris Christie is like known for being a pragmatic moderate because he didn't irrationally get angry about the thought of government help after Sandy, just because that government happens to be Obama's.
And considering he was from a stricken state, which most of the Republicans who picked that weird fight weren't, it seems more like a move of self-preservation to me.
The fact that he's remembered positively for that, which should've been very instinctive and automatic, is kinda sad.
(Of course, our political system isn't that polarized, as it goes. In Greece they have a communist party staring down a neo-Nazi party and everything in between, while both our parties agree on almost everything except for weird symbolic fights they pick over things that don't make sense. The problem is that our electoral system favors candidates from the center, but our primary system favors candidates that don't compromise, so while they're very close ideologically they can't compromise or the voters will fuck them.)
You said it much better than I could have.
The Republicans as of now are very, very weak, that shutdown pushed their disapproval rating over 50%, the highest for any party ever.
Of course, I still don't understand why they picked that fight, from the very first article I saw about what they were doing I predicted that Obama knew he couldn't just hand over control of the government to the Republicans because they wanted it bad enough, and so the shutdown would just get worse and worse until the voters, while stupid, were smart enough to fuck the Republicans till they bled and had to stop.
But, of course, the Democrats aren't very strong either.
I mean, give Obama his due, the Republicans are attacking Obamacare because they can. They don't have a better solution, because Obamacare is the conservative, free-market solution to getting health care to everyone. They're not afraid it will fail, they're afraid it will become popular.
But that won't happen while Obama's being patently dumb. I mean, lying about the insurance thing? Those individual plans were hardly plans at all, of course, more just "if your medical bills reach $1 million, the insurance company will send you a really nice get-well-soon card".
But he had to say, again and again, very clearly, their plans wouldn't be taken away, and I think we can be pretty sure he knew damn well they were, while he was saying that.
And the website thing? Come on! He seems determined to fuck his own legacy into the ground through incompetence and political pussyfooting, it will empower the Republicans, and it's so unnecessary (although, of course, the Republicans' problems are unnecessary too).
To answer the original question, though, as of now I very tentatively think it'll be a Democrat, because Obama's grabbed a lot of personal unpopularity without hurting the Democrats as much as the Republicans seem determined to intentionally screw themselves as a collective.
Even if it is a Republican, though, which it could very easily be, I don't think it'll matter. Public opinion is now on our side, a majority favor gay marriage. Just last year, as I'm sure you know, my state passed the first gay marriage initiative.
Now, Washington's far from Mississippi, and a lot of states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, so country-wide marriage is probably at least a decade or so off, but I don't think we'll be losing much ground, though big, federal endorsements won't start happening for a few years til public opinion really becomes overwhelming.
Isn't gay rights (which I see as a given anymore; public opinion is for the gays and I don't see that changing), I predict trouble for trans rights. While we're making progress, we're still not doing very well, and we're far more likely to be murdered by someone who finds out than we are to get a shrug and a 'who cares?'. The democrats probably wouldn't make it BETTER, but I worry that the republicans might make it worse.
* * *
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
and miles to go before I sleep,
and miles to go before I sleep.