Do you seriously have nothing better to do?

Herman Cain beat them to it: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top…

Yup, just look at all the civil unrest and civil disobedience and revolt going in in Maine and Maryland right now. Go for it, Tony. What if you gave a revolution and nobody showed up?

@1 - Welcome to the club.

@1 Was that question directed at yourself?

How do you have civil disobedience to gay marriage? Not getting gay married? Not getting straight married? Divorcing your wife?

Could it be the prelude to a true three- (or more) party system? Evangelical/socially conservative base splinters into Right-wing Nutcakes United, leaving the GOP to refashion itself as Libertarian Lite?

Not to worry, because they're also never going to budge on abortion either. They're digging quite a hole for themselves.

If you want a leader of a crazy fringe group bent on hate I think Michelle Bachman has it locked up. I understand why she dose not want gay marriage, she is in one.

If Tony Perkins and his ilk attempt to perpetrate a "revolution," it will be put down. Swiftly. I'll pop popcorn.

Dan, hi. It's Wayne Self over at Owldolatrous. I'm not convinced it has to be this way. There are plenty of things that Evangelical Christians used to be absolutely opposed to, but now hardly ever mention: women cutting their hair, stores being open on Sunday, dancing, alcohol, etc.

The Bible that they follow is no more absolutist on the subject of LGBT equality than it is on any of those other things. Evangelical Christians found a way to be okay with women wearing pants, for example; they can find a way to be okay with gays. There's plenty of scriptural and social "cover" for them, if we give them the opportunity to use it.

Not that there wouldn't be SOME revolt, and not that it would happen immediately, but it could, and sooner than we might expect, as the old guard begins to die off.

Thanks. For lots.

-Wayne

"If Republicans drop their opposition to gay marriage, the chances that Democrats will continue to pick up majorities of new and young voters will diminish."

So they become the party of God, guns and gays?
I don't think so.
Maybe just tax cuts, guns and gay?

More likely they'll push for the Hispanic/Latino vote by finally doing something reasonable about immigration reform.
But that's going to be difficult for them to get past the "they're taking our jobs!" mantra of the past.

"Santorum with Mike Huckabee as his running mate" - I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Bachmann/Perkins 2020

(I'm guessing the nutters will take one last stab at GOP relevancy in 2016)

Dan, hi. It's Wayne Self over at Owldolatrous. I'm not convinced it has to be this way. There are plenty of things that Evangelical Christians used to be absolutely opposed to, but now hardly ever mention: women cutting their hair, stores being open on Sunday, dancing, alcohol, etc.

The Bible that they follow is no more absolutist on the subject of LGBT equality than it is on any of those other things. Evangelical Christians found a way to be okay with women wearing pants, for example; they can find a way to be okay with gays. There's plenty of scriptural and social "cover" for them, if we give them the opportunity to use it.

Not that there wouldn't be SOME revolt, and not that it would happen immediately, but it could, and sooner than we might expect, as the old guard begins to die off.

Thanks. For lots.

-Wayne

Chris Barron, With Jimmy LaSalvia as VP

Takes the Senate a long time to act on a bill. Guess this one was a victim of election gridlock or may be buried somewhere in a subcommittee. It's worth a shot to write your U. S. Senator and check on its status. Either that or waiting on the U.S Supreme Court Defense of Marriage Act case in this year's docket. Maryland, Maine and Washington had victories in same-sex marriage initiatives.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (S.598) on March 16, 2011. This measure would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 and bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages. S. 598 currently awaits consideration by the full Senate.

If Tony Perkins and his ilk attempt to perpetrate a "revolution," it will be put down. Swiftly. I'll pop popcorn.

@19 -- Er, no.

How about Michele Bachman as top and Rick Santorum as bottom...

...of the ticket, of course.

When George Wallace made that statement he was a Democrat.

The Democratic Party purged itself of his flavor of vile, and it cost them the presidency for a couple of terms. Eventually even he came around, and the Democratic Party did, you know, kinda OK after that.

The difference was that there was a sizable faction of non-bigots in the Democratic Party at the time. So maybe people who want to see further progress on this ought to encourage that fraction of the GOP (which isn't nobody, it's just intimidated by the religious zealots) by supporting non-loony Republicans instead of automatically attacking every Republican as a bigot and homophobe just for the label "Republican".

You could, for instance, treat the Log Cabin Republicans as insurgents in the enemy camp rather than traitors to yours.

Reasonable, tolerant people need to take back the name "Republican". You can help. Right now you aren't.

I'm one of the gay-friendly, responsible-gun-ownership-respecting, fiscally-conservative young persons they're turning off. If the GOP implodes like this in 2016, and the Dems run a sensible, serious center-left candidate like Hillary Clinton, I'm yours. Swing for the left and run Warren or somebody like that, I'm not interested in that nut fight.

I love it when the right wingnuts hint about an insurrection. It reminds me of many people in our military are young and not white.

I'm not interested in telling Republicans how to play nice so they can win. I like nothing about their party and it's frozen in time ideology.

Now that gay marriage is compulsory, I thinking would be hilarious for Rick Santorum to "take" Mike Huckabee as his running "mate"...

This is what I love about all this. The anti-gay GOP base is simultaneously 1) opposed to gay civil rights and 2) irate that we aren't focusing on "real" issues, wasting our time on the silly homosexuals. So how ironic would it be if the GOP embraced gay marriage and forced the haters to live, breathe and sleep the GAY 24/7? It would be like living in the American Horror Story asylum with "Dominique" playing on a loop.

The problem is that the modern GOP can't attract one constituency without completely alienating the other; if they go "pro-Gay", they lose the fundies; if they go "pro-minority" they lose the white bigots, and it's unlikely that in either scenario they would gain more supporters than they would lose, so they still end up being the minority party.

The only way the GOP can return to real relevance is to drop social issues from their platform altogether and concentrate almost exclusively on fiscal issues; they'll lose social conservatives, but they might gain enough fiscal conservatives who currently self-ID as Libertarian or Independent to make up the difference.

But the problem with the above scenario is that the GOP leadership is currently stacked with social conservatives who are at least politically savvy enough to recognize that splintering off into a third party won't gain them anything; and in point of fact they'll lose most of their power & insider prestige as a result. They'd rather be the top dogs in a political organization that still wields some modicum of influence on the national stage, rather than become the leaders of what would essentially become an also-ran regional party with little or no political influence at all.

I still don't understand how the gop reconciles "we're the party of freedom" with"you can't get married" and "you can't have an abortion".

If there were 16 Republicans in the House with some sense and some balls, they could repeal DOMA.

I've seen/heard this Wallace clip before, of course, but this time, the segregation=freedom thing really jumped out. Holy disconnect, Batman!.

@24- Why treat any Quisling as anything but a traitor to GLBT's and our quest for equal treatment under the law in America? You confuse me, as do the LogCabinettes and the GOPoopers.
When in a fight for one's life, as the Republican platform makes clear that LGBT citizens are, one doesn't compromise with folks embracing that hateful and hate-filled pile of butt-wipe paper.

What's the GOP to do? Dropping their anti-gay, anti-woman platform is the only feasible long term strategy, but if they do it now they fracture the party and lose their base. Such is life, I suppose, when your party base is batshit crazy.

Palin will just have to step up and lead her people (and they are most definitely her people) to their promised lily-white missionary-position anti-everything FundieLand...

After all, she can see it from her porch... It's soooo close...

@6 They hold their breath until they turn blue.

@24 Thanks for the historical context, but this is completely different. As others have pointed out, Team Rape has painted themselves into a huge corner. They can't budge from their entrenched positions. There isn't a big factional divide in their ranks. There maybe a group that is "fiscally conservative yet socially liberal," but those folks have already left, been driven out, or are sitting out. What we'll see over the next four years is chaos among the right. They can't give up who they are, and they must give up who they are.

@32:

And the problem with Republican fiscal policy is that it has nothing to do with reality and much, much more to do with increasing their campaign funding. There hasn't been a Republican budget surplus in 40 years. Not a single person in the GOP is even old enough to know what that means. Instead, they're all about massive military spending while cutting taxes, resulting in enormous deficits.

Which means there's *literally* no reason to vote R. They are completely out to lunch on every issue.

Palin is cooked. She can't run for anything anymore.

Media handled her with kid gloves previously, but any serious running of her would explode into so many scandals (her fake pregnancy, her unmarried daughter's numerous real pregnancies, and her husband's prostitution ring are just the top of the moose shit) that she can't move one inch now.

Ever wondered why she quit half-term in 2009 ? She probably was pushed out, in exchange for discretion. Can't have a GOP former VP candidate's husband been thrown in jail for prostitution, it would have looked so bad... especially to Fundies.

What about Crazy Eyes Michelle Bachmann and her big ol' queen of a husband, Marcus?

I strongly believe in gay rights but I'm also a fiscal conservative. I'm exactly the sort of young person the fundies are driving away. As long as the Republican party is the evangelical nutjob party, I will never vote for them. Every time I meet a conflicted person, for example somebody pro-gun but also pro-civil freedom, I encourage them to vote for any party other than Republican. It doesn't help that Republicans can's even do fiscal conservatism correctly either.

The party of fiscal conservatism is definitely not the Republicans. After Bush's 8 years, they forfeited that claim. How much $$$ was poured down the drain for an unnecessary war in Iraq? We're talking billions, folks. How much $$$ were lost for an unnecessary tax cut for the uber-rich?

Let the Republicans continue down their path to oblivion. I have no problem with that.

@31:
I hope the Republicans moderate, as I don't think they're going away, and as the Democrats must eventually fuck up badly enough (or just be seriously unlucky), if only because we're all too human, and at that point the country drops into the lap of whatever the Republicans are at that point...and if they're seriously nuts at that point, they might even be at the point of acting to prevent its ever leaving their control---the Iranian theocrats had to prevail over their fellow-revolutionary liberals and communists just once.

The Republicans are secretly hoping to have the issue settled for them, so they can just forget about it without ever changing publicly their mind.

They know perfectly well that once marriage is legal in a jurisdiction it becomes a complete non-issue.