So if the Republicans can accept the reality she has outlined, and take a no position (or supportive) stance on gay marriage going forward, and Obama roles forward with his already charted out opposition to gay marriage (on moral and religious grounds), is that the definition of a gay Democrat’s nightmare?...

We iz winnin'

I'll also remind you that Bill O'rielly recently called on Obama to end DADT...

Not every Fox blonde is a President's granddaughter. Weird to see she has a blog, and quoted Sullivan on Douthat just as admiringly as Slog yesterday.

And that that whole "14th Amendment" thing was originally a Republican idea opposed by the Democrats.

The world is going insane...or part of it is going insane while the other is getting more sane...or...i need a nap.

There is a rational voice over at Fox? Has hell frozen over? Did pigs start flying and I missed it?

Love this!

Next up: discrimination against single people.

Oops - she's Hoover's great-granddaughter, not granddaughter. Sorry. I see she made the news coming out for marriage equality last January. Her advice to the GOP echoes what the wonderful Scott Horton at Harper's wrote after the decision:

Public opinion polling shows that outside of the Old Confederacy and the Mormon belt in the West, where unalloyed bigotry is always an effective electoral tactic, the once vital issue no longer resonates for the G.O.P. Will the Party of No accept the signal that Republican judges and lawyers are sending it—namely, that it’s time to find some new hot-button issues?

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-9…

Of all the liberal vs. conservative issues, marriage equality for gays is the only one that I've always felt 100% confident is the correct path. I can at least understand the points the opposition makes to things like abortion and gun control, while disagreeing with them. But it absolutely astonishes me that anyone can seriously argue that gays should be treated as second class citizens.

OMG, is someone at Fox News able to stand straight up now without rolling to the right? Careful, you might accidently lean left, tip over and knock some common sense into yourself!

@ 9 - No, next up is Loveschild showing up at Slog Happy dressed as Lady Gaga. And then the world will explode.

It's really time to stop calling this "gay marriage" and time to start calling it universal marriage, because that's the point on which the American question pivots (i.e., a constitutionally fundamental right). That way, fucked-up loopholes don't destroy the lives of people like, oh, Nikki Araguz, while securing "gay marriage" still falls a bit short to secure marriage for every American. Until and unless every American can marry the person who wants to marry them, then the U.S. still fails.

(Or did you already forget about her, Dan? Probably. Not surprised.)

@13, she wants a dozen buttons!

@11 Agreed 100%. Sadly, I had an argument with a family member last week when I posted an excerpt from Judge Walker's decision on my facebook. It was a relatively civil discussion for the most part (except when she just finally admitted she thinks homosexuality is "immoral"), but she had absolutely no arguments that could sway my opinion. I totally won the argument, but there's no telling how much of it actually got through to her. So while we are definitely winning, there's still a bit of waiting around for the bigots to die off.

@14 I believe "marriage equality" is the preferred term. Besides, you throw the word "universal" in there and people are going to think our socialist Kenyan president is going to force them to get married.

I think she's right.

We should deny the unpopular minority the right to marry and ban all Birthers and Tea Party members from getting married in the US ... or ...

First they came for the Nazis and Skinheads naming their kids Adolph. Then they came for the Birthers. Then they came for the Tea Baggers.

By the time they came for Fox News viewers, there was nobody left to defend them. Other than UFO believers, and they were all down at Area 51.

@16 I would add that for the hard-core haters, rational argument has no meaning.

The proponents of Prop 8 proved in Federal Court, not only that they have no argument, but that they DON"T NEED ONE.

Hate is irrational.

(I have a similar family member who cannot be reached through logic. It sure is frustrating.)

I appreciate the fact that Fox published this, but I have to say, it doesn't look like they thought it was worth running it past an editor before publishing it.

"Surprisingly, the defense’s two lone witnesses also offered compelling reasons to favor of marriage equality."

Now that's some quality writing. Two lone witnesses! To favor of marriage equality!

There are some genuine libertarians in the Fox News stable. They are absolutely a minority contingent, and not enough to make it watchable (for me at least...mostly because I don't like having the news yelled at me) but they are there.

a stopped clock...

So the comments for that article are pretty groan worthy. Give them a browsing if you want to sprain your eyes with excessive rolling.

Fox seems to be floating a more libertarian-lite™ party line to bring a younger, more urban demographic into the GOP tent. The gamble is that these people will turn a blind eye to the anti-gay rhetoric being used to bring in Evangelicals via the Southern Strategy, and that when the time comes they'll vote for a Romney or Huckabee without being bothered by the cognitive disconnect between "government out of our lives" and having the government all up in our bedrooms.

I've never been more tempted to troll something than I am right now. I better get back to work before something bad happens.

It's what I've said all along. You do not put civil rights up for a vote. They are guaranteed by the Constitution.

You can't keep African-Americans from voting in white neighborhoods and you can't deny them the right to live there.

You can't keep Jewish-Americans out of Christian libraries that are open to the public.

You can't keep a white American from running for office in an Asian neighborhood.

You can't deny two consenting American adults a marriage license based on gender.

Seems pretty simple.

"there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think"

Yes, but so far, not one of those reasons seems to have resulted in any one of them actually thinking.

@14 I don't really understand what kind of bill or court decision would legalize same-sex marriage, but not marriage of a transwoman and a man. Some bigots don't want to recognize her marriage on the basis that it's a supposed "same-sex marriage", so I don't see how legalizing "same-sex marriage" would leave a loophole.

They'll result in marriage being between two adults, not two cisgendered adults. Are you really that paranoid that they're going to put in a provision specifically to prevent trans people from marrying at all?

This would be more encouraging if I hadn't read any of the comments on that article. God DAMN- it just hits me like a truck that I have to share a voting booth with these ridiculous idiots.

Thought experiment: Do you vote Republican if they embrace marriage equality and get realistic when it comes to reproductive health?