Posted on 12/12/2012 7:35:21 AM PST by Kaslin
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed for the first time to take on the issue of gay marriage. No matter how it rules in the two cases it will hear next spring, polling data suggest it is only a matter of time before legal recognition of same-sex unions is the norm throughout the country.
Something similar is happening with marijuana, which became legal in Washington last week and in Colorado on Monday. With both pot and gay marriage, familiarity is breeding tolerance.
The cases before the Supreme Court deal with popular reactions against gay marriage: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that barred the federal government from recognizing state-licensed gay marriages, and Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended California's Constitution to eliminate same-sex couples' right to marry, which the California Supreme Court had recognized that year. But something interesting happened after those measures passed: Surveys now indicate that most Americans support gay marriage.
The turnaround was remarkably fast. A 1996 Gallup poll found that 27 percent of Americans thought same-sex marriages should be "recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages"; by last year, that number had nearly doubled. Recent surveys by ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN also put support for gay marriage above 50 percent.
Striking generational differences mean these numbers will continue to rise. In a CBS News poll last month, 72 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds supported gay marriage, compared to 53 percent of 30- to 44-year-olds, 44 percent of 45- to 64-year-olds and 33 percent of respondents who were 65 or older.
The consequences of these changing attitudes could be seen in last month's election results. For the first time ever, gay marriage was legalized by popular referendum -- not in one state, but in three: Maine, Maryland and Washington. Voters in a fourth state, Minnesota, rejected an initiative that would have amended the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage (which is already banned there by statute).
On the same day, voters in Colorado and Washington approved ballot measures aimed at legalizing the cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana for recreational use. The initiatives won by surprisingly healthy margins of about 10 points in both states, in contrast with a California legalization measure that lost by 7 points two years ago.
Nationwide support for marijuana legalization, like nationwide support for gay marriage, has increased dramatically, although not quite as swiftly, rising from 12 percent in a 1969 Gallup poll to a record 50 percent last year. While support for legalization dipped a bit during the anti-pot backlash of the Just Say No era, it began rising again in the 1990s. Public Policy Polling recently put it at 58 percent, the highest level ever recorded.
With pot as with gay marriage, there are clear age-related differences, reflecting different levels of experience with marijuana. In the CBS News survey, support for legalization was 54 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, 53 percent among 30- to 44-year-olds, 46 percent among 45- to 64-year-olds and 30 percent among respondents of retirement age.
Just as an individual's attitude toward gay people depends to a large extent on how many he knows (or, more to the point, realizes he knows), his attitude toward pot smokers (in particular, his opinion about whether they should be treated like criminals) is apt to be influenced by his personal experience with them. Americans younger than 65, even if they have never smoked pot, probably know people who have, and that kind of firsthand knowledge provides an important reality check on the government's anti-pot propaganda.
Another clear pattern in both of these areas: Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to oppose legalizing gay marriage and marijuana. Yet Republicans are also more likely to oppose federal interference with state policy choices. In light of DOMA's disregard for state marriage laws and the Obama administration's threats to prevent Colorado and Washington from allowing marijuana sales, now is put-up-or-shut-up time for the GOP's avowed federalists.
‘I think the turn-arounds seem fast because to most Americans, these two issues aren’t that important’
Why didn’t you include the entire sentence?
I’m a little taken aback, that you took that part out of my statement to use as somehow thinking I am defending anything, whether it’s pot or gay marriage. That is certainly not what I meant or even how bramps understood it in #33.
I guess I should have said it’s not important to those people that I actually know. My bad, Sorry.
Is this what Jim is upset about, because I said Americans instead of those Americans that I know and talk with?
The article discusses homosexual marriage, libertarians fully embrace the homosexual agenda.
Adoption, “marriage”, the military, everything.
Could be.
Now that thar is FUNNY, xzins!
|
If your personal observations include defending the homosexual agenda (or any other liberal/socialist/Marxist cause), then you may find your welcome here running out, just as many other atheists and liberaltarians have. |
Now, we're getting somewhere. Jim, I'm sure you've noticed my tagline over the years. I've taken tons of grief over it from libs who argue for legalized dope. Yet, we see silence from these same liberals when it comes to other libertarian agendas like pro-abortion and pro-gay marriages. Why is that?
lolol
I think we all know the answer is that these clowns would be zotted in a heartbeat if they progress from pro-dope to pro-abortions.
Yet the Libertarian agenda is advancing. Even here at FR. I'm sure you saw that Glenn Beck thread from yesterday where Beck endorsed gay marriages. And how many FReepers approved Beck's message? It was sickening to see that. Here at Free Republic.
I wish to God you would take a stand and zot the pro-dope libertarians here at FR. But you (to date) have not. Just understand that these libs are cagey. They get away with their pro-dope agenda, but remain quiet (for now) on their pro-abortion and pro-gay marraige issues because they know they will get the zot.
Islamists want polygamy.
It will be sold as civil rights and religious freedom.
And the enslavement of women will have been completed.
I don’t know where you are but No Smoking in Restaurant has been around for years, and frankly having to look at filthy ashtrays with filthy cigarettes while you are trying to eat is more then I can stomach
The article discusses homosexual marriage,
And also discusses marijuana prohibition - it's even in the title.
libertarians fully embrace the homosexual agenda.
And who embraces the social engineering that is marijuana prohibition?
And it’s a far cry from alcohol. You can have a drink or two and still think rationally. Once you are stoned, even a little bit stoned, your mindset completely changes. And not for the better.
<><><><><
Why is it that some folks see alcohol use as a spectrum (drink a little, minimal impact - drink a lot, major impact) but think pot is like a light switch, on or off, and once on, you were all in?
Bramps, when you smoked pot, did you never notice that if you took just a hit or two off the joint the impact was considerably less than if you burned the big fatty all by yourself?
Adoption, “marriage”, the military, everything.
Gay Marriage EMBRACED BY LIBERTARIANS, THE ENTIRE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, PART OF THE LIBERTARIAN AGENDA OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
Well, if nothing else common sense. There is no poppy and coca plants being grown in this country that could deliver the demand. The occasional MJ grow you find on private property and national forests also is logistically incapable of delivering the amount of product used. Also, the precursor chemical regulations basically dried up the old style meth labs and the ephedrine labs you see at homes and hotels also cannot deliver in bulk.
That is where the increase in government in the form of customs and border patrol in lieu of Dept of Education, EPA, and DOE mutts is acceptable. IMO. They would be focused outward instead of looking inward at us.
Here in Washington state smoking in bars and restaurants was banned about five years ago. I think they are starting to ban it in apartment houses and parks. I don’t smoke so do not follow that closely.
But we did legalize pot. Of course, that is also banned in bars and restaurants and parks. Do not know about apartment buildings.
LOL, I’m not here to answer your questions and feed your single minded obsession.
I’m against the radical leftist social engineering of the libertarians, and their embracing of the homosexual agenda.
You raise excellent points. I add a big ol’ dittoes to what you post.
It’s just your posting to that nannies person is cracking me up.
He is a one note wonder. With a one track mind. The only reason he posts anything is to push legal dope. And you are better off talking to a brick wall than to argue with him on other critical issues. Hell, even arguing with him about any down-side to dangerous drugs? Waste of time. He is for legalizing all that crap regardless of the damage and harm it does.
As I pointed out to you a few days ago:
'"Domestically grown cannabis accounted for 10 percent of all marijuana consumed in 1980, and increased to about 25 percent in 1992, despite the efforts of the Program. The potency of cultivated marijuana has also increased significantly as a result of modern agricultural methods and techniques." - http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/DEA/a9520.htm
'The American entrepreneurial spirit can easily replace any reduction in imported supply.'
Since drugs can be hidden in legal imported goods, how do you propose we close the border to that traffic without bringing all importation to a grinding halt?
That is where the increase in government in the form of customs and border patrol in lieu of Dept of Education, EPA, and DOE mutts is acceptable. IMO.
So you think just shifting those resources will let us examine a significant fraction of all imported items?
I’m not here to answer your questions
Got it, coward.
I’m against the radical leftist social engineering of the libertarians
But you're OK with the radical social engineering of the prohibitionists. Got it, hypocrite.
25% is not 100% that is not enough. Spotting large commercial type MJ grows from the air is an easy task. No way the entrepreneurial spirit can provide that amount without large outdoor grows. Large greenhouses that utilize massive energy and generate heat are also easily detected.
Yes, it is a start. If it slows down Chinese made crap so what? Little Johnny will have to wait a few more days for his iPod of gangsta rap. If it increases our efficiency on curbing that imported product(s) sure and a side effect is better screening for trojan horse weapons by infiltrators.
You should have the minimal decency to ping me when repeating your already-rebutted lies about me.
To repeat:
My position on the down-side to dangerous drugs:
"My recommendation to others is to use none of these harmful substances, just as I myself use none of them." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2956184/posts?page=85#85)
Some of my other subjects of interest:
post #37: "Vanity--Spin off of Another Thread--What Is Your Fav Christmas Music?" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2964512/posts?page=37#37)
post #29: "Poll: Should the US defend Israel..." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2964263/posts?page=29#29)
post #28: "Hope Solo’s fiance arrested before wedding" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2959442/posts?page=28#28)
post #27: "Washington Bishops Seek Stronger Catechesis After Same-sex Marriage Vote" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2957486/posts?page=27#27)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.