Sort of like my mentioning of Obamacare.
Sigh... There you go again.
Had Obamacare been enacted by the government riding on the back of a wave of increasing demand for socialized medicine, that would fit this discussion, Obamacare was the polar opposite of that, and the polar opposite of the acceptance, in both the Courts and the people, of homosexuality and SSM.
I think it expands even beyond simply same-sex marriage, to all of the LGBT issues of today, and of the wider acceptance of sexual predilection in everyday social activity. The heroes of today are the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings, not because of their history, but because of their "new" genders. Is it right to wince at such things? I do, and I know a lot of others do also.
And most conservatives believe that.
They're wrong, and I can prove that to you.
Is Bruce Jenner your hero?
In fact, is Bruce Jenner anyone's hero in this forum?
So then, how can he be that "hero of today", when he's no hero to all, or maybe a hero to a limited number of people?
I am a huge fan of cool jazz, have been one for a long time. Miles, Paul Desmond, Chet Baker... Loved their music. Then, as I listened to more and more of their music I transitioned to Avant Garde Jazz, because the players were cool, Avant Garde was smoky, mysterious and cool, and I wanted to be smoky, mysterious and cool.
Then I got to Coltrane at that point when he took the movement atonal and unstructured, with modal scales and rhythms that existed mostly in the drummers' head, so I went there... for a little while. Right up until I realized that it was stupid and just noise, so I ( along with the rest of the world) took a step or two back to cool jazz music with tonality and a beat.
That's where we are right now with the whole LGBT crap. A lot of people are pushing the boundaries, but soon the boundaries will push back. We will never go back to Stan Kenton and Woody Zherman, but to some place that makes sense.
You see I don't have any problem with your belief on same-sex marriage, nor do I have an issue with those who do. Perhaps it's the libertarian part of my conservative nature. And until three or four years ago, most Americans felt that a state that wanted SSM could have it; those that did not should not have it. It would seem that freedom of choice apparently must be decided only by liberals, not conservatives.
Blame the XIV Amendment, and while you're at it, bless the XIV Amendment.
Prior to the clause in the Amendment that mandated that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and the doctrine of incorporation, the SCOTUS was finding (correctly I might add) that the limitations imposed by the First and Second Amendments applied only to the Federal government and not to the States (United States v. Cruikshank). Thanks to the XIV Amendment, that's no longer the case and as a result, people in DC can now buy guns and Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for abortifacients for their employees.
It's a wonder to me that you would use "choice" as the base meaning of something that removes the freedom and the choice to do something from a segment of the population by another segment of the population via a vote.
A wonder.