These 3 things have been part of the 'liberal agenda' for decades-almost a liberal litmus test- even though they are logically unrelated. Cuban political relations reflect the difficulty of relations with a represive,totalitarian state. But, the USA has relations with many of those and restrictions are purely a political issue. Gay marriage is a totally domestic issue that is complicated by Constitutional issues. By the Constitution, marriage is a state right not a federal right so the federal government should not be involved. If the federal gov't trumps the constitution and takes the right to sanction marriage from the states, then the USA becomes a very different political model across the board and essentially there is really no reason to pay for state government. Marijuana is a medical issue(especially in an era of Health Reform when medical health risks such as obesity are considered open to regulation). Clear research shows marijuana is not benign. Marijuana use causes emphesema, psychosis, and physical damage to the brain-those are facts. Making marijuana more available and taxing soda pop makes no sense- except that legalizing marijuana(along with normalizing Cuban relations and Gay marriage) is part of the liberal holy trinity.

Marriage is not solely a state issue because of the full faith and credit clause.

Keep in mind: Cuban relations do not reflect the difficulty of dealing with a repressive and totalitarian state. Over the years we have had excellent relations with many of them. The Cuban embargo reflects that a small part of our foriegn policy has been held hostage for close to 50 years by the Cuban expatriate community in Miami. The policy stems from the fact that when the revolution in Cuba ended most wealthy Cubans fled to the US and have since demanded compensation from Cuba for property siezed by the Castro regime. To end the embargo and recognize the current regime would effectively end these claims. The simplest way to make the Castros irrelevant would be to end the embargo. They'd never know what hit them with all the Americans down there the following week to set up business.

Gay marriage is a state issue. It has been the states that have been legalizing it. The only role Libs have wanted from the federal gov. is to require all states to recognize the marriages as legal even if they do not allow for gay unions. Makes no sense if someone can be married in Vermont but not Idaho. It is the Cons who want to take that power from the states and pass an amendment prohibiting states from recognizing gay relations.

As for pot I don't see the Obama admin pushing for it to be legalized. According to the article you presumably just read the admin is calling off the federal agencies that are raiding marijuana collectives in Cali. This is a reallocation of police resources. I would hope most would agree that the Feds have bigger fish to fry than weed smokers.

Either way these arte not likely to be major issues in any upcoming campaign. They are more likely to be used as litmus tests by Republicants than Dems.

Lyle Menendez was married in 1997 while serving a life-without-parole sentence for the brutal, shotgun murders of his parents. Unfortunately, the marriage fell apart.

Not to worry, he married again in 2003.

His brother, Erik, who is also serving a life-without-parole sentence for blowing the brains out of both of his parents as they begged for their lives, has also twice been legally married while in prison.

Funny, but I don't remember the "sanctity of marriage" crowd having much to say about this.

"Marijuana use causes emphesema, psychosis, and physical damage to the brain-those are facts."

Causes psychosis? IF that is a 'fact', how about you cite the source?

Actually it can trigger schizophrenia, I've seen it happen. Not sure if this counts as psychosis.

Google 'marijuana side-effects' or go to Drugs.com/marijuana, or choose any way to look up the side-effects. Marijuana's side-effects are well documented ( and come on, in common usage, is anyone claiming they don't see users cough up a lung, become forgetful, get 'munchies', or become suspicious and paranoid?).

Concealed carry licenses is a state issue. It has been the states that have been legalizing it. The only role Republicans have wanted from the federal gov. is to require all states to recognize Concealed carry licenses as legal even if they do not allow for Concealed carry licenses. Makes no sense if someone can carry a gun in Vermont but not Idaho. It is the Libs who want to take that power from the states and pass an amendment prohibiting states from recognizing Concealed carry licenses.

When it comes to guns it seems the Democrats have no problems blocking licenses issued in other states. Of course the Republicans were for pushing that recognition nationally.

Well played gunsmoke, but isn't it really a matter of contract? Getting married in any state is a contract between two individuals, getting a gun license isn't. States are obligated to recognize contracts from other states.

Blueshift hits the heart of the marriage issue. What is marriage? Is it a state regulated contract or is it a religious ceremony? Both /either,or? Either way, the Constitution left it to the states to decide and as pointed out about guns, it has not been decided if states are legally obligated to recognize all of each others contracts( that issue goes back to slave ownership issues and to my understanding, Supreme decisions in the 1800's would favor universality but the issue is complex Constitutionally).

I was going to get into the Constitutionality and realized I didn't know enough to say anything. Still it seems like we should ditch civil marriages altogether and have civil unions for any consenting adult that wants one. Individual churches can then marry whomever they want and recognize marriages from whichever other churches they want.

siempre:

Either way, the Constitution left it to the states to decide and as pointed out about guns, it has not been decided if states are legally obligated to recognize all of each others contracts

Oh, it's been decided already. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution requires it. However, in states where the majority do not want same sex couples to marry there is enough opposition to keep the marriages unrecognized. Or at least, that will be the case until the Supreme Court steps in. The system of checks and balances works well, but it doesn't work quickly. I expect it will be at least five years, and probably closer to ten, before a case comes before the USSC.

Physicsgirl, if it takes a future Supremes decision to decide the issue,then the issue is not decided now.States rights is at the core of the issue - and allowing different states to hold different laws was a part of the limitations on the central government . If the Court rules all contracts aply universally, then a law passed in any state can apply everywhere-and what do you do when they are OPPOSITES?

siempre:

If the Court rules all contracts aply universally, then a law passed in any state can apply everywhere-and what do you do when they are OPPOSITES?

The default should always be that all states have to recognize the legal contracts made in another state. Otherwise, what's the point of having any legal contracts at all? I'm sure some state, say Nevada, could make a lot of money by not recognizing legal contracts from other states and having people flee there to remove their legal obligations. If the other states don't have to recognize the other states' legal contracts, you don't really have a country any more. The founders recognized this and added the Full Faith and Credit Clause to take care of that.

siempre:

if it takes a future Supremes decision to decide the issue,then the issue is not decided now.

The end result is inevitable. The current laws are unconstitutional. However, we've devised a system that has some time lag and so it will take a little while before the decision is put into place.

The end result is only inevitable by abandoning the concept of partially sovereign states that is the basis of the nation and constitution today. If all laws are universal, then there is no need for a state designation-just for a national government- and, having states with opposite laws that equally apply and require opposite actions IS allowed currently. That is what the marriage discussion is about. Hawaii can allow 10 people and their dogs to marry and it is legal only for Hawaii. New York could ban marriage altogetther. Don't scoff- a person is licensed in the professions state by state-and that license is not universally accepted as law at all. Marriage is treated right now like a licensure and the state gives a marriage LICENSE- just like a law or engineering license. As I said, legally, licensure ,including maariage ,is complicated and far from settled.