How forumites have evolved (or not) on equal marriage

[Supersonic]

All in one term too!

Had to be, you never stood a chance of being re-elected - you failed to get elected in the first place, beyond using unsuspecting Liberal voters to make your majority.

Meh, the more you drive us towards Victorian misery, the more likely we'll have radicalism. 

Better than Labour with their poxy 35% 'mandate' in 2005.

Manipulating Liberal voters, my good fellow, is a Tory speciality.

[angus]

I reckon I haven't evolved much in ten years.  I still think that it is the mundane that makes everything acceptable.  Not fiery speeches.  Not court cases.  Everything--from gay marriage to Christian Rock to bunless burgers--gets acceptable once you see it enough times.  I attended a same-sex wedding before it was a political issue, and long before I started posting here.  I don't think anyone at the time expected to live to see such a thing recognized by the civilian authority, but they were two people thinking that they were in love and wanting the blessings of their friends.  Some folks I know said that it seemed a little strange on the invitation, two men that is, but later, when the whole thing was over a number of them said that the concept no longer seemed novel.  I believe that their marriage lasted about eleven months.  Serial monogamy also seems pretty normal to most Americans nowadays.  For the same reasons.  Like tattoos on women or college students texting each other while the instructor is speaking or fuel costing four dollars per gallon.  You just get used to it.

[MaxQue]

Excuse me if I think poverty, the unmaking of the Welfare State, massive tax evasion, the complete unfairness of the education, health care or judicial systems, the fate of undocumented immigrants, inequalities and discrimination of all sorts against all sorts of groups (including LGBT) to be more important that that single issue of marriage. How heartless I must be!

Well, none of that will move in the next year in the US.
Remember, information in power and the one controling information aren't interested to see that happening.

[Velasco]

Excuse me if I think poverty, the unmaking of the Welfare State, massive tax evasion, the complete unfairness of the education, health care or judicial systems, the fate of undocumented immigrants, inequalities and discrimination of all sorts against all sorts of groups (including LGBT) to be more important that that single issue of marriage. How heartless I must be!

I get your point but, why making same-sex marriage a trivial issue as for some statements one could infer (even if it's not intentional)? It doesn't help very much to the just causes that you have mentioned, in my opinion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excuse me if I think poverty, the unmaking of the Welfare State, massive tax evasion, the complete unfairness of the education, health care or judicial systems, the fate of undocumented immigrants, inequalities and discrimination of all sorts against all sorts of groups (including LGBT) to be more important that that single issue of marriage. How heartless I must be!

I get your point but, why making same-sex marriage a trivial issue as for some statements one could infer (even if it's not intentional)? It doesn't help very much to the just causes that you have mentioned, in my opinion.

I'm not making it a trivial issue, but can't I say that I think some fellow progressives are ranking it too high in their order of priorities? It's great that society is marching on on these issues and you can count on me to support any further progress, but in my opinion that's only a fairly minor satisfaction compared to all the things that remain f**ked up in the world.

[Torie]

Angus hits the nail on the head. The single most effective change agent is folks getting to know out of the closet gays whom they respect and admire as human beings. It is not as easy to objectify groups once you get to know, and know well, and respect, some of them. It just isn't.

[Velasco]

I'm not making it a trivial issue, but can't I say that I think some fellow progressives are ranking it too high in their order of priorities? It's great that society is marching on on these issues and you can count on me to support any further progress, but in my opinion that's only a fairly minor satisfaction compared to all the things that remain f**ked up in the world.

Of course I can't imagine you against such advances. I only meant that I had the impression that certain people might interpretate that some posts in this thread (not only yours) are trivializing the issue. Same-sex marriage is not on the top of my list, if we talk about things that remain f***up in our wonderful world. Such criticism was made here when Zapatero was among the living persons (politically speaking), now that you mention it. I'm afraid there were reasons that made such criticism correct, in a sense. Still, I'd be careful about comparisons.

[anvi]

I suspect Angus is right on the social change issue, at least for the most part.  But, personally speaking, I've been in favor of gay marriage for more than twenty years.  I thought that long before I attended any gay marriage service or was even aware that anyone I knew was gay.  Denying citizens equal rights to marry based on their sexual orientation just seemed fundamentally wrong in a place with our supposed ideals.  I have no problem with people having religious objections to it, but if people want to live in a state that protects their religious ideals with the civil law, they should move to somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia.  I've just thought that way since my early twenties.   

[memphis]

Kudos to you, anvi. Most people aren't clever enough to think critically in abstract hypotheticals. Millions suffering an injustice is just anothe boring statistic until you give it a face and put it on tv.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not even remotely comparable. You do yourself no favours by arguing this.

Anyway, as far as I know, I've always been for it though I think it was only around the 2004 US presidential election did I understand it was an "issue" (at least that is as far back as I can remember).

[angus]

I think it was only around the 2004 US presidential election did I understand it was an "issue"

Yeah, it was weird.  Nobody gave a damn about it before that.  Not me, not my straight friends, not my gay friends.  No one.  Then, all of a sudden it was everywhere.  Also, remember Bush and Kerry the first time they were asked about it.  You could have taken Bush's comments on the issue, and Kerry's, and switched them, and no one would notice.  They both said the same thing, which amounted to, "um, What?  Whatever.  Sure, why not?  I guess it's okay for two doods to get married."  Then, within a couple of days their respective handlers got to them and all of the sudden they were a hundred light years apart on the issue.  bizarre, the way this issue came out of nowhere and was suddenly extremely important.

[memphis]

The year before San Francisco went out on a limb and started granting licenses to couples. It was a pretty big deal as no municipality, as far as I know, had done that previously.

[Napoleon]

Its the same for me, the Massachusetts court decision in 2003 really set it off as a hot topic nationally, and the following state referendums Rove organized to turn out evangelicals sustained it and now opponents are unwilling to understand they've lost.

[Napoleon]

Its the same for me, the Massachusetts court decision in 2003 really set it off as a hot topic nationally, and the following state referendums Rove organized to turn out evangelicals sustained it and now opponents are unwilling to understand they've lost.

[angus]

referendums

see, that's exactly what I'm talking about Ernest.  and none of this bothers you?  not even just a little?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's always fine for a plural in English to end in 's'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It'd be awesome for me to see latin plurals respected. But I long realized it's a lost cause.

[Mr. Morden]

I think it was only around the 2004 US presidential election did I understand it was an "issue"

Yeah, it was weird.  Nobody gave a damn about it before that.  Not me, not my straight friends, not my gay friends.  No one.  Then, all of a sudden it was everywhere.

It wasn't really snowballing until then, but the issue did come up a bit in the 90s, with the Hawaii Supreme Court decision and DOMA.  But before *that*, it was really nowhere on the political radar.  That's what many in the younger crowd here might not get.  How different things were not that long ago.  When I first started following politics as a teenager in 1992, you could have asked even a tolerant who otherwise supported gay rights about gay marriage, and they would likely have told you that the concept sounded weird.  Not that they were necessarily against it, or that gays didn't deserve to be married or that it was immoral, but that the whole idea sounded strange, and that it wouldn't have necessarily even occurred to them that gays wanted to be married.

And in fact, there were many on the LGBT activist side who thought that the marriage issue was a distraction, and even some who were outright opposed, because they saw marriage as a tool of the patriarchy:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/16163?in=06:40&out=07:10

[Torie]

Speaking of referenda, how many here use the word "datum" for just one piece of data? The point is, is that the Latin influence in English is slowly fading away, and what used to be "wrong" is no longer, just perhaps less preferred. Heck, that horrible excrescence "irregardless," is no longer wrong, just "substandard," which really sucks.

[minionofmidas]

I think it was only around the 2004 US presidential election did I understand it was an "issue"

Yeah, it was weird.  Nobody gave a damn about it before that.  Not me, not my straight friends, not my gay friends.  No one.  Then, all of a sudden it was everywhere.

It wasn't really snowballing until then, but the issue did come up a bit in the 90s, with the Hawaii Supreme Court decision and DOMA.  But before *that*, it was really nowhere on the political radar.  That's what many in the younger crowd here might not get.  How different things were not that long ago.  When I first started following politics as a teenager in 1992, you could have asked even a tolerant who otherwise supported gay rights about gay marriage, and they would likely have told you that the concept sounded weird.  Not that they were necessarily against it, or that gays didn't deserve to be married or that it was immoral, but that the whole idea sounded strange, and that it wouldn't have necessarily even occurred to them that gays wanted to be married.

And in fact, there were many on the LGBT activist side who thought that the marriage issue was a distraction, and even some who were outright opposed, because they saw marriage as a tool of the patriarchy

They have a point.

[angus]

It's always fine for a plural in English to end in 's'.

Tell that to the oxes. 

[angus]

And in fact, there were many on the LGBT activist side who thought that the marriage issue was a distraction, and even some who were outright opposed

I remember that.  Like I said, gay marriages were performed--I actually attended one--but most folks I knew didn't think of it as a political issue, and more than one homosexual friend was actively opposed to pushing it as a legal or political matter.  Mostly for the reason you state, but there were other lines of reasoning as well.

I guess you're right.  I had described it as coming out of nowhere, and that was my recollection, but now that I think about it there were small discussions prior to that, especially regarding Hawaii, but also to some extent regarding the Netherlands.  In fact, I think it was probably when Netherlands formalized same-sex marriage 12 years ago that all of the sudden everyone jumped on board.  If you'll indulge me, Torie, the deluge developed from the Dutch datum.  And not just in the United States.  Within two year of it becoming fodder for the 2004 presidential campaign when the Canadian parliament jumped on it, formalizing same-sex marriage.  In short order, even the macho republics in Latin America started pushing for it.  

I guess we should start saying same-sex marriage.  I'm not normally very politically correct, but gay marriage is so 1995 and equal marriage has a creepy, Orwellian quality.  I'll try to remind myself to type same-sex marriage.  Or maybe just marriage.  That will be the day of arrival.  When we just say marriage and it means any marriage.  No qualifier necessary.

[riceowl]

lolz, considering i came out in 08.  there's a lot more to lol about this post though.

I'm guessing Alfie stopped posting because he realizes he can't win...

thank you statesrights.

My main question is, why do homosexuals want marriage?
Marriage was founded as a union holy in the sight of God...it has only been lately that the government has taken it.

If I were gay, I would be pushing for more rights to civil unions...marriage should be the last thing they want.

Sigh...world confuses.  Fire bad. Tree pretty.

[angus]

lolz, considering i came out in 08. 

et tu, noctuam?

All the rage lately, I suppose.

[riceowl]

lately, 5 years ago, etc