Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that some in the gay community (especially the younger ones) are being a bit unrealistic concerning their expectations.
I became aware of 'gay rights' back in the 1970s, due to my dormitory roommate being gay. Back then, the goal of many gays was to 'be left alone', and not being subject to arrest and jail (or, of course, much worse).
Back in those days, to call another person 'homosexual' was to open oneself to a suit of slander/libel. Claiming that another person was homosexual was considered 'libel per se'; hence the slandered person did not have to prove 'malice'; the claim that another person was homosexual was considered, in and of itself, to be harmful to the person's reputation (as always, 'truth' was a valid defense).
Over the succeeding decades I have borne witness to a rather remarkable rise involving the evolution of 'gay rights', to the point that being gay is generally accepted in many parts of society.
However, the gay rights movement still has to content with an aging population who believe that the term 'marriage' must mean 'man and woman'. My remarkably liberal 83 year old mother, for instance, while all in favor of 'gay rights', including civil unions, draws the line at 'marriage'. She admits that the thought of marriage being solely between a man and woman is so ingrained in her, that she simply cannot leap that hurdle of thought. She rightly noted that 'As my generation dies out, things will change'.
Indeed, many of my generation (Baby Boomers) obviously carry the beliefs of their parents. However, time marches on, and things once thought unthinkable will become commonplace.
Social change and prejudice does not occur overnight. Black Americans can bear witness to that.
I rejoice in the many advancements the gay community have made over the past four decades. When I think back to the situation in the mid 1970s, I find the change in acceptance remarkable. They may well have hit a wall in the issue of 'marriage', but I thought, back in the 1970s, that the Berlin Wall would stand throughout my life. Walls can and will break down with time.
Constitutional amendments can be revoked, over time.
Like yours and mine state of California - which has twice voted to support marriage between a man and a woman?
Prop 8 had nothing to do with 'supporting marriage between a man and a woman'.
Same-sex marriage doesn't stop heterosexuals from marrying each other or 'redefine' their marriage in any way. It doesn't force a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex.
As was clearly and overwhelmingly proven with the evidence from the Prop 8 trial, Prop 8 was based purely on religiously funded anti-gay animus.
The ballot summary read that the measure "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."
I think that some in the gay community (especially the younger ones) are being a bit unrealistic concerning their expectations.
I became aware of 'gay rights' back in the 1970s, due to my dormitory roommate being gay. Back then, the goal of many gays was to 'be left alone', and not being subject to arrest and jail (or, of course, much worse).
Back in those days, to call another person 'homosexual' was to open oneself to a suit of slander/libel. Claiming that another person was homosexual was considered 'libel per se'; hence the slandered person did not have to prove 'malice'; the claim that another person was homosexual was considered, in and of itself, to be harmful to the person's reputation (as always, 'truth' was a valid defense).
Over the succeeding decades I have borne witness to a rather remarkable rise involving the evolution of 'gay rights', to the point that being gay is generally accepted in many parts of society.
However, the gay rights movement still has to content with an aging population who believe that the term 'marriage' must mean 'man and woman'. My remarkably liberal 83 year old mother, for instance, while all in favor of 'gay rights', including civil unions, draws the line at 'marriage'. She admits that the thought of marriage being solely between a man and woman is so ingrained in her, that she simply cannot leap that hurdle of thought. She rightly noted that 'As my generation dies out, things will change'.
Indeed, many of my generation (Baby Boomers) obviously carry the beliefs of their parents. However, time marches on, and things once thought unthinkable will become commonplace.
Social change and prejudice does not occur overnight. Black Americans can bear witness to that.
I rejoice in the many advancements the gay community have made over the past four decades. When I think back to the situation in the mid 1970s, I find the change in acceptance remarkable. They may well have hit a wall in the issue of 'marriage', but I thought, back in the 1970s, that the Berlin Wall would stand throughout my life. Walls can and will break down with time.
Constitutional amendments can be revoked, over time.
They do not happen overnight, but you have to start with "unrealistic" expectations to get anywhere. No one thought Dr. King's dream was "realistic". No one thought that ADA law was "realistic". In the 70's, it was legal to kick a customer out just because they were disabled. In 1990, making businesses accessible was written into law. That's just over 20 years. In order to get that to happen, we had to dream that big, as a country. Same goes for gay rights. If we settle for less now, we will get less far in the future.
Supreme Court precedent is the law of the land. Other courts being split on the issue doesn't mean it's not the law of the land.
It's the entire argument of why interracial marriage bans were struck down. Because marriage is a fundamental right. And protected classes like race and sex cannot be criteria to deny a couple marriage rights.
The supreme court precedent in Loving is that states can't deny marriage based on race. That's the law of the land. You claim, argue, believe, that it's also precedent for ssm. Since most states and the feds don't recognize ssm, your wishful thinking is yet to be realized. Clearly ssm isn't a right except in a handful of states.
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment.
Meanwhile, supporters ran their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.
So you are for laws that directly violate the 1st amendment seeing that it is a law based on a religious definition of marriage?
BTW you do realize what else this law applies to as well correct? The loss of benefits to anyone who is not a man and woman married. Any civil union regardless of sex is null and void. People can lose healthcare, parental rights, property etc. because if this horrible law. If it was truly intended to ban gay marriage it would have just been about gay marriage. Not everything else.
My assumption is that you didn't even read the law. I cannot wait until the Bible thumping morons in NC get a taste of what this law is truly about.
It goes beyond gay-relationships. Now opposite sex couples in "domestic relationships" who aren't married lose out, as well....on so many things.
The consequences of Amendment 1 do not exist in the abstract. Those in civil unions or domestic partnerships in North Carolina, different-sex or same-sex, now lose, among other things:
- shared healthcare benefits
- shared parenting rights
- prescription drug coverage
- the ability to make medical decisions for loved ones
- the ability to see to the remains of loved ones passed
- the ability to file domestic violence complaints
Good for NC! They let the vote go to the people who have rejected the social destruction of their state. There is no reason for gays to get married. Let them form their own unions and call it what they need to. The gays need to stop telling people to throw out their own morals for fear of being called a bigot.
You don't appear to realise that Amendment One means that the unions of defacto heterosexual couples now have ZERO validity or recognition in NC.
You all got so caught up in your hatred and dislike of the idea of committed loving gay and lesbian couples getting married, that you shot yourselves in the foot.
You're sounding desperate. "Just take my word for it?" I presented you with detailed data showing historical similarities between all three states, and "just take my word for it" is s the best response you have?
Fine, since you're so caught up on this, let's take some swing states.
Missouri approved a same sex marriage ban in 2004 by a 71-29 margin. Eight years later, North Carolina's margin was over 10 points better. Florida, which is much more of a swing state than North Carolina, voted to prohibit same sex marriages in 2008 with 62% of the vote. However, a 2011 poll in Florida suggests that 67% of voters support either civil unions or same sex marriage.
Did you happen to see the part where I said "Or, you could pay closer attention to politics?" No, you didn't miss it, You ignored it because you know that if you were paying closer attention, you'd know that NC is a swing state. That's how shallow your argument is. Seriously.
I can't believe i'm actually debating someone who refuses to acknowledge that North Carolina is a swing state. Hell, even your liberal brethren aren't stupid enough to join you in your self-defeating argument. That should tell you something.
Quote:
North Carolina is the latest presidential swing state to weigh in on gay marriage. Florida, Virginia and Ohio all have constitutional amendments against gay marriage, and Obama's election-year vagueness on gay marriage has come under fresh scrutiny.
You call me desperate. I'm calling you hopelessly clueless. Maybe you'll learn something this election season. I sure hope so. America needs more intelligent voters.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 05-09-2012 at 07:59 AM..
Reason: added link
I think that some in the gay community (especially the younger ones) are being a bit unrealistic concerning their expectations.
I became aware of 'gay rights' back in the 1970s, due to my dormitory roommate being gay. Back then, the goal of many gays was to 'be left alone', and not being subject to arrest and jail (or, of course, much worse).
Back in those days, to call another person 'homosexual' was to open oneself to a suit of slander/libel. Claiming that another person was homosexual was considered 'libel per se'; hence the slandered person did not have to prove 'malice'; the claim that another person was homosexual was considered, in and of itself, to be harmful to the person's reputation (as always, 'truth' was a valid defense).
Over the succeeding decades I have borne witness to a rather remarkable rise involving the evolution of 'gay rights', to the point that being gay is generally accepted in many parts of society.
However, the gay rights movement still has to content with an aging population who believe that the term 'marriage' must mean 'man and woman'. My remarkably liberal 83 year old mother, for instance, while all in favor of 'gay rights', including civil unions, draws the line at 'marriage'. She admits that the thought of marriage being solely between a man and woman is so ingrained in her, that she simply cannot leap that hurdle of thought. She rightly noted that 'As my generation dies out, things will change'.
Indeed, many of my generation (Baby Boomers) obviously carry the beliefs of their parents. However, time marches on, and things once thought unthinkable will become commonplace.
Social change and prejudice does not occur overnight. Black Americans can bear witness to that.
I rejoice in the many advancements the gay community have made over the past four decades. When I think back to the situation in the mid 1970s, I find the change in acceptance remarkable. They may well have hit a wall in the issue of 'marriage', but I thought, back in the 1970s, that the Berlin Wall would stand throughout my life. Walls can and will break down with time.
Constitutional amendments can be revoked, over time.
I understand what you're saying. However, I think their expectations can only be seen as unrealistic when viewed through the perspective you provided, that of older generations. The further removed a generation is from the hurdles and growing pains a group has gone through to obtain certain rights, the less unrealistic their expectations may seem to them.
For example, I'm a generation younger than you, and I don't necessarily view the idea of gay marriage being accepted as unrealistic, but I certainly understand all the precursors you mentioned and I know that we have come a long way even if we're not where we want to be. And the people who are a generation younger than me tend wonder why any of this is a big deal at all. They may have openly gay friends, or friends with gay parents, and it is just more mainstream now and not hidden at all costs to protect one's safety and family. Of course, there are certainly younger people who still participate in gay bashing, but fortunately it's not as bad as it used to be. And it will be even less of an issue for the generation that's just being born today.
Perhaps all change seems unrealistic until we start seeing that change come into fruition. The voter rights act wasn't passed until my grandfather was well into his sixties. He was in awe that he lived to see black people allowed to vote. Had someone told him then that we would have a black president in his children's lifetime, I'm sure he would have thought it was not only unrealistic but completely insane! But here we are, and my dad was just as in awe in 2008 as his dad had been in 1964. I agree with you that walls can and will break over time. Progress takes time. But sometimes it takes folks with what seems to be an unrealistic dream to make it happen, even if it takes a million baby steps.
You seriously don't even know what's in this Amendment One, do you?
I don't think any of these fools do. Especially the ones who voted for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
