A tad optimistic don't ya think? But I too expect, after no longer having to face an electorate, Obama to jettison his current view on gay marriage. Right along with "95% of you will see not a dime of tax increases."
i don't think it's much of a secret that most Democrats are probably personally in favor of gay marriage and are just waiting until it's not politically ruinous to do so. and it isn't, anymore, at least in the northeast. and let's see how Gavin Newsom does running for Gov of CA.
it might be a tad optimistic for the president, but by 2015, you'll see the northeast and all of the West Coast treating gay couples equally under the law.
Perez Hilton. As I say, never heard of the guy until this week. I only bring it up because one side responds in favor of traditional marriage (with the caveat of an apology no less ), and the response? Slurs and incredulity that anyone in the 21st century could still believe such a thing. Been there, done that, I guess
.
we have an idiot celebrity gossip monger who no one likes, you have Fred Phelps. if we want to play this game.
AIDS had an enormous affect on the homosexual population, one being it taught you how to play the game of politics. From this came the push for hospital visitation rights, healthcare coverage for domestic partners and other legal protections. Frankly, 98% of us hadn't given much thought to the need for such rights but (regardless of what you may have heard), Americans are a compassionate people. We agreed. Thus was born the idea of civil unions. Are you with me so far?
yes, INDY, i'm with you. you're also -- generally -- historically accurate. gays learned that they needed legal rights to prevent angry, vindictive parents from swooping in and seizing a lifetime of shared assets if one partner died, or preventing a partner from visiting the other in a hospital.
you realize, though, that civil unions, while certainly the mainstream position, are anathema to many in the GOP. and while many gays, such as myself, would take what we can get, the evolving discussion surrounding civil unions -- which were radical for VT as recent as 2001, i believe -- has gotten to a point where the very correct observation has been made that they're the very definition of "separate but equal," which as we know is unconstitutional. and many gay people are rejecting the internalized homophobia that we grew up with and are saying that our lives are every bit as worthy as anyone else's. this is easier for the kids today, as homophobia has lessened over the decades -- though queers are still bashed regularly -- but it's still a relatively new thing, for gays as well as straights, this notion of equality.
However, without really even giving the concept a chance to work and now emboldened, came the cry for same-sex marriage. "No second class citizenship." But asking for recognition as equals under the law and recognition as equals in functionality are two different requests. "We're here and we're queer." seemingly replaced overnight by "Hey, we're just like you." Now which is it because it seems to me it can't be both?
we're one but we're not the same? that's been around since 1991.
there's been an evolution, in the minds of gays as well, that has gone from, "i am different, i am gay, there is nothing wrong with me," to "i am gay, i am equal to you." that even mirrors the coming out process.
but i don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. the fact that homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality, except for the fact that the attraction is for the same gender. like, that's it. it's a step-by-step process, and while we could say that the pace of political change is fast, i don't think it's a concept that's all that difficult to grasp.
the fact that you can't come up with a difference between Irvine/Memphis and Martha/Steve is indicative, to me, of prejudice.
