Is this country ready for gay marriage?

THIS

IS

NOT

A

PRIMARY

THREAD

The next president will almost surely be a woman or a black man. That's **huge**. A black man. Or a woman.

If we're able to do that, why are we not able to have gay marriage?

Why is no one talking about this? Do you think that (anti)gay issues will not once again crop up?

And if we can have a black man or a woman president, why can't two men or two women just get married?

Was it ready for desegregation in 1954? What about the view that a woman has sole control of her body, handed down in 1973?

Civil rights are not a question of, "Are we ready for it?" Civil rights are a question of, "Why the bloody hell do we not have them yet? Isn't this America, the Land of the Free?"

It many places it took until the very late 1960's or early 1970's for schools to actually desegregate and now the trend is toward resegregation in many places.

The amount of ignorance of and hatred for GLBT's in this country is immense, and will not easily be overcome. Probably another generation will have to pass before we catch up with the civilized world.

Or more mysogonistic than homophobic?

or the "women's agenda," or the "hispanic agenda" being worse than terrorism. You don't have slimy preachers thundering from pulpits that black people, asians, or women are abominations. The hatred is a whole order of magnitude more intense.

I intentionally phrased my question as I did.

I think the hatred against gays is, where it exists, intense. I also think, however, that in some quarters, racism has paved the way to some degree of tolerance that accrues positively to gays. As I say that, I also plead to complete lack of authority to speak to the issue.

I think that in someways yes we are ready for gay marriage but I don't know if those that are soo damn far right would agree.
Honestly it's just another form of racism and people just are ignoring that simple fact.
They deserve the same things as the rest of us.
:grouphug:

At least the young people I know ...... my kids' friends ....... they're in their early 30s, late twenties and late teens.

Almost all of them are just plain blaze about gay people. As in .... you're gay? Yeah .... so .... ? That's a good thing.

Where I grew up no one really thought too much about sexual orientation and I loved it. Then I met my boyfriends family and I realized there are some ill-educated people still in this world!

... and passably well-meaning.

all that noise about the country not being ready for gay marriage, a black or woman president and any other thing that gives these professional scolds the heeby jeebies gets amplified.

I think the country is ready for lots of things. I believe every one knows and likes someone who is gay. I think it's a constant through out this country. I think that every day people go to work or school and encounter bosses, teachers, co-workers, etc. who aren't white or male and these people manage to survive the experience. Sometimes the even "like" these people they encounter but mostly they don't care one way or another. I think it's the professional messengers and scribes who really have the problem.

my only fear about gay marriage is that most of my gay pals of good taste and like nice stuff. I fear the bridal registry.

When we get bogged down in wondering if "America" is "ready" for anything, for some reason it tends to degenerate to pandering to the most reactionary common denominator.

There are people in this country still who aren't emotionally "ready" to abolish slavery. There are people in this country who aren't "ready" for the whole idea of laws being based on civil ethics and not one particular politically-influenced translation of an ancient Middle Eastern text...people who slept through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Tough titties for them.

Ain't gonna happen this time around, which is a damn shame.

Mainstream politicians are usually behind the people on things like this. You wouldn't have seen LBJ giving speeches about abolishing anti-miscegenation laws, unfortunately.

That's why the Presidential race isn't the only important one. Far, far from it. The courts matter, Congress matters, state legislatures matter.

Me: Hey I'd like to not be a second class citizen--literally--I pay thousands of dollars a year more than a straight person to survive.
Thug: No.
Dem: He's not ready. You'll have to wait. When he's ready, I promise I'll help.
Me: Hey I'd like to not be a second class citizen--literally--I can't visit my partner in the hospital and she could die alone.
Thug: No.
Dem: He's not ready. You'll have to wait. When he's ready, I promise I'll help.
Me: Hey I'd like to not be a second class citizen--literally--my partner can't get health benefits through my job. If she could, I'd have to claim it as income.
Thug: No.
Dem: He's not ready. You'll have to wait. When he's ready, I promise I'll help.

Wow, when America's ready, then the Democrats will help! Cool! Guess what? When they're ready, we won't need it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5352614#5353178
and these are DU'rs
while not a thread on Marriage per se, it shows a deep resentment and hatred for LGBT people's hopes and aspirations

..... and that day is coming, despite the considerable forces that are fighting it. Until's he's able to be married and receive the same benefits of marriage that I would (if I were married - single and lovin' it right now), then my rights aren't worth as much.

Egalite! :grouphug:

If I remember correctly, Arkansas wasn't ready for integration. Why should people have to wait until thugs, klansman, and bigots are 'ready'? Will they ever be ready? Why should I have to wait 20 years to know that I can hold my partner's hand as she lay dying? Because some bigoted thug isn't ready?

Maybe we need to start reframing the question. Maybe we need to adopt an aggressive policy of 'ready or not'.

I'd be right there next to you.

some are, but most are not.

sorry.

about PERSONAL FREEDOM!

since gay civil unions have been performed and recognized in one state or another is a day closer to full acceptance.

We're about where interracial marriage was in the 1940s, accepted in some states, but don't dare show up in Mississippi and expect to eat in the same restaurant or stay in the same hotel as your spouse.

The rhetoric is exactly the same as it was back in the 1950s when rednecked preachers railed against it from pulpits across the south.

There is no way to stop an idea whose time has come.

Was Britain ready for the Declaration of Independence?

Was the South ready for the civil war?

because no one has asked me to marry him yet. . .

Of course, I'll entertain offers....:-). I used to favor men who were big and stupid, but all I met were Republicans...so I'll settle for big. . .

P.S. I can cook.

I think most of the country is, but there are some states where there are majorities large enough in opposition to it that if it were ever legalized nationally, they would invoke "state's rights" to ban it and it maigh actually result in WORSE conditions for LGBT people in those states. I'm thinking Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi.

I think it's something that needs to happen, but these are areas where even domestic partnership benefits would meet stiff opposition.


I think a better solution would be to end the concept of state-sanctioned marriage and replace it with ONLY domestic partnership (with all the tax and inheritance etc. benefits of today's marriage) for both gays and straights.

That way, the issue of whether or not to perform the CEREMONY of marriages would be up to individual churches, and I'm sure many chuches in any state would be glad to perform them.



If you think about it, it's kind of strange that the line between the government-sanctioned union between two people and the CEREMONY of marriage is so blurred.

It would solve so many issues if marriage referred strictly to the ceremony and the legal arrangment was something else entirely.

Not all families are headed by two adults who are sexual partners. Some are headed by siblings, or parent and adult child, or two divorcees, etc.
I look forward to a definition of family that is not restricted to the gay/straight binary--one that recognizes the multitude of possiblities that make up the American family.

This isn't about family structures which have always been diverse - this is about legal equality.

It shouldn't be about adults who are having sex with each other making up a family unit. The argument should be broadened to include ALL people who are living as a family, and afford them the legal equality that now is only afforded to opposite sex adults who are not blood related.
If we are going to fight to expand civil rights, I think those rights ought to be available to everybody. The current approach is like Martin Luther King trying to exclude non African Americans from his fight for civil rights.
It's time to think outside the box.

The rights and responsibilities of marriage reflect a single and exclusive partnership.

The right to marriage equality should be open to everyone.

It's not about what makes up a family, but about a legal contract. My kids and I are a family - but we are not married and don't have a partnership that reflects marriage.

To me it's like approaching the argument with horse blinders on.

And I do have an answer, but I'd like to know your specifics.

Tax benefits, health insurance coverage, retirement benefits, disability benefits, FMLA, living in neighborhoods zoned for families only, tuition benefits.
Of course there is also the right of hospital visitation and making health care decisions or applying to adopt or foster a child together. family discounts for insurance, the right to sue for wrongful death, immigration.

Much of it is what activists who fight for same sex marriage want. But they are turning their backs on adults who form unions outside of a sexual relationship--be they mother and grown child, two grown siblings, grandparent and grown grandchild, or two same sex heterosexuals who for whatever personal reasons choose to form a household together.

There is no right to health insurance coverage, even for married people. That is an employment benefit - some married people haveit, some don't. It's not a right of marriage.

FMLA covers families,

Families already have next of kin status regarding hospitalization and incapacitation.

With regard to other issues: Marriage is a partnership that is unique even within families. My partner and I have shared rights and responsibilities based on having formed a partnership, that I do not have in common with other family members who have, or may have their own partnerships.

The fact is that adults form pair bonds that share and build resources as well as debts for which they are mutually responsible.

My mother is my mother - but her debts are not mine and my debts are not hers. Hence we do not share the rights aligned with each others finances either. Nor will I with my children.

If you REALLY want to talk about rights of marriage you ought to be specific, and you ought to remember that they are linked with responsibilities as well.

But even those partners who are related by blood (and hence have some status regarding their relationship) do not have the full status afforded to a married couple. Employment benefits, while they vary from employer to employer, are not extended to adult siblings who live together. And why should a same sex couple who live together (like the old Kate and Allie show) have to pass themselves off as sexual partners in order to be recognized as partners with the status of a family?

I remember when I lived in Hawaii in the late 80s and the movement for same sex benefits was finally pushed forward. The wording was something like "any two adults who cannot legally marry" can apply as partners. As it turned out there were parent and grown children, grandparent and grown grandchildren, grown siblings, etc. who applied for the status. There was some disgruntlement within the community who were responsible for the change--saying "we didn't mean it for them, we meant it for us".

That is when I realized that this movement needs to be broadened. Why go to all the effort of changing things and then only go partway?

Kate and Allie weren't partners - they weren't mutually responsible for each other, and if one married and moved out she didn't have to split her savings or income with the other.

The legal status of FAMILY is not the same as legal status of MARRIAGE.

I ask you again to specify the rights AND the responsibilities that go with them.

I don't think you understand what that means.

I do agree that there are some responsiblities (mostly monetary) that married couples have toward each other that partners do not have.
The argument highlights my point--there is no present definition for two adults who are "mutually responsible for each other" outside of marriage. The focus of change is aimed at affording that status to same sex couple, a similarly narrow definition.
I do understand that there are over a thousand various rights and responsibilities regarding marriage--more than I have to the time to list. But if we are going to have a fundamental change in what defines that, I say make the change that will encompass the most people.

You keep describing people who may have made aneconomic alliance out of financial interest/ You are not describing people who have made an abiding partnership with mutual exclusive rights and responsibilities.

Let's use your own Kate and Allie example: they did not have a partnership with mutual rights and reasponsibilities. They shared some expenses. Anyone can do that. They didn't take on each other's debt as their own, and they were not entitled to half of what they earned as partners.

You're very confused as to what patrnership means.

You are furthermore in a fool's paradise if you think the pair-bonding of adults for the purpose of partnership is just a reflection of marriage law and not a reflection ogf human nature.

You can struggle for some total upheaval of society - I'm fighting for legal equality for all.

Legal equality for all is what I want too. We do agree in that area. The best avenue is to find common ground and move forward from there.

as opposed to an opportunistic government that panders to the whims of cowards and hate-mongers, it wouldn't matter if people were ready or not. It would already be the rule as a part of equal protection under the law. When it comes to rights and equal protection under the law, it doesn't matter whether (certain) people are ready or not for all people to have equal rights.

Alas...


a lot of cowards and hate-mongers out there...especially in government.

Color me surprised!

Not.

my gay and lesbian friends be able to marry.

No. We love discrimination too much, apparently.

Any law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional.

But reports from other parts of the country seem to say 'no'.

It's peoples rights we're talking about. "Ready" has nothing to do with it. People who aren't "ready" for it need to get over it and learn to live with it.

Sorry I can't answer the question. I'm still laughing over the fact that you think we're going to have a woman or a black man as president.

Sorry again that I'm so cynical.
:hi: Hub2Sparkley