Why Same-Sex Marraige Is Coming To Your State, Eventually

ayiakri

Member
Nov 2, 2009
131
23
16
Having read a thread on here about same-sex marriage, and some articles on the recent narrow loss of proponents of a bill to legalize it in Maine in a state-wide referendum, I now know a little bit more about the issue, and it occurs to me that the people who are so adamantly opposed to it have, in a sense, already lost.

First - a little history: Six years ago, there was not a single state in the United States that granted marriage status to same-sex couples. As of today, there are four, and as of January 1st, there will be five (when New Hampshire's law takes effect).

Disclaimer: I support equal rights, including the right to marry, regardless of the couple's race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., for as long as our government continues what I see as a pointless intervention in private life by "state sanctioning" people's personal living arrangements and/or love life. My ideal would be that all state governments and the fed get out of the "marriage business" altogether, and leave it up to churches, mosques, or covens to perform these rituals. But, if the state does feel like it has to be involved, then it has an obligation to ensure equal treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals (and whatever other variants I'm missing here).

Now - why is same-sex marriage inevitably coming to every state, even though opponents have been repeating, like some kind of mantra, that in 31 state-wide referendums in a row, people voted to reject same-sex marriages?

History. Take women's suffrage first (the right for women to vote). From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia said:
Following the American Revolution, women were allowed to vote in New Jersey, but no other state, from 1790 until 1807, provided they met property requirements then in place. In 1807, women were again forbidden from voting in the state.
... <snip>...
By the end of the nineteenth century, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming had enfranchised women after effort by the suffrage associations at the state level.

Needless to say, after a long, state-by-state slog where women won state-level court-cases, and legislative wins, they eventually did go from being able to vote in only four states, to having their equal status recognized by the Federal government, thus taking the matter out of the hands of the states.

Next, look at the issue of "different-race-marriage". For much of the nation's history, most states had anti-miscegenation laws (laws that banned interracial marriage and/or inter-racial sex). Until 1874, such laws were on the books in every state, and had been since the original 13 colonies.

Between 1874 and 1883, however, seven states repealed those laws (in some cases before having official statehood). Those states were:
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Maine, and Massachusetts.

Notice anything interesting about that list? Massachusetts and Iowa are two of the states that have also broken with history on same-sex marriage, and where it's legal nowe. Of course, it wasn't until 1967 that the last state - Virginia - had it's law struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, so it was a long, slow, state-by-state process, which ended in Federal court.

Comparisons can be drawn to other causes, like abortion (again, a state-by-state battle that eventually was decided in favor of advocates by the Supreme Court), although that analogy is weaker, I think.

So, there is definitely historical precedent for same-sex marriage following down the same path as previous civil-rights movements, some of them very similar (the anti-miscegenation laws being a very similar cause, with opponents of allowing blacks and whites to marry citing the Bible, and labeling it "unnatural", etc, some of the same things I hear opponents of same-sex marriage saying now).

The most damning indictment of opponents, however, has been that after six years of allowing same-sex marriage in an increasing number of states... the sky hasn't fallen. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples hasn't skyrocketed, the "institution of marriage" seems to have survived unscathed, and the people in those states have gotten time to become accustomed to the "new normal".

Based on that pattern, I think that by 2015, there will be another few states (say, 7 - 10 total) that allow same-sex marriage. And once it eventually does become legal in California, the most populous state by far, it will then either be formalized by Congress, or the Supreme Court will rule, and then social conservatives can pick their next line in the sand. Time is on the side of the gays and lesbians in this fight, because they're never going to give up fighting for equality, but the rest of us - particularly the people trying to fight against them - can't keep the same level of passion going forever, while losing state after state.

At this point, it's inevitable. It's even possible that New Jersey might pass a law recognizing same-sex marriage in the next two months. If so, that will make six states in just over six years. Do the math.
 
Td;lr: Old People who are against Gay Marriage will be eventually replaced with Old People who are (majority) for Gay Marriage.

The more newer the generation, usually the more tolerance. Should prove interesting come ten or fifteen years down the line when more and more states start voting for Gay Marriage.
 
If we were talking about a right then there might be a thread of truth to your diatribe. Marriage is a religious thing, not of the state. MORE states are passing no marriage for gays laws/amendments. People tend to become more conservative as they age. Nice fairy tale.
 
NJ is pushing to pass gay marriage before republican Christie takes over. One by one states will gradually expand gay rights.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.

And why shouldn't they? As long as they're all consenting adults, what's your problem with it?
 
but but dogbert people will want to marry goats after that and then little children and so on.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.

Its a different topic, but how does someone having a consensual polygamist marriage affect you?
 
Still waiting for an answer there Punk.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYXq9b8eQx8&feature=related[/ame]

Pens down. Reveal us your answer.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64&feature=related]YouTube - Bueller Bueller Bueller[/ame]
 
I love how somebody labels my post "a fairy tale" without poking a single hole in the logic behind it.

Maybe they read it, understand that same-sex marriage is inevitable, but can't handle the truth... somebody lacks confidence in their own sexuality, maybe.

Anyway - i've yet to read any compelling counterpoint to what I wrote.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.

Its a different topic, but how does someone having a consensual polygamist marriage affect you?

Its only different in the choosing of a partner, or in this case partners. The arguments are exactly the same. I wonder if the poofters will adamant about protecting the polygamists from such oppression? Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
Who gives a fuck ?
You morons let your govt steal your money and give it to 'them' and you're worried about some other idiot living the way they choose to live.
Leave people alone.
That's the problem with the Great Satan, Nazi Empire, disguised by a flag and the lie of freedom......errrrrr.... FreeDumb.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.

Its a different topic, but how does someone having a consensual polygamist marriage affect you?

Its only different in the choosing of a partner, or in this case partners. The arguments are exactly the same. I wonder if the poofters will adamant about protecting the polygamists from such oppression? Strange bedfellows indeed.

i also wonder.
 
Then the polygamists will start clamoring for their "right" to marry as many people as they choose, using the exact same argument.

And why shouldn't they? As long as they're all consenting adults, what's your problem with it?

I cant answer why they shouldnt be allowed to, because in reality, if marriage is going to be completely redefined, any group consenting adults should be permitted to marry- relatives, poofters, polygamists, let em all marry.

The relevant question is whether the state has an interest in preferring and encouraging certain arrangements over others. And I say yes.


Look- I am neither for gay marriage or against it. I live in San Diego. That gays cannot marry here seems awfully strange- given the community. But the attitudes here- and this is what we are talking about- attitudes-not equal rights- should not be imposed elsewhere, which is what the poofters want.

Gay people are not excluded from marriage anymore than polygamists are.
 
I cant answer why they shouldnt be allowed to, because in reality, if marriage is going to be completely redefined, any group consenting adults should be permitted to marry- relatives, poofters, polygamists, let em all marry.

The relevant question is whether the state has an interest in preferring and encouraging certain arrangements over others. And I say yes.

Look- I am neither for gay marriage or against it. I live in San Diego. That gays cannot marry here seems awfully strange- given the community. But the attitudes here- and this is what we are talking about- attitudes-not equal rights- should not be imposed elsewhere, which is what the poofters want.

Gay people are not excluded from marriage anymore than polygamists are.

I'm pretty sure you're against Gay Marriage. However, I must ask again why you feel it's wrong for two consenting adults to be married?
 
So... it seems like nobody really disagrees with my analysis of the issue vis a vis the historical analogies, and the inevitability of same-sex marriage becoming the norm nation-wide.

I guess that's comforting (more to gays/lesbians probably, but also comforting that nobody found any major logic holes).

It's nighttime here, and late, so, goodnite!
 

Forum List

Back
Top