|
Twelve by Pies posted:So if the judge rules in favor of same-sex marriage how does that work considering we have a constitutional amendment banning it? Same as it currently is in Utah.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
I wonder how long those county clerk offices in Utah will manage to stay closed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
I'll be honest, I thought it would take several decades to see the below happen in Utah: If you listen real close, you can almost hear the faint *pop* of bigots' heads exploding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I'll be honest, I thought it would take several decades to see the below happen in Utah: The fact that this is happening in 2013 should tell you full marriage equality in the country isn't far. 2020 at the latest has always been my prediction. We've come a long way from 2004.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
A question for the therad: does the spooky boogieman of Gay Marriage cease being an electoral/political issue once it becomes the universal law of the land (interracial marriage), or does it maintain a level of investment from the reactionaries (abortion)? Myself, I see it becoming a well-considered dog whistle about 'traditional family values' and not much more. Gerund fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Gerund posted:A question for the therad: does the spooky boogieman of Gay Marriage cease being an electoral/political issue once it becomes the universal law of the land (interracial marriage), or does it maintain a level of investment from the reactionaries (abortion)? No it becomes embraced as the new normal, as conservatives suddenly pick up the votes of the poor-hating gay yuppies on my Facebook feed who only vote Democrat now out of naked self-interest, but are eager to join the ranks of the ruling class and begin loving over other groups just as soon as they're able. Abortion stayed an issue because abortion bans only hurt poor people and are a way to control poor and especially minority women. Rich white conservative women can afford to travel somewhere it is legal for themselves or their daughters. Rich white gay people would be hurt by a reactionary ban on marriages because they benefit substantially from the tax exclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Gerund posted:A question for the therad: does the spooky boogieman of Gay Marriage cease being an electoral/political issue once it becomes the universal law of the land (interracial marriage), or does it maintain a level of investment from the reactionaries (abortion)? The opinion polling on gay marriage in America looks like it is a generational issue, which would make it more like interracial marriage, and less like women's rights. I say this as someone who is not an opinion pollster, but I think even respected polling people have commented on it being a generational issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Gay marriage also doesn't have an intellectually honest framework for the opposing side. If you believe that life begins at conception then it follows naturally that abortion would be murder. That's not how I define life personally, but I understand the argument. The opposing side for gay marriage is literally more like "those people are icky." The resistance to gay marriage also seems to be more based in appeals to the status quo. It seems like the majority of the country actually doesn't feel super strongly either way about the topic. That fact led to the reactionary side winning a number of public votes on the topic such as Prop 8 in California. Once gay marriage becomes the status quo then I think that bias will be the same but in the opposite direction. Most people will be resistant to changing the status quo and explicitly removing previously granted rights to a group of people. At that point, when you're talking about explicit removal of something, the bigot organizations can no longer spin their viewpoint as "protection" of anything without everyone seeing it for what it really is. I also think religious organizations will come around too. We see them as being very strongly anti-gay, but there's no reason to think that couldn't change. The objections to being the gay in the bible are there, but they're fairly weak in terms of the overall message. There's no reason to think they couldn't be ignored the same way working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, and mixing fabrics are today. For better or for worse I think it will track similarly to interracial marriage. You're still gonna have homophobes the same way you're gonna have racists. ErIog fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Gay marriage also doesn't have an intellectually honest framework for the opposing side. If you believe that life begins at conception then it follows naturally that abortion would be murder. That's not how I define life personally, but I understand the argument. Sorry but it's not intellectually honest unless you're advocating for legislation that charges women who get abortions with first degree murder. Similarly, it's not intellectually honest if you're for exceptions for rape or incest, or for legislation that argues the state should set standards for abortion clinics as that is literally asking the state to condone murder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I also think religious organizations will come around too. We see them as being very strongly anti-gay, but there's no reason to think that couldn't change. The objections to being the gay in the bible are there, but they're fairly weak in terms of the overall message. There's no reason to think they couldn't be ignored the same way working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, and mixing fabrics are today. I dunno where you're getting this, but the opposition to the marriage ban here in Minnesota (in 2012) included I think over a hundred religious groups. I also find it rather rather odd and offensive that you conflate anti-SSM backwards-ism with Jewish holiness observations, even to a non-Jew like myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it becomes embraced as the new normal, as conservatives suddenly pick up the votes of the poor-hating gay yuppies on my Facebook feed who only vote Democrat now out of naked self-interest, but are eager to join the ranks of the ruling class and begin loving over other groups just as soon as they're able. I wish you were wrong on this, but I doubt you will be. It'll also help drag home a bunch of social issue Democrats back to the GOP, which IMO is the primary reason the GOP has been losing national elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I dunno where you're getting this, but the opposition to the marriage ban here in Minnesota (in 2012) included I think over a hundred religious groups. I also find it rather rather odd and offensive that you conflate anti-SSM backwards-ism with Jewish holiness observations, even to a non-Jew like myself. His point is that Jesus says zero about gays in the bible. The people who use the bible as a basis for this usually have to head to either Paul's stuff or the old Jewish law. So mentioning that the are following that one line of Leviticus without doing any of the rest that would actually require sacrifice on their part seems pretty topical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Few controversies are as one sided as the gay marriage issue. The people against it have nothing of any substance to back up their opinions. At least with things like abortion, where I am strongly pro choice, I at least recognize that there are legitimate ethical issues involved, even if the protesters holding dead fetus signs are too stupid to discuss them. But for gay marriage, the best they can do is say their god doesn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I dunno where you're getting this, but the opposition to the marriage ban here in Minnesota (in 2012) included I think over a hundred religious groups. I also find it rather rather odd and offensive that you conflate anti-SSM backwards-ism with Jewish holiness observations, even to a non-Jew like myself. While there are tons of religious people, groups, and organizations that support gay rights, the opposition to gay marriage in the US seems to be almost entirely religiously motivated, and the majority of those people are some variety of conservative Christians. His point was that since most American Christians don't worry about those parts of the Bible, the anti gay teachings will hopefully become just as ignored in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Gerund posted:A question for the therad: does the spooky boogieman of Gay Marriage cease being an electoral/political issue once it becomes the universal law of the land (interracial marriage), or does it maintain a level of investment from the reactionaries (abortion)? It's tough - After (and in most places before) Loving, interracial marriage was widely accepted, but Reagan still won with a really racist campaign. It was all dog whistles, but really racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:It's tough - After (and in most places before) Loving, interracial marriage was widely accepted, but Reagan still won with a really racist campaign. It was all dog whistles, but really racist. Loving v. Virginia was in 1967, while interracial marriage didn't have majority approval among Americans until 1994.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I wish you were wrong on this, but I doubt you will be. It'll also help drag home a bunch of social issue Democrats back to the GOP, which IMO is the primary reason the GOP has been losing national elections. Yeah I depressed myself by writing that. But given the amount of poor-shaming in the gay community (at least among rich white gays, or trust fund kids, or cute gay boys who have no trouble getting sugar daddies) that I see all the time, it's fairly certain that one of the parties will rebrand into progressive on social issues and 'conservative' fiscally to attract the votes to gently caress over the poor and lavish money on the rich. After all, the GOP right now pretends to care about Christianity only so far as it lets them cut taxes and social services and funnel money to bankers and defense contractors. (Not that I don't have a lot of awesome left-wing gay friends. I certainly do.) rkajdi posted:His point is that Jesus says zero about gays in the bible. The people who use the bible as a basis for this usually have to head to either Paul's stuff or the old Jewish law. So mentioning that the are following that one line of Leviticus without doing any of the rest that would actually require sacrifice on their part seems pretty topical. This is a pretty good point: they only want to enforce the Levitical ban on things that they don't really want to do anyway. It's like people who dislike lobster and crab clamoring to enforce the penalties for eating that while coming up with absurd justifications for why the part about pork doesn't apply anymore (obviously there's a small but vocal group of closeted lobster lovers who never, ever shut the gently caress about the people who eat lobster and spend a disturbing amount of time describing lobster-eating in detail).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:His point is that Jesus says zero about gays in the bible. The people who use the bible as a basis for this usually have to head to either Paul's stuff or the old Jewish law. So mentioning that the are following that one line of Leviticus without doing any of the rest that would actually require sacrifice on their part seems pretty topical. VitalSigns posted:This is a pretty good point: they only want to enforce the Levitical ban on things that they don't really want to do anyway. It's like people who dislike lobster and crab clamoring to enforce the penalties for eating that while coming up with absurd justifications for why the part about pork doesn't apply anymore (obviously there's a small but vocal group of closeted lobster lovers who never, ever shut the gently caress about the people who eat lobster and spend a disturbing amount of time describing lobster-eating in detail). That was my point, and to extend it I would again point to interracial marriage. I think there was just as much religious fervor in the antimiscegenation campaigns, but most religious institutions don't spend any time today talking about it as an issue. On a similar, but admittedly less-related note, the bible was also used to justify slavery and deny all sorts of gender equality rights. There's a very large number of things we see as settled issues in the modern day that, in their time, had arguments rooted in the bible and backed zealously by religious people. I think it's short-sighted to think that the religious community can never be counted on as allies. It might take another 15-20 years or so, but I think it's inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I depressed myself by writing that. But given the amount of poor-shaming in the gay community (at least among rich white gays, or trust fund kids, or cute gay boys who have no trouble getting sugar daddies) that I see all the time, it's fairly certain that one of the parties will rebrand into progressive on social issues and 'conservative' fiscally to attract the votes to gently caress over the poor and lavish money on the rich. After all, the GOP right now pretends to care about Christianity only so far as it lets them cut taxes and social services and funnel money to bankers and defense contractors. I'm just old and bitter myself. I'm bi and expect anytime I'm out to constantly get static on it from gay community--Not calling it LGBT here, because to be honest the B&T might as well not exist except when their help is needed in giving the L&Gs rights and acceptance. I expect to be marginalized again the exact moment that marriage equality (and maybe a weak ENDA that leaves transpeople out in the cold) passes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm just old and bitter myself. I'm bi and expect anytime I'm out to constantly get static on it from gay community--Not calling it LGBT here, because to be honest the B&T might as well not exist except when their help is needed in giving the L&Gs rights and acceptance. I expect to be marginalized again the exact moment that marriage equality (and maybe a weak ENDA that leaves transpeople out in the cold) passes. Ls and Gs are no fun if they leave behind their Bs and Ts. Acronym buddies!  I hope that after marriage civil rights groups transition toward gender identity protections and improving awareness of poverty/homelessness among LGBT population, especially youth who are particularly vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Ls and Gs are no fun if they leave behind their Bs and Ts. Acronym buddies! I hope so too. But social movements have a history in this country of just giving the smallest possible accommodation to stop or fracture the movement, then coming down heavily on the rest. So I have zero confidence in anything universally positive (like a shift in society away from this kind of discrimination to any group) to come out of the gay rights movement. EDIT: The way the HRC pretty much declares victory and packs up after bougie marriage rights are given to L&Gs should be enough to dash your hopes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I depressed myself by writing that. But given the amount of poor-shaming in the gay community (at least among rich white gays, or trust fund kids, or cute gay boys who have no trouble getting sugar daddies) that I see all the time, it's fairly certain that one of the parties will rebrand into progressive on social issues and 'conservative' fiscally to attract the votes to gently caress over the poor and lavish money on the rich. After all, the GOP right now pretends to care about Christianity only so far as it lets them cut taxes and social services and funnel money to bankers and defense contractors. Even if gay marriage becomes the law of the entire U.S., I doubt you're going to see a mass movement of gay people suddenly voting for the GOP. Political orientations tend to become set pretty early in life...if that gay man voted "D" at 18 to try to gain equality, he'll probably continue to vote "D" even though he's well off, married, and 38. He knows which party thought of them as subhuman scum for many years, and he knows which party courts the votes of people who don't like them. Not that there won't be ham-handed, tone deaf attempts to win his vote by the Republicans, but it won't exactly be successful. And the Democrats are already largely "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" anyway. You are correct that there is a class schism within the community. There's not exactly a huge gay middle class...either you're Three Olives; or you're working at the 7-11 and living in a rathole apartment. It has to do with education and support. As a gay or lesbian person, you're a lot less likely to have children before you're ready, thus freeing you up to pursue educational and career opportunities that many of your straight brethren don't. If you came from money, made it through high school without getting ostracized too much, and have good familial support, it's easy to get ahead. If your family rejected you, and/or you dropped out of high school due to bullying or needing to start supporting yourself early, your road is going to be pretty hard. The in-between is growing due to increasing normalization of homosexuality, but there is still some strong class inequality in the community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Even if gay marriage becomes the law of the entire U.S., I doubt you're going to see a mass movement of gay people suddenly voting for the GOP. Political orientations tend to become set pretty early in life...if that gay man voted "D" at 18 to try to gain equality, he'll probably continue to vote "D" even though he's well off, married, and 38. Hell I know really old racist white people who still vote Democrat because that's just what theyve been conditioned to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Ls and Gs are no fun if they leave behind their Bs and Ts. Acronym buddies! ENDA will be the next big push, but the challenge is going to be keeping the bigger non-profits from approving the dropping or watering down of trans protections at the first sign of resistance. The big non-profits will probably never be any help with poverty and homelessness because their boards are filled with rich FYGMs and they depend on corporate sponsorship. Several upstart groups have provided a blueprint for pushing forward without them when necessary so things aren't exactly hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Hell I know really old racist white people who still vote Democrat because that's just what theyve been conditioned to do. Well yeah, but with a man named "Barack Obama" on the ballot? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
I remember a friend of mine from Dothan, Alabama telling me that he had a bunch of older relatives who basically hated the Democrats but kept voting for them anyway, because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. This was 2000 or 2001, though, so it's entirely possible that those people are all dead now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
AGirlWonder posted:Can Mormons be excommunicated for "active homosexuality"? If so, would LDS couples getting gay-married run the risk of discovery and/or being ousted from the Church? I expect enforcement of this to vary by location. As in: I don't think European Mormon ecclesiastical leaders are rushing to kick out the odd married gay couple who might be coming to church; but Utah on the other hand... InterFaced posted:In my experience most gay people in Utah comfortable enough with their relationship and partner to seek getting married do not have an ongoing relationship with the Church. They're either transplants or former mormons. And some locations have overt LGBT outreach. Mitch Mayne (until very recently) served in the leadership of a Mormon unit in San Francisco, and he's openly gay. Very nice guy, too. Honestly, I think this issue is similar to Mormon history with race. When you look at the 20 or so years leading up to our reversal of the race policy, you find that more and more leaders privately favored progressive change, some more passionately than others. But then you had the regressive, conservative, angry leaders who wanted nothing to change, and who represented a significant portion of the membership base as well. The more progressive types feared losing the base, so spent years lobbying the conservative leaders until unanimity was reached. As much as Mormons talk about being an international church, if we manage to alienate our Utah/Western US base all at once, we lose the historical core of the membership along with a massive amount of money and authority. This is true even if we just lose the older generations. So we'll always be a little slow with social change, but it'll come. For this too. Shucks, gay marriage isn't even really incompatible with our beliefs and practices. Joseph Smith sealed some men together in a quasi-matrimonial ritual. It probably wasn't a sexual thing, but it shows (along with polygamy) that he certainly didn't think "traditional" marriage was the only way for things to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I hope so too. But social movements have a history in this country of just giving the smallest possible accommodation to stop or fracture the movement, then coming down heavily on the rest. So I have zero confidence in anything universally positive (like a shift in society away from this kind of discrimination to any group) to come out of the gay rights movement. At least the HRC don't whitewash history regarding the Stonewall riots in their name. But yeah, America needs a few Representatives to push trans rights after ENDA, just as the UK has people like Lynne Featherstone and Julian Huppert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
TinTower posted:At least the HRC don't whitewash history regarding the Stonewall riots in their name. But yeah, America needs a few Representatives to push trans rights after ENDA, just as the UK has people like Lynne Featherstone and Julian Huppert. The best solution is to tie transgendered rights into the ENDA. If the whole "nobody's free until everybody's free" line really is the truth (I believe in it certainly) then waiting slightly longer to keep our transgendered brothers and sisters from being left out in the cold is a fair sacrifice to make. What makes me really sad is that the movement could also be a way to bring the issues still facing the poor, homeless, and PoC to the public consciousness. But as expected, the movement will stop working as soon as upper class whites are satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm just old and bitter myself. I'm bi and expect anytime I'm out to constantly get static on it from gay community--Not calling it LGBT here, because to be honest the B&T might as well not exist except when their help is needed in giving the L&Gs rights and acceptance. I expect to be marginalized again the exact moment that marriage equality (and maybe a weak ENDA that leaves transpeople out in the cold) passes. I'm sorry but bullshit. I've been following same-sex marriage for forever and I've never once seen any language to the effect of "no bisexuals allowed" marriage equality isn't some clubhouse. I know it has roots in supporting free marble values but the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" certainly applies here. Frankly I'm sick of internet bisexuals playing the constant victims. I say internet because most if not all of the bisexuals I know personally are level-headed and roll their eyes when "bisexual activists" beat their drums. As a friend of mine put it, when she's with a woman she's a lesbian and when she's with a man she's straight; people get too hung up on folks validating their identity to enjoy life. Yes people tend to have a binary view of sexuality. Yes some gays and lesbians have chips on their shoulder about bisexuals. Yet I have never seen anyone bitching about erasure cop to a fundamental privilege: society places more value on your opposite sex relationships than they will ever place on my same sex relationship. That's a fundamental privilege and I can't help but roll my eyes when folks ignore it and bleat about erasure. In all honesty same-sex marriage is a good thing since it will allow bisexuals equal opportunity to build a life with a same-sex partner as an opposite-sex partner. Who knows maybe increased acceptance of homosexual couples will remove some of the stigma associated with those relationships? rkajdi posted:The best solution is to tie transgendered rights into the ENDA. If the whole "nobody's free until everybody's free" line really is the truth (I believe in it certainly) then waiting slightly longer to keep our transgendered brothers and sisters from being left out in the cold is a fair sacrifice to make. This is such a petty, self-defeating, and insulting attitude. The implication is that everyone who wants marriage equality doesn't care about other issues and that is absolutely incorrect. Also since when is non-inclusive ENDA back on the table? Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
I agree that bisexuals aren't usually marginalized politically, but within the LGBT culture some hold grudges against them. And you don't need to look too hard in the LGBT blogosphere to find some really anti-trans folks out there, and they usually are thrown under the bus politically such as DADT
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm sorry but bullshit. I've been following same-sex marriage for forever and I've never once seen any language to the effect of "no bisexuals allowed" marriage equality isn't some clubhouse. I know it has roots in supporting free marble values but the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" certainly applies here. SSM is a good thing overall, but I worry that it's a jumping off point for a bunch of FYGMers at the top. They get their spousal exemption and tax benefits, and everyone beneath gets next to nothing. The primary real advantages of marriage are financial protections for your spouse, and those are much less meaningful if you don't have a decent amount of money. I've always seen ENDA as the better starting point, since people on the bottom of the economy would see more real benefits from it than marriage. Obviously I'm neglecting he soft (social) benefits, but I doubt that making gay civil marriage a reality will stop the bigots from excluding it socially, just like interracial marriage still is today. And your point about society favoring hetero relationship is one I'll 100% cop to. Hell, the fact that the gay community buys into it is a decent slice of my gripe with them. Apparently, I'm only allowed in the club while I'm with a man, so the fact that I'm married to a woman and am partially in the closet (because of work and family) makes me somehow invalid. I'm good enough to advocate and campaign, but I'm not not good enough for actual solidarity. gently caress that, allowing that attitude in is how society has broken up every progressive cultural movement in the past. quote:This is such a petty, self-defeating, and insulting attitude. The implication is that everyone who wants marriage equality doesn't care about other issues and that is absolutely incorrect. Sorry I'm a pessimist, but we saw the same thing happen in the New Deal. Poor whites were more than willing to kick the ladder out from under blacks as soon the whites got their benefits. It's silly to not expect the same thing to happen here, doubly so when one of the groups that has successfully pushed change is as FYGM as the Log Cabin Republicans. A non-inclusive ENDA isn't on the table currently, correct. But watch a "get what we can" attitude start up exactly as soon as opposition arises to gender issues. I'm a cynic about things because I've been around long enough to see this kind of garbage happen in the past.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
I'm having trouble parsing this. You have a monogamous relationship with your spouse. But you want to be with / gently caress people of opposite gender as them? The gay bi straight situation may not be the reason it is hard for people to find solidarity with, it may be that's just a lovely thing to do to a person you are married to, and any group would pick up on that. If you had a male spouse, but wanted to be with women that would be just as skeevey and unfair to the person you legally purported to love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:I'm having trouble parsing this. You have a monogamous relationship with your spouse. But you want to be with / gently caress people of opposite gender as them? The gay bi straight situation may not be the reason it is hard for people to find solidarity with, it may be that's just a lovely thing to do to a person you are married to, and any group would pick up on that. If you had a male spouse, but wanted to be with women that would be just as skeevey and unfair to the person you legally purported to love.  Non-monogamous marriages exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:
So... He should be happy then? Utah example: When gay rights get passed, by default bi rights are passed. When you are in a homo relationship, hooray you can now get married  . If you are in a hetero relationship, horray you could already have been married .If bis are looking for legal protection. Seems like this is a big win. If they are looking for social acceptance, I see three options. Monogamous homo relationship = party with the gays. Monogamous hetero relationship = woot woot you are accepted by tdefault with no baggage. Polyamourous relationship = ... You may feel more accepted in a swingers community, just sayin. Edit: phone post autocorrect errors KirbyKhan fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah seriously, as another bisexual person I don't get the pessimist attitude here. I am concerned that trans protections could be in jeopardy, but ENDA's not going to pass the current House in any form at this point anyway. It's not like it suddenly becomes attractive to the Tea Party just because the trans part is removed. Eventually it will get done, and to be honest the equal rights movement is moving a hell of a lot faster in just the last 18 months than I could have imagined. I mean back then you had 6 states with marriage equality, now it's many more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm sorry but bullshit. I've been following same-sex marriage for forever and I've never once seen any language to the effect of "no bisexuals allowed" marriage equality isn't some clubhouse. It doesn't come up in terms of actively excluding rights for bisexuals, but there sure is some animus against bi people within the community. Go look through some of Dan Savage's old podcasts where he muses on how bi men don't really exist, just men who are confused about being gay, and how a lot of bi people really aren't and are just faking it because they're trendy and wouldn't actually date a same-sex partner seriously or marry them. Sure, just one guy, but that thought didn't just spring forth from his own imagination. It's a reflection of how bi people aren't truly accepted by the gay community, particularly the movers and shakers (aka rich white gay guys). The fact that the community is so driven by that one particular group does reflect in policy - see how transgendered people pretty much get thrown under the bus too. I think there is a serious risk of the rest of the acronyms getting left out in the cold once gay marriage is achieved. They aren't paid equal attention even now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
^^^ My wife was straight up told that bisexual people didn't exist by one of her teachers(ironically enough a transman). She still gets pissed about it to this day ^^^KirbyKhan posted:Utah example: polygamy became somewhat unoutlawed, in that you can cohabitate with multiple people while only having a marriage one marriage certificate. May seem discriminatory, but cohabitation affords all bennies of marriage legally. Can you source this, because my understanding was that in Utah you can now just be ~married in spirit~ to multiple people and live together but holy poo poo you better not try to claim any sort of legal right for them otherwise you'll get the poo poo arrested out of ya. Unless you mean something different by "cohabitation affords all bennies of marriage legally." I am not a book fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
ENDA will never be voted on in the current House, but the fact that it passed in the Senate in its current form shows that times have already changed substantially. I wouldn't be surprised if ENDA would actually pass the House as is and that's exactly why Boehner doesn't want to vote on it. The trans inclusiveness is not preventing passage, Boehner not wanting to give Obama any legislative victories is preventing passage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
I am not a book posted:
All of this told to me by my sister. Who's probably not an internet quotable source admittantly. Will redact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:21
|
|