Maggie Gallagher (NOM) seems to think so:
I’m inclined to see this as a simple recognition of reality (albeit heavily tinged with self-pitying victimhood posturing). However, I doubt the situation is quite as good (from the pro-equality perspective) as this statement makes it sound.
In my opinion, it’s not over until discrimination against gay couples is as rare and unacceptable as discrimination against interracial couples.
Politically it’s over. There’ll be some final gasps but this thing flipped in a hurry.
And about time, too.
Agreed. There are still lots of states with constitutional amendments forbidding SSM. Unless the Supremes rule it is the law of the land, it is not going to be the law of the land across all 50 states for a decade or more. And as long as it’s not, the debate rages on.
But in the meantime, we should get some popcorn and enjoy the feeble death throes of the bigots as this wave of equality pulls them under.
Yum!
Well, having people like Gallagher say it’s over does help it be over.
That was an interesting read. She comes off as way more introspective than I’ve ever heard from her (granted that lots of what I’ve heard from her has been soundbites).
I think she’s seeing a possibility of SSM being the new abortion, in that some religions are just assumed to be anti-abortion and that’s that. But I don’t know if that will really fly. Certainly, if people stop trying to pass laws against SSM or amendments and stop talking about it, people like me aren’t likely to care what they think or do within their own churches. But marriage just isn’t like abortion. it’s a public institution, and the intersection of church and state creates the conflict int he first place. (The state has no need to be involved with abortion, but the nature of marriage is state-sanctioned.)
In any case, it was an interesting read.
“Over” is a little strong, but it does seem to have hit the point where its hard to see it going anywhere but forward, and that probably pretty quickly. Opposition is cratering and increasingly concentrated amongst older co-horts, even conservative Southern states poll at 50-50 in favour, recent SCOTUS cases have been in supporters favour and, perhaps most importantly, there are an ever increasing number of gay-couples living openly, making gay marriage normative even in relatively conservative parts of the country.
But there are still a decent number of anti-miscegenists out there 40+ years after Loving v Virginia (my favoritely named SCOTUS case), so I’m sure in fifty or sixty years there will still be a couple hold-out homophobes out there.
But I think gay marriage has hit the “its all over but the shouting” phase. Still a lot of work to do, but the outcome isn’t in doubt anymore.
I certainly hope so. I’d prefer not to be stoned to death for picking up sticks or wearing a polyester/cotton shirt.
A hell of a lot more than “two percent” of the population participated in this revolution!
Nice try at minimizing or sidelining it, but, no, if two percent could work a real revolution, Occupy Wall Street and its supporters would have toppled the stock market.
Well, hats off to Maggie Gallagher - even the guy who defended her precious Prop 8 has changed his mind on the issue, and yet she remains optimistic. Deluded? Absolutely, but you can’t say she doesn’t hang in a fight.
Maybe she can hang out with the last remaining people who think the Earth is flat.
A pretty large number some places:
What’s happened with opposition to interracial marriage is that it reached the point of becoming an “unspeakable” belief; even people who hold it don’t dare say so in public, it’s too embarrassing and the backlash too large.
Having forgotten the name mentioned in the OP, I read this sentence and thought to myself, “How does that help? Is he going to hit it with his Sledge-o-Matic?”
It makes me really sad that so many of you feel like the debate is over. Map1. Map2. Looking at that, how can anyone feel the debate is even close to being over? There are still dozens of countries where it’s illegal to even be gay, let alone the vast majority do not let a gay marriage be recognized or allow gay adoption.
They were speaking Americentrically, on a mostly American board.
About an article that was explicitly about the us.
Yes, I assume the OP was talking about the US. Still, the debate is definitely not over. Anyone who thinks so lives in an echo chamber.
I could see this working!
I have to say that they still don’t get it. Is religious morality going to be marginalized and denigrated? No more than it has been already. The difference is not in how the non-religious regard religious morality, the difference is in the lowered ability of the religious to impose their morality on everyone else.
I, for one, am perfectly willing to have this woman think I am a hell-bound pervert, as long as she has no ability to enshrine her opinion into law or public policy. That’s what they are losing, and that’s what they can’t stand. They don’t care what you think or I think, they only care about being able to make us follow what they think.
And by “they” I mean the members of any politically motivated religious movement, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or Hindu or Buddhist or…). My only message to them is: go your way in peace, and leave me the hell alone.
It’s ridiculous and excessive for those against prop 8 in California advocating for same sex marriage. In California, same sex couples already enjoyed all the legal benefits in domestic partnerships that married couples received. Prop 8 was unnecessarily excessive and a waste of the supreme courts time. That’s the one dirty little secret that they try to keep secret. There was no additional rights earned by prop 8 that the same sex couples didn’t already have in dps.
I’m all for advocating universal equality in domestic partnerships for same sex couples. But attempting to redefine the term “marriage” just for the sake of legislation is excessive.
