Some, but not all.
The problem is that this puts civil rights in the backseat to the abstract purity of the dictionary. Denying people access to specific legal protections, just so no one is confused by the meaning of a word, is far more excessive than the redefinition ever could be.
ETA: and this obviously answers the question in the OP: nope! The debate isn’t over!
Name me one right that prop 8 afforded that same sex couples weren’t already enjoying in dps?
Ok, let’s not start that again. That line of thinking has been hashed out in numerous threads and thousands upon thousands of posts.
Proposition 8 took away the right to marry, so your question is odd.
The overturning of Prop 8 restored the right to marry. The right to marry is a right that was not recognized for same sex couples when there was only a recognized right to domestic partnerships.
Those in domestic partnerships enjoyed all the same rights and tax benefits as those in marriages. That’s why prop 8 was legislative overreaching. There was no need for it in terms for granting equality and legal benefits. It was all superficial gains for no reason than to appease the few. And Californians voted down same sex marriages, TWICE. Because of this fact
You have no idea whatsoever what Prop 8 was.
In the US, the political debate is essentially over. Around the rest of the world…well some places haven’t even gotten past people being gay at all. Considering that being gay (or at least having sex) carries a penalty of imprisonment or death there’s still a long way to go overall.
Fail
Yes you did fail. There are several major points that you have completely wrong over two lines of text.
Or what branch of the government is responsible for same-sex marriage being legal in California.
I suppose it depends how one defines “debate”. If it’s a conflict between reasoned positions that can each claim merit, then yes, it’s over (or never really started, actually). If it’s a struggle to overcome entrenched and unreasoned opinion, it’s not over and won’t be anytime soon.
Yes, and Gallagher’s fear is clearly that opposition to gay marriage is headed into the same category. She gets downright passive-aggressive about it:
The problem with Gallagher’s attempt to cast herself into the role of Gandhi is that these “weapons of the weak” only work if you have the moral high ground, which is not the case if you’re “weak” because your former victims have given you a richly deserved and long overdue butt-kicking.
The debate is over, but since this is also a matter of religious belief, there are always going to be many people of conscience who don’t agree with same sex marriage. Most politicians, to their credit, are calling for different viewpoints on the issue to be respected. It’s very rare that politicians are classier than regular folks, but this is one of those times.
Believe it or not, the President FINALLY coming around on the issue did not give his supporters license to call anyone who had not yet come around a bigot.
What Gallagher is getting at is that victory in the SSM fight should not result in religious people getting treated like unreconstructed Klansmen. There will be a price to pay if too many people overstep on this issue. It is NOT cool to call nearly half the country bigots, especially when most of the people doing it were holding their fire while their President was on the side of those they now call bigots.
Hey guys! I’m uncool! According to adaher.
I’m ok with that.
You’re free to believe what you want, although unless you believed that everyone who opposed gay marriage before 2012 was also a bigot, I question your sincerity.
Anyway, the point I was making is that if we can all be civilized, the debate is indeed over. If the victors decide to act as stupid as many of them seem bent on, then they’ll find that things don’t go the way they imagined. SSM is one thing. As has been correctly pointed out by supporters, it does not actually affect anyone or infringe on anyone’s rights. But if you try to make it the equivalent of the old civil rights battles, and use the same kind of eliminationist rhetoric, then you are talking about directly infringing on people’s rights, which means you’ll have a fight on your hands. Which you’ll lose.
I called my own mother a bigot and blocked her on Facebook for her vocal opposition to gay marriage back in 2010. I can probably find screenshots if you really need me to prove my “I’ve been calling homophobes bigots for many many years” cred. Hell, I’ve probably done it on this board. I believe that precision in language is important, and we do bigots no favors by coddling them and allowing them to believe that their brand of bigotry isn’t so bad, not really, not like those awful racist bigots.
Edit: we won’t lose. And mostly I see the “but you can’t call them bigots!” argument from people who secretly agree that gay people/marriage are icky and wrong, but yet definitely don’t consider themselves bigots. But they can’t just SAY that gay people are icky and wrong anymore (because they’ve lost that battle and will lose the war) so they nitpick about language.
Bigotry is bigotry. I’m sure people don’t like realizing that’s what they are. Doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
I don’t need proof. I trust you. I was just noticing that ever since the President changed his mind, the rhetoric has been turned up to 11. Respect has gone out the window. We aren’t negotiating terms of surrender, we’re discussing how to ostracize 45% of the country.
What does “respected” mean a discussion over civil rights?
I don’t care at all what a particular religion’s response to SSM is, anymore than I care what a particular religion’s response to divorce is. I only care about whether or not gay people have the right to marry, acknowledged by the gov’t the same way straight marriage is.
Terms of surrender? What can this mean other than “We agree to recognize SSM federally and on a state level?” Is there some other level of surrender that isn’t just refusing to give up the very thing you’re supposed to be surrendering?
It’s like a surrender on any other policy issue. A good example would be gun rights. There are many people who sincerely believe that there should not be a right to own a gun. Most of them recognize that they have lost, and reconciled themselves to the world we actually live in, while still believing what they’ve always believed.
When Gallagher and Douthat refer to their “surrender” they don’t mean support for SSM so much as a recognition that yes, they’ve lost, but they will continue to oppose it as a matter of conscience. They just won’t be going to the mat anymore on ballot initiatives or federal marriage amendments as a means to oppose it. Just as gun control advocates aren’t talking about overturning Heller.