Just wondering if you think there will ever be a point where more than half the states in the Union recognize gay marriage? For me I don't really care about the "diminishing marriage" argument as I think my marriage of 23 years stands on it's own. HOWEVER I DO NOT WANT TO HASH AND REHASH THE BASIC BELIEFS- I do want to talk about whether or not you see the future holding more than half the states eventually adopting gay marriage. I tend to think there will a gradual drift and that in 7-10 years about half the states will recognize same sex unions. I even wonder if the California ruling might even help this along as the logic seems a bit flawwed allowing some and not others makes the argument more difficutl to defend IMO. Anyhow yes... no... maybe... hell yes.. hell no....
I don't think so. While people are more accepting of gay/lesbian/transgendered people, I would say that a majority in this country still think, and will continue to think, that those relationships are wrong.
Highly doubt it. It just failed in California of all places! If the G/L lobby would concentrate on civil rights and legal unions and stay away from "Marriage" I think they'd gain a lot more momentum.
I love it when you post. We can have a holocaust with millions killed while God sits on his hands, but gosh darn it, he's not going to sit idly by and watch guys in love get married!
I think that's the way it's trending, Summer. Just look at here in Texas; times have changed and while gay marriage isn't exactly widely accepted, many (myself included) have gay friends and have changed our minds about the issue. I don't honestly know very many people who are against gay marriage, or at least some form of civil union. I think that over time we will see growing acceptance for gay marriage, and rightly so: the government has no business getting involved in marriage in the first place (Marriage has existed longer than formal government and has been a religious/social institution widely varying by culture; therefore government has no authority in the area of marriage, particularly in enforcing social mores that restrict it), and so long as religious institutions are not forced to participate in violation of their beliefs, I think the right to marry who you want falls reasonably under the "pursuit of happiness" banner.
The demographics will overwhelm those against same sex marriage. 58% of those between 18-34 support gay marriage and it is very unlikely that it is an issue where you will change your mind with age. And my guess is that the kids who are 8 today will be more heavily in favor than the kids who are 18 today. So I would predict that 10 years from now, more than 58% of those 18-44 will support gay marriage. Moreover, only 24% over 65 support gay marriage and many of them will not be here 10 years from now. It will go back on the ballot in CA. Some are arguing to wait until 2012 to allow for 4 more years of the positive demographics discussed above, but it is likely it will be on the 2010 ballot. I think it will be another close vote, but my guess is that it passes in CA in 2010. Most of the grass roots support and money were tied up in the Presidential race in 08 and there will not be such competition in 2010. It is also very likely that the Dem candidate for governor will support gay marriage. The proponents of gay marriage were woefully unorganized for several reasons including that they became complacent because the polls in the beginning were very favorable and so many of us who would support gay marriage were very busy getting our new President elected, who of course did not endorse gay marriage. I don’t believe they will be unorganized this time. My understanding is that there will be very few marriage ballots in other states, so CA will be ground zero in 2010. Undoubtedly, this will be a battleground with money pouring in from out–of-state, but this time it will be on both sides. There will undoubtedly be an obscene amount of money spent on the issue in 2010. It is also likely that proponents of gay marriage will address directly in the Proposition the scare tactics that a vote for gay marriage will require churches to perform marriages and require first graders to be taught that gay marriage is moral. Both issues were discussed in every one of the thousands of anti-gay marriage commercials aired in CA and in most interviews I saw of protestors, they would cite that they don’t want their minister thrown in jail for refusing to perform a gay marriage. And maybe there will be a competing Proposition to change the name of all marriages to civil unions. It should be interesting.
I tend to think that the legal challenges are going to pave the way. California oddly enough is going to lead the charge with it's creation of two seperate classes of gays, those that are married and those that can never be married. Also it's true that demographics and education are going to help move more folks toward the acceptance of gay marriage. I think the artificial reasoning and barriers shouted by the right will slowly whither alongside an aging population. You have to understand that the demographics of voting are HEAVILY weighted to the old people who vote in droves. More than anything I think it's just fairness. Unless you want to strip out all the governmental benefits that reference marriage. Pretending that a "civil union" recieved the same legal benefits as a marriage is simply being naive. It's a "lesser marriage" and nothing more than that. It will be nice when one day a person's marriage is actually evaluted the way it should be.... by the actions of the two participants in the marriage. Going on 24 years, my marriage has not been devalued any more by gay marriages than it has been by the numerous divorces of GOP "family values" proponents. The marriage of others simply does not effect mine, or anyone else's.
Summer, if I answered your question the way the title was written, i'd say that's one way to curb population growth.
"Ever" is a long time to predict....but in the next 10 years....no. Congrats on 23 years......I have #25 next year.
Likely in the northeast and west coast completely in next ten years. That's where the stall process will take effect. The south won't budge, most of the midwest won't either. Any community with a substantial Hispanic presence will be difficult to pass ss marriage. IMHO that was the real issue with Prop 8 in CA. CA is liberal as hell, but Hispanics are traditional values voters and align with religious conservatives on this issue frequently. I think CA eventually goes for SS marriage, but I can't see Arizona, NM and Texas going that way. Not to mention, many states have defense of marriage language now written into their constitution. It is difficult for me to imagine that states who just amended their charter document in the past 5 years will now re-amend it to not only get rid of the defense of marriage language. It will take time. I imagine that a large minority of states (encompassing a majority of the population) will have some form of civil union by 2025. It might take a US Supreme Court ruling to actually get a majority of all states to approve.
Yes, but it may just be a majority of the population and not a majority of states. I agree with what a previous post said about the NE, west coast, south and midwest. Although, Iowa is midwest and has approved...so who knows. I think one thing to consider is that there appears to be a back lash against the right wing from Prop 8. After the election, there was only one state that allowed SS marriage and now there are five or six. That is actually a huge change in a short time.
My journey: 13-19: I hate fags. Make me puke and pick on those who are sissy. 20's: I won't pick on them, but crap that is one jacked up problem. 30's: Find out a couple of acquaintances have been abused as kids and are now sexually confused. Crap, I may have to give this some thought. 40's: Find out a couple of very successful friends have come out of the closet. What??? Married guys that I have respected for years. They lost family, respect, friends, etc. I have now rethought this. They were born liking men like I was born liking women. I recount this to say, I was raised as red neck as anyone in Texas. But I now have several friends who are the Log Cabin Republicans, that I love and respect. Each one a God fearing, church going, kind hearted soul. As much as I still don't understand same sex attraction, I'd beat the *** of anyone picking on these friends of mine. So I believe that we will have gay marriage in most states within the next 30 years. If my anti-gay red neck *** could go from picking on gays to defending them, I suspect my less red neck countrymen will follow suit.
Right on Kerbouchard. It would have been much easier to be one of those "lost" friends. Props to you for sticking by them when they probably needed you most.
So I believe that we will have gay marriage in most states within the next 30 years. If my anti-gay red neck *** could go from picking on gays to defending them, I suspect my less red neck countrymen will follow suit. __________________________________________________ For some reason, the gay argument seems to be that if you are against gay marriage, you are against gays and a biggot. I dont understand that. Apparently, i can be for civil unions, gay rights, a homosexuals right to adopt, but i am still an evil and hateful person. if you open the door to gay marriage, then you open the door to other lifestyle choices like bigomy and other relationship forms. The reason being is that nay morality argument that prevented these types of relationships goes out the window.
Divorce is a bigger threat to straight marriage than gays are. Marriage became a joke long before same sex people wanted in.
i think 10 years is a great over under. it may be a bit before or a bit after, but it is coming unless something radical happens in our country.
Oilfield, if I understand your post correctly you are saying that as long as the word "marriage" isn't used that you and many others would be ok with "civil unions". In other words "seperate but equal". As a country we don't have a good track record with that approach.
That is what I'm saying, yes. I believe you have to consider human nature here. Most people are not inherently bigoted. Most people don't want to see people discriminated against. On the other hand, most people don't like the idea of politicians or judges redefining cultural tradition. So, if you can truly provide equal rights to a certain group without redefining cultural tradition, why not try that? As it is, people feel like something they did not agree to is being forced upon them and guess what? they would be right. In more cases than not, it is the courts and not the people or the people's representatives who are trying to redefine marriage as something different than one man and one woman of legal age and not related. As far as your reference to educational issues, do you think that we are truly that far from "seperate but equal" right now? Sure the courts mandated that to go away, but like it or not, segregation still exists unofficially. Forcing it upon people will work to a certain degree, but there will certainly be a backlash.
