Except they let the 18,000 marriages already performed stand, so California is now in the very odd position of having 18,000 legal gay marriages on the books while at the same time outlawing any further such marriages.
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Except they let the 18,000 marriages already performed stand, so California is now in the very odd position of having 18,000 legal gay marriages on the books while at the same time outlawing any further such marriages.
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Not really, Some of those gay couples will expire, some will divorce, or separate under less than legal sanctions. Plus, it's only 18,000 to begin with a mere blimp on the general population. Of course the entire gay community is only a blimp on the size of the general population to begin with. Do you think that they might re-think their in-your-face attitude that they've been promoting for years? After all, that is exactly what caused them to lose this issue, they simply couldn't keep their mouth shut. That might be a double entendre.
Except they let the 18,000 marriages already performed stand, so California is now in the very odd position of having 18,000 legal gay marriages on the books while at the same time outlawing any further such marriages.
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Not really, Some of those gay couples will expire, some will divorce, or separate under less than legal sanctions. Plus, it's only 18,000 to begin with a mere blimp on the general population. Of course the entire gay community is only a blimp on the size of the general population to begin with. Do you think that they might re-think their in-your-face attitude that they've been promoting for years? After all, that is exactly what caused them to lose this issue, they simply couldn't keep their mouth shut. That might be a double entendre.
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. Anti-gay attitudes have been steadily softening. Prop 8 passed in California via a huge infusion of capital and labor from the Mormon church, but the Mormon Church doesn't have enough money to sway every electorate everywhere forever.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. Anti-gay attitudes have been steadily softening. Prop 8 passed in California via a huge infusion of capital and labor from the Mormon church, but the Mormon Church doesn't have enough money to sway every electorate everywhere forever.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
Good. So in the future gay marriage will be allowed and the Mormon church will lose a lot of cash. It is a win win.
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. Anti-gay attitudes have been steadily softening. Prop 8 passed in California via a huge infusion of capital and labor from the Mormon church, but the Mormon Church doesn't have enough money to sway every electorate everywhere forever.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. ... Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
Pretty much. But I have to say that the over-the-top gay pride parades and the generally high level of special-interest lobbying by the gay community does piss me off. I really don't care if you're gay. I really don't care if you want to be married. Why do you need to make such a big deal about something that's not worth celebrating?
Pretty much. But I have to say that the over-the-top gay pride parades and the generally high level of special-interest lobbying by the gay community does piss me off. I really don't care if you're gay. I really don't care if you want to be married. Why do you need to make such a big deal about something that's not worth celebrating?
I can see why some people might be "pissed-off" in-your-face parades. The questions are: 1) Why do you care? and 2) What motivation do people have to participate in these parades?
To answer the first question, I will first ask two others: Are celebrants who wave Italian flags at a Columbus Day parade "in your face?" Is being Italian something "worth celebrating?" (for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming you are not Italian. If you are, you could easily substitute Irish or Puerto Rican celebrations that happen similarly...)
Chances are, you have hardly noticed these parades. It seems that it is ok for someone to celebrate being "other" as long as you don't have a problem with their otherness. Therefore, the problem may not be with the "in your face" parades but with a double standard. The media plays to our double standard so a gay pride parade in San Francisco is noticed by many, but a Columbus day parade in New York barely registers.
In my opinion, the second question is partially answered by the first. I can't speak for the people in the over-the-top parades, but my impression is that they feel that much of the country would be happier if they just didn't know gay people existed. "I've got nothing against gay people as long as they don't annoy me..." The problem is that they do exist and they are discriminated against. If the whole country can ignore them, then logically would also be ignoring the suffering that gay people endure continually.
With that being said, surely you recognize that the VAST majority of gay people do not attend these rallies or publicly upset anyone's sensibilities on a regular basis. But many of them believe that their chances of ever having legal standing of marriage would be zero if there weren't people out there raising awareness.
I can see why some people might be "pissed-off" in-your-face parades. The questions are: 1) Why do you care? and 2) What motivation do people have to participate in these parades?
To answer the first question, I will first ask two others: Are celebrants who wave Italian flags at a Columbus Day parade "in your face?" Is being Italian something "worth celebrating?" (for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming you are not Italian. If you are, you could easily substitute Irish or Puerto Rican celebrations that happen similarly...)
Chances are, you have hardly noticed these parades. It seems that it is ok for someone to celebrate being "other" as long as you don't have a problem with their otherness. Therefore, the problem may not be with the "in your face" parades but with a double standard. The media plays to our double standard so a gay pride parade in San Francisco is noticed by many, but a Columbus day parade in New York barely registers.
In my opinion, the second question is partially answered by the first. I can't speak for the people in the over-the-top parades, but my impression is that they feel that much of the country would be happier if they just didn't know gay people existed. "I've got nothing against gay people as long as they don't annoy me..." The problem is that they do exist and they are discriminated against. If the whole country can ignore them, then logically would also be ignoring the suffering that gay people endure continually.
With that being said, surely you recognize that the VAST majority of gay people do not attend these rallies or publicly upset anyone's sensibilities on a regular basis. But many of them believe that their chances of ever having legal standing of marriage would be zero if there weren't people out there raising awareness.
Very well put. I'll just add that "over the top" parades are generally limited to major urban centers with large gay populations, and such places think nothing of flamboyant displays of heterosexual excess.
To the extent that any of the rest of the country is put out by such doings, it is simply because the religious right and their enablers use video footage of events happening far away from the easily offended to whip up indignation.
Does footage of spring break debauchery in Florida get used to convince the decent people of Kansas that straight college age students are disgusting sex pigs who should be restrained, somehow?
People who think gays are "in your face" are usually the same people who are struggling with or suppressing their own sexual identity.
Well, I don't know if that is true. I'm not sure that calling out the sexual identity of those who disagree with you or see things differently is all that useful (though sometimes satisfying).
There are gay people who would definitely say that they are "in-your-face." But like Addabox said, the in-your-face Spring Break exploits of heterosexuals is not used to define all heterosexuals--all heterosexuals agree that would be ridiculous...
Comments
Now reigns in California, as I predicted. Neener, neener!
Congrats?
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Except they let the 18,000 marriages already performed stand, so California is now in the very odd position of having 18,000 legal gay marriages on the books while at the same time outlawing any further such marriages.
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Not really, Some of those gay couples will expire, some will divorce, or separate under less than legal sanctions. Plus, it's only 18,000 to begin with a mere blimp on the general population. Of course the entire gay community is only a blimp on the size of the general population to begin with. Do you think that they might re-think their in-your-face attitude that they've been promoting for years? After all, that is exactly what caused them to lose this issue, they simply couldn't keep their mouth shut. That might be a double entendre.
Except they let the 18,000 marriages already performed stand, so California is now in the very odd position of having 18,000 legal gay marriages on the books while at the same time outlawing any further such marriages.
Oh well, it's all just a pointless holding action until enough fearful old people die and we move on to the post gay-panic world.
Not really, Some of those gay couples will expire, some will divorce, or separate under less than legal sanctions. Plus, it's only 18,000 to begin with a mere blimp on the general population. Of course the entire gay community is only a blimp on the size of the general population to begin with. Do you think that they might re-think their in-your-face attitude that they've been promoting for years? After all, that is exactly what caused them to lose this issue, they simply couldn't keep their mouth shut. That might be a double entendre.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. Anti-gay attitudes have been steadily softening. Prop 8 passed in California via a huge infusion of capital and labor from the Mormon church, but the Mormon Church doesn't have enough money to sway every electorate everywhere forever.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
Good. So in the future gay marriage will be allowed and the Mormon church will lose a lot of cash. It is a win win.
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. Anti-gay attitudes have been steadily softening. Prop 8 passed in California via a huge infusion of capital and labor from the Mormon church, but the Mormon Church doesn't have enough money to sway every electorate everywhere forever.
Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
Not in your face? You must live on Mars.
The trend is clear. The younger you are the less likely you are to be against gay marriage. ... Doesn't have a thing to do with any "in your face" attitude, which is pretty much a myth, unless you consider "working to obtain the same rights as everyone else" to be "in your face."
Pretty much. But I have to say that the over-the-top gay pride parades and the generally high level of special-interest lobbying by the gay community does piss me off. I really don't care if you're gay. I really don't care if you want to be married. Why do you need to make such a big deal about something that's not worth celebrating?
Pretty much. But I have to say that the over-the-top gay pride parades and the generally high level of special-interest lobbying by the gay community does piss me off. I really don't care if you're gay. I really don't care if you want to be married. Why do you need to make such a big deal about something that's not worth celebrating?
I can see why some people might be "pissed-off" in-your-face parades. The questions are: 1) Why do you care? and 2) What motivation do people have to participate in these parades?
To answer the first question, I will first ask two others: Are celebrants who wave Italian flags at a Columbus Day parade "in your face?" Is being Italian something "worth celebrating?" (for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming you are not Italian. If you are, you could easily substitute Irish or Puerto Rican celebrations that happen similarly...)
Chances are, you have hardly noticed these parades. It seems that it is ok for someone to celebrate being "other" as long as you don't have a problem with their otherness. Therefore, the problem may not be with the "in your face" parades but with a double standard. The media plays to our double standard so a gay pride parade in San Francisco is noticed by many, but a Columbus day parade in New York barely registers.
In my opinion, the second question is partially answered by the first. I can't speak for the people in the over-the-top parades, but my impression is that they feel that much of the country would be happier if they just didn't know gay people existed. "I've got nothing against gay people as long as they don't annoy me..." The problem is that they do exist and they are discriminated against. If the whole country can ignore them, then logically would also be ignoring the suffering that gay people endure continually.
With that being said, surely you recognize that the VAST majority of gay people do not attend these rallies or publicly upset anyone's sensibilities on a regular basis. But many of them believe that their chances of ever having legal standing of marriage would be zero if there weren't people out there raising awareness.
I can see why some people might be "pissed-off" in-your-face parades. The questions are: 1) Why do you care? and 2) What motivation do people have to participate in these parades?
To answer the first question, I will first ask two others: Are celebrants who wave Italian flags at a Columbus Day parade "in your face?" Is being Italian something "worth celebrating?" (for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming you are not Italian. If you are, you could easily substitute Irish or Puerto Rican celebrations that happen similarly...)
Chances are, you have hardly noticed these parades. It seems that it is ok for someone to celebrate being "other" as long as you don't have a problem with their otherness. Therefore, the problem may not be with the "in your face" parades but with a double standard. The media plays to our double standard so a gay pride parade in San Francisco is noticed by many, but a Columbus day parade in New York barely registers.
In my opinion, the second question is partially answered by the first. I can't speak for the people in the over-the-top parades, but my impression is that they feel that much of the country would be happier if they just didn't know gay people existed. "I've got nothing against gay people as long as they don't annoy me..." The problem is that they do exist and they are discriminated against. If the whole country can ignore them, then logically would also be ignoring the suffering that gay people endure continually.
With that being said, surely you recognize that the VAST majority of gay people do not attend these rallies or publicly upset anyone's sensibilities on a regular basis. But many of them believe that their chances of ever having legal standing of marriage would be zero if there weren't people out there raising awareness.
Very well put. I'll just add that "over the top" parades are generally limited to major urban centers with large gay populations, and such places think nothing of flamboyant displays of heterosexual excess.
To the extent that any of the rest of the country is put out by such doings, it is simply because the religious right and their enablers use video footage of events happening far away from the easily offended to whip up indignation.
Does footage of spring break debauchery in Florida get used to convince the decent people of Kansas that straight college age students are disgusting sex pigs who should be restrained, somehow?
People who think gays are "in your face" are usually the same people who are struggling with or suppressing their own sexual identity.
Well, I don't know if that is true. I'm not sure that calling out the sexual identity of those who disagree with you or see things differently is all that useful (though sometimes satisfying).
There are gay people who would definitely say that they are "in-your-face." But like Addabox said, the in-your-face Spring Break exploits of heterosexuals is not used to define all heterosexuals--all heterosexuals agree that would be ridiculous...