How does he explain the legalization of mixed-race marriages? That wasn't a right the mainstream wanted.
While he's right that a lot of people don't see what the big deal about marriage is, and don't understand what a person loses when they can't get married, those people aren't the main opposition. The main opposition places great value on marriage. They treasure it, cherish it, and don't want any of the icky gays gettin' in on it. Showing them how awesome it is (in some retarded social-engineering way) won't help anything.
A lot of people seem to think that if a change does not happen immediately, if it's not accepted by everyone, then it's not a true, lasting change. I think those people really like SCOTUS decisions. But they're misreading history. Gay marriage is coming; civil unions won't cut it, I think, because early states have rejected it (vermont notwithstanding; california matters more). It'll probably take a generation or so. A bunch of states will perform them, some more will recognize them, and the tension will rise until finally it resolves and the country goes back to more or less unity on the issue. When that happens, the country doesn't bounce back to less rights. It'll take a lot of work, and it's also kind of inevitable.
Cold comfort to gay people in Alabama, though.
I also think the massive PITA of bureaucracies managing so many different rules about who's really married and so on will be telling.
no subject
While he's right that a lot of people don't see what the big deal about marriage is, and don't understand what a person loses when they can't get married, those people aren't the main opposition. The main opposition places great value on marriage. They treasure it, cherish it, and don't want any of the icky gays gettin' in on it. Showing them how awesome it is (in some retarded social-engineering way) won't help anything.
A lot of people seem to think that if a change does not happen immediately, if it's not accepted by everyone, then it's not a true, lasting change. I think those people really like SCOTUS decisions. But they're misreading history. Gay marriage is coming; civil unions won't cut it, I think, because early states have rejected it (vermont notwithstanding; california matters more). It'll probably take a generation or so. A bunch of states will perform them, some more will recognize them, and the tension will rise until finally it resolves and the country goes back to more or less unity on the issue. When that happens, the country doesn't bounce back to less rights. It'll take a lot of work, and it's also kind of inevitable.
Cold comfort to gay people in Alabama, though.
I also think the massive PITA of bureaucracies managing so many different rules about who's really married and so on will be telling.