There Goes America

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
No, this is being a dick...

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Historic ruling on gay marriage was four decades in the making | cleveland.com
Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - cleveland.com

NEW YORK — Back in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a law stipulating that the federal government would not recognize marriages between same-sex couples. On Friday night, the White House was illuminated with rainbow colors in celebration of the Supreme Court ruling legalizing such marriages in every state of the nation.

For gay-rights activists, the two decades between those moments were marked by a dramatic mix of setbacks and victories.

As recently as 2004 there was widespread despair among proponents as voters in 13 states approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. At that time, some activists questioned whether marriage equality was a realistic goal. Others, while wary of appearing too optimistic, suggested gay marriage might take hold by 2020.

"In that climate, it sounded ambitious and bold, but it rallied a critical mass of leaders to believe maybe it was attainable," said Evan Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry that played a key role in developing the campaign's strategies.

That once audacious timetable proved to be overcautious. As more gay people came out of the closet, more of their relatives and acquaintances became supportive of gay rights. Popular television shows such as "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family" accelerated acceptance with empathetic portrayals of gay characters. Opinion polls over the past 10 years showed a huge shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage, which is now supported by 55 to 60 percent of Americans.

And over the past two years, a series of state and federal court rulings fueled hopes that victory was imminent.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby alluded to the public opinion shift in his December 2013 ruling striking down Utah's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. "It is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian," he wrote.

The 2004 election, which dismayed gay-rights activists at the time, "was a last rearguard effort in a losing fight," according to Tobias Barrington Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

"The progress that followed built on victories in legislatures, victories in courts, and on the growing public consensus that there is no good reason to treat LGBT people as second-class citizens," he said in an email Saturday. "That consensus was not imposed by judges; rather, it helped to educate judges and make visible the claim of equal citizenship that the Supreme Court finally vindicated."

President Barack Obama, who endorsed gay marriage in 2012, paid tribute to the persistence of its supporters in his remarks Friday hailing the Supreme Court decision.

"Sometimes two steps forward, one step back," he said. "And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

The effort predates the marriage equality movement — gay rights activism surfaced in the U.S. in the 1950s with the formation of pioneering national organizations such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis. The first gay-rights protest in front of the White House took place in 1965; police harassment of patrons at the Stonewall Inn, a New York City gay bar, sparked three days of riots in June 1969.

In the 1970s, gay activism expanded to encompass marriage.

The first lawsuit in the U.S. seeking same-sex marriage rights was filed in Minnesota by Jack Baker and Michael McConnell after a county clerk denied their application for a marriage license in 1970. On appeal, the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed it, thereby upholding Minnesota's law limiting marriage to heterosexual unions.

"Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the question we raised 44 years ago," McConnell said in an email Saturday. "I'm a patient man, but 44 years is a long time to wait for this intuitively obvious answer."

Another couple, American Richard Adams and Australian Tony Sullivan, were able obtain a marriage license from a court clerk in Colorado in 1975. But federal authorities did not recognize the marriage, and rejected Sullivan's efforts to remain in the U.S. as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. A letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service asserted that the couple "failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots."

In Hawaii, three gay couples filed suit after being denied marriage licenses in 1990, and the case dragged on for five years while a backlash materialized. Hawaii lawmakers voted in 1994 to limit marriage to unions between a man and woman, and in September 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages and said no state could be forced to recognize such marriages that might become legal in another state.

In December 1996, the three Hawaii couples won the first-ever judgment ordering a state to legalize same-sex marriage. But the judge suspended his ruling the next day to allow an appeal, and in 1998 it was rendered moot when Hawaii voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment empowering state legislators to limit marriage to heterosexual unions. Over the next two decades, 30 other states passed amendments banning gay marriage.

However, same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts in 2004 under an order from the state's high court, and soon legislators and voters in other states were legalizing it without court pressure. At the time of Friday's Supreme Court ruling, same-sex marriages were allowed in 36 states.

Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said the court victory "is that much sweeter" because it results from decades of activism and perseverance.

"When I graduated from high school in 1986, a very different Supreme Court decision (upholding state anti-sodomy laws) sent me a very different message: lesbians and gay men were outlaws, and unworthy," Byard said. "May this decision resound as powerfully for youth graduating today and for years to come — may it help to undo the stigma and undermine the violence leveled against LGBT people."

Among opponents, there was some amazement at how quickly gay marriage had become the law of the land.

"How did we reach a point where an institution older than recorded history could be redefined and altered by an idea unknown before the year 2000?" asked Andrew Walker, director of policy studies for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Many gay-rights leaders, while celebrating the high court ruling, said major challenges remain for their movement. A top priority is passage of a comprehensive federal law that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"We now have to work harder than ever before to make sure LGBT Americans cannot be fired, evicted or denied services simply on the basis of the marriage license that they fought so hard to achieve," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

While Griffin's group will press ahead with a revised list of priorities, Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry plans to phase itself out of business now that its cause has prevailed.

Wolfson said he found himself crying tears of joy as he read Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and reflected on the many gay couples over the decades who had joined the battle for marriage equality.

"That underscores how long a struggle this has been before we got to the thunderbolt of justice," Wolfson said. "I can understand why people see it as happening fast — but this overnight triumph is more than four decades in the making. That's what it took."

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CraryAP
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Historic ruling on gay marriage was four decades in the making | cleveland.com
Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - cleveland.com

NEW YORK — Back in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a law stipulating that the federal government would not recognize marriages between same-sex couples. On Friday night, the White House was illuminated with rainbow colors in celebration of the Supreme Court ruling legalizing such marriages in every state of the nation.

For gay-rights activists, the two decades between those moments were marked by a dramatic mix of setbacks and victories.

As recently as 2004 there was widespread despair among proponents as voters in 13 states approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. At that time, some activists questioned whether marriage equality was a realistic goal. Others, while wary of appearing too optimistic, suggested gay marriage might take hold by 2020.

"In that climate, it sounded ambitious and bold, but it rallied a critical mass of leaders to believe maybe it was attainable," said Evan Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry that played a key role in developing the campaign's strategies.

That once audacious timetable proved to be overcautious. As more gay people came out of the closet, more of their relatives and acquaintances became supportive of gay rights. Popular television shows such as "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family" accelerated acceptance with empathetic portrayals of gay characters. Opinion polls over the past 10 years showed a huge shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage, which is now supported by 55 to 60 percent of Americans.

And over the past two years, a series of state and federal court rulings fueled hopes that victory was imminent.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby alluded to the public opinion shift in his December 2013 ruling striking down Utah's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. "It is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian," he wrote.

The 2004 election, which dismayed gay-rights activists at the time, "was a last rearguard effort in a losing fight," according to Tobias Barrington Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

"The progress that followed built on victories in legislatures, victories in courts, and on the growing public consensus that there is no good reason to treat LGBT people as second-class citizens," he said in an email Saturday. "That consensus was not imposed by judges; rather, it helped to educate judges and make visible the claim of equal citizenship that the Supreme Court finally vindicated."

President Barack Obama, who endorsed gay marriage in 2012, paid tribute to the persistence of its supporters in his remarks Friday hailing the Supreme Court decision.

"Sometimes two steps forward, one step back," he said. "And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

The effort predates the marriage equality movement — gay rights activism surfaced in the U.S. in the 1950s with the formation of pioneering national organizations such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis. The first gay-rights protest in front of the White House took place in 1965; police harassment of patrons at the Stonewall Inn, a New York City gay bar, sparked three days of riots in June 1969.

In the 1970s, gay activism expanded to encompass marriage.

The first lawsuit in the U.S. seeking same-sex marriage rights was filed in Minnesota by Jack Baker and Michael McConnell after a county clerk denied their application for a marriage license in 1970. On appeal, the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed it, thereby upholding Minnesota's law limiting marriage to heterosexual unions.

"Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the question we raised 44 years ago," McConnell said in an email Saturday. "I'm a patient man, but 44 years is a long time to wait for this intuitively obvious answer."

Another couple, American Richard Adams and Australian Tony Sullivan, were able obtain a marriage license from a court clerk in Colorado in 1975. But federal authorities did not recognize the marriage, and rejected Sullivan's efforts to remain in the U.S. as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. A letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service asserted that the couple "failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots."

In Hawaii, three gay couples filed suit after being denied marriage licenses in 1990, and the case dragged on for five years while a backlash materialized. Hawaii lawmakers voted in 1994 to limit marriage to unions between a man and woman, and in September 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages and said no state could be forced to recognize such marriages that might become legal in another state.

In December 1996, the three Hawaii couples won the first-ever judgment ordering a state to legalize same-sex marriage. But the judge suspended his ruling the next day to allow an appeal, and in 1998 it was rendered moot when Hawaii voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment empowering state legislators to limit marriage to heterosexual unions. Over the next two decades, 30 other states passed amendments banning gay marriage.

However, same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts in 2004 under an order from the state's high court, and soon legislators and voters in other states were legalizing it without court pressure. At the time of Friday's Supreme Court ruling, same-sex marriages were allowed in 36 states.

Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said the court victory "is that much sweeter" because it results from decades of activism and perseverance.

"When I graduated from high school in 1986, a very different Supreme Court decision (upholding state anti-sodomy laws) sent me a very different message: lesbians and gay men were outlaws, and unworthy," Byard said. "May this decision resound as powerfully for youth graduating today and for years to come — may it help to undo the stigma and undermine the violence leveled against LGBT people."

Among opponents, there was some amazement at how quickly gay marriage had become the law of the land.

"How did we reach a point where an institution older than recorded history could be redefined and altered by an idea unknown before the year 2000?" asked Andrew Walker, director of policy studies for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Many gay-rights leaders, while celebrating the high court ruling, said major challenges remain for their movement. A top priority is passage of a comprehensive federal law that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"We now have to work harder than ever before to make sure LGBT Americans cannot be fired, evicted or denied services simply on the basis of the marriage license that they fought so hard to achieve," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

While Griffin's group will press ahead with a revised list of priorities, Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry plans to phase itself out of business now that its cause has prevailed.

Wolfson said he found himself crying tears of joy as he read Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and reflected on the many gay couples over the decades who had joined the battle for marriage equality.

"That underscores how long a struggle this has been before we got to the thunderbolt of justice," Wolfson said. "I can understand why people see it as happening fast — but this overnight triumph is more than four decades in the making. That's what it took."

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CraryAP
lol...

Like I said...

You haven't, lol.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
There's nothing wrong with SSM from the standpoint of morality. And there's nothing wrong with gay marriage from the standpoint of individual liberty . The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has been in existence since Antebellum days. It logically compels approval of SSM. This raises a question.

Why didn't the Equal Protection Clause permit SSM long ago? Yesterday's Supreme Court decision is the product of forty years of campaigning for societal transformation. The SSM case settles the question of SSM for American society. But the forces of social liberalism feel compelled to continue the transformation of society. The ground is already being prepared for the further expansion of the definition of marriage. Normalization of polygamy is the next step.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy - Fredrik deBoer - POLITICO Magazine

All it will require is time and a campaign involving a litigation strategy. It may take decades, but it will happen in the fullness of time. The fact you can't imagine further expansion of the definition of marriage simply means there has been a failure of imagination.

But you weren't just talking about polygamy, were you? You began with this:

It's the family structure based on blood lines. Lineage. People are hardwired by evolution to do anything for the lives of their issue by blood to ensure their DNA survives into the future.

Polygamy isn't going to prevent your imaginary hardwiring for family bloodlines to end.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Obama is a prime example of someone that is a "supporter" of "convenience". I think less of those than I do of those that are staunchly against.

We shouldn't forget how recently Obama and most of his party's leaders changed their minds on marriage equality. Although Obama is on record as having supported it 20 years ago, he was conveniently against it when running for president in that grey area right before the polls turned in favour of it.

In 2008 — just seven years ago — Barack Obama said at an event at Rick Warren’s church: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. . . . I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.” In November of that year, Obama told MTV: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” The same year, the people of California passed a referendum nullifying the state’s same-sex marriage law, instantly invalidating the marriage of thousands of their fellow gay citizens.

In June 2011 — just four years ago — Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer told a gathering of liberal bloggers: “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.”

It was only in May 2012 — just three years ago — that Joe Biden went on Meet the Press and, by all accounts, surprised everyone by announcing that he had changed his mind and now favored same-sex marriage. That announcement, along with rapidly changing poll numbers (majorities favored marriage equality when Biden made his announcement), caused numerous national Democratic leaders (and ultimately Obama himself), for the first time, to announce their support for marriage equality. So up until three years ago –– even as numerous other countries on multiple continents around the world enacted it — almost every national American political figure opposed same-sex marriage.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...-court-ruling-though-expected-still-shocking/


But politicians aside, a lot of people genuinely changed their minds very recently, and they shouldn't be shunned for it. At least they became allies in the end. It shows how necessary and effective the struggle truly is.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I still fail to see how this can be sooo important to people who aren't gay....................

According to the religious right everyone is now about to be forced to marry a gay. Worse they will now be forced to produce gay offspring.That will destroy society as we know it.