Votes on Gay Rights Never Match Public Opinion.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Maddow brought this issue up, and it's something I've pondered since Prop 8 in California.

Personally I think it's because the bigots are more passionate about their position than your *average* person who supports marriage equality. I think many, perhaps most supporters of marriage equality are somewhat casual about it. I live in NC but I'm registered to vote in CA, so I couldn't vote on the recent measure.

The Republicans know full well the shift taking place in public opinion. They're gettin' while the gettin's good. These state-by-state constitutional amendments are a preemptive measure to make change take place more slowly.

[Anodyne]

Maddow brought this issue up, and it's something I've pondered since Prop 8 in California.

Personally I think it's because the bigots are more passionate about their position than your *average* person who supports marriage equality. I think many, perhaps most supporters of marriage equality are somewhat casual about it. I live in NC but I'm registered to vote in CA, so I couldn't vote on the recent measure.

The Republicans know full well the shift taking place in public opinion. They're gettin' while the gettin's good. These state-by-state constitutional amendments are a preemptive measure to make change take place more slowly.

Or to prevent change from taking place at all.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Or to prevent change from taking place at all.

Most definitely if they could. But I think the eventuality of gay equality is inevitable, even if very far in the future.

[Iangould]

It'd be interesting to see a poll not on whether people supported marriage equality but on whether they expected it to be the law ten years from now.

[mikekerrIII]

Most definitely if they could. But I think the eventuality of gay equality is inevitable, even if very far in the future.

I think it is just a few years in the future legally.

[USArmyParatrooper]

I think it is just a few years in the future legally.

I can see progress in a few years, but equality in all 50 states? Georgia? Alabama? No way.

[The Black Guardian]

Yeah, I'm skeptical my grandkids will even see equality in all 50 states.

[Donald M.]

I can see progress in a few years, but equality in all 50 states? Georgia? Alabama? No way.

There was a time many would have said the same thing about integration in those same states.

[mikekerrIII]

I can see progress in a few years, but equality in all 50 states? Georgia? Alabama? No way.

How long it it take for interracial marriage to be legally available in all states? I went in one day from being widly banned to being completly legal in every state. One one day it was legal to ban people from getting married for a dumb reason to the next day it being illegal to do so.

[mikekerrIII]

Yeah, I'm skeptical my grandkids will even see equality in all 50 states.

Look up how long "Loving Vs Va" took to go into full effect.

[Donald M.]

Look up how long "Loving Vs Va" took to go into full effect.

It took full effect the moment the Supreme Court made its decision. Virginia's law against miscegenation remained on the books until 2000, but it was completely unenforcable. By the same token, if the Supreme Court were to at some point decide in favor of Same Sex Marriage nationwide, many if not all of the so-far 30 state laws banning such marriage would likely remain on the books for some time. Changing laws won't change hearts and minds, that takes time, but it's a start.

Edit: Ah, I think I've misunderstood what you were getting at mike.

Yeah, if tomorrow the Supreme Court decided that same sex marriage was legal, same sex marriage would be legal tomorrow. It's clear full equality nationwide would take forever if left as a state-to-state issue, but it's only a matter of time before it's taken out of their hands.

[RatFace]

Then there's this:http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgo...gistry/1224998

[Jim Thompson]

Just a quick thought about the president's announcement he supports same-sex marriage:

Lot of people seem, I think, overly concerned how the president got to this interview (struggling with the thought Biden's interview really forced him President Obama to take this step). Personally, I don't much care what got him to do this; I'm just happy he did. Having a systemic bias against any group of people based on their sexual preference is stone age type thinking, and in no way, shape, or form is living up to the promise of the country. Imposing some people's sensibilities and/or religious beliefs on others, denying some their ability to pursue happiness because it makes others uncomfortable, is about as wrong as it gets.

I spent 20 plus years defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it's moments like this in history, when our people begin to live up to the ideas espoused in those documents, that make it seem like that was a worthwhile way to spend a good portion of my life.

[dupont2005]

Agreed. Regardless of why he decided to publicly come out in support of gay marriage, he did. He could have said Biden's crazy or beat around the bush and never made a statement one way or the other, but he said he thinks gays should be allowed to marry. If I'm not mistaken, the first active president in history to say it on the record?

[Jim Thompson]

Agreed. Regardless of why he decided to publicly come out in support of gay marriage, he did. He could have said Biden's crazy or beat around the bush and never made a statement one way or the other, but he said he thinks gays should be allowed to marry. If I'm not mistaken, the first active president in history to say it on the record?

I believe he was.