shape
carat
color
clarity

When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

  • 2012

    Votes: 12 14.3%
  • 2013

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2014

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • 2015

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2016

    Votes: 5 6.0%
  • 2017

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • 2018

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2019

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • After 2020

    Votes: 27 32.1%
  • Never

    Votes: 11 13.1%

  • Total voters
    84

lyra

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
5,249
I wish it were soon. Maybe sometime after you elect your first or second female president? ;))

I know it will happen in the future. It makes sense in a logical, rational way. Maybe marriage itself will be a self-limiting concept, who knows. It already seems like the younger generation does not find it so much of a necessity. Maybe the language will change, and most people who plan a longterm monogamous relationship will choose civil unions or common-law unions and that will be the way things change. It may be a long time coming, but it will happen.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
kenny|1336583607|3191158 said:
(BTW, tomorrow Obama is going to speak about the "evolution" of his perspective on gay marriage.)

Here's some funny tweets about that. :bigsmile:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/09/1090187/-Twitter-roundup-A-shaken-nation-reacts-to-Obama-s-support-of-marriage-equality

When? I think the votes on the Supreme Court are already there, the moderates plus Kennedy voting yes is how I think it would come down.

If Obama is not reelected, it could ad years (or decades?).
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,225
I think it will ultimately depend on the courts. At the time of Brown v Board many, if asked, would have said 'never' or 'not in my lifetime' or 'after another generation'. And as But the courts are insulated from the pressures that politicians or and therefore historically have been charged with protecting the rights of marginalized groups within our population. There has been a shift in the court of public opinion, as we see by Obama's comments, so in this case the court could just affirm that change that we are seeing instead of going the hard route against public opinion as it did in Brown. There is a case there for equal protection and for due process (due process might be the stronger realistic argument that wins, but for me the equal protection argument is there and valid). In my opinion IF the courts do the job they have historically done, it can be as early as this year. And I really hope, that even with the make up of the current high court, that the judges will remember that their own personal morality or religious views do not equal a rational basis for denying this category of people to equal protection. I do not think that there is a any "legitimate state interest" in denying gays the right to marry. And I would like to Loving v. Viginia overturned. That case has ALWAYS made me sick to my stomach. Still no matter if equal protection or due process is the winning argument the result is what matters.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
kenny|1336590398|3191333 said:
nkarma|1336589246|3191309 said:
I have come to the conclusion that it is human nature to "fear" and consciously abuse those different from you, so this cycle will be never ending.

Well put, and hence my "People vary" campaign.

Have you trademarked that? You might want to. No snark.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
Gypsy|1336621410|3191796 said:
And I would like to Loving v. Viginia overturned. That case has ALWAYS made me sick to my stomach.

Please clarify.
 

athenaworth

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
3,588
Imdanny|1336622193|3191804 said:
Gypsy|1336621410|3191796 said:
And I would like to Loving v. Viginia overturned. That case has ALWAYS made me sick to my stomach.

Please clarify.
Ditto. Why would you want it oveturned?
 

rainwood

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,536
I misvoted and did the should rather than will.

Gay people should be able to marry the same way left-handed people are able to marry. Both are biological occurrences that occur for reasons we do not know, and if I remember correctly affect roughly the same percentage of the population.
 

FrekeChild

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
19,456
I am afraid that due to more conservative populations in areas (like the Bible Belt), we won't see it until after 2020. I have family in the deep south and it's scary to me how vehement the anti-gay sentiment is there.

I'm hoping that here in NM, gay marriage is legalized sooner than later, what with Santa Fe, Taos and Albuquerque (very pro-gay areas, if that makes sense). Unfortunately, with our proximity to Texas, our very high Catholic population, and everywhere but Central NM being very conservative, I think it's going to be quite the battle still.

Having said that, my divorce attorney dad has been having to deal with gay "separations" for a long time now, which is complicated, because there isn't a law in place that made them married or united to begin with in NM. So imagine the fun of dividing assets for people who have no formal/legal relationship but have been together for 30 years and subsequently bought property, adopted children and pets, etc!

But yay Obama! Congrats on FINALLY admitting it!

(I'm wondering how right wing gays are going to deal with this. Vote for conservative anyway?! Seems counter-intuitive, but goodness knows that people somehow reconcile opposite values somehow! ex: Christian and pro-gay marriage Obama!)
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,225
athenaworth|1336624923|3191850 said:
Imdanny|1336622193|3191804 said:
Gypsy|1336621410|3191796 said:
And I would like to Loving v. Viginia overturned. That case has ALWAYS made me sick to my stomach.

Please clarify.
Ditto. Why would you want it oveturned?


Because I apparently had a complete and utter brain fart. :oops: I was thinking of Bowers v Hardwick. Which was overturned I just saw on Wikipedia, in 2003. I graduated before 2003 though and was working in NY/NJ law firms with no life so I didn't know that. On the plus side, I can celebrate (belatedly) that it was overturned. :appl: Honestly, I'm so happy right now to see that I have a huge smile on my face. I HATED that case when we studied it, made me so mad and sick. YAY for overturning bad case law!
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This the case that overturned the one Gypsy mentioned. Kennedy wrote the opinion. I recommend reading that. It's interesting.

Many of you seem to be under the impression that dividual states would have to make same sex marriage legal.

No, as Gypsy said, it would be the (federal) courts that would make it legal. It would be the Supreme Court, and it would be a simple thing for them to do. Personally, the equal protection argument works for me.
 

zoebartlett

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
12,461
madelise|1336610873|3191667 said:
Zoe|1336607313|3191622 said:
I'm happy that Obama finally stands behind gay marriage. What took him so long?.


Election comin up? If he loses, and the next president is against, it might be another 4 or 8 years minimum until a president out and supports same sex marriage. That's scary.

My question was rhetorical. Announcing this now was a chance he took, I get that. I just wish it hadn't taken so long for a president to come out in favor of same sex marriage. It's a step in the right direction, but half the country isn't in favor of it, so it will probably still be a while before it's legalized at the federal level. That's sad to me.
 

zoebartlett

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
12,461
madelise|1336610873|3191667 said:
Zoe|1336607313|3191622 said:
I'm happy that Obama finally stands behind gay marriage. What took him so long?.


Election comin up? If he loses, and the next president is against, it might be another 4 or 8 years minimum until a president out and supports same sex marriage. That's scary.

My question was rhetorical. Announcing this now was a chance he took, I get that. I just wish it hadn't taken so long for a president to come out in favor of same sex marriage. It's a step in the right direction, but half the country isn't in favor of it, so it will probably still be a while before it's legalized at the federal level. That's sad to me.
 

maebelle

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
826
Gypsy|1336621410|3191796 said:
I think it will ultimately depend on the courts. At the time of Brown v Board many, if asked, would have said 'never' or 'not in my lifetime' or 'after another generation'. And as But the courts are insulated from the pressures that politicians or and therefore historically have been charged with protecting the rights of marginalized groups within our population.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Almost all social change has come because the federal courts trumped state laws to protect minority groups. That's what the federal courts are for!
 

rubybeth

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
2,568
Pandora|1336585346|3191222 said:
I honestly don't get why people get their knickers in a twist over it - it doesn't affect their lives in anyway, it doesn't have a negative impact on anyone else, so what exactly is the problem? They need to grow up and find some real problems to think about!

This is EXACTLY what I was saying to my DH a couple days ago after he got a call to do a survey on his opinions on gay marriage. He grew up in a traditional Catholic home with his conservative grandmother, and so he is a bit more conservative on this issue than I am. My philosophy? It all comes down to gender and perceived gender roles based on our plumbing. For some reason, people really care about what plumbing you have when you get married, but people are transgendered, get sex changes, and don't fall into traditional gender roles all the time and it makes no difference to me. The only impact I think gay marriage would have on me is that I'd get invited to some lovely weddings! :appl:

And if one more person says gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, I will point to the current divorce rate and bet $100 that gay marriages will last longer and more often than men and women seem to manage to keep it together. :lol:
 

iheartscience

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
12,111
slg47|1336593564|3191406 said:
I think it will be a while. People who do not know gay couples personally may not realize that they can be in love and in committed relationships just like straight couples.

Someone posted this graph on FB
Screen%20Shot%202012-05-09%20at%2012.41.16%20PM.png
I think it may take another generation.

It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.

I am not happy about the ban in NC but even less happy about all of the hatred I am seeing towards the NC voters.

Huh? Please elaborate on the bolded. You're more upset about people being angry at the bigotry and hatred of NC voters than you are at the actual bigotry and hatred of NC voters?

Does not compute.
 

mrswahs

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
499
StacylikesSparkles|1336587836|3191279 said:
Probably not until after 2020 (which is total BS). My fingers are crossed that we keep it here in MD after the referendum.

Agreed. I'm proud of our state for passing it but it scares me what's going on around the country. I hope that by the time my future children are adults they can look back and say how ridiculous it is that people didn't support gay rights the same way we look back and think it's ridiculous that people didn't support black rights. No matter how you look at it, discrimination is discrimination and it's never justified, and in my mind it's no different.

I think more realistically it will be my future grandchildren who can say that though, and that's sad.
 

mrswahs

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
499
thing2of2|1336662460|3192067 said:
slg47|1336593564|3191406 said:
I think it will be a while. People who do not know gay couples personally may not realize that they can be in love and in committed relationships just like straight couples.

Someone posted this graph on FB
Screen%20Shot%202012-05-09%20at%2012.41.16%20PM.png
I think it may take another generation.

It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.

I am not happy about the ban in NC but even less happy about all of the hatred I am seeing towards the NC voters.

Huh? Please elaborate on the bolded. You're more upset about people being angry at the bigotry and hatred of NC voters than you are at the actual bigotry and hatred of NC voters?

Does not compute.

Whoa I agree, does not compute.

There are a few other things I'd like to comment on:
It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).
Even so-- how is that fair? Let's pretend that homosexuality is a mental disorder (it's not). People with bipolar disorder are allowed to get married, people with depression are allowed to get married, schizophrenics are allowed to get married. You don't need to undergo psychiatric evaluation before getting married so how is this relevant?

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.
You definitely hit on something here. No one is asking the church to change their definition. The problem is-- yet again-- separation of church and state. Individual religious views should not affect the legality of simple human rights.

The graph does say a lot though-- it's going to take until the older generations die off (morbid but true) for this to be a non-issue.
 

movie zombie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
11,879
i selected 2015.
i wish it had happened years ago.
the world is changing and even conservatives are finding out how this inequity effects their own loved ones....and some of them care about that.
the Shane dvd is heartbreaking.

i think the courts will decide that inequality is inequality but it will take until 2015 for everything to come together.

marriage is and always has been about property and thus contracts. long ago marriages were arranged to solidify kingdoms, confirm contracts of peace, etc. as such marriage law is contract law. if a church wants to sanction or sanctify that is ok. if a couple feels the need for that sanction or sanctificaton that is ok too. but ultimately it is the state that is in charge of contract law and as such i am confident that gay marriage will be legal in all the US....as it should be.
 

iheartscience

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
12,111
It's too long to quote, but great post mrswahs!
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
movie zombie|1336664917|3192112 said:
i think the courts will decide that inequality is inequality but it will take until 2015 for everything to come together.

I agree.
That is why president selection is so important.
(S)he nominates the members of the supreme court, who can serve for life, long after that president is gone.
(subject to vetting by the Senate of course.)
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
mrswahs|1336664303|3192103 said:
thing2of2|1336662460|3192067 said:
slg47|1336593564|3191406 said:
I think it will be a while. People who do not know gay couples personally may not realize that they can be in love and in committed relationships just like straight couples.

Someone posted this graph on FB
Screen%20Shot%202012-05-09%20at%2012.41.16%20PM.png
I think it may take another generation.

It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.

I am not happy about the ban in NC but even less happy about all of the hatred I am seeing towards the NC voters.

Huh? Please elaborate on the bolded. You're more upset about people being angry at the bigotry and hatred of NC voters than you are at the actual bigotry and hatred of NC voters?

Does not compute.

Whoa I agree, does not compute.

I believe that equality is a right that should not be voted on. HOWEVER, since we voted on it--it upsets me to no end that we are attacking those who had the freedom to VOTE and did not vote the way we wanted them to.

There are a few other things I'd like to comment on:
It is interesting to note that until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. (I do not believe that it is but I can certainly understand how someone growing up believing this may have an issue with gay marriage).
Even so-- how is that fair? Let's pretend that homosexuality is a mental disorder (it's not). People with bipolar disorder are allowed to get married, people with depression are allowed to get married, schizophrenics are allowed to get married. You don't need to undergo psychiatric evaluation before getting married so how is this relevant?

You are misinterpeting my reason for including this post. I believe that this may affect the older generations' view of gays in general.

Another thing to note is that 'marriage' has two definitions. There is the 'government recognized marriage' and also the 'church recognized marriage (for some this is a sacrament). The two are very different but the same word, 'marriage', is used. I believe this may contribute to some people's objections to gay marriage.
You definitely hit on something here. No one is asking the church to change their definition. The problem is-- yet again-- separation of church and state. Individual religious views should not affect the legality of simple human rights.

Agreed. However, I respect the right of religious people to hold their views. I believe this issue is a human rights issue and not something that should be 'voted' on.

The graph does say a lot though-- it's going to take until the older generations die off (morbid but true) for this to be a non-issue.

sadly I agree with you there too :( I think if more people knew gays this would be a non-issue. It really boils down to fear of the unknown.
 

Lotus99

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
390
I see it taking at least another four or five years to happen.

The whole thing is a legal mess right now. A gay couple I know got married in California when it was legal. In that year, they filed taxes as a married couple, filing jointly for their state taxes, but had to file singly for federal taxes. How stupid is that?

Now that they've moved to New York with their adopted daughter, it gets even more complicated in terms of who the guardian is/are and similar things. Their the parents of the child, but it's legally complicated.

Sure, you can draw up wills and directives that act in a similar way to a marriage contract, but it's clearly a lot easier to get married and have a clear line on things like health decisions, inheritance, divorce, etc.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
American directly voting on gay marriage lets the majority deny civil/human rights to an often unpopular minority.
America is better than that, and is exactly why our founders created a government with a balance of powers.

IMHO this civil right for this minority will will only come from a US Supreme Court ruling.

I'm astonished Obama made this announcement now since I think this will cost him votes in November.
While I commend his bravery for taking a stand he is not a king and cannot decree gay marriage legal.

The most effective thing he could have done to legalize gay marriage nationally ASAP is keep quiet till after the election.
Four more years in the only job that includes nominating lifetime-serving supreme court justices is the most effective way to achieve this civil right for this minority.
 

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
kenny|1336671215|3192202 said:
American directly voting on gay marriage lets the majority deny civil/human rights to a minority.
America is better than that, and is exactly why our founders created a government with a balance of powers.


IMHO this civil right for this minority will will only come from a US Supreme Court ruling.

I'm astonished Obama made this announcement now since I think this will cost him votes in November.
While I commend his bravery for taking a stand he is not a king and cannot decree gay marriage legal.

The most effective thing he could have done to legalize gay marriage nationally ASAP is keep quite till after the election.
Four more years in the only job that includes nominating lifetime-serving supreme court justices is the most effective way to achieve this civil right for this minority.

exactly.
 

movie zombie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
11,879
kenny|1336671215|3192202 said:
American directly voting on gay marriage lets the majority deny civil/human rights to an often unpopular minority........


isn't there a case on the books where the court ruled that one group can not vote to deny civil rights to another group?
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
movie zombie|1336676417|3192273 said:
kenny|1336671215|3192202 said:
American directly voting on gay marriage lets the majority deny civil/human rights to an often unpopular minority........


isn't there a case on the books where the court ruled that one group can not vote to deny civil rights to another group?

That is a good question for our lawyers here but voters ARE getting away with denying civil right to an unpopular group.
To start with there is DOMA, The Defense of Marriage Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

"United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.
The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

Next voters of several states, even California, have gone to the polls to successfully deny civil rights to our unpopular minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

"As of May 2012, with the passing of North Carolina's gay marriage ban, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 30 via the state's constitution."
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
What I find interesting is America is near 50-50 on gay marriage, but posts on PS opposing gay marriage are VERY rare.
I don't recall even one.

Why?

I'll venture a guess.
People on the wrong side of history know they are wrong and that it is hate (not morality) but (like the KKK wearing hoods) they don't want to be publically identified with their hate.
They prefer the warm comfy privacy of the voting booth to preserve their first class status and superiority. :angryfire:
 

Porridge

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
3,267
Should have been years ago. I'm going to be optimistic here and say 2013. I think Obama's statement might push things along tremendously. Fair play to him.

Why people get their knickers in a twist about others wanting to create loving, secure homes is mind-boggling to me.
 

Black Jade

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,242
It depends.
Since those who wish to have this become legal have convinced themselves of a lot of ridiculous things such as that
a) marriage is a civil right;
b) it is virtuous to stuff the courts with those with the 'correct' belief who will pass the 'proper' laws and ignore the will of the majority (since the will of the majority doesn't matter when the majority is backwards and ignorant--and possibly even 'religious');
I would say that it will be legal as soon as enough 'right-thinking' people are appointed into the court system so that the laws can be passed no matter what the majority thinks. And as soon as pesky little problems such as people who won't accept the obvious 'future' and dare to pass around and sign petitions asking for referendums, which they foolishly think is their constitutional right (though the Constitution is so 'two centuries ago') are settled properly.
Of course, things could happen in the meantime that continue to delay this matter of 'equality' (equality based not on the foundational principle that all are equal under the law, but on the new principle that equality means that everyone should be allowed on the basketball team regardless of their height, ability to play, or experience), so it may take a certain amount of time.
But with enough determination and it should get through, the same way that it has in all the nations where it is legal (that is, enforced from above, because of the persistance of the ignorant masses even in non-religious European countries, who insist on keeping believing that marriage ought to be a stable institution entered into for the procreation of children--though they should get over this at some point, as the idea of it being necessary to procreate children and raise them, is also becoming very last century among the elite in all the developed nations--see their birth rates).
Of course it is so great that in the meantime, in the US we have a President who is SO brave that he came out in support of this obvious (but still somehow 'controversial') right--as his polls are sinking; his policies are failing and it becomes more and more obvious that he needs SOME votes from SOMEWHERE. How very brave. And how much he has evolved. From believing that gay marriage was a right back in the 1990's (when he's on record as having said so) to saying that he didn't believe it (when he wanted to win the last election) to having decided that he might as well say what he really thoug all along. What a courageous man.
And one with such a grip on HISTORY. Obviously, since black men once didn't have the right to marry white women, and black women once didn't have the right to marry white men in many US states (though this was not true in Hawai'i, fortunately for him) it must be EXACTLY THE SAME THING that men in a majority of states are now not allowed to marry other man, and women other women. Of course, the discrimination against blacks consisted primarily of not being allowed to contract interracial marriages. And that was what the civil rights movement was primarily about! Too bad that the majority of blacks (being members of course of the great unwashed, the ignorant masses) refuse to see this obvious truth and persist in thinking that the civil rights movement was about OTHER things (segregation, not being allowed to vote, things like that) and won't fall into line and agree with the belief that gays are an oppressed minority exactly like them. But with the proper tactics (indoctrination, intimidation, the death of members of the population who actually remember the times being talked about), this problem will eventually be solved.
Too bad it can't be solved the same way that the issue with the APA (American Psychiatric Assocatioon) removing homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) was achieved in 1973. With a lot of political pressure, a (picked) committee that met behind closed doors and voted this particular disorder out of the manual, and then an announcement, with other members given fifteen minutes to object.
Apparently, it's okay to vote on things when you are sure you will get the 'correct' results.
Even things are supposed to be 'scientific'. The change to the manual was made without any new evidence on the subject, any papers written about it, or any of things that are usually taken to be scientific evidence. I guess the idea was that the scientific proof that people are born homosexual and that it is thus not a disorder was going to be forthcoming--sometime. Almost 40 years later, we are still waiting for such proof. But this doesn't really matter, as almost all the public believes that there is some scientific proof, somewhere, that homosexuality is inborn. The newspapers say so, so often. There MUST be some study, somewhere. Somewhere--? Of course it helps the cause that most people don't know what a scientific study is--and will happily point you to New York Times and Time Magazine and the internet in general as 'proof' of it. Unfortunately, the belief that this scientific proof exists hasn't really helped with convincing the unwashed masses of the rightness of the cause.
But, as I stated above, this doesn't really matter as it is obviously morally right to pass laws for gay 'marriage' so that it's just a matter of getting right-thinking people on to court benches. And then, it will be all clear. Laws can then be passed forcing people to accept the new reality and forcing them to have their children taught that the new reality is the correct one, as has already happened in Massachusetts:
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/main.htm
It won't take more than a generation then to have the whole thing settled and we can move on from the homosexual marriage issue to some other form of social engineering.
Whatever.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top