As Gay Marriage Heads To Court, A Look Back At The Bumpy Ride: NPR

Mar 22, 2013 Full story: www.npr.org 240

Gays and lesbians have adopted the phrase "it gets better" as a kind of slogan to assure young people that life won't always be so tough.

Looking back, life has gotten dramatically better for LGBT people in the United States in a very short period of time. The modern gay rights movement began less than 50 years ago. Today, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber opponents.

Now, the Supreme Court is about to hear two big cases that could shift the landscape for gay rights again.

Full Story

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#21 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Most states want no part of it. Gay marriage has nothing to do with interracial marriage unless the two men or two women are of a different race.
No, the polls show most people are for it, the holdouts will be in a few states. states like the ones I referenced.

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

#22 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering--"Most states want no part of it."

Tough. A couple in Oklahoma has the same rights as a couple in Vermont. This is about the rights of HUMAN BEINGS, not states.

"Gay marriage has nothing to do with interracial marriage unless the two men or two women are of a different race."

Actually they're very similar. The arguments against marriage equality haven't changed from the days bigots were arguing against interracial marriage, now they're arguing against gay marriage. Same people, same opposition to equality and freedom.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#23 Apr 12, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
Wondering--"Most states want no part of it."
Tough. A couple in Oklahoma has the same rights as a couple in Vermont. This is about the rights of HUMAN BEINGS, not states.
"Gay marriage has nothing to do with interracial marriage unless the two men or two women are of a different race."
Actually they're very similar. The arguments against marriage equality haven't changed from the days bigots were arguing against interracial marriage, now they're arguing against gay marriage. Same people, same opposition to equality and freedom.
And the anti-gay are using the same arguments as they did against inter-racial marriage. The arguments didn't work then, and aren't working now.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#24 Apr 12, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
Actually they're very similar.
They are not similar at all.
One requires a man and a woman, the other doesn't.
One couple can produce a family the other can't.
You have equal rights now, you can choose to marry an opposite sex partner or remain single. The rules are the same for everyone. Equal.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#25 Apr 12, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
And the anti-gay
Not anti gay, anti gay marriage.
No one cares that you're gay.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#26 Apr 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, the polls show most people are for it, the holdouts will be in a few states. states like the ones I referenced.
Most states ban gay marriage in their constitutions. The polls are meaningless. The court may overturn DOMA but they won't take the state's right to regulate marriage. If gays can use the false claim of being denied equal rights to marry then so can anyone else to marry whomever they please. Sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, 3 women, 3 men, the family pet. When that happens we'll have equal rights as you view them.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#27 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not similar at all.
One requires a man and a woman, the other doesn't.
One couple can produce a family the other can't.
You have equal rights now, you can choose to marry an opposite sex partner or remain single. The rules are the same for everyone. Equal.
You are misrepresenting things and you know it. You have utter contempt for reality and the truth, don't you.

Those who fought against interracial marriages argued:

- Marriage was always "traditionally" about the union of a man and a woman of the same race and to allow interracial marriage was to change the definition of marriage

- Children of an interracial couple would face systemic difficulties, so for the sake of the children interracial marriages were to be banned

- Everyone already had the "equal right" to marry someone of their own race so legalizing interracial marriages was unnecessary.

Sound familiar, don't they. Those arguments failed before and they are failing even when they are applied towards same-sex couples.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#28 Apr 12, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misrepresenting things and you know it. You have utter contempt for reality and the truth, don't you.
I am stating facts, you don't like the facts and you know it.
Once again, the reality and the truth are that two men or two woman can't procreate.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#30 Apr 12, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
Those arguments failed before and they are failing even when they are applied towards same-sex couples.
Those arguments should have failed. Marriage is for one man and one woman. Black, white, yellow or red, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. They have nothing to do with gay marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I am stating facts, you don't like the facts and you know it.
Once again, the reality and the truth are that two men or two woman can't procreate.
The TRUTH is that procreation is not the legal basis of Civil Marriage anywhere in the Laws of this Nation.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#32 Apr 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The TRUTH is that procreation is not the legal basis of Civil Marriage anywhere in the Laws of this Nation.
Lucky for you, huh.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#33 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Those arguments should have failed. Marriage is for one man and one woman. Black, white, yellow or red, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. They have nothing to do with gay marriage.
No, marriage now includes couples of the same sex. your calendar should begin with the numbers 20-- now, not 19--...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#34 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not similar at all.
One requires a man and a woman, the other doesn't.
One couple can produce a family the other can't.
You have equal rights now, you can choose to marry an opposite sex partner or remain single. The rules are the same for everyone. Equal.
that argument was used before and failed on merit. it will fail this time.

you should at lest try to picked arguments that didn't fail last time. or pick smarter people to parrot...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#35 Apr 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>that argument was used before and failed on merit. it will fail this time.
you should at lest try to picked arguments that didn't fail last time. or pick smarter people to parrot...
If you want to believe that two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman that's your personal shortcoming. I don't care. What are they putting in your water out there?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#36 Apr 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, marriage now includes couples of the same sex. your calendar should begin with the numbers 20-- now, not 19--...
Yes, it's 2013 and DOMA is still the law. Not one gay marriage is recognized by the federal government. Most states don't and won't recognize gay marriage. That's the reality.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Lucky for you, huh.
"Lucky" for may Aunt and Uncle.

I have a whole slew (33) of progeny.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Those arguments should have failed. Marriage is for one man and one woman. Black, white, yellow or red, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. They have nothing to do with gay marriage.
Since extra-marital eroticism is now illegal NOWHERE in this nation, sex is no longer a legal basis. The sex of the parties to Civil Marriage is irrelevant.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#39 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to believe that two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman that's your personal shortcoming. I don't care. What are they putting in your water out there?
of course they are not the same, but they are equal in the eyes o f the law. and that will be national law in our lifetimes.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#40 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's 2013 and DOMA is still the law. Not one gay marriage is recognized by the federal government. Most states don't and won't recognize gay marriage. That's the reality.
the trend is only going one way... you will be on the wrong side of history.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#41 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Since extra-marital eroticism is now illegal NOWHERE in this nation, sex is no longer a legal basis. The sex of the parties to Civil Marriage is irrelevant.
Then why not be happy calling it a civil union instead of marriage?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min Rosa_Winkel 27,192
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 13 min Rick in Kansas 83
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 51 min Boni 241
Gay marriage comes to Missouri. Wait ... what? 1 hr Jonah1 105
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 2 hr DRUDAEGCNTIENDEBD... 52
The Islamist war on Muslim women (Dec '07) 3 hr Moses Kestenbaum ODA 1,499
Happily ever after? Charges reduced to one year... 3 hr Rainbow Kid 4
More from around the web