It will be interesting, fifty years from now or so, to chart how quickly things turned around on matters of gay rights, gay marriage, etc., in the US. Assuming last night was not a blip (which I don't think it was), it was remarkable (and heartening) to see voters voting down a gay marriage ban, and voting in gay marriage laws in multiple states.
Opponents of gay marriage has faced a series of retrenchments. Originally, it was just unspeakable that gay marriage (or even civil unions) would ever be recognized by law or the courts (thus leading to the "so, see, They don't have stable relationships!" argument).
Then some courts ruled that such a state violated equal protection under the law, and suddenly the judicial branch became a bunch of unelected activists who should certainly be ignored, overruled, and voted out of office. Certainly the elected representatives of the people demonstrated that gay marriage was a non-starter.
Then some state legislatures actually started passing gay marriage laws. And, abruptly, statehouses were dens of special interest group money-seeking politicians, not actual representatives of The People. And certainly whenever gay marriage was put before The People in a ballot initiative, it lost (or was banned).
Now that The People in these states have spoken otherwise, I have to wonder what the next rhetorical tack will be. "Well, it was just the deluded, secular, God-hating liberals in Those States, but true, red-blooded, Jesus-loving, family-valuing Americans in Our States … well, we'll never have to worry about them!"
I look forward to seeing them be wrong about that, too.
Embedded Link
Gay Marriage: For The First Time Ever Voters In Several States Say ‘Yes’
Three states, Maryland, Maine, and Washington, asked voters to decide on allowing same-sex couples the right to marry, and voters are saying said “yes.”
Google+: View post on Google+
I honestly think we have the hard-core haters to thank. Westboro, NOM, AFA and the rest of them. There are plenty of people out there, maybe still a majority of people, who are puzzled and little freaked out by LGBT people. But almost none of them want to be put in the same group as the people who picket the funerals of dead service people, tell parents to beat the gay out of their kids and/or applaud teenage suicide.
Back when it so polite and mannerly, with the Pope just calling us 'disordered', it was one thing. Now days? With the 'gays cause hurricanes' crowd screaming at the top of their lungs? Quite another.
Actually I am opposed to activist judges, they do not have the constutional right to govern (ie create law). That is why issues like Roe v Wade and gay marriages are heavily disputed. but if the people are allowed to decide than the outcome should be applauded whichever side of the aisle you are on.
I think you're right, +Curt Thompson. The other factor being, over time, the more openly gay people that folks know, the less they can be demonized as leather-worshiping Satanists who, well, summon hurricanes. That has a cascading effect.
The problem with that argument is that 'the people' are demonstrably a pack of prejudiced jerks. See: Slavery, African American Civil Rights, Women's rights, etc.
The last non-judicially ordered expansion of civil rights that enjoyed popular support (and it didn't really) in the U.S. was women's Suffrage.
+Dave Hill Hm. Does this mean if I get into the leather scene I get superpowers? 😀
Only, +Curt Thompson, if you promise to use them for good. Or at least fabulousness.
+Sanford Arbogast – "activist judges" are in the eye of the beholder, as the idea of judges being simple "umpires" of clear, explicit, obvious law and constitutional dictates is a myth. I agree that there is obviously room for abuse of judicial powers, just as there is room for abuse of legislative/popular powers. I do agree that ultimately the People get the choice (including by electing legislators to change the law to counter a judicial decision, or, if it's based on a judicial consensus as to a constitutional right, to change the constitution itself).
+Dave Hill any judge creating law is an activist, whether yo agree with his decision or not. there is no "eye of the beholder"
it is only a myth because it is allowed. each branch of government is described in the Constitution and should not have been allowed to surpass those limitations. without the peoples voted consent.
the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is crap it is a piece of paper that has legalese written on it. if yo want to amend the ideas contained in those words there is an official process to do so.