If your roomate turned out to be Creationist and against same-sex marriage...

[nimchimpsky]

it's just sad that those issues had to be voted on at all. don't get me wrong, i understand the value of democracy. oppressed group rights being up to the majority depends on the oppressor opinion though and so it relies on the social majoirity (men in the case of suffrage, whites in the case of racial integration) 'getting' that the minority deserve the same rights. right now with homosexuality most heterosexuals don't get that so we have to wait till the majority is educated so we can have equal rights. purple love said it best:

Privileged people hardly ever recognize their privilege.

(p.s. please excuse typos, i broke my hand so i'm typing and reaing one-handed.)

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I'm pretty sure Lawrence v. Texas ended all the laws against consensual homosexual sodomy. ...

Not on the Federal level.

I retired from law enforcement in 2001, up until that time I saw people prosecuted for sodomy.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I'm pretty sure Lawrence v. Texas ended all the laws against consensual homosexual sodomy.

I guess if someone said, as the person you respond to says, that people have no right to vote on same-sex marriage I couldn't live with them. I'd have to think about it, but the "My romantic needs must be treated preferentially above any other discriminated group in the history of America" opinion would be a bit much for me to take. And to an extent that is what it says because.

Women's suffrage? Amendment was voted on.

Americans with Disability Act was voted on by the Congress.

Civil Rights Acts? Voted on by Congress.

Ending of the poll tax? A Constitutional Amendment, so voting.

Loving v. Virginia was not voted on, but by that time almost two-thirds of the states had legalized interracial marriage. Granted often by state court decisions, but still it was just finalizing a trend and asserting the rights almost inherit in existing Amendments.

Brown v Board might be close, but Brown was often not fully enforced before voting.

Now if the person told me "a simple majority vote of the people should not decide this issue" I might agree to that. I could see this being an issue where, as with Constitutional Amendments, there needs to be a super-majority. Still the idea that "people can't vote on rights" is ahistorical and ridiculous. Although maybe I could tolerate it if the person is like my imaginary Creationist. They say it once or twice, but otherwise never bring it up.

I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying (the part in bold).

I'm not going to play the Oppression Olympics but considering all the hats I wear, I know about discrimination better than heterosexual white males.

In any case, if I had it my way, we probably wouldn't have marriage. It would all be civil unions or domestic partnerships and there wouldn't be all this distinction between those who are joined by civil union or domestic partnership just like we have all this distinction between the married and the unmarried.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying (the part in bold).

I'm not going to play the Oppression Olympics but considering all the hats I wear, I know about discrimination better than heterosexual white males.

In any case, if I had it my way, we probably wouldn't have marriage. It would all be civil unions or domestic partnerships and there wouldn't be all this distinction between those who are joined by civil union or domestic partnership just like we have all this distinction between the married and the unmarried.

Actually I might be okay with that. In some ways I'm skeptical of the idea that what the state does can be called "marriage" even when they do it with heteros. I'm also not opposed to there being some governmental recognition of same-sex relationships. (Be it homosexual relations or non-romantic "kindred spirits/blood brother" relations.)

My original view on same-sex marriage was that civil marriage is not real marriage so it doesn't matter too much. Also that it was a social experiment which may or may not be a good idea. I was interested in hearing the arguments and seeing how the people sided. Prop 8, more the reaction caused by it, kind of made me go more against SSM and although I'm veering back to my original neutrality I'm not quite there yet. That ad that showed the Mormon duo breaking into some lesbian couples house disgusted me. I'm sure the Pro-Prop 8's were disgusting as well, but when you're allegedly fighting for rights using fears/hatreds people have of another minority group is disturbing. Even if said minority group was a big funder against you. Than the attacks on houses of worship after the vote made it seem like the concerns about religious freedom were in fact justified. That this is in some weird way a war about restricting Mormons and Catholics right to disagree. And the statements that "this shouldn't have even been voted on" kind of convinced me that yes that is indeed what it's about. (In fairness Melissa Etheridge was cool during the whole thing and impressed me. I think she even met with a moderate preacher who was nevertheless against SSM and generally did a good job of emphasizing that this wasn't about telling churches what to do)

Anyway I was initially somewhat neutral. So at that time if I'd been living with someone who simply said "I'm glad Prop 8 passed" or "I'm sad Prop 8 passed" I could be cool with that. If they were like "I'm glad Prop 8 passed, but now let's undo Lawrence so we can really start imprisoning the perverts" or "I'm ticked Prop 8 passed, I'm going to go burn some copies of the Book of Mormon outside one of their temples" I'd have been more like "You're a freak, I think I might be getting out of here."