What's the left going to do once gay marriage is legal?

First off let's just cut the crap and pretending that this is really about 'equality' or 'progress'. The idea that gays, or any minority group in America are really treated the same as blacks were in the pre-Emancipation era is a bunch of crap, and even the left themselves isn't dumb enough to know this. Nevermind the fact that legal marriage isn't even an attractive proposition for many straights who do currently have that right.

Gay marriage is no bigger an issue than women previously having been barred from serving in combat - in fact this issue is a much more significant issue of equality, since women are 51% of the population, while gays are only 3-5% of the population. But the latter issue only received a fraction of the attention from the left. It was quietly overturned and then forgotten, while gay marriage has been on the left's radar of years. So this right here shows that the primary agenda isn't 'equality' or 'ending bigotry'.

No it's really a political strategy. The left feels the need to represent themselves as the 'party helping the oppressed'. Since real oppression is non-existent anymore (blacks are not slaves, women can vote and hold jobs, etc) - they just needed to find a new group to label as 'oppressed', so they could paint themselves in a benevolent light.

I think the reason this issue of 'equality under law' received more attention than the issue of women serving in combat was because of it's emotional appeal (ex. "banning a couple who loves each other from 'getting married' seems crueler than banning someone from serving in the military"), so even though the latter was a much more significant issue of equality, the left opted for the former because it provided a nice appeal to emotion, which is what they heavily rely on as a political strategy.

What I'm wondering now is, with Bill Clinton's DOMA finally overturned, and more states option to allow gay marriage - what the left's new pet project is going to be. Since they could no longer use blacks and women to paint as 'oppressed', and pretty soon will no longer be able to use gays, what will the come up with now?

 

this mentality will become the death of the republican party...congratulations on destroying that which you propose to support.

I feel ashamed.

 

Hipsters.

FOR FAR TOO LONG HAS SOCIETY FOISTED NON-(*)(*)(*)(*)TY MUSIC ONTO THE OPPRESSED ACOLYTES OF THE CHURCH OF JOBS.

 

Ashamed of what, the fact that the left-wing hypocrisy on the gay marriage issue has been pointed out?

The gay marriage issue has received a much higher proportion of attention than other issues of equality, like women serving in the military - this proves that the gay issue is being 'Favorited' by the left wing simply because it helps their political agenda.

 

What hypocrisy? We on the left have fought for women's rights and if you were I don't know, not in your echo chamber you would have seen that. You prove only that you have no idea what you are talking about but you are making lots of threads about gay marriage so I assume you are butthurt over the fact that gays can marry. My advice....get over it.

 

It's about freedom. As for what we'll do when gay marriage is legal, we'll probably have a beer.

The military. Let's cut spending by a factor a five, bring our troops home, and send a vague global apology for shooting people who never set foot on American soil.

 

Further attacks on the family are the next agenda.

If you read Communist writings (they are posted all over the internet) you will see that Communists see marriage as an institution that oppresses women, and they want to abolish it.

Also, the Kibbutzes in Israel experimented with abolishment of the family's control over children. They put the children in crèches, to be raised by the community, and parents were allowed only minimal contact and no authority over their children.

My understanding is that in Sweden, it is already true that the state, not the parent, has primary authority over children.

Hillary Clinton said "It takes a village to raise a child." She meant what she said. She wants the government, not parents, to make decisions for children, and to be the primary authority over them.

You can see that in many neighborhoods, the state is not only serving free lunches to the children, but free breakfast as well. The next step is free dinner, and after that, a place to stay away from parental control.

 

What am I going to do once gay marriage is legal? I'm going to eat cake.

What's the next project? Let me check my list. Oh, here's a good one: a balanced budget.

 

I don't care one way or another if gays get married. I'm tired of the gay agenda of political correctness being shoved down our throats. I'm tired of hearing about 'gay marriage' more than issues that significantly affect this country, like the economy. The reason this issue gets so much attention is because it's a trendy, emotional issue. I'm actually at the point where I hope it just gets legalized so we can stop hearing about this crap on a daily basis.

 

Let's, Ditch the Drug War.

 

Stop giving out government benefits to people who are officially "married" and I'll stop caring whether gays can get married.

Better yet, the government should just not acknowledge marriage officially at all.

 

Gay people should have stayed in the closet. Because this gay thing is someday going to get old, and it won't be fashionable anymore to be gay. And maybe one day there will be a backlash against gays, because of AIDS, or widespread pedophilia in the homosexual community, or some other reason.

And there's no way back into the closet once you've left.

 

The OP is a complete crock of (*)(*)(*)(*).

The LGBTQ community are a discriminated-against minority in far more ways than just marriage. There is still much work to do on the gay rights front, including passing anti-discrimination statutes to prevent discrimination in employment and housing.

Nope, gay people are never going back into the closet. And acceptance of the gay community will only continue to rise. Homophobes are going to have a lonely miserable existence from here on out.

 

You don't need anti-discrimination laws, you need to grow a pair is what you need.

I live in a more conservative part of the country and I see openly gay people going about their lives. Today I saw a flamboyantly gay guy in a pink sleeveless shirt with nail polish at the store, so even in the more conservative areas they don't have to go around every day in fear of getting beat up.

Businesses aren't allowed to fire people just for being gay, so that's a strawman and a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It could work. But hospital procedure (etc.) often base visiting rights on relationship status. Isn't it useful to have a general record of who a person is married to and where a person lives, even if the government isn't in charge? Probably what would happen is that people would register on an Internet database, and then private institutions could chose to recognize marriages or not according to their own policies.

 

Make sure their rights are protected. Focus on the civil rights of whatever minority comes up next. Kind of a simple question really.

 

This is a really simple thing to fix - like asking the person if they'll allow the other person visitation?

Marriage is religious, therefore I disagree with the government endorsing it. At the very least, make the benefits of marriage equal for all couples; if they'd listen to me, though, they'd stop acknowledging marriage at all.

 

You need to give your straight white male privilege a rest and (*)(*)(*)(*) about things you have no clue about.

WTF is the point of this stupid, irrelevant anecdote?

Gays are victims of hate crimes across America every single day. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you to be trivializing these violent crimes?

Yes, they are, unless they are in one of the minority of liberal states that have anti-discrimination laws. Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing- AGAIN.

 

Coma victim.

No, I see it. It isn't a bad idea. Mostly I'm just thinking out loud. Every time a person suggests that the government stop providing some service or forbidding some activity, he or she ought to at least consider whether the private sector or public opinion will somehow take up the slack. (Maybe part of the reason so few people think libertarianism makes any sense is because they don't have the ability to do that.)

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are funny.

 

It's a good point, but people can just as easily make up such 'legalities' themselves. Just as we make up our own wills for when we die, we should make up our own living wills that outline all this kind of stuff according to our preferences.

So, if I wanted anyone in the country to be allowed visitation, I'd be able to do so. Freedom. Love it.

 

we will say the same as we do about inter-racial marriage, which is not much, cause they have equal marriage rights now, same will be true here as well

 

you can push to ban all marriage if you want, that would be allowed, but banning it all except for some based on race or their gender is unconstitutional

.

 

Um, what?

I wasn't talking about banning anything.

 

It was never immoral for black people and white people to marry each other. From what I've been told, black people really resent these comparisons.

 

Nor is it immoral for men to marry each other or women to marry each other.