The consequences of gay marriage

Clayton claims that that the recent court rulings on allowing gay marriage, “… is likely to make the legal situation for homosexuals more difficult, not easier.” He also predicts that these court rulings will help get Republicans to the polls this election.

I agree with this latter point but disagree with the first. I think gay marriage as well as equal rights for gay is here to stay. It is an idea whose time has come. The worst anti-gay politicians can do is slow down the inevitable. The reason is because there have not been any dire consequences happen that are attributable to acceptance of gays in society. Just as gun owners right to carry weapons for self defense were gradually recognized in state after state without “blood running in the streets” so it is with gays and the recognization of their rights.

It will be scary for some, just as it was with people carrying firearms in public, but eventually the fear will subside and most people will accept it.


3 thoughts on “The consequences of gay marriage

  1. I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes, ever:

    “Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” Teresa Nielsen Hayden

  2. I agree with Joe’s statement above, that “I agree with this latter point but disagree with the first.” I think the timing of announcement of the New Jersey decision may be bring out more Republicans. Then again, as a bunch of recent polls have shown, more and more people are abandoning parties and becoming independents. I can’t imagine the New Jersey decision making things harder for gays than they already are, unless he means there will be an increase in violence against gays — which may be true. As for the Teresa Nielsen Hayden quote posted by Kevin Baker: Priceless! Thanks for that.

  3. A little aside: My brother has lived with a woman for many years. She is a university employee. They have never been married. If they were a gay couple, my brother would be getting spousal benefits. Since they are straight, he doesn’t. This is university policy and has nothing to do with law, but it is interesting.

    Now suppose I and some other guy who worked at the university were room mates, and wanted more benefits. We could always say we were gay, couln’t we? After all, if it means thousands of dollars in benefits, why not lie? Would that mean we couln’d also date women on occasion? What proofs might be required to satisfy the university management that we were gay?

    This is the sort of completely insane crap you’re begging for any time you start treating different groups differently, either by law or by company policy.

Comments are closed.