Evolving Equality in America

[racaulk]

We’ve certainly come a long way over the last half-century. In 1960, homosexuality was a criminal act in every state and territory in the union. By 2000, when Vermont enacted civil unions, more than a third of the U.S. population lived in states where gay people were still legally criminals. All that change of course with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay people were no longer criminals, but they weren’t recognized in any other way either.

The past decade has been a very slow march toward correcting that. Nearly as many couples today can acquire at least some minimal protection and recognition of their relationships as were criminalized a decade ago, but full marriage equality remains relatively elusive. We’ve been celebrating the fact that with New York becoming the sixth state to provide for full marriage equality, the population in which the option is open to them has more than doubled. But it’s from just five percent to eleven. About the same percentage as those who weren’t subject to arrest in 1973, thirty years before Lawrence v. Texas. We can only hope it won’t take another thirty years from today to see full marriage equality as the law of the land everywhere.


Link: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/27/34613

[Bluenorthwest]

1. All that progress and yet some on DU insist that there was

NOTHING for decades before Obama, nothing but more restrictions! They lie about history to tarnish the image of our community. It is that simple.

[beyurslf]

2. By the end of the decade, we will have equal marriage laws all over the country.

Just my prediction.

[MNBrewer]

3. THIS decade?

And, all over the country? Like a sprinkling of cracked pepper, or more like a slathering of gravy?

[beyurslf]

4. The end of this decade.

The SCOTUS will rule on gay marriage in the next 9 years. If we keep our eye on the prize and understand what is at stake, I believe we will win in the court. That said, we have to be willing to elect Presidents who will nominate Justices who believe in equality. It might mean voting for someone who has done less than many of us would have liked, but will certainly do less harm than his opponent. Can you imagine a Bachmann SCOTUS appointee?

[MNBrewer]

5. Kagan may not be for marriage equality, so I'm not sure Obama qualifies for a re-vote

based on that criterion.