Jophiel wrote:
Looks like it was me in November 2008. If we need to thank anyone though, we should thank the ZAM/Google filter.
My bad. I could have sworn it was me, must have missed your reference.
Jophiel wrote:
Most of those states only had it legal due to the circuit court decisions that the conservatives were hoping to strike down with Obergefell v. Hodges. Eleven states had it legalized by legislative statute or referendum. Most of the rest had it legalized federal court decisions that would have been overturned had the ScotUS ruled that there was no protection. Four or five had it legalized via state court decisions that might have held (i.e. even if the US Constitution doesn't provide, the Iowa state constitution may).
I should have clarified my position. This includes the opposition exaggerating the effect of legalizing SSM given that many states have already legalized it. In the words of Biden, it is "a big f'ng deal", but it's not like the US went cold turkey over night. There has been an ongoing transition.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "peak". That this is as good as it gets for the LGBT community? Or that this is the pivotal moment where they have most of the cake and are just cleaning up the rest? SSM advocacy groups are going to shift to promoting equality and protection in housing, employment and other like causes. The goal will be to have gender preference be a federally protected class like race, sex, religion, etc. That might be as un-fun a road for conservatives as the SSM fight was if the kerfluffle in Indiana over their "religious freedom" law is any indication.
I mean what I said in the rest of the paragraph. If advocacy groups focus on respect, i.e, housing and employment, then this is a major pivotal point for the good. However, if we do what we have historically done with every other civil rights group and fight for social acceptance, we will just end up in a circle where legitimate concerns (housing and employment) are saturated with illegitimate concerns. As a result, all concerns are dismissed because we are living in a "post discrimination era". Just like how it's women's fault for being paid less and blacks fault for living in poverty, it will be the LGBT community's fault for whatever legitimate concern they have if society is inundated with nonsensical bias. Since we've already started the "Would you go to a g@y wedding" as a political question for 2016, I don't have faith that we will focus on the legitimate concerns.