Do you think gay rights advancement is totally dead in the water after this election?

Gay rights should be advancing on the state level…federal laws regarding gay civil rights (e.g., DOMA) are an anathema to a small-government objective, as well as a federalist perspective. The Fed should stay out of states allowing for certain citizen rights.

No. Not dead at all. Just don’t look to “government” (i.e., the legislative branch) for the advances. Human freedom is being advanced all the time, although it does sometimes make “a step back”. I’d be looking forward to more sense in the War on Some Drugs, too.

No.

Obama and most Democrats weren’t going to do much for them anyway. It’s not like we are going to suddenly be hurled into the Dark Ages because a few Republicans won some elections. Gay rights aren’t anymore “dead in the water” now than they were before, and it will still take some time before they are addressed. For better or for worse, most of Washington isn’t really concerning itself with social issues right now anyway, because of the craptacular economy.

For the record, I’m pro-gay rights.

No, because gay rights advancement lately has been playing out mainly in the court system. It seems most governments (state and federal) are either responding to or anticipating the courts’ actions. I agree with @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard that the governments are going to be focusing more on economic issues than social.

I don’t get why the states have to decide on this issue, to me it’s always been a national issue – people are people in all states, state governments shouldn’t have to tell people in some states it’s okay to get married but not in other states.

Ehh, short term sure… long term they’ll be fine.

No, at least not in CA. Brown and Newsom will both refuse to support Prop 8 in the courts, and are LGBT-supportive in general.

Maybe he is planning to tank it when the gays in the military case gets to the Supreme Court. If it isn’t already there. Did they fast track that?

@wundayatta Its not there yet no, but I would expect it to be there soon.

They were looking to change “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on a legislative level and have appealed the court’s striking down of it. That is one of the issues that I believe is dead in the water for now. Also, the California striking down of Prop 8 is likely to be appealed and viewed by the Supreme Court eventually.

no, it’s not dead. The DADT law suit was brought by log cabin republicans. The republican house won’t be able to stop progress. The change is gradual and incremental, certainly too slow, but moving in the proper direction….

I’d say no for a few reasons including news from a few months ago that a segment of prominent RNC supporters are putting money behind gay rights issues.

I would not say its dead, but i do think they can only advance a certain amount the way things are at the moment.

I would never try and compare slavery to gay rights, but it is probably worth noting, that black people did not have a very big role at first in freeing anyone. It was mostly white people who did not like the idea, the slaves did not have a say. It was only after they got support from white people that they where allowed to fight for their own rights. I think the situation is similar with gay rights. They need more support from heterosexuals.

Obviously a homosexual can take people to court and can fight for their rights a certain amount, but i still think they need majority support to achieve real freedom. Look at black people again, I think we are at a stage where the majority of the world is against racism. Probably not by a lot, but enough to be the majority. and we still have racism and people still get turned down for jobs because they are “the wrong color”. Likewise, i think gay rights will probably have to walk a similar path. They will have to first gain the majority support, and then they will need to put up with 100 years or so of back handed bigoted comments until they reach a stage where they are only disliked by the minority of people.

It kills me how Republicans promote state’s rights and a reduction of federal government unless a state wants to offer rights that they don’t like—then they want to mess with state’s rights.

Nope. Hate to break it to all you democrats but the Democratic Party wasn’t planning on doing anything about Gay rights. Those types of issues are not on the top of the to do list these days. The main concern is improving the economy. As far as I am concerned these issues are unimportant and should be put on the back burner because it is far more important to create jobs and improve our economy. Not trying to be mean but jobs are necessary to improve the economy and gay marriage doesn’t effect the economy. I don’t see either party trying to improve gay rights and who could blame them because there are far more important matters at hand.

@Mikewlf337

“gay marriage doesn’t effect the economy.”

That certainly isn’t what all the wedding planners, caterers, photographers, etc. etc. etc. in California said!

@crisw caterers, photographers, etc. do not just work at weddings. Wedding planners are not going to go out of business because of the lack of gay marraiges. Gay marriage doesn’t effect the economy for the majority of the country

It’s not all gloom and doom…
Barney Frank was reelected. We added a new openly gay house member in RI. The (bigotted) national organization of marriage, NOM lost key races it was supporting including NH governor and all of California. Those homophobes in Delaware (WITCH!) and Nevada are bye-bye. NYC defeated at least three state assemblymen who voted against gay marriage in NY.
All in all, gay candidates and their supporters had a pretty good night.

@Mikewlf337

“Gay marriage doesn’t effect the economy for the majority of the country”

It will when the rest of the country allows it…

As one estimate, in Vermont—a tiny state-
“Extending marriage to same-sex couples will boost Vermont‟s economy by over $30.6 million over three years, which would generate increases in state and local government tax and fee revenues by $3.3 million and create approximately 700 new jobs.”

@Mikewlf337 if you’ve seen any of my other postings in some of the active political threads around here, you’ll know that I’m not a liberal, any more than I’m a conservative.

But ‘gay rights’ are not and should not be ‘special’. The problem is that we seem to be trying to invent, pass and enforce ‘special laws’ that single out and shackle homosexuals. It would take no special effort at all to say that marriage is a union between two competent unmarried individuals who each consent to that union, period. People who don’t want to marry homosexuals don’t have to. People who don’t want to marry at all don’t have to. People who don’t want marriages under the auspices of any particular theology don’t have to have them.

The ‘gay rights’ you speak of are simply ‘human rights extended to a subset of the population that doesn’t enjoy all of the rights that others do’, so the extra effort in preventing that subset of our population from having normal rights is simply wrong, and wasted effort on the wrong side of history.

I fear that any chance of action in Congress is dead till more progressives replace the new crop of conservatives and Tea Partiers. If progress is made, it will have to come from the courts. I dso not feel that any basic constitutional rights, such as equal protection under the law, are the proper domain fo state governments. That makes no more sense to me than saying that any state that wishes should be free to return to segregation or even slavery; and should be able to strip voting rights from women and minorities.

I think that it’s a good thing. Perhaps we can undo some of the damage. Unlikely, since like most ideological whatsits it is very difficult to dislodge from a person’s brain.

Gay marriage isn’t important for the country as a whole I will not concede to my opinion on this matter. There are far more importand matters pending. Gay marriage is important to gay people and not to everyone as a whole. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to fix the economy.

@Mikewlf337 – and the right to vote for women wasn’t important for the country as a whole. Neither were equal civil rights for black men and women. Because Recognizing the civil rights of a certain sector is certainly never beneficial for the country, again, as a whole. ;-)

@Mikewlf337 You seem to few this as an either/or situation while in actuality Congress never deals with only one issue at a time. And there is an arguable case that can be made for the military being strengthened potentially by the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Few was supposed to be “view”

I like the phrase “few this” though – it indicates limitations in a viewpoint. ;-)

@iamthemob Maybe we could start a new language trend?

1,2,3 go, @janbb – I’m game. ;-)

@iamthemob I still stand by my answer. It isn’t important right now. People are unemployed. I think gay marriage is trivial compared to the current state of the economy.

@Mikewlf337 – my money’s fine. I think that the economy’s a trivial concern in comparison with the denial of human rights to a segment of the population just because of who they are. And considering the solution is, you know…simple, the government needn’t waste they’re time on it…watch:

“Forthwith, DADT is repealed”

House, passed.
Senate, passed.

President – signed.

“Forthwith, DOMA is repealed”

House, passed.
Senate, passed.

President – signed.

In all seriousness now – that’s all the work it takes. It’s trivial I agree, but because the government needn’t spend any federal resources on it. It’s a state issue, and each state can deal with the applicability of the federal aspects of marriage law like they did when there was miscegenation legislation.