TIME: Gay Marriage Already Won
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/28/2013|
An excellent article that clearly and concisely outlines the history of equal marriage. If you care about this issue, you should take the time to read this.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/28/2013|
Terrible picture. The guys look like they're being forced to kiss at gunpoint.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/28/2013|
How did Sullivan manage to wangle a mention in Time? That's one journo scratching another's back. The total audience of Sullivan's 1989 column was no bigger than the average family in Arkansas and it had less influence.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/28/2013|
Actually it's kind of funny we talk about Sullivan now when a book called "After the Ball" was the assimilationist bible back in the day. Who talks about those guys, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen? That was the big push for gay normalcy, and it started several years before Sullivan's column.
"In 1987 Kirk partnered with Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill") to write an essay, The Overhauling of Straight America, which was published in Guide Magazine. They argued that gays must portray themselves in a positive way to straight America, and that the main aim of making homosexuality acceptable could be achieved by getting Americans "to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders". Then "your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won"
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/28/2013|
Interesting, R4. Actually, I think that public opinion was eventually as much won over by the distinctiveness of gay culture as by its common denominator of similarity. When people got to know gays (even from "Will and Grace" or "Glee"), they usually tended to like them and sympathize with them.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/28/2013|
My point is that they made Andrew Sullivan sound like a lonely pioneer when these other folks had already tried to organize a movement around promoting gay normalcy. I'm sure there were the usual "post-gays" around back then too. It's always been part of gay culture, most likely. Back during those Mattachine demonstrations in the fifties, they always wore coats, ties, and dresses.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/28/2013|
There's going to be a huge backlash against this. I feel the haters taking a deeep breath and plotting all hell to break loose.
In Ohio, there's a group that's trying to put it on the ballot in November. For the public to decide. That's right: Ohio, one of the cruelest states toward gays. It will be a crushing, demoralizing fail, and not be brought up for consideration for another decade.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/28/2013|
R7, if SCOTUS rules DOMA to be unconstitutional, then should Ohio put something on their ballot and it passes, it will just be tossed out by SCOTUS as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/28/2013|
r2 is right. The pictures for both the men and women are odd.
They're not even with the camera, it's as if the viewer is peering over their shoulder.
Consider the contrast between the men and the women. I wouldn't say the men looked "forced" as much as posed and the women- jesus christ. The woman facing the camera has her mouth half open like a porn star. It's clearly sexualized whereas in the men's photo, the man facing the camera is closed mouthed. They are de-sexualized.
There are a million images they could have chosen to represent the issue. These couples aren't even dressed as if they're at a marriage. We have no idea what they're wearing at all becayse of the closups on their face. Their eyes are closed. they have no humanity. They're just something to be gawked at. And of course the black and white adds to the whole 'scandalous' feel.
God I hate Time magazine. Always have.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/28/2013|
For what it's worth, r2 and r9, these are "ordinary" people who happen to be real couples. So perhaps the male couple have a passionless relationship...?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/28/2013|
[quote][R7], if SCOTUS rules DOMA to be unconstitutional, then should Ohio put something on their ballot and it passes, it will just be tossed out by SCOTUS as well.
Ohio could still put a referendum on gay marriage. Federal benefits is not going to be put up, nor can it.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/28/2013|
I guess someone agreed, because the picture I was talking about is gone.
The cover pictures and the other article picture are better, but do still seem a bit cold. Where's the joy?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/28/2013|
Didn't time magazine name George w bush man of the year once?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/28/2013|
Sully's narcissistic plan to retroactively rewrite gay history and position himself as the Rosa Parks of the movement continues unabated, not unlike his addictive bong hits and P'town cruising.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/28/2013|
What does this have to do with Sully? Who, BTW, has expressed some disenchantment with P-Town.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/28/2013|
r10, Real couples or not these pictures had a photographer compose them and a professional art director choose them and edit them and a professional editor look at them and decide to use them over any and all other ideas.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/28/2013|
[quote]There's going to be a huge backlash against this
There already has been; it peaked; it's dying. Compare the 2012 election results to the previous elections. Gay rights won out damn near everywhere they were on the ballot.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/28/2013|