Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

TIME: Gay Marriage Already Won

Cover story

by Anonymousreply 1703/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 103/28/2013

Terrible picture. The guys look like they're being forced to kiss at gunpoint.

by Anonymousreply 203/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 303/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 403/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 503/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 603/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 703/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 803/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 903/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1003/28/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 1103/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1203/28/2013

Didn't time magazine name George w bush man of the year once?

by Anonymousreply 1303/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1403/28/2013

What does this have to do with Sully? Who, BTW, has expressed some disenchantment with P-Town.

by Anonymousreply 1503/28/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1603/28/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 1703/28/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!