NationStates Jolt Archive

How long do you think it will be until gays have full rights in the US including but not limited to; serving openly in the military, marriage, and laws against employment/workplace discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation?

4.3 seconds.

Better question: Why are you so interested in gays lately? :eek:

Better question: Why are you so interested in gays lately? :eek:

better question: why are you so interested in me lately?:eek:;)

Oh, seeing as they're at least 1.5-2 decades behind us in the matter, I'll say at least that. That's as good a guess as any, even if Sweden wasn't even close to being as homophobic as the USA is today back then. It's not exactly as advanced as Canada and Spain where things can move quickly...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages.

better question: why are you so interested in me lately?:eek:;)

I plead the fifth! :p

Hillary will fix things, but not in her first term.

Hillary will fix things, but not in her first term.
that's a joke right? She doesn't even support same-sex marriage.

I plead the fifth! :p

thats what they all say:p

No, BUSH is against same-sex marriage. Hillary voted FOR it.

Thank you, come again.

No, BUSH is against same-sex marriage. Hillary voted FOR it.

No she didn't, and her husband signed the DOMA. She doesn't support same-sex marriage.

Thank you, get your facts straight.

Probably abouta decade for full rights. But I don't see them ever getting anti-employment discrimination rules; in fact, I suspect that those laws about such we have now will probably be broken down over the same period.

In 2004, Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3440&can_id=55463) that would require marriage to be a man and a woman. Hillary voted against it.

In 2006, Bush tried the same thing (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3841&can_id=55463). Hillary voted against that one, too.

What does the Q stand for?

In 2004, Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3440&can_id=55463) that would require marriage to be a man and a woman. Hillary voted against it.

In 2006, Bush tried the same thing (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3841&can_id=55463). Hillary voted against that one, too.

Neither of which is voting for same-sex marriage. She has herself on numerous occasions and in debates said that she does not support same-sex marriage. Don't delude yourself.

What does the Q stand for?

Queer.

Queer.

or questioning. I've heard it referred to as both

Oh.
I'd say somewhere around 25 years.
Nothing much will change with the current Supreme Court and general public attitude.
But once the baby boomers start dying off, I think the political landscape will dramatically shift to the left*.


*relatively

So how long will it be before people stop calling it 'gay marriage' and just call it 'marriage'?

Queer.

Isn't that a bit redundant or is this a new technical classification I missed?

Isn't that a bit redundant or is this a new technical classification I missed?
That's what I was thinking.
Wiki sez:

The word queer has traditionally meant "strange" or "unusual," but currently it is also often used in reference to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and asexual communities. Its usage is controversial and underwent substantial changes over the course of the 20th century. The term is still considered by some to be offensive and derisive, and by others as a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society.

Isn't that a bit redundant or is this a new technical classification I missed?

No, it isn't redundant because "queer" is used by those who do not wish to or cannot label themselves as "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual". They're wishy-washy that way. Not to mention of course that "queer" can encompass genderqueer, which GLBT doesn't.

I plead the fifth! :p

I read that as filth, which gave me a little amusement.

Edit: Reading the definition upthread, I suppose I fall under Queer. Asexual seems to be included. In fact, couldn't a shorter definition be 'not heterosexual'?

No, it isn't redundant because "queer" is used by those who do not wish to or cannot label themselves as "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual". They're wishy-washy that way. Not to mention of course that "queer" can encompass genderqueer, which GLBT doesn't.

I always took the "T" to be for "transgender", as opposed to "transsexual".

What on earth is genderqueer?

I always took the "T" to be for "transgender", as opposed to "transsexual".

Transgender and transsexual are the same thing, the former is just an even more PC and actually correct way of putting it.

What on earth is genderqueer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

I read that as filth, which gave me a little amusement.

Edit: Reading the definition upthread, I suppose I fall under Queer. Asexual seems to be included. In fact, couldn't a shorter definition be 'not heterosexual'?

Well, no, because a transgendered person can very legitimately claim to be straight. "LGB" could be "not straight", but that's more letters and it doesn't include the "T", or the "Q" which seems to have been added in the last while.

Nationwide? Likely two decades away. Utah will hold out a decade longer than anyone else.

A solid majority of the states? Within the next five years.

Transgender and transsexual are the same thing, the former is just an even more PC and actually correct way of putting it.

Well, no, they aren't. At least, not under any definition I'm aware of.

"Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from the normative gender role (woman or man) commonly, but not always, assigned at birth, as well as the role traditionally held by society."

I've always taken it to mean an individual who feels they don't fit into the gender role society has set for them, with transsexual meaning someone who feels firmly that their mental gender itself (as opposed to the role society tries to impose on them) doesn't match up with their physical sex.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

OK, thanks.

Well, no, they aren't. At least, not under any definition I'm aware of.

"Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from the normative gender role (woman or man) commonly, but not always, assigned at birth, as well as the role traditionally held by society."

I've always taken it to mean an individual who feels they don't fit into the gender role society has set for them, with transsexual meaning someone who feels firmly that their mental gender itself (as opposed to the role society tries to impose on them) doesn't match up with their physical sex.

As you can see, genderqueer covers all that. Transgender, while usable as an umbrella term, is basically transsexualism. The "trans-" part of it does not go well with your definition of transgender, because several of what you describe need not be trans. It's all of course fluid, but personally I use transgender and transsexual as synonyms and genderqueer as what you would use for transgender. Welcome to the wonderful world of "GLBBQXYZ!" labels! The futility of the compartmentalism will soon strike you.

As you can see, genderqueer covers all that. Transgender, while usable as an umbrella term, is basically transsexualism. The "trans-" part of it does not go well with your definition of transgender, because several of what you describe need not be trans. It's all of course fluid, but personally I use transgender and transsexual as synonyms and genderqueer as what you would use for transgender. Welcome to the wonderful world of "GLBBQXYZ!" labels! The futility of the compartmentalism will soon strike you.

Oh, I know all about the futility of compartmentism; I fit into at least two of the "GLBTQ" categories as it is. Just a difference in definition of words...

laws against employment/workplace discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation
Do these two not already exist?
They might not be readily enforced, but I'm pretty sure they're on the books in one way or another.

Do these two not already exist?

In some states. Not in most, and not nationally.

Hopely within the next 5 to 10 years. Probaly not if Repug or Republicrat gets in.

Full marriage equality in every state is still a good two or three decades away... and in the end it may have to be forced by an amendment to the Constitution, especially because of all the state constitutions that prohibit it.

Hate crime laws, employment non-discrimination laws, and gays serving openly in the military should all be in place within the next few years, especially if a Democrat wins in 2008.

Well, no, because a transgendered person can very legitimately claim to be straight. "LGB" could be "not straight", but that's more letters and it doesn't include the "T", or the "Q" which seems to have been added in the last while.

That was kindof a joke, as the definition seemed to include everything that would be obviously considered non-hetero.

Full marriage equality in every state is still a good two or three decades away... and in the end it may have to be forced by an amendment to the Constitution, especially because of all the state constitutions that prohibit it.

Hate crime laws, employment non-discrimination laws, and gays serving openly in the military should all be in place within the next few years, especially if a Democrat wins in 2008.

Doubt if a Dem get's in that any of that will happen. Hillary is definatly not gonna do it and neither would Obama. The Dems are all talk and no action. In reality both Hillary and Obama are moderate-consevative. If you really want LGBTQ rights to happen you gonna have to go to a third party.

Hillary is definatly not gonna do it and neither would Obama.

Both ENDA and the hate crimes bill have broad support from the Democrats in Congress and all the Democratic presidential candidates.

Edit: The risk is that they will do a Bill Clinton and go back on their promises... but the political climate on this subject is different from what it was then, and we have actually seen substantive action from the Democrats in Congress. Certainly a Democratic president won't veto a LGBT rights bill.

Both ENDA and the hate crimes bill have broad support from the Democrats in Congress and all the Democratic presidential candidates.


Support yes but probaly when it comes to a vote I doubt Hillary or Obama want to piss off their conservative democratic supporters or look like loony liberals by Repubs.

About the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
A bill was introduced into the US congress in the mid 1970's which would do for gays and lesbians what various civil rights bills had done for African-Americans, women and others. It went nowhere.

In 1994, a stripped-down version of the bill was introduced to Congress; it had limited range, guaranteeing only freedom from discrimination in employment. It was called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, and was widely viewed as a bill supported only by the fantasies of liberals in the Democratic party. It also did not progress.

In 1995, Rep. Studds introduced H.R.1863. The "digest" section of the bill stated:

This Act does not apply to the provision of employee benefits for the benefit of an employee's partner; and
A disparate impact does not establish a prima facie violation of this Act. Prohibits quotas and preferential treatment.
Declares that this Act does not apply to:
religious organizations (except in their for-profit activities);
the Armed Forces; or
laws creating special rights or preferences for veterans.
Provides for enforcement. Disallows State immunity. Makes the United States liable for all remedies (except punitive damages) to the same extent as a private person. Allows recovery of attorney's fees. Prohibits retaliation and coercion. Requires posting notices for employees and applicants.

This bill was supported by President Clinton in 1995-OCT. He said that if the bill were passed, it would guarantee that "all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, can find and keep their jobs based on their ability to work and the quality of their work." It was also supported by: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, by many large corporations (AT&T, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft, RJR Nabisco, Quaker Oats, and Xerox), and by many liberal and mainline religious organizations, including the National Council of Churches, National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

When the Defense of Marriage Act (the anti-gay marriage bill) was considered by the Senate, a bipartisan coalition attempted to attach the ENDA bill, as an amendment. Republican leaders eventually compromised by separating the two bills and allowing ENDA to be brought forward for a separate vote. It was reintroduced in 1996-SEP with the backing of the House and Senate Democratic minority leaders. The bill was characterized by conservative Republicans as controversial, immoral, and un-American. This time, it actually made it to a Senate vote; it was narrowly defeated 49 to 50. Although it was not passed in the Senate, and would not have had any chance at all in the House, this close vote still represents a stunning victory for basic lesbian/gay civil rights in a Republican controlled Senate.

The critical wording in ENDA (1996 version) is contained in its Section 2:

"A covered entity, in connection with employment or employment opportunities, shall not --

subject an individual to different standards or treatment on the basis of sexual orientation;
discriminate against an individual based on the sexual orientation of persons with whom such an individual is believed to associate or to have associated; or
otherwise discriminate against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation"
The bill would ban any affirmative action policy which might benefit gays and lesbians. The Military, religious organizations, and employers with fewer than 15 employees would be allowed to continue to discriminate against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. In practice, this would victimize bisexuals and homosexuals. It would not require companies to give equal employee benefits to all workers, regardless of sexual orientation. The bill would not be retroactive.

Many opponents of ENDA are either hopelessly misinformed or intentionally lie about the bill's precise contents. It is worth noting that the bill will protect the rights of heterosexual and bisexual workers as well as gays and lesbians.

from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_empl2.htm

Support yes but probaly when it comes to a vote I doubt Hillary or Obama want to piss off their conservative democratic supporters or look like loony liberals by Repubs.

They will do neither. The political consensus is on their side.

Some states do have employment discrimination protection, as per this image. Unfortunately my own beloved state is the most backwards among our Great Lakes neighbors.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2007.svg/800px-US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2007.svg.png

In 1994, a stripped-down version of the bill was introduced to Congress; it had limited range, guaranteeing only freedom from discrimination in employment. It was called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, and was widely viewed as a bill supported only by the fantasies of liberals in the Democratic party. It also did not progress.


Meaning that ENDA has no teeth.

Democrats love talking Bulls**t about how their going to help people but it was Bill Clinton who passed the Defense of marriage act. The Dems are at best week and spineless when it comes to rights and at worst they totally agree with Republicans. I bet over half of the Democrats in congress would have supported the Federal Marraige Amendment.

And take it to another level thats why they supported NAFTA and welfare reform.

it's a big place run on a federal system with a lot of backward areas. i'd say a minimum of 20 years to get the whole place sorted on that issue.

How long do you think it will be until gays have full rights in the US including but not limited to; serving openly in the military, marriage, and laws against employment/workplace discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation?

It's probably gonna take twenty years. All the old religious nuts who want to "kill teh fagz" will hopefully have died out by then. :)

I feel bad for GLBTQ people south of the border because if they ever achieve full equality, it'll take ages. Why the pessimism? Because all those hardcore right-wing nutters who guard their privileged pedastal so jealously are themselves not the whole of the problem. They're busy home-schooling their kids (which they pop out like rabbits, given their disdain for birth control and disobedient women) and indoctrinating them in their hate for queers. And those kids are being raised to eat, drink and breathe domination over politics and society. So yes, it's lovely that all those hateful old bastards are going to grey and dissappear, and things may move somewhat "left," towards equality and fairness and justice, but there won't be some great overnight shift. It'll continue to be a long, drawn-out, bitter struggle because a lot of the people who are in power-- and who are grooming their successors to inherit their power-- hate 'fags.' Not 'disrespect,' not 'dislike;' hate. That doesn't just dissappear with a graduating class. It's still going to take decades of fighting to sever that twisted knot of hate that they carry around and pass down. Make no mistake, they feel no remorse or recriminations about their hate-- no doubts or guilt-- they think that it's *right.* They think their hatred is good and just and legitimate and they think it pleases 'the almighty.' If they can be reasoned with at all, it'll take a LONG time.

So how long will it be before people stop calling it 'gay marriage' and just call it 'marriage'?

Nevar!

I feel bad for GLBTQ people south of the border because if they ever achieve full equality, it'll take ages. Why the pessimism? Because all those hardcore right-wing nutters who guard their privileged pedastal so jealously are themselves not the whole of the problem. They're busy home-schooling their kids (which they pop out like rabbits, given their disdain for birth control and disobedient women) and indoctrinating them in their hate for queers. And those kids are being raised to eat, drink and breathe domination over politics and society. So yes, it's lovely that all those hateful old bastards are going to grey and dissappear, and things may move somewhat "left," towards equality and fairness and justice, but there won't be some great overnight shift. It'll continue to be a long, drawn-out, bitter struggle because a lot of the people who are in power-- and who are grooming their successors to inherit their power-- hate 'fags.' Not 'disrespect,' not 'dislike;' hate. That doesn't just dissappear with a graduating class. It's still going to take decades of fighting to sever that twisted knot of hate that they carry around and pass down. Make no mistake, they feel no remorse or recriminations about their hate-- no doubts or guilt-- they think that it's *right.* They think their hatred is good and just and legitimate and they think it pleases 'the almighty.' If they can be reasoned with at all, it'll take a LONG time.

Unfortunately, I gotta agree with the GSM.

I feel bad for GLBTQ people south of the border because if they ever achieve full equality, it'll take ages. Why the pessimism? Because all those hardcore right-wing nutters who guard their privileged pedastal so jealously are themselves not the whole of the problem. They're busy home-schooling their kids (which they pop out like rabbits, given their disdain for birth control and disobedient women) and indoctrinating them in their hate for queers. And those kids are being raised to eat, drink and breathe domination over politics and society. So yes, it's lovely that all those hateful old bastards are going to grey and dissappear, and things may move somewhat "left," towards equality and fairness and justice, but there won't be some great overnight shift. It'll continue to be a long, drawn-out, bitter struggle because a lot of the people who are in power-- and who are grooming their successors to inherit their power-- hate 'fags.' Not 'disrespect,' not 'dislike;' hate. That doesn't just dissappear with a graduating class. It's still going to take decades of fighting to sever that twisted knot of hate that they carry around and pass down. Make no mistake, they feel no remorse or recriminations about their hate-- no doubts or guilt-- they think that it's *right.* They think their hatred is good and just and legitimate and they think it pleases 'the almighty.' If they can be reasoned with at all, it'll take a LONG time.

While I agree that we're not going to see any overnight changes, I don't really share your pessimism. Sure, there are jackasses out there who really hate anything that deviates from their perception of the norm, but the real obstacle to progress for gay rights isn't the Fred Phelpses of the world, but the average Joes who just sorta have this gut sense that guys weren't meant to date other guys - and their opinions, thank goodness, are eminently changeable. My own experience in Massachusetts was enough to demonstrate this. The legalization of gay marriage, when it came about a few years ago, was very much protested, but most of that opposition has already melted away into apathy. Sure, there's still a few holdouts, but most people, when presented with a fait accompli, figured out that society hadn't come to an end, their churches weren't being forced to marry gay people, and, in short, it wasn't something they particularly needed to worry about.

Now, Massachusetts is about as liberal as American states come, so it went through this process faster than most, but I anticipate the same general progression of events across the country. It'll be a long time indeed before we get rid of all the crazy gay-haters, but I don't think it will be nearly so long before they're marginalized into insignificance. There are still kids today being brought up to believe that interracial marriage is dirty and icky, but when's the last time you heard of anyone taking such an opinion particularly seriously? :)

Well, I'm a cynic and really don't see it happening any time soon in America. Especially with the overwhelming majorities against it in certain states. And that legislators are too much of pussies to vote for it. Sure, they'll vote against a ban...but nothing else really.

How long do you think it will be until gays have full rights in the US including but not limited to; serving openly in the military, marriage, and laws against employment/workplace discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation?
Hey dude, aren't you a Muslim? And thus opposed to gays full stop?

Hey dude, aren't you a Muslim? And thus opposed to gays full stop?

In case you didn't notice, my opinion was not interjected one way or the other in the OP. I simply asked a question for people to discuss.

Hey dude, aren't you a Muslim? And thus opposed to gays full stop?

You know that brings up and interesting discussion I had with a fairly large group of Muslims at a party. The majority were saying they were Democrats and none of them mentioned they were Republicans. I then said that you all support a party that promotes Gay rights and abortion rights? I recieved a rather puzzling look from most. Really they didn't have an answer and the topic was changed.

Most Muslims would be classified as conservative thinking and values if you were to catagorize them as either Republican or Democrat. However they tend to vote Democrat which I find interesting. Anyway just wanted to mention this bit of observation on my part.

You know that brings up and interesting discussion I had with a fairly large group of Muslims at a party. The majority were saying they were Democrats and none of them mentioned they were Republicans. I then said that you all support a party that promotes Gay rights and abortion rights? I recieved a rather puzzling look from most. Really they didn't have an answer and the topic was changed.

Most Muslims would be classified as conservative thinking and values if you were to catagorize them as either Republican or Democrat. However they tend to vote Democrat which I find interesting. Anyway just wanted to mention this bit of observation on my part.

I think a lot has to do with the fact Democrats tend to push Christian influences in public less and also are more in line with most Muslims in terms of the war on terror and the issue of Palestine.

They have more than enough rights. In fact they have more rights than is equal. Wtf is Q...

They have more than enough rights.

Why?

In fact they have more rights than is equal.

Not by a conception of "equality" that takes into account difference.

By your logic, "brown hair cannot be shown in public" is a law that treats brown-haired people and non-brown-haired people equally.

Wtf is Q...

Queer or Questioning.

Silly people. We in the U.S. have a proud and dignified history of stomping on the rights of other people, especially those of questionable moral character according to the infallible nature of the Bible. To think that we would ever pause to consider the ideas of equal rights for the GLBTQ community is laughable. We do not think. We are America! We are right b/c we say so! And because our military industrial complex is willing to keep that ideal in place. :p

This thread has given me much laughter, but I think we all agree that it is time for the charade of "equal rights" to end. We are herrenvolk society, establishing equality amongst people of one group based on inequality of various groups of people. ;)

They have more than enough rights. In fact they have more rights than is equal. Wtf is Q...

Out of curiosity, how do you figure that?

How long do you think it will be until gays have full rights in the US including but not limited to; serving openly in the military, marriage, and laws against employment/workplace discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation?

Probably about 25 years...most of the baby boomers should be dead by then, and I'm betting the country as a whole will be a lot better off.

You know that brings up and interesting discussion I had with a fairly large group of Muslims at a party. The majority were saying they were Democrats and none of them mentioned they were Republicans. I then said that you all support a party that promotes Gay rights and abortion rights? I recieved a rather puzzling look from most. Really they didn't have an answer and the topic was changed.
They probably didn't have an opinion because the question was bullshit. Plenty of Democratic politicians don't support abortion rights any more or any less than plenty of Republican politicians. As for gay rights, only one of the Democrats currently seeking the presidency has any amount of balls on the issue and most in the House and Senate try to ignore the issue.

As for the OP, I wouldn't be surprised if we never have gay rights.