Really? Do you think the Union should have waited for states to come around about segregation? I don't see this as significantly different.States sanction discrimination all over the place and the feds don't get involved, and nor should they.
Uh, I think you are mixing terms, so I'm confused. The Union is usually used in opposition to The Confederacy and their essential argument was about the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Segregation was a Democrat enacted set of laws usually known as Jim Crow in the South or just "the law" in the North. AFAIK, legal segregation wasn't as big a deal out West, but I'd not be shocked if that wasn't just my lack of historical knowledge. I think if you sat down and made an honest list of the similarities and differences between Jim Crow style discrimination and prohibitions against same-sex marriage you'd see how different they were. -XC PS - Other forms of discrimination practiced by states: drinking laws, voting laws, property ownership laws, divorce laws, parental rights laws, right to open a business, etc, etc. All discrimination, all not federalized.
I have little doubt. But I see the effect upon same-sex couples as meaningful enough for the Federal government to clarify the Law-of-the-Land. Yeah, some State laws preserve the State's interests and represent the will of their residents, and that's all well and good. But some run counter to our rights as US citizens. It's a complicated mess for sure. -It's a great out for politicians on the stump though.Uh, I think you are mixing terms, so I'm confused. The Union is usually used in opposition to The Confederacy and their essential argument was about the expansion of slavery into the western territories.
Sorry, up here we occasionally use it to refer to all of us States. Coney Island is also a chili-covered hotdog. :) -Note to self if I run for President.I think if you sat down and made an honest list of the similarities and differences between Jim Crow style discrimination and prohibitions against same-sex marriage you'd see how different they were.
PS - Other forms of discrimination practiced by states: drinking laws, voting laws, property ownership laws, divorce laws, parental rights laws, right to open a business, etc, etc. All discrimination, all not federalized.
I predict it will be much lower than that since "gay" is a spectrum across LGBTU and some of those categorizations will be net zero for various reasons. Some may be higher than average but it probably won't make up for the others. I also predict that once the furor dies down and "pop culture" focuses someplace different we'll also see a significant drop in self reported "gayness." Without any anecdotes to even masquerade as facts, I think the truly gay portion of the population is much lower than we see today for a variety of reasons. -XC
Probably higher because there is a significant stigma attached to being gay in the aggregate both in this country and across the globe. I know many gay people, including family, and I can tell you that zero have benefited from a social or professional standpoint by being gay, while 100% of them have experienced at least social trauma and the inability to even communicate who they were to those around them for a significant chunk of their lives due to fear (of many things, rejection, abuse, being cut off, religious persecution, etc). It's getting better but it's still a problem. When being gay is used as one of the number one insults throughout childhood, and a major part of our population is religiously opposed while nearly half of all citizens are behind legislative and proactive defining away of their right to marry, and across the globe in some of the most populous societies on Earth it is actually a crime, people, understandably, aren't eager to identify as gay when they are not, and gay people stay in the closet and unreported as a result. I don't know one gay person that wasn't closeted at some point. No way are they over-reporting on the balance.I think the truly gay portion of the population is much lower than we see today for a variety of reasons.
Stats 101. As long as the sample size is statistically significant, a well constructed survey will report accurately compared to a complete census. No need to ask every single individual on a census.They aren't surveying the general population or doing a census to get the 4% (or 5%) number - it's calculated by sample.