4 ms·

Normalization was always the concern for both those for and against same sex marriage. It was never about the benefits or the sanctity, not really.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Sure, gays who got thrown out into the street after their lifelong partner died and the parents inherited the house weren't bothered by that in the least. Keeping the house was never one of their goals. (Does this need a sarcasm tag? Or can people figure that out on their own?)
- intopieces 7y ago
  The problem you mentioned did not require marriage per se, it just made it easier. Inheritance and visitation and all the legal stuff could have been conferred by domestic partnership. Marriage, in this case, was somewhat besides the point. Normalization has a much greater impact than property rights.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Many years ago, I read an interesting article about an idealistic young hetero couple cohabiting. They chose to have a baby together. The guy began saying "My wife and I just had a baby" so people would actually congratulate him. When he said "My girlfriend just had a baby" people were all "Oh, sorry, dude. That sucks." Trying to arrange health coverage, wills and a zillion other things involved jumping through so many hoops they were considering getting married because a lot of those things would be automatic or vastly easier if they were married. Normalization isn't insignificant. Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage.
    - intopieces 7y ago
      >Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage. None of those rights have meaning without normalization. I think of this, sometimes, when I consider moving out of California. My husband was in the hospital once. I wasn't sure he was conscious or not; I had to tell the receptionist who I was to find out what room he was in. He didn't think twice, I was able to proceed without incident. Would the same have happened if I lived in rural Texas? Sure, marriage is legal everywhere for us. The law is on our side. But the law doesn't mean anything if the people standing between you and your husband don't respect it.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        You need normalization to exercise those rights as effectively as possible. Certainly, prejudice can mean there is a difference between theoretical de juris outcomes and de facto actual outcomes. But normalization without those rights still leaves you unable to do a lot of things. It leaves you with "You can't visit your husband in the hospital because policy says family only and the law says you aren't family, even though no one here is a homophobe. We still can't let you through because we can get fired for breaking the rules." You need both things to enjoy a high quality of life. I don't know why you are arguing otherwise. Rights without social cooperation certainly hampers your ability to exercise those rights, but social cooperation without rights is still a big problem. I could see someone taking the position that normalization implies having the same rights as a baseline starting point. But I cannot see arguing that normalization is more important than legal rights and legal rights were never the point. I will add the article in question indicates legalizing it is helping to normalize it. Rights are not some insignificant detail, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Gibbon1 7y ago
That was my opinion 10-15 years ago. Which was despite what the professional fainting goats left claimed the best thing to do about gay marriage was a full court press to force it through after which the issue would just quickly disappear.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Sure, gays who got thrown out into the street after their lifelong partner died and the parents inherited the house weren't bothered by that in the least. Keeping the house was never one of their goals. (Does this need a sarcasm tag? Or can people figure that out on their own?)

intopieces 7y ago
The problem you mentioned did not require marriage per se, it just made it easier. Inheritance and visitation and all the legal stuff could have been conferred by domestic partnership. Marriage, in this case, was somewhat besides the point. Normalization has a much greater impact than property rights.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Many years ago, I read an interesting article about an idealistic young hetero couple cohabiting. They chose to have a baby together. The guy began saying "My wife and I just had a baby" so people would actually congratulate him. When he said "My girlfriend just had a baby" people were all "Oh, sorry, dude. That sucks." Trying to arrange health coverage, wills and a zillion other things involved jumping through so many hoops they were considering getting married because a lot of those things would be automatic or vastly easier if they were married. Normalization isn't insignificant. Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage.
  - intopieces 7y ago
    >Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage. None of those rights have meaning without normalization. I think of this, sometimes, when I consider moving out of California. My husband was in the hospital once. I wasn't sure he was conscious or not; I had to tell the receptionist who I was to find out what room he was in. He didn't think twice, I was able to proceed without incident. Would the same have happened if I lived in rural Texas? Sure, marriage is legal everywhere for us. The law is on our side. But the law doesn't mean anything if the people standing between you and your husband don't respect it.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      You need normalization to exercise those rights as effectively as possible. Certainly, prejudice can mean there is a difference between theoretical de juris outcomes and de facto actual outcomes. But normalization without those rights still leaves you unable to do a lot of things. It leaves you with "You can't visit your husband in the hospital because policy says family only and the law says you aren't family, even though no one here is a homophobe. We still can't let you through because we can get fired for breaking the rules." You need both things to enjoy a high quality of life. I don't know why you are arguing otherwise. Rights without social cooperation certainly hampers your ability to exercise those rights, but social cooperation without rights is still a big problem. I could see someone taking the position that normalization implies having the same rights as a baseline starting point. But I cannot see arguing that normalization is more important than legal rights and legal rights were never the point. I will add the article in question indicates legalizing it is helping to normalize it. Rights are not some insignificant detail, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Gibbon1 7y ago

That was my opinion 10-15 years ago. Which was despite what the professional fainting goats left claimed the best thing to do about gay marriage was a full court press to force it through after which the issue would just quickly disappear.