3 ms·

This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper reducti

This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper reduction after federal legalization. States that weren't moving towards legalization only dug in their heels and had increased bias after federal legalization. Looks like another case of the government trying to speak for everyone with a one-size-fits-all solution and only serving to polarize people further. "Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization."

ThirdFoundation 7y ago
The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias. It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.
  - ThirdFoundation 7y ago
    Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also. No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance. I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.

ThirdFoundation 7y ago

The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.

rossdavidh 7y ago
True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias. It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.
- ThirdFoundation 7y ago
  Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also. No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance. I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.