Tide turning in the USA?
 

It must be a significant moment during any long, bitterly fought campaign on any issue when a significant proponent of the side which supports the traditional, previously widely-held, view openly admits that their opponents are now prevailing and the tide is therefore turning.

"Focus on the Family" advocates what it calls a Christian interpretation of marriage, meaning one man and one woman in union for life with the purpose of raising children born from their own wedlock. Its CEO, Jim Daly, is pessimistic about the state of affairs from his organisation's point of view according to [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/05/24/us-anti-gay-campaigner-were-losing-on-gay-marriage/"]this article[/URL] in pinknews.co.uk :

[QUOTE]Focus on the Family backs anti-gay marriage campaigns and lobbies politicians to support “traditional marriage”.
Daly told World magazine: “We’re losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favour same-sex marriage.
“I don’t know if that’s going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We’ve probably lost that. I don’t want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.”
[/QUOTE]

The younger generation (20-30 somethings) has an entirely different attitude about sex than mine (getting towards 50), with categories like "friends wtih priveleges". IMO, Effective birth control does this, and so does the relatively easy and safe environment children now grow up in. [Children now no longer die of diseases or accidents with any great frequency, this was not true in 1930]

[QUOTE=Christenson;262353]The younger generation (20-30 somethings) has an entirely different attitude about sex than mine (getting towards 50), with categories like "friends wtih priveleges". IMO, Effective birth control does this, and so does the relatively easy and safe environment children now grow up in. [Children now no longer die of diseases or accidents with any great frequency, this was not true in 1930][/QUOTE]
This is all undoubtedly true. But I also believe that on the issue being discussed, same sex marriage, attitudes have been changing out of all recognition in just the last several years in the USA, and in the most progressive countries of all the last 15 years at most. So I think this change significantly post-dates the changes that you refer to.

Any good suggestions as to why, beyond that in about 1970, as I was growing up, racial discrimination was no longer acceptable? Remember Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott getting tossed largely because of her racial intolerance in the 1980s?

My best guess about the reason why the change is so rapid now, is that the internet now dominates the developed world and most people in democratic countries now have access to uncensored information.

Before that was true, the most dominant news medium was possibly the television, with newpapers and radio also dominant. All these media were subject to strong bias in what they reported, whether they thought they were or not. Religious dogma, in particular, prevailed and religious leaders had a very strong influence over what sort of information people had easy access to - meaning what would happen to be in front of their eyes when they settled down on their sofa and relaxed rather than taking any trouble to find out about anything.

In that environment, homosexuality was relegated in most people's minds to the status of (1) nothing to do with them or anyone they knew, (2) a subject which ought not to be discussed, and (3) a sordid sexual perversion. This was the message that mainstream organised religion (which has plenty of primetime media coverage) was giving them, and genuine information about sexual diversity was not something which was to hand if you did not take the trouble to look for it.

With the internet growing up and actually becoming the dominant form of media and communication, the subtle repressive censorship which was in place before is no longer there - except in schools for example when they see fit to place internet filters. So now the previously dominant religious dogma no longer gets a free ride. Now more and more people are learning that lesbians and gay men form some 5-10% of the world's population, fall in love and form relationships just like nearly everyone, and have been - up until now - unaccountably excluded from the right that everyone else has to have their relationships recognised by the state.

Hey, did you notice that the change has hit the thread title, too!!!!! Someone with a sense of humor is trying hard to make me lose my frown......

[QUOTE=Christenson;262744]Hey, did you notice that the change has hit the thread title, too!!!!! Someone with a sense of humor is trying hard to make me lose my frown......[/QUOTE]This forum's admin and moderators take care of it like no other forum I've ever experienced. :-)

The American Psychological Association [URL="http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/marriage/story/2011/08/Citing-new-research-psychology-group-supports-gay-marriage/49798054/1"]has just reaffirmed[/URL], in its strongest terms to date, support for opening marriage to same sex couples. The vote was a unanimous 157-0, and new research was cited along with increasing experience with equal marriage rights.

How significant is this for the prospects for full marriage equality in the United States? (And elsewhere, given the international reputation of the organisation.) Can the APA make inroads into the grip which fundamentalist religious and conservative groups have on policy making and public opinion?

Marriage
 

[QUOTE=Brian-E;268424]The American Psychological Association [URL="http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/marriage/story/2011/08/Citing-new-research-psychology-group-supports-gay-marriage/49798054/1"]has just reaffirmed[/URL], in its strongest terms to date, support for opening marriage to same sex couples. The vote was a unanimous 157-0, and new research was cited along with increasing experience with equal marriage rights.

How significant is this for the prospects for full marriage equality in the United States? (And elsewhere, given the international reputation of the organisation.) Can the APA make inroads into the grip which fundamentalist religious and conservative groups have on policy making and public opinion?[/QUOTE]

Dear Brian,
You know I love you (maybe even more than I do my ex-wife),
but at the risk of returning to type, or repeating myself:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBMEFxEhu_8"]It's a Legal Matter[/URL]

David
x

Dear Brian,

Ignore the fundamentalists. In America, you have to deal with the *mainstream* religionists and conservatives, who make up a much larger portion of the population than the fundamentalists.

My feeling is that the APA statement will have little to no effect, either on the conversation or the ultimate decision of states or courts. Those who oppose gay marriage do not do so based on beliefs about the mental state of the GLBTQ crowd, but on what marriage fundamentally is and why the government is involved. See for example [url]http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102279285913-6/GGA+-+What+is+Marriage.pdf[/url]

Instead, I think that the ultimate question to be decided will be by the Supreme Court. It will be whether homosexuality is given suspect classification. If it is, all laws against gay marriage will be thrown out. If it isn't, they will stand.

My views are distorted because I live in the liberal Northeastern part of the United States, but while I agree with Zetaflux that the APA statement will have little effect, I disagree about why. In my view, Gay Marriage is an unstoppable movement that will pick up more and more adherents every year until opposition becomes as unsupportable as opposition to marriage between races seems today - a view that still had measurable support in my youth. The APA has jumped onto a bandwagon that is already rolling - they are more a symptom of the changes that are happening rather than a cause of the changes.

For those who doubt - who believe the resistance will remain intractable, I ask - of all people you know who have changed their opinion on this matter, how many changed from support to opposition?

As further evidence, the early successes in this area were all in the courts, but New York State now has Gay Marriage through the legislature, a much stronger indication of how the people really feel. Yes, New York is not typical, but the first place to swing far enough wasn't likely to be typical.