I wanted to watch this sooner, and it was totally worth going back for it.
I think that's what most angers me about the defenders of "traditional marriage", and the gall they have of plastering couples of different ethnicities on their website banners. They either don't know about the court cases that made their unions legal or, as I suspect, conveniently forget. SCOTUS cases are fascinating in that respect -- the decisions in their contemporary era are viewed as infringement of the "people's will", but decades later people (including these "traditionalists") go "Well, no DUH people from different backgrounds can marry! Except these gay people! They're the real problem!"
I'm impatient for the day when children wonder why their ancestors were so dumb, and why it took them so long to let their parents marry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 07:34 am (UTC)I think that's what most angers me about the defenders of "traditional marriage", and the gall they have of plastering couples of different ethnicities on their website banners. They either don't know about the court cases that made their unions legal or, as I suspect, conveniently forget. SCOTUS cases are fascinating in that respect -- the decisions in their contemporary era are viewed as infringement of the "people's will", but decades later people (including these "traditionalists") go "Well, no DUH people from different backgrounds can marry! Except these gay people! They're the real problem!"
I'm impatient for the day when children wonder why their ancestors were so dumb, and why it took them so long to let their parents marry.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: