Where now?

[Asariond]

Looking at the legislation of Great Britain, it's dangerous to fall into the trap of thinking that same-sex marriage is the be-all and end-all of LGBT rights. Here we have protections against employment, housing, service, and all kinds of LGBT discrimination, and such protections don't exist in every US state - you can marry your same-sex partner and then legally be fired on the basis that you have a same-sex partner. There need to be laws that make such things impossible.
There's also the fact that legislative rights aren't the finite end of any civil rights movement at all. Societal attitudes towards homosexuals need to be normalised before the gay rights movement can said to have been a success; until gay people can walk down the street holding hands with their partner and not be judged or feel intimidated for doing something so simple, there's still a ways to go. This is to say nothing of the mass struggles facing Trans* individuals, who are still poorly understood by too many people.
As for the marriage struggle, though, I suspect the next country to go for it will either be Germany or Australia.

 

[Regumika]

Too bad. A person such as a county clerk, cannot refuse service along the lines that it violates their religious views because they're executing an action of the state/city/municipalitiy, i.e, the awarding of the marriage license to the gay couple, and to not do so along religious lines/personal belief is discriminatory, among other things. We do not reside in a theocracy, so the "religious exemption" argument in this circumstance holds very little weight and is not an expression of speech either. What the bible says is irrelevant to what the interpretation of the law actually is under the ruling in Obergefell v Hodges and what the 14th Amendment has to say in this context.

Regardless of reality, I am amused by your attitude. Too bad? "I'm LGBT and I love... TOO BAD."

Somehow I don't think that LGBT people having anger over legislative or societal injustice can be equated to, idk, a needy kid wanting toys or whatever.

I guess we'll see in 5 years how much pride people will have for identifying themselves as LGBT. Which really makes me wonder though (since I don't follow most of the world events), what movements/rights have passed in the last 15 years that people have always wanted and now received? How prominent in media are they now? Do people still talk about it? It's still a natural human behavior to lose that momentum once they have gotten what they want.

 

[Asariond]

I guess we'll see in 5 years how much pride people will have for identifying themselves as LGBT. Which really makes me wonder though (since I don't follow most of the world events), what movements/rights have passed in the last 15 years that people have always wanted and now received? How prominent in media are they now? Do people still talk about it? It's still a natural human behavior to lose that momentum once they have gotten what they want.

The entire point of any rights movement is to normalise the existence of a particular minority. In an ideal world, gay pride wouldn't exist in any form; it wouldn't be a thing that's notable or remarkable. But in reality (which, by the way, you always have to attend to) we've been oppressed and persecuted in the majority of societies for the majority of history. Pride is a way of promoting and reinforcing visibility and confidence in a community that has historically never had these things. When and if the day comes when the confidence of LGBT* individuals is a norm, there will indeed be no need for pride - and that will be a good thing. It's not so much that we as a community would simply get bored of, you know, being treated like human beings, and that certainly isn't anything resembling vanity. It's simply that our rights will become something that we no longer have to fight for, and something that's so commonplace that it doesn't need to be special anymore.

 

[Her]

I guess we'll see in 5 years how much pride people will have for identifying themselves as LGBT. Which really makes me wonder though (since I don't follow most of the world events), what movements/rights have passed in the last 15 years that people have always wanted and now received? How prominent in media are they now? Do people still talk about it? It's still a natural human behavior to lose that momentum once they have gotten what they want.

Well yeah, people generally don't consistently talk about getting something a long time after they have got it, lol. You're missing the point, though - the LGBT movement was not about 'gay marriage', which is what many people have been making it out to be. If people start treating it as over now that gays and lesbians can marry, then it fucks over everyone else in the movement.

 

[Livewire]

Regardless of reality, I am amused by your attitude. Too bad? "I'm LGBT and I love... TOO BAD."

I'm sure you can find other social issues to be backwards, ill-informed and prejudiced about. It's just too bad the Obergefell ruling secures the right for LGBT people to marry, and no amount of circular, poor reasoning and your "god is love, well unless you're gay" argument is going to change any of that.

 

[Esper]

I guess we'll see in 5 years how much pride people will have for identifying themselves as LGBT. Which really makes me wonder though (since I don't follow most of the world events), what movements/rights have passed in the last 15 years that people have always wanted and now received? How prominent in media are they now? Do people still talk about it? It's still a natural human behavior to lose that momentum once they have gotten what they want.

There are lots of movements that have been around for years, but lots of them receive partial acceptance and that causes a lot of people who had fought for or supported those movements to leave, and for society and the media to claim that the movement is mostly done, accomplished its goals, no longer necessary, etc. Thinking of civil rights as a good example. There are still problems of racial inequality, but if you asked a random white person in America if they thought there was a need for more racial equality you would get a lot of people saying "no" and pointing to the changes in law in the 60s that repealed lots of bad laws. And these random white people would also say they believe in equality, that white and black people are equal so it's not like they'd be overtly racist or anything. But the core group of people, the people most affected by the inequality, they'll still be around, still trying to get to that place of real equality and acceptance. With civil rights these are the black people who still face discrimination and violence today. With the LGBT movement in the future it's perhaps going to be the gay, white men in America who will be completely accepted and will stop fighting, but what about people who are bi, trans, or gay and Muslim, gay and autistic, or otherwise not as easily accepted by mainstream America? The white gay men will have a voice, a face, and acceptance, and the rest of society will look to them and say "See? They're accepted. Everything's good now." All while there are still people who face discrimination.

 

[twocows]

I don't know of any instances of queer people attacking straight people (which would certainly make the right-wing news media). Unless you mean like verbal attacks over the internet. That, I'm sure, has happened already, as every group and position has its radicals and the internet being what it is. To my knowledge though the opposite still happens. There are still instances of, particularly, trans people being attacked. To say nothing of things happening in non-western countries.

I know there has to be mending between progressive and conservative/traditionalist, but as queer people have been and often still are the victims it feels kind of galling to ask queer people to be nice and normal and polite. I know it's about being the better person, trying to do what's right, and thinking about the future, but if, say, a gay person feels bitter still I'm not gonna fault them for that.

I don't think radicalizing is likely to happen. It's been less and less radical as time goes by. Pride parades were once used to protest and commemorate people who died from AIDS, now it's a big party with corporate sponsors.

I think the people above me have explained my feelings on this, but nonetheless:



While I somewhat agree with the assimilation tactic, the onus shouldn't be on LGBT people to respect those who have oppressive attitudes. Being polite does nothing.



Speaking from a New Zealand perspective, homosexuals and lesbians are more or less now given the same legal rights as everyone else. I'm not aware of any current legislation that prohibits them, and if there is, it will most likely be dealt with by 2016/17. From a cultural perspective, the LGB still have societal hurdles to climb over, but that will happen in time. Where my issue lies is with transgender people, and those I most closely relate to, transgender women. There is almost zero medical and cultural support for transgender people here, a phenomenon echoed throughout many countries where people see same-sex marriage as the pinnacle of the LGBT movement, especially in places where it is coined the 'gay rights movement' instead.
Legal support for transgender people here is also dubious, as there is yet to be a definitive ruling on how gender identity is protected here. All this only continues to add to the higher suicide rate in the LGBT community, particularly those of transgender people. This is on top of NZ already having one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

So, I think there is still a fair bit to go.



Well, I mean, it is a civil rights movement, after all. If one feels subjugated, then liberation is the natural term to use.

I don't mean so much hostile to them as hostile to their politics. There's a difference between hating a person and disliking a point that they've made.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

As for the marriage struggle, though, I suspect the next country to go for it will either be Germany or Australia.

With our current Prime Minister, I doubt our chances. The recent rulings in Ireland and the USA are definitely forcing the topic on Parliament, however with the majority of Coalition members still opposed to same sex marriage, if a bill came to parliament to be voted on now chances are it would be rejected.

If the government were to do the right thing and put a referendum to the people to vote, it would most likely pass since polls have shown that as many as 70% of Australians believe it should be legalised. Even if this number is over optimistic, it still looks like a clear majority.

Sadly, until 2004 the 1961 Marriage Act had no specific definition of marriage, which was then altered to include the words "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." In addition to this, same-sex marriages conducted in countries outside of Australia will not be recognised in Australia as marriages (if they were, people would just take a quick flight over to NZ).

That being said, while painfully behind the USA in marriage equally, we do at least have federal anti-discrimination law (introduced in 2013 - still a bit slow to it, mind you) that protects sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. This act of course mentions the exclusion of the marriage act as unlawful discrimination.

A number of others have mentioned that the rights of LGBT+ varies across the USA, with protections being dictated by state law. The image below is a Wikipedia image that is a nice visual example and the fight for federal anti-discrimination law is definitely the next step for the LGBT+ movement in the USA (in my opinion).


LGBT employment discrimination law in the United States [Public domain], by Fortuynist (en:US LGBT civil rights August 2008.png + updates.), from Wikimedia Commons

Legend:
Dark purple: Sexual orientation and gender identity: all employment
Lilac: Sexual orientation with anti–employment discrimination ordinance and gender identity solely in public employment
Dark blue: Sexual orientation: all employment
Pink: Sexual orientation and gender identity: state employment
Light blue: Sexual orientation: state employment
Grey: No state-level protection for LGBT employees