if the SCOTUS holds gay marriage to be a constitutional right

[© tweed]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

[Sopranos Republican]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

No, there are some areas of this country which will treat them cruelly and will try to find ways to deny them the right to marry.

[Benj]

Anti-discrimination laws are still a major issue. Most states lack some or all protections from LGBT individuals in housing, employment, public accommodation, etc., and there's no federal law protecting us, either.

And it's not at all clear that some states will acknowledge the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage immediately, either. See what North Dakota and Arkansas are doing on abortion in direct defiance of the Supreme Court.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No. Marriage is one of the simpler issues within the remit of LGBT activism, comparatively speaking.

[© tweed]

No. Marriage is one of the simpler issues within the remit of LGBT activism, comparatively speaking.

such is why it so easily catches the major narratives -- and so in lies my main point.  there will always be the diehards, not always a virus on the campuses.

[The Mikado]

A national Employee Non-Discrimination Act would probably be the capper for combating de jure discrimination, not marriage equality.

[k-onmmunist]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

only from the liberal legalistic standpoint. gay marriage is low on the agenda for those who aren't middle class, and there's still rampant violence against lgbt people and a massive suicide rate (the average life expectancy of a trans youth is 23 btw)

[Blue3]

There is still legal discrimination against gay people in several states, and the federal government, on:
*immigration
*adoption
*employment
*housing
*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

This one does have a rational basis.  The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population.  The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.

[Brittain33]

*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

This one does have a rational basis.  The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population.  The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.

How reliable is testing of donated blood for HIV?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

This one does have a rational basis.  The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population.  The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.

How reliable is testing of donated blood for HIV?

Not 100%  The estimated level of increase in infection rates of going from a lifetime ban to a ban on those having male gay sex within the last year is quite small, small enough that one can argue that the increased availability of blood products is worth the risk.

However, it takes from 2 to 4 weeks after being infected before testing can detect that fact, so a ban on the donations of those who currently are MSMs makes good sense.  The only question is how recently one must have engaged in male-to-male sex to be considered to be currently an MSM.  Lifetime is too long IMO, 1 year is probably sufficient, but anything under 3 months would be foolhardy.

[Torie]

Ernest is correct as to the above. I know because I was tested for HIV a couple of weeks ago, and asked a lot of questions. Yes, Grumps and opebo, I tested negative, thanks for asking.

[Sol]

No. Marriage is one of the simpler issues within the remit of LGBT activism, comparatively speaking.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I sympathize with Tweed on this issue.  I could go without the worst parts of LGBT activism (the pontificating, the effeminate "I'm here, I'm queer, I'm gonna wash your light fixtures and shampoo your carpets!" parts of it)

But I'm not attracted to effeminate men.  I feel like that'd be settling for a cheap knock off of a catty woman who happens to have a penis.  But I have the same negative opinion of effeminate straight men.

But deep down I guess I'm bigoted like the best of them.  And if you really just wanna come over to clean my light fixtures and shampoo my carpet... well, bless you.  Perhaps there will be homemade pineapple upside down cake and a cup of high quality coffee waiting for you.

In all seriousness:  It's not the end of activism... but I do think there has been a paradigm shift in acceptance of gays and lesbians, at the very least.  There is still a lot of work for the other letters of the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ spectrum.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

                        ^^^^^^!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The other issues mentioned above are probably more important, but opposition to them isn't nearly as strong or deep.

[Nutmeg]

*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

This one does have a rational basis.  The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population.  The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.

It's not really homosexual sex that's the issue, is it, but rather unprotected sex with unknown partners, no? Heterosexuals who have had random hookups and/or unprotected sex are more likely to spread disease than are monogamous homosexuals.

So it's an irrational policy.

[All Along The Watchtower]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Who is "we" in this case?

[Ban my account ffs!]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Who is "we" in this case?

Tweed and the trusty turd in his pocket.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Well the T in LGBT wouldn't really benefit much from such a ruling.  They already feel marginalized by many LGBT activists, so I think there will definitely remain activism from that aspect.

[Brittain33]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Well the T in LGBT wouldn't really benefit much from such a ruling.  They already feel marginalized by many LGBT activists, so I think there will definitely remain activism from that aspect.

Yes, transgender rights are 25-30 years behind gay rights and there is so much to be done.

[Benj]

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

Well the T in LGBT wouldn't really benefit much from such a ruling.  They already feel marginalized by many LGBT activists, so I think there will definitely remain activism from that aspect.

They would certainly benefit, albeit somewhat less. There are significant problems at the moment for trans* individuals who marry because of existing marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. In many states, a legal sex change is difficult or impossible, so marrying someone of the same sex as their birth sex is never possible. Many courts have refused to recognize such marriages. Additionally, some courts have refused to recognize marriages between two people who were of different sexes at the time of marriage but one of whom later had a legal sex change.

I suppose it's also worth pointing out that, to the extent such labels apply, LGBs are way overrepresented among the trans* population compared to the cis* population (i.e., a much larger portion of the trans* population is attracted to the same sex as their identified gender than among the general population, and an additional larger portion consider themselves attracted to both sexes).

Might as well say that LGBTs who don't want to get married don't benefit. Even that would be more true. Sure, trans* rights are still way behind, but to say they're not benefited is deeply ignorant.

*medicine (ex: the ban on gay people giving blood)

This one does have a rational basis.  The prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis are both much higher among MSMs than the general population.  The lifetime ban on blood donation is bunk, but for those who have abstained from such an act in the recent past (the last 1 to 5 years) they certainly should be allowed to donate.

How reliable is testing of donated blood for HIV?

Not 100%  The estimated level of increase in infection rates of going from a lifetime ban to a ban on those having male gay sex within the last year is quite small, small enough that one can argue that the increased availability of blood products is worth the risk.

However, it takes from 2 to 4 weeks after being infected before testing can detect that fact, so a ban on the donations of those who currently are MSMs makes good sense.  The only question is how recently one must have engaged in male-to-male sex to be considered to be currently an MSM.  Lifetime is too long IMO, 1 year is probably sufficient, but anything under 3 months would be foolhardy.

It seems to me that the change from "lifetime" to "one year" is going to capture an absurdly small number of donors, hardly enough to even be worth the time of legislating such a change.

[morgieb]

Wouldn't SSM stop most legal discrimination?

But violence against gays would still be prevalent. But is there really a way to eradicate it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Did issues for racial minorities end with Loving?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Issues for black people in America obviously ended in November 2008 (and again in November 2012...)