Why does Gay Marriage get so much attention (relatively)

[The Free North]

Take any trip around political forums, newspapers, or political websites, and you'll see Gay Marriage is one of the most talked about issues. My question is why?

Lets face it, wether or not two dudes can get married is hardly a major issue for our country, especially when you can consider the following:

-Undeclared wars continue
-Massive debt
-Economic uncertainty
-Federal Reserve/devaluation of dollar
-Civil Liberties (development of surveillance state, US killing its own citizens without a trial, etc)
-Broken 2 party system


In light of all the major issues our country faces, why do so many people care SO MUCH about gay marriage? Perhaps the issue has just been sold better to the people, but, c'mon, its really not that big of a deal. I find it incredibly frustrating that on any given day, you can find an article about gay marriage from any variety of mainstream media sources, but your hard pressed to find anything on our eroding civil liberties or the federal reserve.

The destruction of our dollar+destruction of our privacy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gay marriage

Im not saying that we shouldnt discuss the issue, for example now would be an appropriate time with the supreme court case, I just dont think it needs to be discussed at the length it has been the past few years.

So, any thoughts? Why does such a trivial issue get so much attention?

(For the record, I support anyone getting married, so long as religious institutions are not forced to do said marriage, if you want to 'marry' your dog, have fun, what do I care)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's not trivial to the millions of gay people affected by it.

[The Free North]

Using that argument, its still a fraction of the population.

Everyone is affected by the fact by NDAA for example

[Horus]

I think the biggest reason its getting so much attention right now is because we're very close to a breakthrough on this issue. After its settled (which is looking to be even sooner than my most generous prediction) the issue will immediately fade. I do agree we need to focus on civil liberties more but with both parties disgusting policies on things like the patriot act, anyone in opposition is simply made out by the media to be a far left/right loony.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Using that argument, its still a fraction of the population.

Everyone is affected by the fact by NDAA for example

Nobody is affected by the NDAA, at least not now. The government has not locked up any citizens indefinitely (and if they have, show me an example). One of the big things I hate about libertarians is that they're so goddamn paranoid and think the government's out to get them.

But back on topic: just because "only" a fraction of the population is affected negatively doesn't mean that we shouldn't pay attention to them. Should we not have paid attention to the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s?

[The Free North]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country. Do you not agree that Gay marriage is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in this country, compared to other issues?

[Horus]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country. Do you not agree that Gay marriage is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in this country, compared to other issues?

Blacks are around 13% of the population I believe. Gays are anywhere between 6-10%. Percentage wise it might be fewer, but these are still over 10,000,000 people, hardly a fraction like Jews, Muslims or Senegalese transsexuals are.

[The Free North]

Do you have a source for that number? Not being an a-hole just curious

[Mehmentum]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country. Do you not agree that Gay marriage is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in this country, compared to other issues?

African Americans make up about 10% of the population, gay people make up about 5%, so those are actually pretty comparable figures.

And no, I do not agree.  It is horrible that we do not let people marry who they love just because some people think its gross.  If people on the pro-gay rights side of things did not make a big deal out of this, nothing would have ever changed and this discrimination would have continued unimpeded.

[Horus]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_are_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html

The most recent survey says 3.4% which is still around the 10,000,000 mark.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country. Do you not agree that Gay marriage is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in this country, compared to other issues?

Oh, I do think other issues should be covered more (though they're probably not the same issues you want ), but gay marriage is still a big issue and it's before the Supreme Court at this very moment, making it even bigger. The importance of issues should not be determined by how many people they affect, it should be measured by how it affects those people.

[Lief 🗽]

-Undeclared wars continue
-Massive debt
-Economic uncertainty
-Federal Reserve/devaluation of dollar
-Civil Liberties (development of surveillance state, US killing its own citizens without a trial, etc)
-Broken 2 party system

"Massive debt" and "federal reserve/devaluation of the dollar" are both much more trivial than gay marriage (which falls under the "civil liberties" category in your list).

[opebo]

To distract from the New Poverty?

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's something that liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Libertarians (who have bigger numbers on the Internets than in real life) all agree on.

In other words, it crosses ideological lines in ways that most other issues do not, especially on the disproportionately post-materialist white upper-middle class political forums.

[Holmes]

Because it's in the nation's highest court at the moment.

[Jordan]

Because it is the civil rights issue of our generation.

Also because public opinion has changed so rapidly on it.

Although I do agree that we should be focusing on ALL our civil liberties.

[traininthedistance]

-Massive debt
-Economic uncertainty
-Federal Reserve/devaluation of dollar
...

The destruction of our dollar+destruction of our privacy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gay marriage

Persistently high unemployment and insufficient investment in capital goods/improvements are a MUCH bigger problem than so-called "devaluation of the dollar" (which, by the way, is not happening- there has been no inflation to speak of in years).  And, in fact, these problems are caused by a Federal Reserve which is being too cautious and refusing to increase the money supply at a time when it is necessary and benign- central bankers have a pernicious and pervasive bias towards overly tight money.  (Note that, at least as of a year ago, government debt was cheaper than cash.)

I agree that monetary policy should be discussed more.  I think the idea that our monetary policy is too loose, however, is one of the most dangerous delusions floating around in the policy sphere.  It has been too tight, and though a couple baby steps have been made in the right direction, it is still too tight.

Also, one main way to get the debt to not be a problem (and, really, it is not a problem at this exact moment, though of course it may become one down the road) is to ensure that the growth of the economy outpaces the growth of the debt.  We never paid off the massive debts we incurred in WWII- we just grew quickly enough that they rapidly faded into insignificance.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Just because it does not directly affect you doesn't mean it isn't a huge issue. And it doesn't just affect gays. Denying marriage equality affects the families and friends of gays. It affects employers of gays, which is why corporate America is lining up behind it. It affects the national economy, because gay people aren't spending millions of dollars on fabulous weddings. Oh, and denying gay people marriage rights means more gays qualify for means tested government programs, which costs taxpayers.

So yeah, this is a little bit more than just me wanting to be able to marry the person I want.

[dead0man]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country.

Fractions don't work the way you think fractions work.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Oh, and if you want a more meta answer, we're discussing gay marriage because, for the first time ever, public opinion has sharply shifted in favor of gay marriage. The more people get behind it, the more outrage grows that the will of the public is being denied. And, of course, now that gay marriage seems inevitable, there's a powerful bandwagon effect of wanting to be, to borrow a cliche, on the right side of history.

[DC Al Fine]

Because its a winning issue for lefties and the people you hang around with are mostly Dems.

[Joe Republic]

Lets face it, wether or not two dudes can get married is hardly a major issue for our country, especially when you can consider the following:

-Undeclared wars continue
-Massive debt
-Economic uncertainty
-Federal Reserve/devaluation of dollar
-Civil Liberties (development of surveillance state, US killing its own citizens without a trial, etc)
-Broken 2 party system

These are all issues that really only Libertarians care about, and last I checked they only account for 1% of the voting population.  Gay people comprise between three and ten times as many people as that.

[dead0man]

And only the paranoid flavor of libertarian at that (granted, paranoid libertarians seem to be in the majority of libertarians).

[Link]

I would hardly call the African American population in the 60's a fraction of the country. Do you not agree that Gay marriage is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in this country, compared to other issues?

Where is your thread about Birtherism?  The attention on gay marriage is disproportionate but it is no where near the worst case scenario.  Sounds to me like you have an agenda.  Am I right?

[memphis]

I believe there is some sort of case currently before the Supreme Court. That may have something to do with it.