Skip to content

Which comes first, society or the law?

The significance of the Senate’s historic vote on same-sex marriage
A bipartisan majority has voted to move forward on a bill protecting marriage equality.

Largely speaking and roughly enough no one gives a shit.

They’d give one or more about the legal absence of it, now. But the presence? Ah, who cares? That’s how it can be bipartisan.

Which gives us an interesting little insight. Society changes before the law does…..

21 thoughts on “Which comes first, society or the law?”

  1. Society always changes before the law does. Both when new laws are created to handle changes in society or when old laws are repealed when society no longer needs them.

  2. Isn’t this a little more than “you are allowed to do it” and more “you will be punished if you don’t do it and celebrate it at the same time”

  3. Much like the worthless Tories, American conservatives have completely failed to conserve their own country’s borders, institutions, culture, freedoms, wealth, or even the meaning of the word “woman”.

    But they’re very good at conserving stuff Obama approves of.

  4. Obama approves of it now. He didn’t when trying to get elected.

    I didn’t approve – I have theological and ordinary logical issues with it. I thought Cameron was being a knob for pushing it, but he was doing the bidding of his EU masters. And besides, I had always been told that being a gayer meant not following this heteronormative bourgeois repressive regime of marriage and stuff.

    Now it’s law, I don’t give a monkey’s, because I am not about banning things.

  5. Otto – Obama approves of it now. He didn’t when trying to get elected.

    So? Nobody voted Republican because they were hoping to enshrine homosexual weddings in federal law.

    It’s like how nobody voted Tory for massive, uncontrolled, socially and economically ruinous Third World immigration, or tax rises, or Net Zero, or HS2, or government mandated “digital identities”.

    Yet here we are.

  6. The floodgates opened on immigration in 1998. Between 1980 and 1997, net immigration was c306,000. There was net migration in some of those years.

    We now have higher net immigration than that every single year. c5,500,000 in total since 1998.

  7. Largely speaking and roughly enough no one gives a shit. Society changes before the law does…..
    Are you sure about that? I can’t say I detected any enthusiasm for same sex marriage. That came in at a time you could still get good laughs telling queer jokes down the pub. I’m not sure if people are comfortable with it today. But they had been stuffed with unwanted immigration, being dubious about shirtlifters as “homophobia” & whichever wave of feminism it was. More that people had given up on having opinions they felt they could voice.

  8. Hardly a pressing issue so we can expect endless coverage in the media at the expense of stuff people actually care about.

  9. @Gunker

    Yes and no. For the most part, these types of laws have only applied to government-run institutions. However, it can be costly for citizens to keep it that way. For instance, that bakery that didn’t want to bake the cake for a same-sex wedding eventually received a victory at the Supreme Court. That was because they weren’t refusing overall service to the gay couple, but simply weren’t providing the service of wedding cakes for gay weddings. It took astronomical amounts of legal fees to maintain that religious liberty, which begs whether we can call that justice.

    There was recently a legal battle at Yeshiva University regarding an LGBTQ club that was shut down. This also made it to the Supreme Court. The university eventually approved an alternative “Orthodox-based” LGBTQ club that was unaffiliated with Pride Alliance, so not sure if that amounts to a victory or defeat for religious liberty.

    In 2015, a county clerk in Kentucky objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Of course, she herself had been married three times to four different guys, but whatevs. The left, being the stewards of compassion they are, issued death threats and sent her sex toys in the mail–because that’s how you get people on your side. She ran for re-election in 2018, switching from the Democrat to Republican Party (they didn’t send her death threats), and was defeated by 8 percentage points. During her time in office, it was ruled by a district judge that one person’s constitutional rights cannot be used to violate the rights of another.

    In the first two cases, the government was attempting to force private organizations into forfeiting their First Amendment rights. In the third, a government employee refused to honor federal policy. There’s still a debate in the U.S. about how far progressivism can go before it turns into persecution. I think we’ve already crossed that line, and winning an expensive legal battle doesn’t make the situation any better. I recently attended a comedy show that had to switch venues at the last minute due to AntiFa getting the town mayor and police chief to shut down the original location, not by actually showing up to riot, but by posting a few tweets of dismay. Free Speech and religious liberty are at risk even in the U.S. At the same time, it’s ridiculous to apply for a government job without understanding that policies can change with every election, and that federal bureaucrats historically haven’t been too keen on the idea of freedom. That’s why I’ll never work for the government. It’s foolish to give them even one additional employee or that much more power anyway, regardless of how I feel about any single issue.

    And yes, the comedy show organizers are gearing up for a lawsuit.

  10. Theophrastus (2066)

    Civil partnerships make sense. If gays/lesbians want a legal framework for their deviance, why not? But why “equal marriage”? A same-sex and thus sterile union is not equivalent in social value to a potentially fertile union of male and female. The latter is desirable; the former is merely tolerable.

  11. Isn’t this a little more than “you are allowed to do it” and more “you will be punished if you don’t do it and celebrate it at the same time”

    Its this. The Trojan Horse that I’ve warned people of for years. This act allows the IRS to revoke the charitable status of Christian Churches that won’t carry out gay weddings.

    The famous live and let live of the progressives.

  12. Free Speech and religious liberty are at risk even in the U.S

    If, by, “at risk”, you mean “more or less completely dead in all but name” (along with freedom of association, property rights, and the status of marriage in society) I agree, and so does Kanye.

    It’s an equally shite state of affairs in the island formerly identifying as Great Britain, where the criminal justice organs (gonads) of the State are waging autistic tranny war against elderly lesbians and the entire commercial media is desperate, for some reason, to convince you that you’re already living in an African country that’s strangely cool with homosexuality and trannies.

    Absolutely worse in Europe, of course, but maybe God should flagellate his apostate daughter the hardest.

    Where do we go from here? I dunno. As long as the masses are content being dumb cattle they can expect to be herded and branded. (Oh no! We spent your pension on windmills! Moo!)

    Interestingly, we shall soon find out if bovine indifference is compatible with sharply reduced living standards for the great majority of the population. Or, conversely, the banning of leaded petrol has been a disaster for the human race.

  13. If immigration is like water, why are you trying to compress water?

    What if you took you inflation-proofed basic income and moved to where the weather is getting warmer?

  14. I’m a bloke, but for some reason it appears I can’t enter into a Lesbian relationship because the definition is such is two women. Well if ‘they’ can redefine the traditional definition of ‘marriage’ why can’t I redefine the definition of ‘lesbian’?

  15. Aren't we all actually free to defne words idiosyncratically?

    Addolff

    Why am I reminded of the old troll: go into a Lesbian chat and ask to speak to the man in charge?

  16. In this case – gay marriage – the law may have changed society. The proponents of GM hadn’t been able to win over a single state – they lost a referendum in CA where they outspent the traditionalists by 10-1. The Supreme Court found something that had gone unnoticed for 200 years and declared it mandatory in all 50 states.

    Public acceptance was moving in the direction of accepting GM, but I think the Supremes decision moved the needle pretty quickly and dramatically, something like “oh well, we might as well get used to it”.

  17. @Adolff, you haven’t been paying attention. There are lots of hairy lads in frocks, proudly proclaiming they are lesbians and call any lesbians who aren’t accepting of “lady dick”, “Transphobic”

  18. It depends on whether the society is a democracy or not. In a democracy, the society must change first – in a dictatorship only one person needs to change. Other forms of society fall in between.

    @Theophrastus (2066) – “sterile union is not equivalent”

    That used to be the case, and impotence was grounds for annullment of a marriage, but nowadays that is not considered so important. Marriage of a woman after menopause who cannot conceive is perfectly valid and routine, so since sterile union is no different for marriage between a man and woman, why should it make any difference for other combinations?

    @If… “What if you took you inflation-proofed basic income and moved to where the weather is getting warmer?”

    Do you expect it to expand in the heat?

  19. A funny bit about the gay marriage debate was the illustration of Chesterton’s Fence – when the pro-GM types were asked “what is the purpose of marriage?” – blank stares, umm, you can share health insurance, you can visit someone in hospital?

    One college student proudly posed the question “why shouldn’t gays have the same rights and benefits?”. When told that marriage wasn’t about rights & benefits the whole room looked like their CPU went blank.

  20. @Esteban

    Marriage has two closely related purposes derived from the fact that the human species has concealed ovulation so pure biology lets a woman be sure that a child is hers, but a man cannot. For rich and powerful people, such a kings, it means that a man can have an heir. For poor people, it means that a child has two adults with a strong incentive to look after them. These purposes are unnecessary with DNA testing.

    The logical conclusion, therefore, is to achieve marriage equality not by permitting gay marriage but by abolishing marriage altogether.

  21. I find this stuff wrong, because it codes power to the state. When – other than the legally bits of marriage – did we say the state gets to define words? Had I been gay and wanting to marry, I simply would have said I was married after whatever ceremony provided that. The Left love to proclaim that gay marriage is a great win but fail to understand that it is their great God The State that was bigoted in the first place, not the Right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *