I don't think he meant it like that. I echo the sentiment: it shouldn't have come to this. It should not have been a social, political, or legal issue. There's so much hate and bigotry in this country that needs to go away.

edit: at least I hope he didn't mean it like that :(

Whichever way he meant it, his comment shows a very dismissive attitude toward the massive work that was involved in accomplishing this.

It's true it shouldn't have been a fight, but it was.

And the idea that there are so many "more important" issues, is also incredibly dismissive to how important the right to marriage equality is.

By "more important" I mean that intelligent people view marriage equality as a fundamental right that we shouldn't have to fight for. Now that we don't have to fight for marriage equality, we can move on to other issues that may warrant more of a fight.

I think you and I feel the same way about equal rights in general...it can just be hard to distill and convey some opinions via an HN thread.

I'm glad we're in agreement on the issue, but I still think your wording shows an underlying dismissiveness of the work that went into this and the importance of today's decision. You're telling everyone "OK great, move on." like we shouldn't be celebrating this.

Just because you see it as dismissive doesn't make it so. You don't get to decide the intent of the statement. You can state your opinion about it and ask for clarification, but you don't get to define it for your own purposes.

I don't think you understand how reality works. You get to say whatever you want, and intend it however you want. Then the rest of us get to interpret your meaning and decide what it means for ourselves. You don't get to tell everyone else what to think of what you said. You just get to say whatever you want. You don't get to restrict how other people interpret what you say.

While you're technically correct that intent and interpretation are entirely independent, if you throw away all context of the statement and frame it in your own pedantic and literal interpretation...why are you even engaging in communication? You obviously aren't putting forth any effort to understand the speaker's intent and that seems to be at the heart of conversation and debate alike.

My point is not to throw away the speaker's intent, my point is that the speaker's intent is only one factor in how people will interpret what is said.

For example if I say "She sure is smart for a girl." I may not be intending to be a misogynistic asshole, I may be intending it as a compliment. But most people are going to read it for what it is; a comment that shows my own bigotry and means nothing outside of that.

Not when your interpretation seeks to define the other person's statement to fit your viewpoint. You can respond with:

"You seem to be saying this, and I think that's wrong. Is that what you're saying?"

versus:

"You are saying this, and you are wrong."

It's called communication. It's a two-way street.

If the speaker intends a statement as a compliment but states it badly, why is your reaction that much more important because you take it as an insult? Why do you get to redefine the intent and totally dismiss the statement altogether, which means you are also dismissing the intended compliment?

That type of reaction actually increases the misunderstanding and makes the problem worse in the long run.

So, by your logic if I say I think the sky is beautiful today you can respond with "why do you hate jelly beans?" and I have to respect that?

I think you're misinterpreting my comment. I absolutely believe that all people deserve equal treatment and opportunities. We obviously aren't there yet, and far too many LGBT folks have been treated horribly for far too long. I find it shameful and embarrassing that our lawmakers have persisted these backwards "anti-X" policies that "should" have never taken root at all. I'm hopeful that soon we'll look back at these anti-LGBT policies the same way we look at racist, sexist, etc. policies from the pre-60's US.

The hope expressed here, which I share, is that settling marriage equality can help move us to a world in which politics isn't dominated by a discussion of what or who people consent to do with their own bodies.

You don't need to be straight to think that there are deeper issues which which still exist that, if solved, could have made marriage equality something which was never controversial. For example, why should any government have any say over whose relationship is legitimate?

There's an old idea that the government exists to serve the governed and that any situation in which it intervenes should only be to protect them, not to dictate the terms of their religion or their private lives. And yet the US government is in a situation where it seems to often serve the interests of only those who can hire lobbyists. Protection is redefined as protecting the wealth of those few, and elected representatives focus their campaigns on the most divisive cultural and religious issues over which they have minimal influence to distract from what they actually do on a daily basis, which is mostly meeting with lobbyists.

Plenty of people will vote for one party solely based on their support or opposition to a single issue such as abortion or marriage equality, and while those are important issues, they have allowed politicians to get away with whatever else they have wanted to sneak into their agendas.

I hear it as "issue" with some sarcasm. As in, I can't believe this isn't settled already since it's such an obvious answer. I believe he is saying it wouldn't be an "issue" if people actually appealed to reason.

But I get why you would be offended, the struggles and hardships should not be taken lightly. In effect a white male could make the same comment about women's suffrage and it would not be cast in a good light at all.

Anyway, congratulations! I'm so glad people are finally seeing reason and you can take one more step towards being treated truly equal!

I think it was meant more that this decision and this right for LGBTQ to get married should have been made ages ago. As a society, we're continuing to spend resources fighting amongst ourselves to combat bigotry, anti-intellectualism, etc. In an ideal world, we'd have stomped all these out already and would be working together towards the future. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, so we must expend these resources and effort fighting injustice and inequality.

Spoken like a person who's never been locked in jail for 10 years and been repeatedly beaten and raped during that time, all for selling pot.

There are a lot bigger problems than being refused a small amount of government subsidies for your relationship choices. (Note that I am also refused those subsidies since I'm single.)