Now more than ever in America is a good time to be gay, but will it stay this way?

 "I support same-sex marriage."

In present-day, 2013 America, saying this statement means you are in agreement with about half of the country. When I said this statement my second year of university, I was at the extreme. 

Back in September 2004, I took a required public speaking class in college for which the final assignment was to make a 5-minute oral argument on a well-known issue. I picked same-sex marriage. My arguments were fairly straightforward talking points: 

1. The United States is a secular nation
2. The American Psychological Association has definitively concluded homosexuality is not a mental disorder, nor is it related to dangerous or "perverted" behavior
3. Same-sex marriage extends thousands of state and federal rights to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in committed relationships with their partners
4. It protects children who have LGBTQ parents or guardians
5. Its economic benefits are widely recognized

In other words, my arguments were more or less what you hear nowadays. The difference between 2004 and today is the reaction. Any person who was old enough and paid attention to the rhetoric during the 2004 US Presidential elections likely recalls the vehemently negative portrayal the Republican party used against LGBTQ communities. Foreign policy, the economy, and war took a backseat to the backlash waged on the sexual orientation minorities. And the worst part of rhetoric? IT WORKED. George W. Bush won the election.

America is a country whose laws are based on the idea of historical precedence - that is, an argument for or against a law can be built on what was decided in the past. Of the many arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, a very compelling one follows suit with Brown v. Board of Education, whose ruling that overturned "Plessy v. Ferguson", and dismantled "separate but equal" laws allowing public places to be segregated by race. The mere fact that there were two different systems for two different sets people made the systems inherently unequal. 

Since gay and lesbian people cannot enter into the same kind of physical, emotional and mental commitment with the opposite sex as straight people, since same-sex marriage applies to two consenting adults, and since denying someone's rights based on archaic notions of what is right is simply wrong, the majority of the country now agrees that same-sex marriage should be allowed. The majority of the country now agrees with me.

Back then, giving a speech like I did in favor of same-sex marriage automatically relegated me to the "very liberal" or "socialist" category of the political spectrum. Those of us who were in favor of full same-sex marriage were often dismissed as extremists and therefore often written off. Even most of my so-called socially liberal friends would only go so far as to back civil unions, most moderates I knew didn't dare make a stand for any kind of same-sex rights, and most conservatives I knew were categorically against any LGBTQ rights, same-sex marriage and civil unions included.

Yet today, less than ten years since I made that speech, all of the points I made that were then tossed out as liberal banter are now seen as mainstream logic. Whether it's the media total embrace of an open and proud LGBTQ community, whether it's politicians finally recognizing the financial power of the LGBTQ community, or whether the power of the Internet making the LGBTQ more ubiquitous and visible, the tides have certainly changed in favor of same-sex marriage.

But will it stay this way?

In 2003, Supreme Court justice Scalia wrote in his dissent to the majority opinion of Lawrence v. Texas that striking down an anti-sodomy law would pave the way to same-sex marriage. Thus far, Scalia seems to be correct. The swing towards same-sex marriage equality is gaining momentum. The question that a lot of us then extremists, now normalists have is whether the upward swing towards fully embracing LGBTQ rights in America is here to stay or is simply a social trend that will oscillate back. Some may call this line of thinking paranoid. Given current events, however, I call it cautious optimism.

There's no doubt that since the Supreme Court since decision of Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, the constitutional protection for women to abort the fetus(es) they are carrying up to the third trimester has fueled much controversy. Indeed, some now argue that part of the reason the pro-choice movement has taken a beating in recent years is because the Supreme Court decision was on the back of a temporary social movement. With the resurgence of a very socially conservative and very powerful Republican party, the movement to make abortion rights a moderate issue has faded. As a result, some states in the south have effectively closed all abortion clinics, and made abortion services nearly impossible to access. And they've done this with widespread voter approval.

In high school, I became a fan of a Russian pop duo known as t.A.T.u. Their schtick was that the two members of the group, who were young females, were gay and possibly in a relationship. Though the founder of the group went through very valid scrutiny of promoting a pedophilic image of the two girls (who were 16 when they started t.A.T.u.), the point is that this group was allowed to gain huge public momentum from their own country, and eventually became one of the best-selling Russian artists ever. English and Russian language t.A.T.u. albums have sold more than 15 million copies worldwide.

Twelve years later, Putin has taken the country back to the dark ages of LGBTQ rights, publicly humiliating gay men, beating peaceful Pride protestors, and issuing statements that gay athletes competing in the 2014 Sochi Olympics may be detained and jailed. Surely a musical act such as t.A.T.u. that openly displayed acts of lesbianism would not have survived or thrived in this environment.

 

Of course LGBTQ rights in America differs greatly than abortion rights. A gay person can be of any ethnicity, race, religion, gender or socioeconomic class, whereas the majority of people who receive abortion services tend to be of poor socioeconomic status, and are of course all women. With the power and visibility of online platforms, with the slow nature of establishing a long-term relationship, and with the sheer financial power many LGBTQ people have in major cities, one would think that as a greater community, positive change for LGBTQ people will have greater staying power.

Likewise, America is not Russia. Many politicians in this country certainly have incredible power at their whim, but as flawed as our democratic system can be, it is one of the most stable in the world. Waving a wand and summarily outlawing homosexuality (or any other attribute) across the country has very different consequences for our elected officials than it does for Putin, and will therefore not happen in such a swooping, unquestioned and uninhibited way.

Still, the backlash against pro-choice advocates and LGBTQ people in Russia does make me stop and question. 2004, after all, was not that long ago. The sweeping support the LGBTQ community has received in recent years is hard to explain by even the most informed political and media experts. Since we do not know how or why it happened so suddenly, and since present-day events are now telling us that social progress can be a temporary phenomenon, us then extremists now normalists are left to wonder whether this relatively golden era of being gay will indeed stay this way.