Gay Self Governance

[Brain&Brawn]

The horrific hate expressed over this image makes me wonder if Gay communities will ever really be safe from the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps self governance is the best option. 
 

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/art/photography/2015/07/02/out-photographer-slammed-gay-iwo-jima-re-creation

[bberik]

I fear as long as there are religions there will be bashing. Maybe we should collect all our money and purchase a big island somewhere and make our own country.

[Brain&Brawn]

Excerpt from "Brother Don Has A Dream," by Don Jackson, 1970: 

 

"I have a reoccurring day dream. I imagine a place where Gay people can be free. A place where there is no job discrimination, police harassment or prejudice. A place where love rules instead of hate. A beautiful valley in the mountains, remote enough from the cities so that we will not be hassled, yet close enough so that transportation is rapid. A place where a Gay government can build the base for a flourishing Gay counter-culture and city. If only two hundred pioneering Gays can be found, my dream can come true. It would mean Gay territory. It would mean a Gay government, a Gay civil service… It could mean the establishment of the world’s first Gay university… It could mean the establishment of the world’s first museum of Gay arts, sciences and history… A free county health service and hospital could provide for our sick. […] The colony could become the Gay symbol of liberty, a world center for the Gay counter-culture, and a shining symbol of hope to all Gay people in the world."

Edited August 5, 2015 by Brain&Brawn

[BiPhotog58]

For the people who complained on his facebook page... I hope he told them to FUCK OFF.  Its a damned certainty that gay Marines died on Iwo Jima too. 

[UniversalPotentate]

The entire point of the gay movement is to be integrated into society, not segregated from society. The gay movement writ large is doing that work now.

Conversely, the black community in the US has a very segregationist culture and they're still "struggling."

If we can learn from this: MLK Jr. discussed a society where race was a non-issue. Malcom X recommended a segregated culture, which is actually what conservative bigots wanted as well. When Malcom X went to Mecca and saw a place where race was simply a non-issue, he completely changed … and was killed by his own segregationist culture for it.

Since then, the black American community has been one which promotes segregation in their language, behavior and general antagonism though the process of merging is happening (slowly) nonetheless. They also are the MOST conservative religious group on virtually all other issues, especially their hatred of gays, though they vote for Democrats.

 

Conversely, the gay movement has been simultaneously authentic and demanding acceptance. They've been both queer and here … and everyone else has decided to deal with it!

 

Of course there's a lot of id around a gay paradise. It's a very "drama queen" kinda fantasy. Fantasies are fun … but they aren't reality and they aren't meant to be realistic options. The reality is that so long as the gay community acts as a political community, donating to gay rights organizations, putting up and electing gay-friendly candidates and asking for rights while AVOIDING asking for special privileges, the majority of people will continue to act as advocates supporting the people they know and love.

 

There are still many States which need transgender rights, especially surrounding work place issues. We're almost there. Society in virtually ALL first world nations has accepted gay life as a normal and natural part of social existence. The U.S. and Russia are lagging, even though they've been dragged into modernity.

Right now the gay community needs to focus on transgender issues, bisexuals (cause they ARE the majority. D'uh!), adult marriage (polygamy/familial) and legalizing adult prostitution. I would argue that drug legalization, addiction treatment and public mental health are gay issues … and this is a winning issue most people are ready to get behind.

 

I do not believe in "Gay Self-Governance" … perhaps in Saudi Arabia but not in the US. What we need are more advocates educated in citizenry who care about equality and fairness. Gay Rights democratic representation is the answer.

And for those gays who are bigoted yourselves against bisexuals, transgendered persons and worst of all women, realize this fight is ultimately for CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS. If you want to live in a civil society and if you happen to be a human being, try realizing that the law and culture affects ALL of us, not just you.

The rights of Muslim Americans of Arabian descent to be free from undue surveillance are just as important as your right to marry.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Excerpt from "Brother Don Has A Dream," by Don Jackson, 1970: 

 

"I have a reoccurring day dream. I imagine a place where Gay people can be free. A place where there is no job discrimination, police harassment or prejudice. A place where love rules instead of hate. A beautiful valley in the mountains, remote enough from the cities so that we will not be hassled, yet close enough so that transportation is rapid. A place where a Gay government can build the base for a flourishing Gay counter-culture and city. If only two hundred pioneering Gays can be found, my dream can come true. It would mean Gay territory. It would mean a Gay government, a Gay civil service… It could mean the establishment of the world’s first Gay university… It could mean the establishment of the world’s first museum of Gay arts, sciences and history… A free county health service and hospital could provide for our sick. […] The colony could become the Gay symbol of liberty, a world center for the Gay counter-culture, and a shining symbol of hope to all Gay people in the world."

 

There is such a place.  It's called West Hollywood.    (Only half kidding...the City of WeHo is 39% gay according to Wikipedia)

 

Look at the time when this was written.  Semi-underground gay communities in just a few major cities.  In most places, that meant a bar or two where the cops had to be paid off.  Being out meant that you were willing to show your face in a place like that.  Everyone was closeted as far as family, work, friends and neighbors go.

 

Ten years later and you had geographic neighborhoods in several places that were like that.  You still wouldn't dare out yourself at work (not voluntarily), but there was one place you could go and be free and easy, even by light of day.  But it was, to some degree, still a kind of a closet for a lot of guys, just a roomier one.  That's kind of what he's advocating for here, and from 1970's perspective, that would look really alluring.

 

The problem is, gayborhoods are an artifact of homophobia.  Gay men move there because it's better than living a completely closeted life.  Straight people don't move there because they don't want to be associated with gays (either because they don't like them or because they're afraid of being mistaken for one).  You also have to remember that in the '70s, '80s and into the '90s, there was a lot of white flight out of the cities and into the surrounding suburbs too.

 

So basically, you had a moment when it suited everybody's interests to have gay men all move into the ghetto, where housing was still relatively affordable.

 

Now, all of those influences are running in the opposite direction.  Gay men can and do live openly everywhere from cities to suburbs to the countryside.  Straight people like having us in the neighborhood because we tend to drive up property values.  And everyone likes moving into gayborhoods because we've made them nice places to live.  We're major drivers of gentrification.  Plus, all kinds of people who would have been looking at buying a house in the burbs right out of college twenty years now want to live in the cities, which drives up housing costs and prices younger guys, especially non-professionals, out of the ghetto.

 

Personally, I love gay neighborhoods.  I first came out in Toronto and lived for a bit in Church and Wellesley (although even then  it seemed like it was getting expensive; not having a car helped a lot).  It was awesome having almost every gay-oriented business within walking distance.  And I sometimes feel like we've lost something of what the community used to be.  But that's how it goes...we're getting assimilated.

 

I fear as long as there are religions there will be bashing. Maybe we should collect all our money and purchase a big island somewhere and make our own country.

 

Not all religions are so anti-gay, although many cultures are.

 

Most religions do advocate for some form of self-denial (many non-religious philosophical systems like Stoicism and Epicureanism do too). There are excellent reasons why this is a good practice to cultivate.  But male homosexuality has long been associated with the opposite (just look at this site: we're a pleasure seeking people).

 

Moreover, in those cultures that historically have had some kind of tolerance for homosexuality, there's usually elements of child abuse and rape present.  Look at modern Afghanistan, for instance.  This sort of thing is common in honor-based cultures, and we see echoes of it in our own, in the form of dad/son play and a lot of kink. 

 

You can make a good argument that what really concerned Paul in the New Testament was the combination of the rape of teenagers that the Greek erastes/eromenos system often pulled a veil over, the violation of gender norms that most cultures have trouble with, and centuries-old OT Jewish prohibitions on homosexuality which were probably originally intended to help keep them separated from surrounding Middle Eastern cultures (the Old Testament is riddled with anxiety over the importation of customs and religions from other people...Jews have always been pretty big on segregating themselves).

 

The point being that it's important to really understand what's being said about sexuality by these religions.  To listen to what's being said and to place it in the right context.  I personally have come to believe that the worst and most cruel thing Christianity ever did to us in this country was to deny us access to itself...there's a lot within Christianity that, if followed, could have spared many in our community quite a bit of heartache.

 

As far as I am aware, modern gay culture is the very first example in human history of a group of men who engage in sex and relationships with those of the same gender exclusively, approach those relationships from a general standpoint of equality, consent and respect regardless of role and have constructed a group identity around their sexuality.  It's no wonder that people, especially those who are more traditionally oriented, are having difficulty with concept.  So I generally find that it pays to cut people a little slack.

Edited September 21, 2015 by PhoenixGeoff

[Brain&Brawn]

The entire point of the gay movement is to be integrated into society, not segregated from society. The gay movement writ large is doing that work now.

Conversely, the black community in the US has a very segregationist culture and they're still "struggling."

If we can learn from this: MLK Jr. discussed a society where race was a non-issue. Malcom X recommended a segregated culture, which is actually what conservative bigots wanted as well. When Malcom X went to Mecca and saw a place where race was simply a non-issue, he completely changed … and was killed by his own segregationist culture for it.

Since then, the black American community has been one which promotes segregation in their language, behavior and general antagonism though the process of merging is happening (slowly) nonetheless. They also are the MOST conservative religious group on virtually all other issues, especially their hatred of gays, though they vote for Democrats.

 

Conversely, the gay movement has been simultaneously authentic and demanding acceptance. They've been both queer and here … and everyone else has decided to deal with it!

 

Of course there's a lot of id around a gay paradise. It's a very "drama queen" kinda fantasy. Fantasies are fun … but they aren't reality and they aren't meant to be realistic options. The reality is that so long as the gay community acts as a political community, donating to gay rights organizations, putting up and electing gay-friendly candidates and asking for rights while AVOIDING asking for special privileges, the majority of people will continue to act as advocates supporting the people they know and love.

 

There are still many States which need transgender rights, especially surrounding work place issues. We're almost there. Society in virtually ALL first world nations has accepted gay life as a normal and natural part of social existence. The U.S. and Russia are lagging, even though they've been dragged into modernity.

Right now the gay community needs to focus on transgender issues, bisexuals (cause they ARE the majority. D'uh!), adult marriage (polygamy/familial) and legalizing adult prostitution. I would argue that drug legalization, addiction treatment and public mental health are gay issues … and this is a winning issue most people are ready to get behind.

 

I do not believe in "Gay Self-Governance" … perhaps in Saudi Arabia but not in the US. What we need are more advocates educated in citizenry who care about equality and fairness. Gay Rights democratic representation is the answer.

And for those gays who are bigoted yourselves against bisexuals, transgendered persons and worst of all women, realize this fight is ultimately for CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS. If you want to live in a civil society and if you happen to be a human being, try realizing that the law and culture affects ALL of us, not just you.

The rights of Muslim Americans of Arabian descent to be free from undue surveillance are just as important as your right to marry.

That is your opinion. Mine is that people have a right to govern themselves as opposed to being ruled by another group, also known as imperialism. Sorry that you think otherwise.  

[Brain&Brawn]

There is such a place.  It's called West Hollywood.    (Only half kidding...the City of WeHo is 39% gay according to Wikipedia)

 

Look at the time when this was written.  Semi-underground gay communities in just a few major cities.  In most places, that meant a bar or two where the cops had to be paid off.  Being out meant that you were willing to show your face in a place like that.  Everyone was closeted as far as family, work, friends and neighbors go.

 

Ten years later and you had geographic neighborhoods in several places that were like that.  You still wouldn't dare out yourself at work (not voluntarily), but there was one place you could go and be free and easy, even by light of day.  But it was, to some degree, still a kind of a closet for a lot of guys, just a roomier one.  That's kind of what he's advocating for here, and from 1970's perspective, that would look really alluring.

 

The problem is, gayborhoods are an artifact of homophobia.  Gay men move there because it's better than living a completely closeted life.  Straight people don't move there because they don't want to be associated with gays (either because they don't like them or because they're afraid of being mistaken for one).  You also have to remember that in the '70s, '80s and into the '90s, there was a lot of white flight out of the cities and into the surrounding suburbs too.

 

So basically, you had a moment when it suited everybody's interests to have gay men all move into the ghetto, where housing was still relatively affordable.

 

Now, all of those influences are running in the opposite direction.  Gay men can and do live openly everywhere from cities to suburbs to the countryside.  Straight people like having us in the neighborhood because we tend to drive up property values.  And everyone likes moving into gayborhoods because we've made them nice places to live.  We're major drivers of gentrification.  Plus, all kinds of people who would have been looking at buying a house in the burbs right out of college twenty years now want to live in the cities, which drives up housing costs and prices younger guys, especially non-professionals, out of the ghetto.

 

Personally, I love gay neighborhoods.  I first came out in Toronto and lived for a bit in Church and Wellesley (although even then  it seemed like it was getting expensive; not having a car helped a lot).  It was awesome having almost every gay-oriented business within walking distance.  And I sometimes feel like we've lost something of what the community used to be.  But that's how it goes...we're getting assimilated.

 

 

Not all religions are so anti-gay, although many cultures are.

 

Most religions do advocate for some form of self-denial (many non-religious philosophical systems like Stoicism and Epicureanism do too). There are excellent reasons why this is a good practice to cultivate.  But male homosexuality has long been associated with the opposite (just look at this site: we're a pleasure seeking people).

 

Moreover, in those cultures that historically have had some kind of tolerance for homosexuality, there's usually elements of child abuse and rape present.  Look at modern Afghanistan, for instance.  This sort of thing is common in honor-based cultures, and we see echoes of it in our own, in the form of dad/son play and a lot of kink. 

 

You can make a good argument that what really concerned Paul in the New Testament was the combination of the rape of teenagers that the Greek erastes/eromenos system often pulled a veil over, the violation of gender norms that most cultures have trouble with, and centuries-old OT Jewish prohibitions on homosexuality which were probably originally intended to help keep them separated from surrounding Middle Eastern cultures (the Old Testament is riddled with anxiety over the importation of customs and religions from other people...Jews have always been pretty big on segregating themselves).

 

The point being that it's important to really understand what's being said about sexuality by these religions.  To listen to what's being said and to place it in the right context.  I personally have come to believe that the worst and most cruel thing Christianity ever did to us in this country was to deny us access to itself...there's a lot within Christianity that, if followed, could have spared many in our community quite a bit of heartache.

 

As far as I am aware, modern gay culture is the very first example in human history of a group of men who engage in sex and relationships with those of the same gender exclusively, approach those relationships from a general standpoint of equality, consent and respect regardless of role and have constructed a group identity around their sexuality.  It's no wonder that people, especially those who are more traditionally oriented, are having difficulty with concept.  So I generally find that it pays to cut people a little slack.

Assimilation (another word for cultural suicide) has been attempted as a strategy before. At best, it amounted to a noble failure. Also, perhaps it is worth evaluating how well other cultural minorities, Native Americans for example, benefitted from assimilation. I know assimilation has been deemed the politically correct option, but that does not necessarily mean it is the best one over the long-run. Remember, silence=death. Deconstruction of Gay identity and culture = silence.

 

As for the rabid religious right, I think they have been given plenty of slack. Hundreds of years worth in fact. Sorry, I am unsympathetic to their alleged plight. Plus I do not see them returning the favor.      

[Brain&Brawn]

I fear as long as there are religions there will be bashing. Maybe we should collect all our money and purchase a big island somewhere and make our own country.

Count me in!

For the people who complained on his facebook page... I hope he told them to FUCK OFF.  Its a damned certainty that gay Marines died on Iwo Jima too. 

Several of us did on his behalf. He reported the death threats to the FBI. 

[Brain&Brawn]

I dreamed in a dream of a city where all the

men were like brothers, 

O I saw them tenderly love each other—I 

often saw them, in numbers, walking 

hand in hand; 

I dreamed that was the city of robust 

friends—Nothing was greater there

than the quality of manly love—it led

the rest, 

It was seen every hour in the actions of the

men of that city, and in all their looks

and words. 

 

-Walt Whitman

[PhoenixGeoff]

Assimilation (another word for cultural suicide) has been attempted as a strategy before. At best, it amounted to a noble failure. Also, perhaps it is worth evaluating how well other cultural minorities, Native Americans for example, benefitted from assimilation. I know assimilation has been deemed the politically correct option, but that does not necessarily mean it is the best one over the long-run. Remember, silence=death. Deconstruction of Gay identity and culture = silence.

 

As for the rabid religious right, I think they have been given plenty of slack. Hundreds of years worth in fact. Sorry, I am unsympathetic to their alleged plight. Plus I do not see them returning the favor.      

 

Well, I guess it really hinges on whether you think it's important for us to have a separate culture or not.

 

Look, as a non-reproducing group, we're never going to have a culture in the way that the French or the Lakota or Japanese have a culture, because we are completely dependent on straight people to produce our future generations, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases, the fundamentals of the culture those future gay men live within will not come from us, but from the families of their childhood and teenage years.

 

Why did we have a semi-separate culture in the past?  Because of homophobia.  We used to be rejected by society, so we banded together and lived in the same places and took our cultural identity (which was and is derivative of the mainstream culture for the reasons mentioned above) from that identity.

 

But in the absence of homophobia, you're going to see lots of gay men who are comfortable being out and being openly in a relationship with another guy but who choose not to live in the gay neighborhoods or go to the bars or assume that identity.  It's already happening.  One big manifestation of that is the guys who self-consciously are open about their orientation but downplay its importance.  And it's going to happen more and more.  I've seen that shift going on over the twenty five years I've been out of the closet.

 

In fact, I would question if maintaining a separate gay identity is even desirable in this day and age.  In the past, one's identification as gay was really important because the mainstream culture made it so, by imposing such a high price (in the form of discrimination, shunning and violence) on assuming it.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. 

 

Is the fact that I'm attracted to other men the most important thing about me?  What about my gender?  My ethnicity?  My upbringing?  My religion or lack thereof?  My socioeconomic class?  My work?  My friends?  My philosophy about life?  My politics?  All of these things are arguably as important, if not more so, than my orientation, and they all contribute to the cultural sea that I swim within.

 

Like I said...I kind of miss the days when we lived in a beseiged city on a hill and all pulled together as a community, against discrimination, against AIDS, against all these things.  But maybe those days are over, or nearly so, and it's time to move on.

[Brain&Brawn]

Well, I guess it really hinges on whether you think it's important for us to have a separate culture or not.

 

Look, as a non-reproducing group, we're never going to have a culture in the way that the French or the Lakota or Japanese have a culture, because we are completely dependent on straight people to produce our future generations, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases, the fundamentals of the culture those future gay men live within will not come from us, but from the families of their childhood and teenage years.

 

 

Do Gay genes not reproduce? That could be questioned scientifically but would require veering off topic.

 

What about the Vatican? It’s an independent nation in which no one is born. 

 

Why did we have a semi-separate culture in the past?  Because of homophobia.  We used to be rejected by society, so we banded together and lived in the same places and took our cultural identity (which was and is derivative of the mainstream culture for the reasons mentioned above) from that identity.

 

Because of Gay liberation actually. The work of Harry Hay, Carl Wittman, Don Jackson, GLF collectives, etc. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Brain&Brawn

[Brain&Brawn]

 

One big manifestation of that is the guys who self-consciously are open about their orientation but downplay its importance.  And it's going to happen more and more.  I've seen that shift going on over the twenty five years I've been out of the closet.

 

Why do you think it’s important for them to downplay the importance? Based on the numerous interactions I have had with Gay male proponents of assimilation, seems to be based on a need to appease the majority proving that “we’re just like you.” In order to do that, they think it is necessary to distance themselves from those nasty queers that flaunt, make noise, and draw attention. They can’t associate with men who visit action bars, bathhouses, or celebrate male sexuality because that be. This sounds a bit familiar when you think about it. Examples: “I’m not Gay. I just mess around.” “Going to one of those places is like admitting you’re one of them.” “I’m not Gay because I don’t suck cock or get fucked.” "We're not like those people." 

In fact, I would question if maintaining a separate gay identity is even desirable in this day and age.  In the past, one's identification as gay was really important because the mainstream culture made it so, by imposing such a high price (in the form of discrimination, shunning and violence) on assuming it.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. 

You seem to be operating from the assumption that progress is linear and that history inevitable moves in that direction. Be nice if that were true but evidence indicates otherwise. Gay people have repeatedly gained and lost ground throughout history. An arguably tolerant society of today is no guarantee of one tomorrow. I think that alone is justification for maintaining a distinct cultural identity. 

Is the fact that I'm attracted to other men the most important thing about me?  What about my gender?  My ethnicity?  My upbringing?  My religion or lack thereof?  My socioeconomic class?  My work?  My friends?  My philosophy about life?  My politics?  All of these things are arguably as important, if not more so, than my orientation, and they all contribute to the cultural sea that I swim within.

What about it? How does my desire for a unique cultural identity interfere with you having any of that? 

Like I said...I kind of miss the days when we lived in a beseiged city on a hill and all pulled together as a community, against discrimination, against AIDS, against all these things.  But maybe those days are over, or nearly so, and it's time to move on.

How so? By moving to the suburbs, adopting kids, denouncing Gayness, and pretending we don’t exist? No thanks. Not for me. I’ll stay on hill. Nothing personal though. Feel free to come visit if you need an oasis to escape to a place to bond with other Gay men. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Brain&Brawn

[PhoenixGeoff]

Do Gay genes not reproduce? That could be questioned scientifically but would require veering off topic.

 

What about the Vatican? It’s an independent nation in which no one is born. 

 

Because of Gay liberation actually. The work of Harry Hay, Carl Wittman, Don Jackson, GLF collectives, etc. 

 

Well, our genes might be transmitted through various means, but unless you're prepared to marry a woman and raise a family then we're going to have to rely on straight couples to have kids for us.

 

Yes, I know there are alternatives like adoption, IVF and surrogacy and all that, but the reality is most gay couples out there don't have kids and aren't really interested in raising them. 

 

I'd argue that the homophobia is what caused gay liberation in the first place.  We wouldn't have needed gay liberation if society hadn't been homophobic.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Why do you think it’s important for them to downplay the importance? Based on the numerous interactions I have had with Gay male proponents of assimilation, seems to be based on a need to appease the majority proving that “we’re just like you.” In order to do that, they think it is necessary to distance themselves from those nasty queers that flaunt, make noise, and draw attention. They can’t associate with men who visit action bars, bathhouses, or celebrate male sexuality because that be. This sounds a bit familiar when you think about it. Examples: “I’m not Gay. I just mess around.” “Going to one of those places is like admitting you’re one of them.” “I’m not Gay because I don’t suck cock or get fucked.” "We're not like those people." 

You seem to be operating from the assumption that progress is linear and that history inevitable moves in that direction. Be nice if that were true but evidence indicates otherwise. Gay people have repeatedly gained and lost ground throughout history. An arguably tolerant society of today is no guarantee of one tomorrow. I think that alone is justification for maintaining a distinct cultural identity. 

What about it? How does my desire for a unique cultural identity interfere with you having any of that? 

How so? By moving to the suburbs, adopting kids, denouncing Gayness, and pretending we don’t exist? No thanks. Not for me. I’ll stay on hill. Nothing personal though. Feel free to come visit if you need an oasis to escape to a place to bond with other Gay men. 

 

Look, I sympathize with how you feel.  As I've said above, I miss having that kind of community myself.  But neither you nor I individually get to make that decision for all gay men as a whole.

 

And, as someone who's been in and around this community for a few decades now, in a variety of different places, the trend seems unquestionably to be towards assimilation.

 

That's not to say that plenty of gay guys don't want to live in or near their gay community, but they no longer have to.  And many of them are choosing not to.  And that's a valid choice.

 

Look, if you want to make your orientation the defining characteristic of your life, you're free to do that.  Plenty of guys still do.  But plenty of guys now find they can have their relationships and be out of the closet without having to do that anymore and so are choosing to do just that.  There's nothing wrong with that choice.

 

Nobody's "denouncing Gayness" when they choose to live a quiet life in the suburbs and maybe hit a bar once or twice a year.  They're just opting out of the scene.  Which is fine; it's not for everyone.  There's no reason every gay guy has to act in a particular way or live in a particular place.

 

I would point out that the entire idea of a separate gay identity is itself extremely ahistorical.  Different cultures have been more or less tolerant of sexual relationships and acts between two men at different times, but really, the idea of a person being gay (as opposed to just engaging in homosexual acts) is really quite new, within the last 150 years.  And the idea of there being a separate gay culture to go with that identity is newer still, say in the last 50 years, give or take.  Given the span of human history, there's no reason to think that assimilation wouldn't be a reversion to the mean, quite the opposite.

 

As for the culture changing back, I know history isn't linear and things can move backwards.  After all, the progress we've made in the last 20 years has completely taken me, at least, by surprise.  So feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I look around the culture and see where people's attitudes have changed, especially among younger people.  I look at the drivers of the change, which includes things like more and more people coming out of the closet and raising awareness, and I just don't see a big clampdown coming.

 

What would it take to take marriage away from us again?  It's basically been established by the Supreme Court that a Constitutional amendment would be needed, something conservatives simply don't have the numbers to do (and which, given the shift in public opinion, they'd be unlikely to try).  I suppose they could try to pack the Supreme Court and get Obergefell reversed, but that's a process that would take years if not decades, and that assumes a long string of Republican Presidents, a Republican Senate and a Supreme Court that is inclined to revist the question.  I can't see right now how the normal political process could bring about a reversal, at least not in my lifetime.

 

Which tells me that, barring some catastrophe, like a coup or a revolution or the physical disintegration of the country, things seem unlikely to change back in any meaningful way.