folkhero wrote:Is there actually any evidence that the Lawrence ruling inevitably lead to gay marriage? In the New York case it seems that it almost certainly didn't, since gay marriage was legalized by representatives of the people, not by a court ruling based on precedent. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that gay marriage is the inevitable result of the ruling: A) The Supreme Court is supposed to rule based on the facts and the law, not speculation of what the rulings might lead to B) If the religious conservatives were too stupid to think that gay people would keep trying to get equal rights, then boo fucking hoo for them. Now that people do know how things are progressing with the whole gay marriage thing, they are still free to try to get an amendment passed. If they can't get the support, am I really supposed to believe that the gays were master trickster that kept the religious conservatives from believing that they would push for equal rights as they were biding their time for the public to come around enough to make it impossible to get bigotry written into the constitution? And if I am supposed to believe that they are that good of tricksters, then good on 'em.
Again, it's not a question of did the ruling lead to gay marriage, it's why were there assurances at the time that it wouldn't when it had the possibility of doing so. But maybe we're confused on semantics. When someone says, "This court ruling will not lead to this social change," it's quite possible to interpret that as "This social change will not come about, because of this court ruling," as opposed to, "This court ruling has no effect on whether or not the social change will come."
Steroid wrote:Because no one seems to give a damn about the rights of the powerful, the majority …
I take it this incredible hyperbolic "no one" does not include the majority itself, then?
The other side includes the opposition groups. The groups themselves are of course on their own side. But what this, and what my "If the positions were reversed. . . " question, and your and Hawknc's answers show, is that no one here, and for the most part no one in the debate at large, is actually on the side of either group because of the specific nature of the issue involved. Homosexuals are a minority; homophobes are a minority; in the middle there's a great mass of people. Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost. Certainly I know I'm neither gay nor religious. And the difference among us disinterested parties is not which dog we have in the fight, but the rules of the game. One side says, "Smaller dog should win, and keep winning, until and unless it becomes the bigger dog, at which point we switch our support to the other." I on the other hand say, "Bigger dog should win, and keep winning, until the smaller dog goes away and refuses to fight anymore."
If the advocates of change were saying that they wanted homosexuals to be oppressing the religious-minded, I could understand, and if they achieved that, support not having it undone. If they said that they wanted homosexuality to be as normal in San Francisco as it is abnormal in Mississippi, I could understand that, and probably support it as the best compromise possible. But instead they take a different tack of compromise, wherein everywhere there has to be both homosexuality and heterosexuality, but nowhere is there heteronormativity or homonormativity. No norms, no mores, no underlying assumptions for a society that the people can count on and work with. That's what this is really about as far as I can see--not gay versus homophobic, but perpetual change versus norms.
I care about advocates of the status quo. However, I don't much care for the status quo itself, as it is an unjust one. I don't see the need to advocate the status quo just to see that the status quo is advocated. Are you proposing affirmative action for bad ideas?
We don't need affirmative action. They've already had their innings and gone as far as they can. I'm just saying we need to not proactively destroy them on the sole grounds that they're bad. Those of you who know me know my reasoning, but I'll repeat it in brief: any idea, even a bad one, is an idea from some human being, and human ideas and preferences are all I consider sacred.
Steroid wrote:And because I see equal idiocy and equal non-thinking on the side that seems to decide every issue against those groups and for the powerless, the minority, and the advocates of change.
The more typical and laudable response to perceived idiocy is to refute it, rather than to imitate it.
What do you think I'm doing?
Steroid wrote:To which I say: I'm not as confident as the blogger, I think it might well influence people to change their beliefs. I just think that's wrong, so wrong, much more wrong than denying someone marriage rights.
Ah, I misunderstood. But what's your basis for thinking that? On the one hand, there's the right to equality before the law. On the other hand… what, am I supposed to be immune from influences on my opinion now? Is there a "neutral" stance on the definition of marriage that the government is supposed to let stand? Would you also think it would be wrong for the government to abolish progressive taxation, thus influencing people's opinions on property and equality of outcome?
To the last, no, because the beneficiaries of progressive taxation are the government, and government aren't people. But that's off-topic. When a government finds the need to change a law to make it equal, fair, and just, perhaps instead of the sensitivity training we have now we should have insensitivity training classes to teach people how to maintain their opinions and not be influenced by the law. That's slightly silly, but what we do need as a movement is more disrespect for the laws that we disagree with.
podbaydoor wrote:Steroid, right now religious institutions are under no obligation whatsoever to marry interracial couples, couples of other faiths, or anyone they darn well don't want to marry - and this happens routinely. You'll find interfaith couples all over the place who had to search for places that would consent to marry them, or go to the justice of the peace. Why do you think gay marriage is any different? The hysterical insistence on "protecting" the rights of organizations to practice bigotry merely glosses over the fact that they are, in fact, free to privately practice bigotry however they please.
Sure. And once upon a time those institutions held sway over much of the societies they lived in, while today they're routinely lambasted in the press, argued against by the intelligentsia, and defied by those over whom they would have once influenced. That change, that loss, means nothing to you, and yet you claim to be the empathetic and non-bigoted ones.
Actually, I may have a solution here: gay robots. Just let loose a bunch of homosexual androids with the legal provisions that anyone who wants can separate one from its partner, brainwash it into becoming a heterosexual, or simply deactivate it. And if anyone starts advocating for their "rights" not to have those things done, we'll all be in agreement that those people are wrong. And we'll pass stronger laws every year to stop the gay robots from marrying. Then the gay humans can have their marriages and the homophobic humans can have their oppressions and everyone wins.