To be free a society must have the power of self-determination. If same-sex marriage becomes the law democratically I'll recognize it. Intimidation and judicial activism (Vaughn Walker
) being the completely opposite approach.
we really have to vote on whether or not a minority is entitled to the same rights as us? should we really have had people vote on Brown vs. Board of Ed? should the good people of Alabama have been allowed to vote on whether or not black people could attend the state university?
as for Judge Walker, everyone with a pulse knows that Olsen/Boies utterly
decimated the Prop 8 crowd by any reasonable legal standard. that's not an opinion, that is a fact. read any of the coverage of the case and you'll see what little the Prop 8 crowd was able to muster when it came to witnesses. in this situation, particularly, crying "judicial activism" is incredibly weak when this is precisely what a judge is supposed to do.
it is striking, however, that SSM does very well in the courts but not so well at the ballot box. it's a great example of how minority rights must be protected by the judiciary in a democracy, and also an example of the benefits of a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
the fact remains that i never got to vote on your marriage, so why should you be able to vote on mine?
Now you'd think....you'd think... it would be the far-Right that would work with religious radicals and be sympathetic to their fights and causes. "Women as chattel, theocracy, kill the gays. Count us in !!" And that the Left... the Left... would shun those parts of the Muslim world that fail to observe gay rights, equality for women, free speech or secular democracy.
But it's just the opposite. It's the far-Left that gives aid to Islamic Totalitarianism. Why is that? Why is it that if a Christian speaks out about the lack of human rights in Muslim countries or if a conservative (Bill O'Reilly) states that "there is a Muslim problem in the world," it's those on the Left that walkout in protest or shout "Islamophobia!!" ?
except that it's not just the opposite and you've created a situation that's rhetorically beneficial but really not rooted in reality.
my guess is that i would argue that the best way to help gays in Iraq, for example -- who have vastly worst lives now than they did under Saddam -- is not to bomb and invade. believe it or not, most people on the Left like the idea of democracy and free speech and all that. we just disagree that you can bomb and invade countries to make them accept these things. it was Left win gay activists like Dan Choi -- the one who chained himself to the WH fence over DADT -- who was beaten by thugs in Moscow after they tried to hold a gay pride parade. so to characterize all of the Left as subservient to ideals of "multiculturalism" to the point where it trumps basic human rights isn't correct. look at, say, female genital mutilation in Africa. it was women's groups who brought this issue to right, and i didn't see anyone on the Left supporting the right of societies to slice out the genitalia of an 11-year old girl in the name of "multiculturalism."
and there are many gay organizations that seek to help gay refugees from African and Muslim countries get out of these countries and off to London, New York, or wherever. however, the government of the US seems to be not as sympathetic as it could be to these cases.
The question isn't "are Christians speaking out about the persecution and murder of gays in Muslim countries." It's why are those on the Left (with exceptions) so afraid to?
i just don't see this as the situation, but i do know that there are some right wing gay people who think that the GOP could form an alliance, of sorts, with gay conservatives (they do exist!) on issues like this. believe it or not, there is a very, very strong libertarian impulse in the gay community that probably could be tapped into by the GOP, but right now, you're riding the nativist/Christianist tiger you rode in on, so until you leave that behind, it's not going to happen.
further, isn't marriage, for example, a very conservative thing? it seems to me that it isn't marriage or "traditional marriage" that's at stake at all -- or is even what people actually care about. if you thought marriage was so great, wouldn't you want everyone to get married? no, what's going on here is the darker, more reptilian side of conservatism that feels an idyllic past slipping away and an unfamiliar world taking root. we are in the midst of an enormous cultural shift, especially racially, and that's going to inevitably cause some panic. and SSM is really just one aspect of this. which ties into what i was saying about the phrase "i believe" earlier -- that's a statement of identity, not of evidence.
You're quite right about that and that's exactly why I feel embarrassed about attitudes I had 10 years or so ago. They were hurtful. I still have a traditional view of marriage but I'm very careful how I present my arguments. I think they're defendable but I'm fine with those that disagree and respect those with an informed, albeit, opposite opinion
and i appreciate that.
though i still think your proposed gay ice cream flavor of "double banana nut crunch" was hilarious.
)
