Sweden prepares to move from civil unions to full marriage equality. I've long said that civil unions, once accepted, can't help but be a preliminary to same-sex marriage-something that the religious right has long noted. But some gay activists take the view that we must move from no partnership rights to full marriage in one step by the decree of liberal courts, despite the opposition by a majority of a given state's electorate.
That's not a prescription for progress, but for the kind of backlash that leads to amendments barring marriage equity for at least a generation.
Self-defense ruling update. Gay liberals aren't happy as a libertarian gay activist fights for our right to self-defense.
8 Comments for “Stepping Stones Work.”
posted by Brian Miller on
“Prescriptions for backlash,” or just emulating prior successful movements?
Can someone provide me evidence of any permanent minority that won completely equal rights through enthusiastic acceptance of less-than-equal status “transitioning to equality over time?”
I cannot think of a single one.
As for gay Democrats trying to make an unconstitutional position vis-a-vis the Second amendment a “gay default,” that’s no surprise. Thankfully, they don’t represent anywhere near a unianimous consensus in the debate (as Palmer’s participation illustrates).
Further, if gay Democrats can just ignore the federal constitution when it comes to guns, that ultimately hurts us because it creates a situation within which our own rights under the Constitution’s equal protection clause can also be ignored due to political considerations.
That’s one reason why making Democrat issues into “gay” issues is so damaging to our community as a whole. Many Democratic positions — from high taxation, to government takeover of health care, to soaring government spending, to Social Security ponzi schemes — are profoundly hurtful to most LGBT people.
posted by Brian Miller on
This quote from the article is priceless:
?They shouted anti-gay epithets and they made death threats,? Palmer said. ?We ran and they chased us.?
Seconds later, Palmer pulled out a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol he owned legally and pointed it at the youths, whom he was certain had planned to harm or kill him and his companion in a gay bashing incident.
?It stopped them in their tracks,? he said. ?The leader of the group stared at the gun and said, ?Do you have a permit for that?? I said if they came any closer I would shoot. They backed off.?
As usual, anti-Second-Amendment concepts like “gun permits” and bans are well-loved by violent criminals and gay-bashers. . . not so much by the victims who could have avoided a severe assault or even death if they’d had the means to defend themselves.
posted by Marc on
Can someone provide me evidence of any permanent minority that won completely equal rights through enthusiastic acceptance of less-than-equal status “transitioning to equality over time?”
The goal shouldn’t be for complete acceptance at this point. but as Stephen points out, a gradual acceptance of gays in marriage. Hundreds of years of conditioning that marriage is only a “straight” thing isn’t going to come undone in a year; giving us the legal rights is an important first step. After gays had legal rights, marriage would follow because the argument that it harms straight marriages becomes a far more difficult one to prove. Gay activists completely underestimated how hard the religious right would push back against taking the “marriage” label , and now we find ourselves as one of linchpins of their campaign tactics.
And as far as those items you list being “Democratic position,” you must not be paying attention to the current administration, which has increased taxes and government, and proposed a boondoggle proposal to refund social security. (In contrast, under Clinton, spending and government size decreased.) As far as health insurance goes, I hope this remains a democratic issue. As a person who went without insurance for three years, I can’t believe we live in a democracy where a basic need as health care is considered a luxury.
posted by Chris Fox on
When I first heard about the Pink Pistols I was wildly enthused about this idea and joined a mailing list about it. Didn’t take long to find that a gay RKBA junkie is no less tiresome that any other one. Give me the self-defense without the Internet libertarian posturing, please!
posted by Brian Miller on
The goal shouldn’t be for complete acceptance at this point. but as Stephen points out, a gradual acceptance of gays in marriage
I understand that’s your thesis. I’m just asking for an example of a group of people who achieved equality through such a strategy.
There are literally dozens who achieved equal equality through demanding it — but not one that achieved it through a “gradual” strategy.
The only group that attempted such a strategy were “coloreds” in South Africa (“part-whites”), and they didn’t get equality — it was the black South Africans and their demands for full equality that trickled down to make ALL folks equal under the law.
Begging your pardon, but I don’t want a South African apartheid-era strategy for equality.
posted by Alex on
The demands are made, as loudly and forcefully as needed, but actual change happens over time.
I have no problem with making the demand without ceasing, but don’t lose sight of the steps me make getting there. We don’t ever want to get to a position where we say: Well this is good enough.
posted by Joel on
Quote: Can someone provide me evidence of any permanent minority that won completely equal rights through enthusiastic acceptance of less-than-equal status “transitioning to equality over time?”
The problem is that your attitude is self-perpetuating. That attitude has been prevalent in the courts for more than the last half-century, so democracy has never been given a chance. As a result, it’s going to be hard to find any recent examples.
One example I’d like to mention is women’s rights. This was pretty much completely democratic. You could argue that women weren’t permanent minorities, but they were permanently disenfranchised before men gave them equal political rights, without the need for messy court cases. Or look at the post-Civil War era. Supreme Court decisions helped get us embroiled in that battle, but it was the democratic process that produced amendments to the Constitution outlawing slavery and guaranteeing equal rights. Granted, it didn’t really get enforced for about a century, but it was much better than what the courts had done.
Even if you look at Brown v. Board of Education, that was decided in 1954. Blacks didn’t start gaining real equality until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the democratic process had a chance to function. Brown just produced a backlash; it wasn’t until the democratic process had a chance to run that we started to achieve meaningful, lasting equality.
–Joel
posted by Chris Fox on
Someone is missing the point. We work for full equality under marriage laws, we never set any lesser goals, but we accept and celebrate incremental progress. A state that goes from zero recognition to civil unions isn’t as good as a state with full marriage but it’s progress.
Nobody is advocating working hard for a better second-class status, but refusing to accept progress unless we get everything we want at once is just infantile