One of the themes in that article is that even as we are getting more technical free speech (the internet gives everyone a platform), we are losing a “culture of free speech” in which we, as a society, do not socially “punish” people for their speech.
You don’t say much here, but your sneering at the whole Hallmark situation seems to be in vague agreement with this idea: Everyone should have the ability to say whatever they want, but no one should actually act on what they’ve heard. Or at least, you agree on that insofar as progressives/liberals are concerned. I have zero doubt that if Hallmark had stuck with it’s flip, instead of proceeding to a full flip-flop, that you would have said nothing negative about them pulling the ads in response to One Million Moms.
Then again, you were against same-sex marriage becoming legal in the first place, so your lack of principles on this matter is no surprise.
posted by JoshR on
Why do you claim Stephen was “against gay marriage becoming legal in the first place?” If you look back through the archives that start in 2010, he was blogging in favor of gay marriage from the beginning. https://igfculturewatch.com/category/marriage-relationships/page/7/
Maybe it’s you, JohninCA, whose “lack of principles on this matter is no surprise.”
posted by JohnInCA on
Because I have a memory? Miller was, and is, conservative. And like most gay conservatives, he dropped “marriage” as a right worth fighting for by the end of the 90s and swapped over to “we’ll cause a backlash!” Throughout all the 2000s he regularly criticized gay activists for fighting for marriage equality.
That said, the archives go back way further then 2010. You can find Miller’s posts in the archive dating back before Lawrence.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
JohninCA is right, JoshR, at least in part.
If you take the time to go back into the archives past 2010**, you’ll a constant and consistent series of posts in the wake of Goodridge arguing that the push for marriage equality would result in a backlash from conservative Christians and more mainstream conservatives that would set back the cause of marriage equality for a decade or more.
The posts criticize left/liberal gays and lesbians for focusing/insisting on marriage equality, arguing that the push for marriage equality in the courts was wrongheaded because it would encourage backlash, and favoring an incremental approach (obtain some of the rights/reponsibilities of marriage through legislation, then as the time was right, seek marriage-equivalent civil unions, and finally many years down the road, after conservative eventually saw the light, seek marrige itself.
That is not to say that Stephen and other contributors writing those posts opposed marriage equality, per se, but they did oppose marriage equality in the sense of “a bridge too far”, aligning themselves with conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage.
This post (from the post “Miles to Go for Marriage” by Steve Swayne on November 4, 2004) will give you the flavor:
“The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Goodridge ruling, declaring that the Bay State must recognize full same-sex marriage — rather than civil unions with the rights associated with marriage, as in Vermont — will be viewed as a move that went too far, too fast, and triggered a wave of state actions that actually set back the cause of marriage equality for decades (it was George Bernard Shaw, I think, who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions).
Or maybe the success of these anti-gay ballot initiatives will show that states are quite capable of stopping same-sex marriage if they want to, derailing the pressure for a federal Constitutional amendment.
In any event, the battle for marriage equality is going to be long and hard, with many setbacks but also a few victories (Massachusetts voters may allow their same-sex marriages to stand; other states will add or beef up their domestic partnership laws; the next generation is going to be far more comfortable with gay equality than today’s average voter.) Better strategies, pursued along less partisan lines and attempting to appeal to voters not already on the liberal left, could be put into play. In time, federalism allows what works to spread and exposes what’s hidebound. Not today. Not tomorrow. But eventually.”
======================
** Do a search for “Goodridge” for example, and you’ll find a number of earlier posts.
posted by Jorge on
That is not to say that Stephen and other contributors writing those posts opposed marriage equality, per se, but they did oppose marriage equality in the sense of “a bridge too far”, aligning themselves with conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage.
Oh, good God, you put the formula out in black and white and you still misread it.
Mr. Miller wasn’t arguing that legalizing same sex marriage was a bridge too far. He is arguing that legalizing same sex marriage through the spite of a political majority was a bridge too far.
It is not too different from my longstanding position of opposing legalization of SSM judicially and wanting it to be done legislatively.
Since then Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach has spread from a warning against judicial decisions to a warning against left-wing legislation, the the consequences he has predicted have shifted from specific unfavorable state-by-state legislation impairing married couples to a general warning that gays will lose the political influence and clout to respond to short- or medium-term concerns. I also think he believes gays are losing our moral authority to weigh in on political matters. I have gained some distance from him along the way.
posted by Jorge on
“These are difficult issues to navigate but when you’re going to make a call one way or another, make sure you understand the ramifications. You only want to pull the Band-Aid off once.”
You mean like Nancy Pelosi on her support of… the late Rep. John Conyers? (Ah, I did not know he had passed.)
If it is for the greater good, then say so. There is much to be gained from doing down with the ship on principle, but it is not the only way. Let your divided loyalties set you free, and speak the truth out of love.
Oh, well excuse me for citing the exception that proves the rule. Thoughts and prayers, okay?
posted by Edward Brown on
The ad is for some pricey stuff.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mr. Miller wasn’t arguing that legalizing same sex marriage was a bridge too far. He is arguing that legalizing same sex marriage through the spite of a political majority was a bridge too far.
That’s not quite true, Jorge.
Stephen did not argue that marriage equality should await a majority of the American people as a whole (that bridge was crossed before Obergefell), but instead that marriage equality should wait until until the minority (that is, conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed marriage equality on various grounds) were won over to accept/tolerate the idea of marriage equality.
Stephen also argued that marriage equality should come state-by-state, rather than nationally, applying the logic of minority acceptance/tolerance in each state/region as a prerequisite of gaining marriage equality in each state.
Stephen’s argument over the years was essentially that equal treatment for gays/lesbians under the law cannot be really won unless and until the anti-equality demographic has been moved to accept/tolerate equal treatment.
That is a dubious position when it comes to constitutional issues of equal treatment under the law for minorities, particularly (as was the case then) of despised minorities like gays/lesbians. I would, in fact, suggest that Stephen was much more interested in protecting the well-being of the conservative Christian bloc that wrote the 2016 Republican National Platform than in advancing marriage equality.
It is not too different from my longstanding position of opposing legalization of SSM judicially and wanting it to be done legislatively.
That is also a dubious position, in my opinion.
The courts have, thoughout our history, held majoritarian rule in check by drawing a constitutional line over which the majority could not cross — the Jehovah’s Witnesses cases in the 1940’s, Brown v. Board in the 1950’s, Loving and Yoder in the 1960’s and so on. I think that holding majority rule in check by drawing constitutional lines is a critical constitutional duty and obligation of the judicial branch, a principle that was established in Marbury at the dawn of our nation’s history.
We are awaiting a decision of that nature this Term in the baker/florist/photographer cases, in which the Supreme Court might overrule/distinguish Employment Division, in which the Supreme Court established that the constitutional line for laws of general application is “rational basis” rather than the Yoder test, despite a strong majoritatian view that businesses serving the general public should serve all of the general public, including gays and lesbians, on an equal footing.
Since then Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach …
I can’t help but observe that “Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach” is somewhat selective, depending on whether or not he agrees with what he perceives as “the majority”.
posted by Edward Brown on
The culture war is not over. not if you live in places where Trump is king.
9 Comments for “Hallmark Missed Who Won the Culture War”
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m reminded of a recent Reason.com article, “Was this the Decade we hit Peak Free Speech”.
One of the themes in that article is that even as we are getting more technical free speech (the internet gives everyone a platform), we are losing a “culture of free speech” in which we, as a society, do not socially “punish” people for their speech.
You don’t say much here, but your sneering at the whole Hallmark situation seems to be in vague agreement with this idea: Everyone should have the ability to say whatever they want, but no one should actually act on what they’ve heard. Or at least, you agree on that insofar as progressives/liberals are concerned. I have zero doubt that if Hallmark had stuck with it’s flip, instead of proceeding to a full flip-flop, that you would have said nothing negative about them pulling the ads in response to One Million Moms.
Then again, you were against same-sex marriage becoming legal in the first place, so your lack of principles on this matter is no surprise.
posted by JoshR on
Why do you claim Stephen was “against gay marriage becoming legal in the first place?” If you look back through the archives that start in 2010, he was blogging in favor of gay marriage from the beginning.
https://igfculturewatch.com/category/marriage-relationships/page/7/
Maybe it’s you, JohninCA, whose “lack of principles on this matter is no surprise.”
posted by JohnInCA on
Because I have a memory? Miller was, and is, conservative. And like most gay conservatives, he dropped “marriage” as a right worth fighting for by the end of the 90s and swapped over to “we’ll cause a backlash!” Throughout all the 2000s he regularly criticized gay activists for fighting for marriage equality.
That said, the archives go back way further then 2010. You can find Miller’s posts in the archive dating back before Lawrence.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
JohninCA is right, JoshR, at least in part.
If you take the time to go back into the archives past 2010**, you’ll a constant and consistent series of posts in the wake of Goodridge arguing that the push for marriage equality would result in a backlash from conservative Christians and more mainstream conservatives that would set back the cause of marriage equality for a decade or more.
The posts criticize left/liberal gays and lesbians for focusing/insisting on marriage equality, arguing that the push for marriage equality in the courts was wrongheaded because it would encourage backlash, and favoring an incremental approach (obtain some of the rights/reponsibilities of marriage through legislation, then as the time was right, seek marriage-equivalent civil unions, and finally many years down the road, after conservative eventually saw the light, seek marrige itself.
That is not to say that Stephen and other contributors writing those posts opposed marriage equality, per se, but they did oppose marriage equality in the sense of “a bridge too far”, aligning themselves with conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage.
This post (from the post “Miles to Go for Marriage” by Steve Swayne on November 4, 2004) will give you the flavor:
======================
** Do a search for “Goodridge” for example, and you’ll find a number of earlier posts.
posted by Jorge on
That is not to say that Stephen and other contributors writing those posts opposed marriage equality, per se, but they did oppose marriage equality in the sense of “a bridge too far”, aligning themselves with conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage.
Oh, good God, you put the formula out in black and white and you still misread it.
Mr. Miller wasn’t arguing that legalizing same sex marriage was a bridge too far. He is arguing that legalizing same sex marriage through the spite of a political majority was a bridge too far.
It is not too different from my longstanding position of opposing legalization of SSM judicially and wanting it to be done legislatively.
Since then Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach has spread from a warning against judicial decisions to a warning against left-wing legislation, the the consequences he has predicted have shifted from specific unfavorable state-by-state legislation impairing married couples to a general warning that gays will lose the political influence and clout to respond to short- or medium-term concerns. I also think he believes gays are losing our moral authority to weigh in on political matters. I have gained some distance from him along the way.
posted by Jorge on
“These are difficult issues to navigate but when you’re going to make a call one way or another, make sure you understand the ramifications. You only want to pull the Band-Aid off once.”
You mean like Nancy Pelosi on her support of… the late Rep. John Conyers? (Ah, I did not know he had passed.)
If it is for the greater good, then say so. There is much to be gained from doing down with the ship on principle, but it is not the only way. Let your divided loyalties set you free, and speak the truth out of love.
Oh, well excuse me for citing the exception that proves the rule. Thoughts and prayers, okay?
posted by Edward Brown on
The ad is for some pricey stuff.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mr. Miller wasn’t arguing that legalizing same sex marriage was a bridge too far. He is arguing that legalizing same sex marriage through the spite of a political majority was a bridge too far.
That’s not quite true, Jorge.
Stephen did not argue that marriage equality should await a majority of the American people as a whole (that bridge was crossed before Obergefell), but instead that marriage equality should wait until until the minority (that is, conservative Christians and other conservatives who opposed marriage equality on various grounds) were won over to accept/tolerate the idea of marriage equality.
Stephen also argued that marriage equality should come state-by-state, rather than nationally, applying the logic of minority acceptance/tolerance in each state/region as a prerequisite of gaining marriage equality in each state.
Stephen’s argument over the years was essentially that equal treatment for gays/lesbians under the law cannot be really won unless and until the anti-equality demographic has been moved to accept/tolerate equal treatment.
That is a dubious position when it comes to constitutional issues of equal treatment under the law for minorities, particularly (as was the case then) of despised minorities like gays/lesbians. I would, in fact, suggest that Stephen was much more interested in protecting the well-being of the conservative Christian bloc that wrote the 2016 Republican National Platform than in advancing marriage equality.
It is not too different from my longstanding position of opposing legalization of SSM judicially and wanting it to be done legislatively.
That is also a dubious position, in my opinion.
The courts have, thoughout our history, held majoritarian rule in check by drawing a constitutional line over which the majority could not cross — the Jehovah’s Witnesses cases in the 1940’s, Brown v. Board in the 1950’s, Loving and Yoder in the 1960’s and so on. I think that holding majority rule in check by drawing constitutional lines is a critical constitutional duty and obligation of the judicial branch, a principle that was established in Marbury at the dawn of our nation’s history.
We are awaiting a decision of that nature this Term in the baker/florist/photographer cases, in which the Supreme Court might overrule/distinguish Employment Division, in which the Supreme Court established that the constitutional line for laws of general application is “rational basis” rather than the Yoder test, despite a strong majoritatian view that businesses serving the general public should serve all of the general public, including gays and lesbians, on an equal footing.
Since then Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach …
I can’t help but observe that “Mr. Miller’s argument on the dangers of the anti-majoritarian approach” is somewhat selective, depending on whether or not he agrees with what he perceives as “the majority”.
posted by Edward Brown on
The culture war is not over. not if you live in places where Trump is king.