No Big Deal
Via Virginia Postrel--who got it from a DeepGlamour co-blogger--here's a letter in The New York Times from South Pasadena (a nice neighborhood):
California has a proposition on the November ballot seeking to reverse the right of same-sex couples to marry. I am a heterosexual, married mother of three, but I find Proposition 8 no different from any other attempt to deny people their fundamental rights.
Our neighbors have a “Yes on 8” sign on their front lawn and on their many minivans. While I respect differences of opinion, to me this is hate speech and deeply offensive. My meager “No on 8” lawn sign hardly seems enough. Can I destroy their sign?
Anonymous,
South Pasadena, Calif.
Virginia notes what a foolish letter this is (is it even real?), and how it hurts the cause of those who oppose Proposition 8. Alas, I found the first paragraph of Philip Galanes' answer not much better:
I applaud your empathy and enthusiasm for the cause. When so many of our neighbors are losing their homes and jobs, and international crises loom around every corner, this seems like a strange moment to worry about keeping people who want to marry from marrying. (Trust me, there’s enough confetti to go around.)
This is a common argument, and it's never any good. A problem is dismissed because there are bigger problems. Well, there are pretty much always bigger problems around, and life doesn't stop while we attempt to solve them. (Some feel gay marriage is a big problem, by the way, but I'm accepting Galanes' premise.) Imagine saying to a judge "your honor, with a world full of rape and murder, why are we wasting time with this traffic ticket?"
The real problem with this argument is there's always an easy response: "You're absolutely right, in the scheme of things, this is no big deal--so do it my way since it matters so little."
posted by LAGuy @ 12:36 AM
4 Comments:
If that were the end of it, I might agree. However the straw man doesn't exist. the answer, couched in weasel words like "seems" is not attempting to dispense with the argument by saying other more important things, it is pointing out the disconnect between supporters of different causes by highlighting issues which have a high percentage of concern (war, job loss, economy) with ones that appeal to a smaller segment (decline in traditional values, redefinition of normal etc...).
Also the mere fact that such an argument is not dispositive does not mean that it is not informative. In your example, yes it would seem odd for the law enforcement to spend too much time on parking tickets when apparently there is big rape and murder problem going on. Its potentially evidence of a citizenry ignoring things that are out of control and trying to focus on things it can.
Another response muight be:
It was an important enough problem for teh CA S.Ct. to take its valuable time to overturn a State referendum passed by 61% of the population. Any political issue seems much larger when your side is losing.
Any political issue seems much larger when your side is losing.
Indeed. One person's anti-majoritarian failure to respect the will of the people is another's individual civil liberties issue. That's always the place where the rubber meets the road.
A friend of mine in Alabama just told me her Obama sign was removed in the middle of the night. Not surprising -- both sides engage in this sort of thing on the fringes. But the kicker -- they put a McCain/Palin sign in its place. Now that's chutzpah!
Post a Comment
<< Home