Same Old Same Sex
New Jersey has voted down a proposal to allow same-sex marriage. It's yet another setback for SSM, which simply doesn't have popular support yet.
Proponents vow to take the issue to the courts. I guess that's the next logical venue, but as long as the issue is unpopular, this will continue to allow opponents to use it politically, when, I'm guessing, a lot of politicians just wish it would go away for a while.
The New York Times suggests:
Although it was not a major issue in the governor’s race, the effort to win legislative approval of same-sex marriage is widely viewed as a casualty of Mr. Corzine’s defeat in November. Some Democrats who had been receptive to the issue, and took financial and organizational support from gay activists, grew squeamish.
I don't get this. If it wasn't a big issue, why should the results of the election make any difference? If anything, it should have concentrated the minds of supporters, since Corzine would have signed the bill, while his replacement won't. I think this is just a useful excuse for Democrats to vote against it.
As always, both sides pick their own analogies to explain their votes. Opponents say this is the kind of law that changes a culture, and breaks down society.
But Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat from Essex, said that the furor surrounding gay marriage was based on the same type of unfounded fear of the unknown that was used to justify discrimination against women and racial minorities.
“One day people will look back and say, ‘What were they thinking?’ ” Senator Codey said, and, “ ‘What were they so afraid of?’ ”
Maybe they will look back and say that--in fact, I think they will--but, as I've argued in the past, why do people think this argument convinces anyone. It's more likely to insult them. Is Codey moved when the other side says if he votes for this, he'll look back and wonder why he destroyed the institution that's the backbone of our society?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:18 AM
6 Comments:
Maybe they will look back and say that--in fact, I think they will ...
I agree with your main point, that such a claim obviously can't convince anyone.
But I am always amazed that so many on all sides of an issue hold this belief. Basically, what they are saying is this: Today, on this issue, many people hold opinion X, while many (including myself) hold opinion Y. But sometime in the not-too-distant future, just about everyone will agree that Y is true.
I find it hard to see how (except in rare cases, such as a growing scientific consensus) such a claim can be defended. I would expect, a priori, that if the issue is divisive today it will continue to be divisive tomorrow. And why doesn't anyone ever say "Today, this is divisive; in the future almost everyone will believe Y, but I nonetheless believe X"? It's as if, deep inside, they believe that truth is determined by majority vote. And if the majority today is against them, they must claim to abide by the majority vote of some imaginary future.
Marx's theory of history includes such an axiom, and I find it the most bizarre part of Marxism: its two core beliefs are "The proletariat ought to triumph" and "The proletariat will inevitably triumph". Very comforting!
That's one of the problems with Marx (some would say--true Marxists can explain everything, I suppose). He claims (in his scientific way) that the triumph of the proletariat, and the transition of late capitalism into communism, is inevitable. So even if the intellectuals are required to lead the revolution, why bother to take up arms--it's gonna happen no matter what you do. Makes you wonder if people who argue something is inevitable really believe what they're saying.
I think Hillary argued inevitability in 2007 and look where that got her
I don't buy the "inevitability" argument. I look to the fight to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s. It too was presented as the next logical and necessary step in advancing civil rights. It never got close and is utterly forgotten today. The reason being it soon became apparent that it wasn't necessary - that women were going to be free to assume any job they could qualify for.
I suspect the same thing will happen with gay marriage. This is not to saythere won't be civil unions, and various states will extend various benefits to same sex couples. Even big private sector companies are doing this if they want to be competitive in the pool of talented employees who happen to be gay and seek this perk. And look at how Disney land and cruise lines and film makers all see the benfit in catering to the niche gay market. I think Gays will be just fine without states calling their unions by the specific term "marriage."
The ERA never got close? It was only a handful of states away from passing, and truly did look unstoppable. It's still an amazing, or horrifying tale of how it was stopped. Yet you admit it didn't even make any difference, since all the rules that would have followed from the ERA have followed anyway.
"I think Gays will be just fine without states calling their unions by the specific term "marriage.""
Well thanks for your consideration, but perhaps gays actually want equal rights, and not bones thrown to them which would cause a revolution if offered to others who presently enjoy full marriage rights.
I think its more probable that the concept of marriage becomes irrelevant- why should the state define our relationships?
Post a Comment
<< Home