The misandry of the far right GOP

I can't help but wonder if this kind of histrionics is similar to the rumbling that comes before a volcanic eruption, which will bury the party in a thousand tons of burning, boiling ash.

To be fair, Max, the quote is both misandrist and misogynist. It asserts that (straight) women have no control over sexuality and no agency within sexuality, that we're just slaves to (straight) male sexual drive.

Anyway, I want gay marriage legal, like, yesterday, and it doesn't affect me quite as personally as misogyny does, but I am quite passionate about all civil rights issues. But when Obama says he is "evolving" on gay marriage, I hear codespeak for "wait until my second term, guys." Insofar as pragmatism is concerned, I'd rather have gay marriage legal in a year or two and staying that way, rather than legal this moment and overturned by Republicans in a year or two. Also, Obama can't pass laws on his own; he needs a decent-sized majority in both houses of Congress. 'Til he has that, his hands are tied.

Though I do wonder how it would fly. Family law is the only kind of law that's almost entirely regulated by the states. I don't think that's a particularly good thing, but it makes sense as the family is such a small unit that it's just difficult to deal with at the national level.

RichardGarfinkle said:

But, and I know this isn't a fashionable view that's largely the role of the judiciary. It's why they have lifetime appointments, so as to be free of electoral calculus.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. First of all, civil rights for a minority should never be decided by the tyranny of the majority. Secondly, on the pragmatic level, I'd rather see the judiciary rule discrimination against gays unconstitutional than laws originating in Congress granting equal protection for gay folks. If the judiciary decides it, it's over and done. If Congress does, then you can have new laws every electoral cycle. Oh, right now gay marriage is cool, but a few years from now it'll be civil unions, and after that no union at all, then back to civil unions, etc. That at least has the potential to happen. Even new constitutional amendments can be revoked. Court judgments can be reversed by the court system, too, but I don't think I can recall a single time when civil rights were rolled backward by the courts. In other words, for an analogy, I'm more comfortable with Roe v. Wade than I would be with a national law forbidding the illegalization of abortion by the states. Though mileage may certainly vary, and I know that I might feel differently if I were a grown woman in 1970 and had to pick between, say, reproductive rights now versus much more immutable reproductive rights three years later.

Yorkist pretty much covered my view of the topic. Good post!

I will add that I am angry at the Democrats in Congress, and Obama too to a certain extent, about civil rights issues when it comes to LBGT topics. The party that fights for civil rights could do much better, imho. Since when are civil rights negotiable in a modern society?

backslashbaby said:

Yorkist pretty much covered my view of the topic. Good post!

I will add that I am angry at the Democrats in Congress, and Obama too to a certain extent, about civil rights issues when it comes to LBGT topics. The party that fights for civil rights could do much better, imho. Since when are civil rights negotiable in a modern society?

Click to expand...

This is a real problem in a political world.

Consider the following scenario:

You are personally supporter of gay rights, including marriage rights. You are running for congress, and your opponent, the incumbent, is a homophobe and staunch opponent of gay marriage, gay adoption, and in fact, gay anything. He has introduced bills to ban gay teachers in elementary schools.

You live in a conservative district, and although the incumbent is not particularly well liked, has solid support among conservatives.

You are asked if you favor gay marriage. If you say yes, you will lose the election. So, do you say yes, assuring the conservative incumbent reelection and subsequent freedom to pursue a gay bashing agenda?

Or do you waffle, come out for civil unions, but declare your support for "traditional" marriage, and bide your time?

In other words, do you take the pragmatic approach, work incrementally for equality, and lie about your beliefs, or stand on principle -- which allows the homophobe to remain in office?

Politicians are faced with this type of choice every day. It's usually dismissed as "they'll say anything to get elected and stay in power."

But it's not that simple.

What if you and a few others like you would tip the balance of power, enabling you to promote countless other programs addressing environmental laws -- or a decision to go to war? But your principled stand on gay marriage will result in very bad things happening in other vital areas?

People with unyielding moral beliefs and unshakeable principles do well as activists and proponents for causes. They do not get elected. And laws cannot be changed by activists, no matter how just their cause. They can and do influence decisions, but in the end, laws are only changed by legislators.

I too am disappointed in the Democratic record here, but political realities are something that have to be faced.

I'm not advocating abandonment of principle. Just saying that the issues involved are difficult and complicated, and it's always going to be a tough call.

On the whole, more pragmatism and less principle would be a good thing - progress might actually be possible under such a scenario. But only if both parties participate, rather than just one of them.

It's the nature of men to want to have sex. Marriage is a way to constrain these urges and to channel them into long-term, exclusive commitments so that the children produced have a stable family structure.

Click to expand...

Wow. That makes marriage sound incredibly lame.