dcnovice
Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
See, there's my beef in a nutshell. If gays (or fucking anybody) took the position that people should have a right to form whatever kind of life-union they want, be it straight, gay, polygamous, or polyandrous, without interference from some meddling nanny government, I would support them 100%. But that's not what gay marriage is about. The push for gay marriage stakes out a position that is every bit as selfish and self-interested as the opposition, and I have no time for either of them. Granted, gays don't want to make hetero marriage illegal. But they don't seem to have a quibble with laws that push poly unions under the bus. So I fail to see any moral high ground there. You raise a good point, Kirata. I think every movement for social change has had to wrestle with the question of focus. Do you target a specific change to seek--school desegregation, votes for women, same-sex marriage, what have you--even if that means other folks' issues go unaddressed? Was it "selfish" of the Civil Rights movement to focus on the plight of African Americans without addressing, say, the poverty and suffering of Native Americans? Or should we be fighting the broadest fights possible? And to what extent to do you factor in the hard realities of "the art of the possible"? The gay community wrestles with that in terms of ENDA. Do you strive to pass what you can get, even if that means leaving out "gender identity"? Or do you wait till you can get the whole loaf? I'm not sure what the answers are, to be honest. In terms of poly unions, I can't help noting that folks have had ages to voice their concern about the injustice of mono-only matrimony. But I honestly don't recall hearing anyone do so until gay marriage became a possibility.
_____________________________
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
|