Getting (vaguely) political

[drcpunk]

So, I've been reading a lot of Go Team, Rah! rhetoric about gay marriage, and since I'm on the team in favor, it sounded nice. Too nice. All this stuff about how bigotry is destined to fail -- Oh, I so want to believe it. A nice Casablance ending, where this time, we just know the good guys will win.

One of the things I try to bear in mind is how politically naive I am. I sometimes even try to compensate for it. So, I asked my friend, Harold Feld, what he thought. Now, he's a lawyer, so I was not surprised when I got back a detailed explanation of what disturbed him about the legal processes some of the folks supporting gay marriage were using. I read the rest of his email, getting to the detailed explanation of why he considered this legal reasoning a disaster, despite the fact that he supports civil marriage for gays and lesbians. After a few more email exchanges, I urged him to post a more polished version of what he was sending me, because I think he's saying important things, and that they should not be filtered through my decidedly nonlegal mind.

He's now put it up at wetmachine, saying pessimistically that, no doubt, folks will consider him an Evil Bigot. At least, I hope he's being pessimistic. If not, those same folks will either lump me in that category or decide that I just don't get it.

But I think it's important to hear that we are not guaranteed a win on this, that we may well lose, and why. And I shudder when I think about what losing this one would mean.

Comments

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

That's fine -- my main position is that I think folks are being too optomistic, and y'know, I'd love to be wrong. Harold's position is spelled out, if not spell checked, and he's far better qualified than I to defend it (especially as my position is not identical to his). I'm not going to attempt to play telephone beyond having gotten him to post the article in the first place.

-Lisa