The Courts and Civil Rights

The Maximum Leader opposes "activist judges" who impose a minority viewpoint of rights on the majority. He advocates slow, democratic change and persuasion.

Well, friends, if we had followed the Maximum Leader's advice, we would still have "colored" drinking fountains. The desegregation of America was (rightfully) accomplished through the action of "activist judges" who decided that the Constitution applied to everyone, public consensus be damned (or, in the case of the army, by an a President who ended segregation by fiat, public consensus be damned).

And once we started going to school together, and working in the same military units, and sharing restaurants, and working on PTA committees, we decided (for the most part), hey, people of a different skin color are just people. This was a GOOD thing.

(Side note: The definition of an "activist judge?" A judge who makes a ruling with which the speaker disagrees.)

Denying the rights of marriage to homosexuals IS unconstitutional. Conservatives have already ceded that ground. If it wasn't unconstitutional on it's face, continued discrimination would not require the amending of state and national constitutions. Civil unions are one way to offer rights to homosexuals without using the religiously-charged term of "marriage." But I'm not sure that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny either; remember "separate is inherently unequal?"

The Anti-gay Marriage Amendment was DOA last time. I suspect that it will have a hard time making it through the Senate, but its odds just improved. The Analphilosopher believes it will sail through and become the law of the land. He's right about the House, and the election results give credence to his claims about state ratification, but I'm still not sure it will be able to make it through the Senate. As the founding fathers intended, the Senate, with rolling six-year terms, is less susceptible to pressure from the mob (the mob word used advisedly as the founding fathers would have used it). I think the furor over Spector may tell the tale about the Senate's reaction to evangelical influence. If the Senate stands by a moderate and the seniority system, it will demonstrate its insularity from public opinion. But if old Arlen gets thrown out of the lifeboat, Dobson and his boys will be ascendant and the amendment might just squeak by.

If the Anti-gay Marriage Amendment passes, I think things look very bad for gays in the future. Even a slow erosion of homophobic bigotry would not lead to equality; to overturn an amendment requires a supermajority. The repeal, even if more tolerant young people begin to vote in solid numbers as they age, will be long in coming.

I think a movement to sway popular opinion will have a hard road as well.

A campaign to shame middle America into rejecting bigotry will be harder than MLK's campaign four decades ago.

1) Gays, being a smaller proportion of the population, have a smaller pool out of which to produce activists.

2) Unlike blacks, gays can hide their identity; the pool of talented, activist, leaders will be small. If a gay man or woman is successful, they have a serious interest in remaining in the closet rather than embracing the cause.

3) African-American protests gained strength from deep religious convictions. Folks who are fervently Christian most likely belong to a denomination that condemns homosexuality. Folks who belong to denominations that are laissez-faire towards sexuality probably aren't very fervent about their faith. As Eddie Izard, the official comic of the Maximum Leader, says, Episcopalians don't go on Jihads: "Cake or Death!" isn't an effective battle cry.

4) Americans, out of a sense of fairness, don't like to deny people rights because of their birth. Public perception, science be damned, is that homosexuality is a choice, which presents a stark contrast with being born black. If the willingness of the public to deny science when it refers to deeply held religious beliefs, reflected by the continued distrust of evolutionary theory in 2004, serves as a guide, the belief in "choice" is here to stay.

5) When African-American activists marched for civil rights, Machiavellian calculation put children in front of the march. When redneck sheriffs turned fire hoses and dogs on little kids, middle American, watching television in their comfortable living rooms, recoiled. But kids, not having fully expressed their sexuality at 10, will not be part of the movement. Gay teenagers are likely to be living with straight parents who are in denial of their kid's orientation, and leery of the peer-group consequences of coming out of the closet, also won't be marching. So public protests are unlikely to garner much sympathy. In fact, the in-your-face, we're-here-and-queer, beleashed-leather-boys who turn out on the margins are likely to arouse the opposite emotion.

6) Parents will take risks for their kids. Black parents were willing to take risks to improve the lives of their children. White parents could feel empathy for a parent's love. Neither of these factors will be work for gay activists - either to create activists or persuade the majority.

So, my friends, it looks like a long road ahead for our gay colleagues. Someone please tell me why I'm wrong.