From the same genre as “The Democrats should throw the 2008 presidential election and make the GOP handle the economic crisis” and “Roe v. Wade actually hurt abortion rights,” we have the New York Times opining that the political success of the gay rights movement may–GASP!–have negative effects:
But momentum in the political world for gay rights could actually limit momentum in the legal world. While the court may throw out a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the justices signaled over two days of arguments that they might not feel compelled to intervene further, since the democratic process seems to be playing out on its own, state by state, elected official by elected official.
The prospect that gay rights advocates may become a victim of their own political success was underscored during arguments on Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Opponents of the law were left to make the paradoxical argument that the nation has come to accept that gay men and lesbians deserve the same right to marriage as heterosexuals while maintaining that they are a politically oppressed class deserving the protection of the courts.
Yes, I’m sure that if the LGBT movement was not having some success that Antonin Scalia et al* would be falling over themselves to declare LGBTs a protected class.
I would subject that idea to reasoned analysis but I’d rather just throw up a picture of Captain Picard:
[Updated]: Also in the “not quite getting the point” category comes the American Interest. Walter Russell Mead, while conceding that gay marriage is coming and that the bullying and violence of gays is evil and has to stop, argues for a more nuanced view.
Can a religious (or secular) organization opposed to homosexuality refuse to hire a gay man or a lesbian woman? It’s not cut and dried. One might recognize the right of a bishop to refuse to appoint a gay priest to lead a congregation, but can the church refuse to hire a gay man as a bingo caller? Or can a church charity that receives money from the government refuse to hire or promote a lesbian social worker?
Hmm. Let’s try that with a few substitutions:
Can a religious (or secular) organization opposed to [Judaism] refuse to hire a [Jew]? It’s not cut and dried. One might recognize the right of a bishop to refuse to appoint an [African-American priest] to lead a congregation, but can the church refuse to hire an [African-American] as a bingo caller? Or can a church charity that receives money from the government refuse to hire or promote a [female] social worker?
Actually, I think that it is pretty cut and dried.
[Update 2]: This, on the other hand, is well worth a read, including as it does such characters as “Fantasy Ginsburg.” Yes, it’s safe for work.
*et al being the other conservative members of court.