29th June 2015, 1:08 PM
Indeed. Heck even back then, I was hard pressed to actually come up with a reason. In all honesty, I basically had resolved that I wasn't disgusted and couldn't think of a single harmful thing about it, and just decided that biblical commands like that were just a "test of obedience". The knowledge of the harm it did to those under that "test" came later.
This is good news, great news actually. I really don't have much to add to the "good" part that hasn't already been said all over the internet, so I'll talk about the bad and kinda ruin it for everyone. Well, I waited a few days first, didn't I?
The bad news is, 5 people were all that stood between marriage for all and taking a two decade leap backwards. The decision was 5-4. That's a pretty narrow margin. In actual fact, 4 of the pro-side were pretty much sure things anyway, leaving the fate of every gay person in America up to a single person. That's kinda a close call for something that important. Even with this decision and it's (correct) interpretation of constitutional law, there is wiggle room for amendments. In that spirit, I think that after the dust has settled it may be best to specifically pass a constitutional amendment promising this sort of recognition. Sure, the constitution when interpreted correctly SHOULD protect their rights already, but then again the constitution as originally written SHOULD have prohibited slavery, and promised the vote to everyone equally. Ultimately, we needed a few extra amendments for very SPECIFIC cases. In the past, I'd have said that's superfluous, but now I see these amendments as "scars", demonstrating our nation's history of terrible mistakes. In a perfect future, our constitution would be interpreted as treating black people and women people as though they were people, but well, that didn't work out until it was FORCED to work out. Amendments banning slavery remind us that at one time such an amendment was shamefully necessary. Heck, even prohibition and it's repeal tell us just how petty a huge majority can be and how quickly the tide of public opinion can turn. If nothing else, an amendment would be VERY hard to repeal.
That said, as things stand right now, there's no chance such an amendment would pass. Further, in 10 or 20 years, no one will see the point in such an amendment (and both parties will be doing their best to pretend that the moment that gay rights were protected by the supreme court is the moment all bigotry against homosexuals stopped). Huh, actually on that last point, bigotry immediately following this ruling has surged. States are desperate to "undo" it even though they lack the power to. Some states are illegally telling state employees they can deny someone a wedding license based on their personal opinions (which is true, but then they should be fired and replaced by someone who will do their job). Others are trying Oklahoma's infamous attempt at doing away with marriage in it's entirety. Yeah, I'm sure the majority of married people are going to side with you on THAT one, just as they totally did here. (For the record, those seeking to get married and those already married here in Oklahoma basically decided they didn't hate gay marriage ENOUGH to want to give up their OWN marriages to stop them, so the proposal died before ever getting a chance to be voted on.) Further, there will be homobigotry (I prefer that term to homophobia, because as empowering as the second term is, the first term tends to be more accurate) and violent acts for a long time to come, if history is anything to go by. Legal protection is only the start.
Next comes the Ts in LGBT. My suggestion is that bathrooms were constructed with the bigotry against them built right in from the start. I say that they all need some construction work done for true equality. Single-seaters will be easy, just make them unisex. It's the "rest rooms" that need the bigger overhaul. First step, convert urinals to stalls and built ACTUAL walls around the toilets like other countries have instead of those shoddy half-hearted half-covering walls they've got now, you know, ones that actually go all the way from floor to ceiling. Next, tear down the wall with the entrance doors. They'll basically become an alcove with a bunch of single user bathrooms in it, and a sink. Under those conditions, gender stops being an issue. (Obviously if there are load bearing structures in the wall, those stay up, and if nothing else they can strip out the door into the main area.) The most expensive part will be doing what America should have been doing anyway and building DECENT stall walls, there's no doubt about that. This will resolve any and all issues with trans rights concerning bathrooms.... but nothing else.
This is good news, great news actually. I really don't have much to add to the "good" part that hasn't already been said all over the internet, so I'll talk about the bad and kinda ruin it for everyone. Well, I waited a few days first, didn't I?
The bad news is, 5 people were all that stood between marriage for all and taking a two decade leap backwards. The decision was 5-4. That's a pretty narrow margin. In actual fact, 4 of the pro-side were pretty much sure things anyway, leaving the fate of every gay person in America up to a single person. That's kinda a close call for something that important. Even with this decision and it's (correct) interpretation of constitutional law, there is wiggle room for amendments. In that spirit, I think that after the dust has settled it may be best to specifically pass a constitutional amendment promising this sort of recognition. Sure, the constitution when interpreted correctly SHOULD protect their rights already, but then again the constitution as originally written SHOULD have prohibited slavery, and promised the vote to everyone equally. Ultimately, we needed a few extra amendments for very SPECIFIC cases. In the past, I'd have said that's superfluous, but now I see these amendments as "scars", demonstrating our nation's history of terrible mistakes. In a perfect future, our constitution would be interpreted as treating black people and women people as though they were people, but well, that didn't work out until it was FORCED to work out. Amendments banning slavery remind us that at one time such an amendment was shamefully necessary. Heck, even prohibition and it's repeal tell us just how petty a huge majority can be and how quickly the tide of public opinion can turn. If nothing else, an amendment would be VERY hard to repeal.
That said, as things stand right now, there's no chance such an amendment would pass. Further, in 10 or 20 years, no one will see the point in such an amendment (and both parties will be doing their best to pretend that the moment that gay rights were protected by the supreme court is the moment all bigotry against homosexuals stopped). Huh, actually on that last point, bigotry immediately following this ruling has surged. States are desperate to "undo" it even though they lack the power to. Some states are illegally telling state employees they can deny someone a wedding license based on their personal opinions (which is true, but then they should be fired and replaced by someone who will do their job). Others are trying Oklahoma's infamous attempt at doing away with marriage in it's entirety. Yeah, I'm sure the majority of married people are going to side with you on THAT one, just as they totally did here. (For the record, those seeking to get married and those already married here in Oklahoma basically decided they didn't hate gay marriage ENOUGH to want to give up their OWN marriages to stop them, so the proposal died before ever getting a chance to be voted on.) Further, there will be homobigotry (I prefer that term to homophobia, because as empowering as the second term is, the first term tends to be more accurate) and violent acts for a long time to come, if history is anything to go by. Legal protection is only the start.
Next comes the Ts in LGBT. My suggestion is that bathrooms were constructed with the bigotry against them built right in from the start. I say that they all need some construction work done for true equality. Single-seaters will be easy, just make them unisex. It's the "rest rooms" that need the bigger overhaul. First step, convert urinals to stalls and built ACTUAL walls around the toilets like other countries have instead of those shoddy half-hearted half-covering walls they've got now, you know, ones that actually go all the way from floor to ceiling. Next, tear down the wall with the entrance doors. They'll basically become an alcove with a bunch of single user bathrooms in it, and a sink. Under those conditions, gender stops being an issue. (Obviously if there are load bearing structures in the wall, those stay up, and if nothing else they can strip out the door into the main area.) The most expensive part will be doing what America should have been doing anyway and building DECENT stall walls, there's no doubt about that. This will resolve any and all issues with trans rights concerning bathrooms.... but nothing else.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)