Nathan writes:
> I happen to believe both are fundamental-- I just believe that gay marriage
should be allowed as fundamentally contributing to the betterment of human
happiness, just as regulation of the workplace should be supported for the
same reason. In neither case do I think allowing courts, rather than the
broader democratic process, would be better at ultimately finding the right
answer.
I agree, but the broader democratic process is not working too well right now for queers. Defense of Marriage Act anyone? Federal Marriage Amendment?
Queers have had to turn to the courts since the democratic process has turned so poisonous. Maybe if the left could overcome its puritanical streak and unite behind sexual rights and put their defense at the front of its agenda this would not be so, but alas the left lacks such courage. Consequently, the courts are the only realistic avenue left open at the present time.
If leftists could see beyond class relations as an issue and realize that sexual relations are equally important, we might be able to get somewhere. But too many leftists promote class relations as being first and foremost in order to disguise their puritanical, homophobic tendencies.
> And yet, historically, they have usually been overridden when they were
anti-racist or anti-sexist or anti-disabled persons.
Yes, but as in many areas, sexual matters do not run the same course.
> It was the political process that made discrimination against the disabled
illegal, not the courts.
But it was the political process that made discrimination against queers legal (DOMA).
> Ah, the "right" to commercial speech. More constitutional rights for
corporations, the same right they use to justify unlimited political
spending and the right not to be regulated in many ways.
Yup. My friends who make handcrafted whips, restraints, and other sexual paraphenalia do engage in commercial speech. And I believe that they have that right.
Are you arguing that a person who makes sex toys does not have the right to advertise while a person who makes wicker furniture does?
What is the difference?
> Yeah, corporate power in the name of sexual liberation.
You make some really weird leaps Nathan. Sexual speech can come in two varieties -- commercial and non-commercial. Now, if you are arguing that all commercial speech should be banned -- okay. I may disagree, but at least you are not singling out sexual speech.
However, if you are not making that argument, why do you have such hostility for the right of a person to engage in commercial sexual speech? You say that leftists should work together as allies, but it is hard to be allied with someone who bears as great a sexual animus as you do.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister