Nathan writes:
>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?
DOMA was a direct result of exactly the kind of stupid use of the courts that I'm complaining about. If the Hawaii Supreme Court had never made its ruling, there would have been no DOMA. But in the end, we got DOMA and the Hawaiian Constitution was amended to ban gay marriage.
The result of trying to depend on litigation for individual rights-- a net loss of rights.
Same with the Massachusetts decision. Before it, a number of states were passing domestic partnership laws, but now after MA's decision, we are seeing a whole new round of anti-gay marriage laws and state amendments and the FMA.
I'm not arguing that politics TODAY is ideal for gay rights, but many laws are moving in the right direction and the electorate, notably young voters, are moving that way. Trying to rush the decision now through the courts means that it will actually take LONGER to achieve equal rights, since now gay rights activists will need not just legislative majorities to achieve gay marriage but the larger political mobilization needed to overturn all these state constitutions and DOMA.
> 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).
No, that discrimination was already in place. DOMA just reinforced the status quo. I'm not arguing that the political process always is ideal, just that it beats the courts nine times out of ten.
>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?
My point is that neither has a constitutional right to advertise either product. If the states wants to ban advertisements of wicker furniture, tobacco, alcohol, sweatshop-made sneakers or sex toys, that "speech" should not be protected. Of course, anyone should retain the right to advocate the right to use any of those products, but commercial advertising should not be protected by the constitution.
>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.
What animus? I don't have "hostility" towards commercial sexual speech. I have hostility to the "commercial free speech" legal doctrine, and I am arguing against any progressive use of that doctrine as participating in the expansion of corporate rights.
Nathan Newman