Denying gay rights

Laurence over at Commentary has written one of the most amazing posts ever in which he suggests that gay rights (particularly marriage rights) must wait until the US voter is ready. What utter rubbish.

We’re talking about a basic human right here. The right to marry who you want. Nobody has any say in who somebody loves and ultimately wants to marry. Suggesting that maybe homosexual people should wait 15, 20 or 100 years until the bible bashing right wing US voter is prepared to accept them is bullocks.

Homosexual people have the same rights as anybody else and they deserve them now, not when it makes reactionaries happy. Rights are intrinsic; they don’t wait in line until their turn trying not to offend. Any decent democracy enacts all rights to all citizens immediately and if some of those rights make others uncomfortable – so be it. That discomfort does not mean the rights should be denied.

My suggestion to US gay activists is to challenge the gay marriage ban through the constitutional court, tough if it makes some (or many) uncomfortable

Comments

[Shaun]

It takes time for people to change - especially when it challenges their conditioned in values. Humankind has been through many of these things, and each one of them takes its own time - look at the rights of women, the rights of blacks in America etc. So, this time its Gay Marriage - I wonder what the next one will be - human implanted chips or bioengineered humans or??

[zaBlogger]

Richard, Laurence suggests that they should wait for their rights, I can think of little that's more offensive.

As for legislating against it, how on earth do they legislate against a right? Would they change the constitution to prevent gay marriage? Maybe they would and that's just sick.

Clinton, so what? Everybody seems to think that I like Clinton. Better then Bush, sure. Great leader - not even close.

I received this via email and decided to post it

what about the term that has come to the fore, the 'moral majority' to describe those voting for Bush. Implicit in this is the fact that conservative, pro-life, anti-abortion, homophobic ideas are the moral view of the world. Even when the liberal press uses the term it sets itself up as immoral...so its in a bit of a bind as it can never gain the higher moral ground if it accepts the 'moral majority' as a term of reference for those people.

[Richard]

I dont think Laurance suggest that the fact that gays have not been given the rights they deserve is a good thing, merely that in US politics currently it is not an issue that can be forced through in the way you suggest.

If gay activist do go through the courts then both the democrats and republican parties would legislate against it. Remember a constitution can be changed, and the 'defence of marriage act' was signed by Bill Clinton.