This remaking of the institution would be true no matter how large the percentage of gays there were and in terms of the underlying legal logic, the actual number of gays makes no difference. However, the number of gays did make a difference to the American public: people are more inclined to support change if the group needing the change is perceived as a significant portion of society. That may not be legally fair, but that is how politics works.
For years, the GLBT community has used a 10% figure to inflate the significance of their group, their movement, and the perception of a civil rights travesty. This was a strategy to convince people that there was really a problem for a significant portion of society. If the public knew that the actual figure was closer to 1%, they might have had different ideas on how to deal with the issue.
Activists in general create or embroider "facts" in order to get public support. We have now seen two such "embroideries": the Matthew Shepard case (a GLBT-internal murder involving meth) and now the number of actual GLBTs for which this nation has turned its laws upside down.
It is possible that the American judiciary would have granted "gay marriage" no matter what the percentage of GLBTs, but the American people might have reacted differently and might have protested more effectively and with more conviction.
It used to be men were men and women were women and gays were in the closet. It worked and there was less turmoil. Why did we let the loonies out?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|