If semantic end-runs around the existing legal verbiage, or judicial end-runs around the existing legislation, remain tools in the toolbox, your willingness to do things through commonly accepted means (when it will serve the purpose) fails to impress. And depending on how one means to "change the existing legal term" and "challenge the law ... in the courts, " that's what it would amount to.
Now, I could be misreading you badly, and if so, I apologize.
I'm honestly not sure if you are or not; the argument has descended from the spurious to the ridiculous. I am an open anarchist, I see laws and social contracts as entirely deconstructible as the need requires (and kept stable when not), and I consider Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to be two of the greatest men of the twentieth century. Does that clarify things? If you're equating "wrong" with "unwilling to do things 100% by the book of law, which must assume to be a valid system", then we're starting off with very different premises here.
However, the current debate—and this very thread—has been dominated by adolescents of all ages who are frank in their contempt for footling concerns like the rule of law, when compared to their personal readings of what justice requires. Consider the history of measures such as Prop 8: the contempt for playing by the same rules as everyone else has been palpable, and continues to be so.
Spare me. The rules are always "fair" when seen from the position of the people who are comfortable in the status quo. To bring it back on the topic of religion, it's "unfair" when atheists rage at the Pope when he goes on about how godless secularism is increasing materialism and greed in society, an address he gives from his gilded seat in a church/mansion with greater property value than some entire Third World countries.
The rules of the legislative game are not intrinsically fair. Language is no different; it tends to follow culture, which tends to follow the most comfortable in society (whom many wish to talk like, or talk to, or talk about).
For all the fine talk of "LGBTQ activists" about rights, no one gauche enough to differ from them—religious people abundantly included—believes that their respect for anyone's rights extends a micrometer beyond the point at which their own advantage ends.
WHAT OTHER RIGHTS.
I'm asking this for what, the third time now? For all the fine talk about the failure of LGBTQ activists to respect other people's rights, no one clear-headed enough to see through these false equivalences - religious LGBTQ allies abundantly included - has actually heard of a single
other right that will be compromised should homosexual unions be treated as heterosexual unions are. We're still waiting. We hear vague allusions to threats to the rule of law, and when it's pointed out that societies that have allowed traditional marriage have not collapsed into the sea, we're told that we're setting the bar low. When it's pointed out that societies that have allowed traditional marriage have not seen Christians thrown to the lions or democracy overturned by Gay Big Brother, we hear...what? Deafening silence?
I'm calling it out. This emperor has no clothes. The negative consequences to society of seeking LGBTQ rights through a combination of legislative and civil activism are nonexistent.
You may say that the intemperate words and actions of certain silly fundamentalists have damaged their side's credibility and moral capital, and there's something to that. But for someone who started with less of both, the other side's burned through theirs even more quickly for my money. If you eventually receive no more benefit of the doubt from citizens at large than you'd afford the foamiest evangelicals, don't be shocked.
How much moral capital did those foamy evangelicals Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi possess, in your opinion? How much did they squander in pursuit of their goals? I'm honestly interested in your answer.
edited 6th Nov '12 5:30:29 PM by RadicalTaoist