I think it's more important to have judicial processes which aren't easily hijacked by special interests in the sake of stability,
Does the term special interest have any particular meaning to you here except 'numerical minority'? What happens when you add up the forsworn interests of LQBTQ and those of racial minorities, other sexual orientations not commonly protected, gender and bio-sex minorities, the working class and so many others? You say they are not all the same so each can safely be ignored separately. I think they are fabricated, misrepresented, divided and conquered under a pretty uniform (though sweeping and sometimes uneven) rhetoric/strategy of "tradition," supposed naturalness, intimidation, and denial of resources. Add them all up and we're not talking about a minority. We're talking about millions of people who fail to organize and deal with very basic, common ideological problems because they are repeatedly and constantly socialized to imagine themselves as victimized only individually, locally and precisely as
"minority" (or if you like "special") identities.
and you believe that it would be better to accept that the judiciary has the power re-align law so that it is consistent with current social context for the sake of creating a greater degree of equality for various minorities.
I tend to believe Power (the big entrenched System version of Power) should be pushed to live up to a modicum of its rhetoric, play the game out, and then we move on as necessary. If Power is supposedly vested in the Courts, let's let them have their piece on what is their purview. Or it will happen in a less predictable way. I don't think Power is really that interested in stability itself, and I don't think the game it plays necessarily ensures relative stability in the long run either. That seems to assume that the minorities will never notice a pattern, and that by the time their most symbolic figures start to talk to each other, civil society will organize faster to give them a popular majority and a favorable law. It doesn't always happen that way. Vanguard figures talk to each other across group boundaries. Spectacular abuses happen or a few people decide as they see no real change in their lifetime, you know what do we have to lose if I'm a martyr in just a certain way. People get fed up and do tragic, expensive and/or disastrous stuff.
I don't think you have factored in the day to day economic costs of the abuses we have -- let alone what may happen down the road in your model. Those sorts of costs are covered up by the way the system stands. So touche on the business of not providing a full empirical solution with bills in triplicate polled to pass with 52% by 2020, graphs, economists, climate change psychology analyses, and flowcharts.
In as much as you seem to want to argue that point...You're naming problems but not discussing how prevalent they are, or what solutions you'd give. It seems to me you'd prosecute people for bullying and using anti-gay epithets (resulting in a crackdown on free speech).
I'm pretty sure the distinction between hate crimes and free speech law has been batted around a lot on here. If you still refuse to accept that there is any such viable distinction or such to be maintained by law, I think that's sad but I'm not going to bother repeating it all here.
Then you'd rewrite law so that polygamy is equally as respected as monogamy (bankrupting insurance companies as people attempt to use their policies through their employers to cover a multitude of spouses and children).
It sounds like in the short term, you're really concerned about people taking advantage other than the polygamists and poly. I'd imagine it would be some time before many of them had the guts to dump the oppositional values and do it just for the money. In that time, we can talk about how much it's actually costing or saving. Probably with a conservative figure to be safe, because it seems many poly people with large, stable families now include wealthier heads of household. On the whole though, isn't this the same as the argument against national health insurance? If the costs are out of control, deal with the corporate regulations that help put them there or really, move to a more unified system to disperse the risk if necessary. Veks has mentioned that many times in the health care threads. If your issue is more to do with raw population control, I'd bet there's another thread for that too.
Next you'd tell businesses that they can't discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual and gender orientation, and the lawsuits would start to fly when people in the customer service field are asked to conform to a standard of professional appearance for the sake of being presentable to customers (whose biases will cause them to avoid businesses with "scary looking" gender queer individuals serving as the face of the company in transactions with the general public).
Well the more established GLT elements have been compromising a lot on this sort of thing for years -- at least avoiding your "scary" and often serving up a predictable dichotomy of gender roles even if they don't
match some of the sex prescriptions so much. They've invested quite a bit in it and often enough, take a certain odd pride in doing so. So again, I don't imagine that even given an ideal legal environment there would be some immediate sea change in behavior and a massive culture shock. There's a cushion. We don't need a 20 or 50 year wait for a maybe
popular majority, which may seesaw all over (due to new splinter issues or new reactionary campaigns as keep happening regardless -- historically) after that anyway, for all we know.
I wanted to include an example of solutions that might come out of ham-handed judicial review and the unintended consequences of them, and even that doesn't account for the actual expression of the policy which will suffer due to bureaucratic and governmental inefficiency.
I don't see that ham-handedness and inefficiency are issues that are obviously limited to the process following my direction rather than yours.
Ultimately though you want to tell members of our society how to behave through means of force (and make no mistake, that's exactly what law is) without a legitimate popular mandate backing up the legal decrees
I can see how you see it that way. To me, it still sounds rather like the "death panels" rhetoric. Providing support for things that lots of people are doing anyway out of belief or necessity, and many more are tolerating or quite happy with, while some poll numbers fuss swing this way or that is hardly wringing everyone by the arm on this one issue. It's also a little funny to talk about things like popular mandate in order to oppose gender rights -- when one Party continually relies on the votes of the South and certain other regions with highly race
-loaded rhetoric (anti-welfare, anti-income equality, anti-infrastructure where Blacks suffer for it predictably and disproportionately) in order to get "mandates" to vote on things like DOMA. And then to say these aren't similar issues. The least you could do if you're going to take that road is to say that you believe all
minorities must stay where they are to maintain order more or less indefinitely.
That is, unless you can show a neat roadmap for how no one will oppose them each getting a mandate in this, or maybe the next or the next generation... I can't imagine any such neat map. In history as I understand it, there have been many backlashes and swings of votes (and yes of judges and legislatures and executives too over time) after
courts say this or that. But you don't want us to reach that point so anyone has protection and we see what that looks like in the meantime. You're happy denuding the scope of the courts specifically. Funny they just happen to be the ones left holding the ball at the moment for rights. Will you say the same thing if the executive repeals DOMA? If a court rules that child custody from a state with gay marriage must be recognized in a state with DOMA (as they have)? Where does this end?
Every person out there who has ever said "it won't get better through popular means or by the will of the majority" has time and again been proven wrong.
I think if you look at the history of the South, you'll find race has not gotten better very fast -- even today -- simply by will of the majority. It's taken the Civil War, a really flawed effort at Reconstruction (which you might say is a very good example from the Southern voters' point of view -- perhaps you feel the North should have better given up then), the National Guard for school integration, MLK marching and dying to get more federal attention how many years later. And we still
have Southern counties refusing mass transit with thinly veiled worried about "what kind of people" are going to ride it out of the city. That's popular majorities for you, too. We can go round and round on which mode or branch of government is more imperfect, or we can go for transparency and push what principles are we upholding and applying to what's going on now
and what will affect the thinking and of a generation before the polls maybe
go this way or that and backlash, etc. on and on.
There would be an anti-discrimination law for homosexuals on the federal books right now if LGBT activists hadn't torpedo'd the legislation because it didn't include transexual discrimination as well.
If you assume that people would actually vote for a law against that sort of discrimination -- I don't really know -- I agree, that sort of division has been a problem. You can see that problem of people not being able to compare their problems. Compare the broader ones now, and race and gender won't look so different.