|
Edited on Thu Dec-18-08 04:15 PM by Mike 03
First, I do think Obama will be a fantastic president. I haven't given up home on that at all. And, there are a couple points being made in these debates in GD-P that I agree with:
Obama is a politician.
We have to expect him to compromise.
But the rest of the argument makes little sense to me. How can there really be compromise on GLBT rights anymore than "compromise" worked in getting civil rights for African Americans? It's like being a little bit pregnant: Either you are treated equally--in accord with the Constitution--or you are not. It's not good enough to say, "Some of you need to sit in the back of the bus, but some of you can up to the front seat," or "You are just as good as everybody else, but we still need you to sit at this counter, not that one, while you drink your milkshake."
My problem with this "compromise" or "this is a victory you will win in increments" argument is that this is okay for issues where there is a legitimate gray area--gun control, maybe, would be one example. But I don't see how there can be a "gray" area at all when you dealing with equal treatment for people.
It is either equal--100% equal--or it's unequal. There's no such thing as partially equal.
Is my logic wrong? Am I missing something obvious?
|