3 ms·

>Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage. None of those rights have meaning without normaliza

>Neither are the 169 rights a gay college professor stated in one of my classes were conferred by marriage. None of those rights have meaning without normalization. I think of this, sometimes, when I consider moving out of California. My husband was in the hospital once. I wasn't sure he was conscious or not; I had to tell the receptionist who I was to find out what room he was in. He didn't think twice, I was able to proceed without incident. Would the same have happened if I lived in rural Texas? Sure, marriage is legal everywhere for us. The law is on our side. But the law doesn't mean anything if the people standing between you and your husband don't respect it.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
You need normalization to exercise those rights as effectively as possible. Certainly, prejudice can mean there is a difference between theoretical de juris outcomes and de facto actual outcomes. But normalization without those rights still leaves you unable to do a lot of things. It leaves you with "You can't visit your husband in the hospital because policy says family only and the law says you aren't family, even though no one here is a homophobe. We still can't let you through because we can get fired for breaking the rules." You need both things to enjoy a high quality of life. I don't know why you are arguing otherwise. Rights without social cooperation certainly hampers your ability to exercise those rights, but social cooperation without rights is still a big problem. I could see someone taking the position that normalization implies having the same rights as a baseline starting point. But I cannot see arguing that normalization is more important than legal rights and legal rights were never the point. I will add the article in question indicates legalizing it is helping to normalize it. Rights are not some insignificant detail, not by any stretch of the imagination.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

You need normalization to exercise those rights as effectively as possible. Certainly, prejudice can mean there is a difference between theoretical de juris outcomes and de facto actual outcomes. But normalization without those rights still leaves you unable to do a lot of things. It leaves you with "You can't visit your husband in the hospital because policy says family only and the law says you aren't family, even though no one here is a homophobe. We still can't let you through because we can get fired for breaking the rules." You need both things to enjoy a high quality of life. I don't know why you are arguing otherwise. Rights without social cooperation certainly hampers your ability to exercise those rights, but social cooperation without rights is still a big problem. I could see someone taking the position that normalization implies having the same rights as a baseline starting point. But I cannot see arguing that normalization is more important than legal rights and legal rights were never the point. I will add the article in question indicates legalizing it is helping to normalize it. Rights are not some insignificant detail, not by any stretch of the imagination.