4 ms·

I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bi

I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. Actual activism keeps this in mind: winning looks like bad things not passing. It looks like keeping an eye out for societal danger, mobilizing against it, and celebrating once the danger has been defeated-- with the knowledge that they must remain vigilant.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. Constitutional amendments are hard to repeal. And some states have passed legislation that says things like "this can't be repealed by the state legislature, only by a vote of the people".
- irjustin 3y ago
  > That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. For the point of discourse, I'll point out that the "otherside" thinks the exact same thing.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    There is a great irony in folks downvoting your comment when the original article is about an attempt to codify positive "rights" which would infringe upon the innate rights of everyone else.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. But remember we monkey brains are drawn towards the negative. Positive news doesn't make it on the news that often, and even when they are, we forget them way faster than negative news. Within the fairly recent times, people of certain races could marry. People of certain sexes could marry. Sweeping minimal standards for healthcare have been passed. If you go to the state level, Minnesota for example has been crushing it by guaranteeing abortion access, fertility treatment access, family planning, 12 weeks off for the birth of a child, universal school lunch, legalizing weed, etc.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. If a legislature (or government generally) can grant a "right", then it can take it away. That means it isn't a right, it's a privilege. Oh, what's that? The government responded to the Will of the People? So, the Will of the People can revoke that "right". OR, a group that you think is abhorrent could get a majority to declare whatever rights they want. I'm constantly astounded how many people confuse authoritarianism for liberalism.
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      Because you don't have to think too hard about the downsides when the outcome supports your view. Everyone really also needs to remember everyone has rights, or no one has rights.
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    > Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. But remember we monkey brains are drawn towards the negative. Positive news doesn't make it on the news that often, and even when they are, we forget them way faster than negative news That's such a cop out. This is not a balancing thing. Since 911, privacy and fundamental rights have been increasingly crushed and no amount of gay marriage offsets that. It's two separate things. Hell, while things like gay marriage are awesome and expand rights, we seem to be now using identity politics to limit them. So no, there's no "glass half full" here.
- zirgs 3y ago
  The problem with mechanisms like that is that they can also be (ab)used for bad stuff. For example - in my country gay marriage was made explicitly illegal with a constitutional amendment in 2005. Many other countries could legalise it with a simple majority vote. But we now need either a 2/3 majority or a referendum. Both of which are very unlikely to pass.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Marriage is a dying concept anyways. With a few exceptions, it appears it is only used to secure relationships where children are involved. And given the declining birth rate and steadily increasing independence of women, marriage is a rather antiquated concept. It will not be missed.
    - qwerty456127 3y ago
      Marriage is a solid legal ground for getting a visa for your partner whenever you move to another country - this is very useful.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        Yup - my country considers gay couples not married - even if they have been married in another country. Even worse - if another country requests that information - my country will also say that they are not married. Because - obviously - they will ask the country that the couple are citizens of not some random 3rd country.
        qwerty456127 3y ago
        Do they really request that from your country of origin? I thought an apostilled american marriage certificate (which is relatively easy to get, no matter what coutry you are from) usually is enough.
      - lynx23 3y ago
        Oh yes, I still remember the few cases where I saw that being put to "good" use. It was always about enabling immigration which would otherwise have failed. Find a woman to do a fake marriage with, pay her for it, and voila, you are in!

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. Constitutional amendments are hard to repeal. And some states have passed legislation that says things like "this can't be repealed by the state legislature, only by a vote of the people".

irjustin 3y ago
> That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. For the point of discourse, I'll point out that the "otherside" thinks the exact same thing.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  There is a great irony in folks downvoting your comment when the original article is about an attempt to codify positive "rights" which would infringe upon the innate rights of everyone else.
EatingWithForks 3y ago
Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. But remember we monkey brains are drawn towards the negative. Positive news doesn't make it on the news that often, and even when they are, we forget them way faster than negative news. Within the fairly recent times, people of certain races could marry. People of certain sexes could marry. Sweeping minimal standards for healthcare have been passed. If you go to the state level, Minnesota for example has been crushing it by guaranteeing abortion access, fertility treatment access, family planning, 12 weeks off for the birth of a child, universal school lunch, legalizing weed, etc.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. If a legislature (or government generally) can grant a "right", then it can take it away. That means it isn't a right, it's a privilege. Oh, what's that? The government responded to the Will of the People? So, the Will of the People can revoke that "right". OR, a group that you think is abhorrent could get a majority to declare whatever rights they want. I'm constantly astounded how many people confuse authoritarianism for liberalism.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Because you don't have to think too hard about the downsides when the outcome supports your view. Everyone really also needs to remember everyone has rights, or no one has rights.
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  > Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. But remember we monkey brains are drawn towards the negative. Positive news doesn't make it on the news that often, and even when they are, we forget them way faster than negative news That's such a cop out. This is not a balancing thing. Since 911, privacy and fundamental rights have been increasingly crushed and no amount of gay marriage offsets that. It's two separate things. Hell, while things like gay marriage are awesome and expand rights, we seem to be now using identity politics to limit them. So no, there's no "glass half full" here.
zirgs 3y ago
The problem with mechanisms like that is that they can also be (ab)used for bad stuff. For example - in my country gay marriage was made explicitly illegal with a constitutional amendment in 2005. Many other countries could legalise it with a simple majority vote. But we now need either a 2/3 majority or a referendum. Both of which are very unlikely to pass.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Marriage is a dying concept anyways. With a few exceptions, it appears it is only used to secure relationships where children are involved. And given the declining birth rate and steadily increasing independence of women, marriage is a rather antiquated concept. It will not be missed.
  - qwerty456127 3y ago
    Marriage is a solid legal ground for getting a visa for your partner whenever you move to another country - this is very useful.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      Yup - my country considers gay couples not married - even if they have been married in another country. Even worse - if another country requests that information - my country will also say that they are not married. Because - obviously - they will ask the country that the couple are citizens of not some random 3rd country.
      - qwerty456127 3y ago
        Do they really request that from your country of origin? I thought an apostilled american marriage certificate (which is relatively easy to get, no matter what coutry you are from) usually is enough.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Oh yes, I still remember the few cases where I saw that being put to "good" use. It was always about enabling immigration which would otherwise have failed. Find a woman to do a fake marriage with, pay her for it, and voila, you are in!