3 ms·

At the risk of philosophy there is a difference between expectation in terms of a demand, and expectation in terms of an assumption. There is no naiveté in unde

At the risk of philosophy there is a difference between expectation in terms of a demand, and expectation in terms of an assumption. There is no naiveté in understanding the common outcome and seeking an alternative one. I learned a lesson recently about having faith that the status quo can be changed from the tactics of the GLBT community. I had assumed that the only way to create real change would be to force change through radical action, but they expected people to act like rational caring individuals if they just went door to door, introduced themselves, and explained their way of life. This has been (to me) shockingly successful. It seemed naive, an absurd assumption that people would listen and act rationally, but to a staggering extent it has worked. Perhaps you think our legal system is too far gone to be given the same faith, and held to similar expectations of decency, but I would disagree.

DannyBee 14y ago
Except in very rare cases, the legal system follows society, it doesn't lead it. This is why you see Justice Kennedy worried about ruling on gay marriage. It is obvious to everyone in that room that in 50 years they will likely be viewed as bigoted fossils if they rule against gay marriage (to quote the oatmeal). They aren't idiots. That doesn't mean they are going to jump up and scream that it should happen, because it's not their role in our system. That's congress and the states. They aren't going to be the folks who start the revolution, they are going to be the guys who say the revolution was right. As you've discovered, change of society does not always require radical action. But change of the legal system almost always requires change of society. When it happens the other way around, society still gets the last say. See, for example, the forced relocation of native americans, despite the supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.

DannyBee 14y ago

Except in very rare cases, the legal system follows society, it doesn't lead it. This is why you see Justice Kennedy worried about ruling on gay marriage. It is obvious to everyone in that room that in 50 years they will likely be viewed as bigoted fossils if they rule against gay marriage (to quote the oatmeal). They aren't idiots. That doesn't mean they are going to jump up and scream that it should happen, because it's not their role in our system. That's congress and the states. They aren't going to be the folks who start the revolution, they are going to be the guys who say the revolution was right. As you've discovered, change of society does not always require radical action. But change of the legal system almost always requires change of society. When it happens the other way around, society still gets the last say. See, for example, the forced relocation of native americans, despite the supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.