What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[glenn1]

For the last 15 years or so, very much of the mental energy of political progressives was expended on the cause of same-sex marriage. And although the most hardcore "social values" conservatives might still object on principle, it was a pretty harmless issue - no great existential principle is at stake and the effort was beneficial in helping foster acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in the American public sphere. And more importantly, it diverted left-wing time and energies away from far more unsound and damaging ideas that progressives might have championed instead.

But now with the increasingly common acceptance of gay marriage in more states, no doubt it will soon be time for the progressive movement to adopt a new cause to champion. What do you think the Next Big Progressive Thing® will (or should) be?

 

[SheHateMe]

Cleaning up P&N.

 

[Jaskalas]

For the last 15 years or so, very much of the mental energy of political progressives was expended on the cause of same-sex marriage. And although the most hardcore "social values" conservatives might still object on principle, it was a pretty harmless issue - no great existential principle is at stake and the effort was beneficial in helping foster acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in the American public sphere. And more importantly, it diverted left-wing time and energies away from far more unsound and damaging ideas that progressives might have championed instead.

But now with the increasingly common acceptance of gay marriage in more states, no doubt it will soon be time for the progressive movement to adopt a new cause to champion. What do you think the Next Big Progressive Thing® will (or should) be?

Illegals? The issue has to boil over some day. Who wouldn't want a 30+ million voting block? (Their friends and family)

 

[CycloWizard]

Any other social issue they can find that fits the same mold. To gain acceptance, they first must remove any question of the morality of the issue from the discussion. Then, they must convince the broader public that the issue is a matter of equal rights rather than bestowing special status. Both of these things take money (getting the word out), time (bringing the issue to the forefront and making it seem "normal" using media), and perhaps most importantly the careful alteration of language to overcome the real issues. Whether you agree with such causes or not is immaterial to agreeing that this is the format all such crusades follow. The lattermost point is well demonstrated by consulting the Merriam-Webster definition of marriage:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Any cause in which the very meaning of words are substantially altered to pave the way towards a nominal goal of "equal rights" is destined to succeed.

My guess is that the next big push will be for animal rights. This isn't a grand speculation since it is already happening but it has not yet been ramped up to the same amplitude as the gay rights campaign. However, some of the essential features are already in place: TV shows which personify animals while demonizing humans. The war of words on this front started many years ago (e.g. the very term "animal rights" and the carefully-selected name of PETA). I think the only thing holding back the movement is the insanity of the actions of its members (e.g. PETA breaking into research labs to release research animals into urban areas where they are inevitably hit by buses and killed).

 

[Juddog]

The GOP will continue to fight against same-sex marriage no matter what, same as they do with abortion rights decades after the supreme court already made a decision. The progressives have the long fight ahead of them to keep their rights.

 

[Farang]

OP you seem to be a bit condescending.. the gay rights movement has been very successful over the past couple of decades and it is really an accomplishment that it has got this far. And it has been a noble cause.

I think the stagnation of worker pay and the increasing difficulty involved in climbing out of the lower class has been simmering for a long time. With anti-banker Senators taking leadership positions in the future, I think the focus will turn on income inequality and access to skills training/education.

 

[Juddog]

OP you seem to be a bit condescending.. the gay rights movement has been very successful over the past couple of decades and it is really an accomplishment that it has got this far. And it has been a noble cause.

I think the stagnation of worker pay and the increasing difficulty involved in climbing out of the lower class has been simmering for a long time. With anti-banker Senators taking leadership positions in the future, I think the focus will turn on income inequality and access to skills training/education.

Of course he's condescending; he's basically working on his next straw man argument, to argue against the invisible progressive, e.g. Clint Eastwood at the GOP convention.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Now that gay marriage is more accepted, it's time to start sending straights to reeducation camps so that they'll know to marry the same sex themselves.

 

[nehalem256]

Any other social issue they can find that fits the same mold. To gain acceptance, they first must remove any question of the morality of the issue from the discussion. Then, they must convince the broader public that the issue is a matter of equal rights rather than bestowing special status. Both of these things take money (getting the word out), time (bringing the issue to the forefront and making it seem "normal" using media), and perhaps most importantly the careful alteration of language to overcome the real issues. Whether you agree with such causes or not is immaterial to agreeing that this is the format all such crusades follow. The lattermost point is well demonstrated by consulting the Merriam-Webster definition of marriage:

Any cause in which the very meaning of words are substantially altered to pave the way towards a nominal goal of "equal rights" is destined to succeed.

My guess is that the next big push will be for animal rights. This isn't a grand speculation since it is already happening but it has not yet been ramped up to the same amplitude as the gay rights campaign. However, some of the essential features are already in place: TV shows which personify animals while demonizing humans. The war of words on this front started many years ago (e.g. the very term "animal rights" and the carefully-selected name of PETA). I think the only thing holding back the movement is the insanity of the actions of its members (e.g. PETA breaking into research labs to release research animals into urban areas where they are inevitably hit by buses and killed).

So when can we look forward to interspecies-marriage. I mean love is love right?

 

[brandonb]

Ban religion I'm guessing.

 

[CycloWizard]

So when can we look forward to interspecies-marriage. I mean love is love right?

If love is love and morality is removed from the discussion, then it is a logical free-for-all: it would then be an equal rights issue for me to be able to love whomever or whatever I wish because love is entered into the discussion as a human right and therefore cannot be infringed.

 

[fskimospy]

My question is how long it will take for conservatives to say that marriage equality was their idea all along and how the whole gay hating thing was really someone else's fault.

It is impressive to see the rapidity at which politicians have been jumping ship off the homophobia platform though.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

My question is how long it will take for conservatives to say that marriage equality was their idea all along and how the whole gay hating thing was really someone else's fault.

It is impressive to see the rapidity at which politicians have been jumping ship off the homophobia platform though.

Republican politicians have been taking on pro gay "positions" for years. Now it's just publicly.

 

[lotus503]

For the last 15 years or so, very much of the mental energy of political progressives was expended on the cause of same-sex marriage. And although the most hardcore "social values" conservatives might still object on principle, it was a pretty harmless issue - no great existential principle is at stake and the effort was beneficial in helping foster acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in the American public sphere. And more importantly, it diverted left-wing time and energies away from far more unsound and damaging ideas that progressives might have championed instead.

But now with the increasingly common acceptance of gay marriage in more states, no doubt it will soon be time for the progressive movement to adopt a new cause to champion. What do you think the Next Big Progressive Thing® will (or should) be?

You consider it a harmless issue, I consider it a fucking Shame it has taken 15 years to promote equality in the face of religious dogma.

Who knows what the next cause will be, its probably going to have something to do with equality and will probably take way longer than it should.

 

[sourn]

If love is love and morality is removed from the discussion, then it is a logical free-for-all: it would then be an equal rights issue for me to be able to love whomever or whatever I wish because love is entered into the discussion as a human right and therefore cannot be infringed.

human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right human right

Get it?

 

[monovillage]

My question is how long it will take for conservatives to say that marriage equality was their idea all along and how the whole gay hating thing was really someone else's fault.

It is impressive to see the rapidity at which politicians have been jumping ship off the homophobia platform though.

You mean the recent "conversion" of Hillary?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...inton_comes_out_in_favor_of_gay_marriage.html

or of Bill?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-030813

or maybe that cheese lipped piece of shit Barack?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/same-sex-marriage-polling

 

[Stone Rain]

Interspecies marriage is the next big thing.

What that parrot and I have is special, you have no right to criticize it >_>

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Interspecies marriage is the next big thing.

What that parrot and I have is special, you have no right to criticize it >_>

I think the real problem is getting the parrot to sign the marriage certificate without duress.

 

[bshole]

If its freedom they crave, I hope the liberals target the Homeland Security Act and the DEA. While the liberals were distracted fighting for gay rights, the conservatives stabbed freedom in the back with the Homeland Security Act.

• FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious labor, and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
• FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
• FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
• RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
• FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' personal records, business documents and telephone/internet activity without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
• RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
• RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront the witnesses against them.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean the recent "conversion" of Hillary?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...inton_comes_out_in_favor_of_gay_marriage.html

or of Bill?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-030813

or maybe that cheese lipped piece of shit Barack?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/same-sex-marriage-polling

Sure, I said politicians without denoting any party.

That being said, there is no doubt that the Republican party has been far more virulently homophobic than the Democrats in modern times, and so I look forward to some hilarious attempts at revisionist history in the near future.

 

[artikk]

Interspecies marriage is the next big thing.

What that parrot and I have is special, you have no right to criticize it >_>

Why not, bestiality is already legal in some states.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm sure the idiots ...errr... "progressives" will find some new cause to further destroy the fabric of the country. They always do.

 

[AstroManLuca]

If its freedom they crave, I hope the liberals target the Homeland Security Act and the DEA. While the liberals were distracted fighting for gay rights, the conservatives stabbed freedom in the back with the Homeland Security Act.

You and me both, but it'll never happen. Obama took Bush's anti-freedom policies and ran with them, and now the Democratic party seems equally complicit (if not more so) to the Republican party.

I see the parties' main differences being ideological, but in the end they both basically want to control everyone and everything. And when they're fighting over budget matters, aren't they typically hung up on a tiny, insignificant percentage of the budget anyway? So really, there aren't any meaningful differences between the parties other than how much they pander to socially conservative or liberal voters.

 

[nehalem256]

I think the real problem is getting the parrot to sign the marriage certificate without duress.

Why? In Canada the government can declare people married without either of them consenting.

At least a human-animal marriage involves the consent of one person.

 

[lotus503]

I'm sure the idiots ...errr... "progressives" will find some new cause to further destroy the fabric of the country. They always do.

you equate equality with destroying the fabric of the country, interesting.