| > I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere What "ouster"? > It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality" Even ignoring the questionable use of "ouster", yes, it can. > for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups [...]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over this issue. So, what? Opponents of interracial marriage bans in the 1950s-1960s didn't get "lathered up" over cousin marriage bans, or same sex marriage bans, either. That doesn't mean that opposition to interracial marriage bans wasn't all about civil rights and equality. > Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor of legalizing cousin marriage? Some probably are, some probably are not. As with most political issues, position on this issue doesn't absolutely determine position on any other issue. > If not, why not? Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be expected to correlate. > If so, why have they not worked harder to achieve it? This is the "why aren't advocates of 'X' spending equal effort on every other analogous issue" argument, which ignores that actually effecting change often requires serial focus, rather than parallel effort. > I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive ideology And yet, as noted above, I see several that fit quite well in that framework. Maybe what you fail to see says more about what you want to see than about what actually is there? |
This rationalization of anti–cousin marriage bigotry makes you sound like an Islamophobe who cares little about violating Muslims' religious liberties by denying them their basic civil rights. Be careful not to get purged.