Supporting gay marriage because one's son is gay.

Something that distinguishes me from Glenn Loury:



Why is it considered persuasive that someone in your family has an interest in one side of a contentious issue? I think it counts against one's position and that you need to be able to defend your side to those who don't have a family member who's implicated.

But — and this isn't discussed in the clip — I do see one thing different about gay rights, which is that because gay people could and did hide from public view for a long time, many people felt comfortable with oppressing them, which gave them all the more reason to hide. That dynamic changed over the past 5 decades or so, and as more and more gay people became visible, more and more people grew uncomfortable oppressing them. That has had a big effect on public opinion, to the point now where the holdouts — the ones who would continue the oppression — have resorted to crying that they themselves are oppressed.

Now, I think good people should not have needed to see the victims of oppression all around them in order to figure out that gay people should not be oppressed, but that increased visibility was an essential part of the political dynamic we have witnessed. Glenn Loury, in that clip, openly admits that the dynamic made him switch sides. I'm glad that happened and is happening in our political culture, but I think the argument based on principle should have been enough.

ADDED: St. Croix connects this to my earlier "seen and unseen" post about abortion.