The perfect being the enemy of the good is one thing. It's something else when the compromise actually reinforces the root problem. We now have reinforced the idea that government gets to decide who can get married. Wrong direction.
And, so, until we correct the misunderstanding gay people should be excluded from being able to share custody of their children, be beneficiaries of social security, medicare, insurance, retirement plans, and visitation of the partners when in the hospital, etc., all things that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy under the law?
That's the wrong direction, and it is unconstitutional. The reality is that the world just got nicer for a lot of people. The theoretical "reinforced" root problem effects literally no one. Before today, that root problem existed. It still exists today. There is no scenario today for real people that is worse than yesterday.
I'm not willing to throw gay couples under the bus because it doesn't suit me that the government has a role in marriage. It has had a role in marriage for longer than you or I have been on this earth. This doesn't strengthen that notion in any way. The government has been granted no new power over your relationships than it had yesterday (just because you or I don't like that it has any say in relationships is not what is up for discussion), and it is disingenuous, or at least misdirection, to suggest otherwise.
Who is working to correct the misunderstanding? The majority of gays and their allies have the opinion that now government has blessed them, other groups can fight their own battles. Or worse and hypocritally throw up their own objections about how it's bad for society.
I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty.
"I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty."
That's absolute bullshit. That's "those people" kind of talk, lumping everyone who shares one characteristic into one group and dismissing their rights as meaningless because they aren't fighting for your preferred cause.
Among the most intersectional activists I know are queer people of color. They're the folks standing up for immigrant families in detention (which is a quite lonely activist area) at a much higher percentage than the population at large, for example. It's certainly not an issue I see white straight male libertarians get up about (I fit that description in many regards, but I'm frequently embarrassed by how self-involved and self-serving the so-called "liberty" movement is).
From my experience the majority view is what I stated- now that their rights are blessed, few are interested in standing up on principle for the rights of others. It's no different from me claiming your talking about libertarians is "those people" talk.
It's not "meaningless" to want equal treatment (or even special treatment, technically). But like I said, it reinforces government as the giver of rights and that's the wrong direction.
