What\u2019s Next<\/strong><\/p>\nNo doubt these opponents enjoyed (and deserved, actually) a warm I-told-you-so moment over a recent headline in the New York Times: \u201cMeasure Opens Door to Three Parents, or Four.\u201d It was about a bill in the California Legislature — California! Home of the famous Proposition 8, a successful ballot initiative to outlaw same-sex marriage — to allow adoptions by more than two parents.<\/p>\n
The bill is about parenting, not about sex. (Even in California, there are only two sexes, approximately.) But the bill recognizes the reality of unconventional families: divorced dads who want to keep a close relationship with their kids, lesbian couples who want to adopt each other\u2019s children, and so on.<\/p>\n
And the opponents of gay marriage are right. Once that initial wall is breached, a lot of this suddenly seems to make perfect sense. Where they\u2019re wrong is to think that this is a good argument against same-sex marriage. Every big societal change carries more change in its wake. And every change is a revolution in perceptions. From the present, you look back 20 years and think, \u201cWhy did we find the idea of same-sex marriage so weird?\u201d Twenty years from now, gay marriage will be so common that people might be forgiven for thinking that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed to protect gay marriage.<\/p>\n
This is one good reason for reserving some sympathy for those who aren\u2019t wholly onboard as the train of change comes whistling through: There is something you think today that will seem preposterous and even offensive to your 20-years-from-now self, if you\u2019re still around. Some injustice that will seem obvious, although right now we can\u2019t see it at all. What will it be? It would be nice to get a heads up.<\/p>\n
\u201cNot every disputed institution or practice is destined to be discredited,\u201d the Princeton philosopher Anthony Appiah wrote a couple of years ago. Looking back, he contrasted abolition (a cause that came \u201cto represent moral common sense\u201d) with Prohibition (a cause eventually seen as \u201cquaint or misguided.\u201d)<\/p>\n
Appiah suggested three signs of a practice that seems harmless today but will seem indefensible tomorrow (or, presumably, vice versa). First, \u201ca particular practice is destined for future condemnation\u201d if the argument against it has been building for a while. \u201cThe case against slavery didn\u2019t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity.\u201d Second, the defenders of current practice \u201cinvoke tradition, human nature or necessity\u201d rather than morality. Third, the defenders engage in \u201cstrategic ignorance.\u201d We might say they are in denial about \u201cthe evils in which they\u2019re complicit.\u201d<\/p>\n
Four Nominees<\/strong><\/p>\nToday\u2019s prohibitionists and abolitionists are already working on some issue that will look completely different to most of us two decades from now. What is it? Appiah has four nominees:<\/p>\n
— Prisons. We incarcerate more of our population than any country in the world. Jokes about prison rape are staples of American comedy. In 20 years, we may look back in amazement that people would think this was funny.<\/p>\n
— Industrial farming. The longstanding discussion of the conditions under which animals are grown for food is turning into a discussion of the morality of using other animals for food at all.<\/p>\n
— The elderly. Baby boomers already feel guilty about how their parents spend their last years. Just wait until it\u2019s the boomers\u2019 turn.<\/p>\n
— Greenery. Environmental degradation is a debt to our children that parallels the debt to our parents.<\/p>\n
My own favorite nominee will win me no friends: high school football. In 20 years I think it may seem incredible that loving parents used to send their kids out to bang their heads against one another in the certain knowledge that this was damaging their still-growing brains. \u201cCertain knowledge\u201d may overstate the case now. But this smells just like smoking, about which the evidence dribbled in until it was undeniable. Let me add (for my own self-protection): I hope I\u2019m wrong.<\/p>\n
Suggestions from colleagues ranged from weighty moral issues to relatively trivial rules of grammar. In two decades, will it seem incredible that people in 2012 were generally unconcerned about the military use of drones? That we didn\u2019t have a national identity card? That Americans regularly and unapologetically used \u201cwhich\u201d when we should have used \u201cthat\u201d (or vice-versa)?<\/p>\n
One colleague suggested \u201cfree wireless.\u201d Does he mean that we will be amazed that anybody paid for an Internet connection as recently as 2012, or that anybody thought they could have it for free?<\/p>\n
Same-sex marriage is not yet universally accepted. But it\u2019s not too soon to start looking for the next sea change. What will it be?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: You Will Be Embarrassed About This in 20 Years by Michael Kinsley in Bloomberg. The Text: Just 16 years after a Democratic president signed the fatuously named Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage in the U.S. as requiring one man and one woman, the debate over gay marriage is over. Isn\u2019t it? Even […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
What We Will Be Ashamed Of In 20 Years<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n