And that's a really big problem. What common ground can be found between a gay person and someone who thinks they shouldn't be able to marry? What common ground can be found between a trans person and someone who thinks they shouldn't be able to use the right bathroom?
In those cases, what compromise is there that would make both sides happy?
Dude is like no one ever lived in the real world here. This is how you do it in an extremely religious country : you allow gay marriage, but call it something else and say, for example, that third-party pregnancies will probably be allowed. Lots of people will be all up in arms about it, then after a while you say that yes, we won't allow third-party pregnancies and everyone will feel like it's okay.
Some nutjob extremist may riot, but the rest will say "this shit sucks" on facebook for a week and then go on with its life. After some years, that will be the new normal. If the economy is doing good, the political party that wanted this will win the elections again, and maybe propose to allow third-party pregnancies and something else.
You take and you give. Absolute ethics have no place in politics. Progressing them is more important than having the "perfect" ones. Try working in charities, you will NEVER do the right thing. NEVER, fucking never. You will curse yourself every day at the hopelesness, at the desperation, at your impotence to do big things. However, you will , albeit slowly, albeit little, right some wrongs, and with time, you'll watch back and say "so many people would have it worse if i didn't do this". This is how the world works. We're not asking anyone to
work with bigots or accept their ideas. We're asking that you
acknowledge that the best possible political sistem for everyone is one were everyone vote for himself, and where, often, interests go in opposite way. Propose something that is good for you and for them too. Propose something that may look unacceptable then dial back on it, and then maybe you'll work on it later. Look at the ACA. Obama had to mutilate it to pass it, but had Clinton won now, we could start from there. The ACA was better than nothing. It saved a
lot of people. We could progress on that.
Another example would be reparations for black people. You could propose reparations, and all of america would go in a frenzy. Then after a while, you settle down for "financing and restructuring poor communities neighboroods act", and everyone feel like won something, and you'll improve the minority communities. It become the new normal. In ten years you can maybe talk about more kind of similar acts that are surrogate for reparations. Maybe not. But you lay down the road. This is how it has always worked. Only because race is such a black and white issue for many people, it doesn't mean that it
have to be. People come from the most different of backgrounds. There are no monoliths. Listen to different situations, and adapt to them. Had the DNC listened at the rust belt instead of classifying them as just another bloc of white voters which always voted democratic so who give a shit, we may not have to live in the worse possible scenario right now.