Gay Marriage and Presidential Politics

[plural]

It is interesting to me reading over the many reactions [mostly in favor of] to the gay marriages in San Francisco

Personally I think how it was done was a huge mistake

my own opinions on the subject are simple, there is nothing that marriage law provides
that could not more efficiently be handled by common contracts and assignation of rights
so government should just get out of the marriage business entirely
let marriage be between individuals and their god and allow the rights and privileges currently assigned by marriage to be allocated under contract law

The argument that allowing gay marriage would pave the way for incestuous marriages or marriages to animals is patently fallacious
there are laws against incestuous relations and laws against bestiality besides which I haven't seen a court yet recognize an animals legal competence to make contracts

I think this unilateral action will do great harm not only to the cause of equal rights for gays but also do dramatic damage to the democratic attempts to beat bush in the fall

The simple fact of the matter, is that our nation is not emotionally ready to have gay marriage, even in states like New York and California which are arguably the most pro-gay states in the country the majority of the population is against it

I think for the most part, it is a semantic disagreement but one which people are heavily emotionally invested in.

Bush had already been strongly against gay marriage, but for the most part it was a smoldering issue, something on the back burner. He could pretty much only get traction with people who were already solidly in his camp. The unilateral actions of the San Francisco officials have turned gay marriage into a front line issue for the presidential elections which not only helps bush by allowing him to emotionally manipulate the majority of americans against gay marriage but allows him to defuse and distract from many of the issues which would hurt him in the polls

Secondly, No democrat can come out against gay marriage and not alienate huge sections of their voter base, they can not come out for it either because it would alienate the majority of the people in the country who do not support gay marriage, which puts them in the difficult position of sitting on the fence with a post up their ass.

Really the best response a democratic candidate can provide is

"I support equal rights for all people, but feel that such a unilateral actions by the few without widespread support was entirely the wrong approach"

which just wont mobilize or pull on the emotions of the voters compared to bush's

"Defense of Marriage" schtick

Not only that but, once Bush gets re-elected (he wouldn't waste such a prime issues by actually starting a process that could be finished before the election] he will have a decent shot at getting a constitutional amendment through, because he will have spent his huge war chest of millions and millions of dollars breeding fear of gay marriage into the majority of the population which is either against or uncomfortable with the idea, they will be mobilized in a way we haven't seen before, and that will amount to a huge setback to the gay rights cause that could likely take fifty years or more to undo.

Bush is rubbing his hands in glee because the mayor of San Francisco most likely just gave him the election.

Just My Nickel

Comments

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

The argument that allowing gay marriage would pave the way for incestuous marriages or marriages to animals is patently fallacious.

What about polygamy?

[plural.livejournal.com]

Personally I dont see the problem with polygamy as the same level as with incestuous or bestial relations.

Many cultures still allow it, and technically polygamy is perfectly ok within the context of the bible, so even the moral arguement often presented against it is shaky when brought from a judeo-christian perspective.

Which is why I prefer dissolving the governmental institution of marriage and replacing it with a far more flexible socio-religious institution. People could choose to get married and be married, without providing any of the usual contract rights to each other, or they could choose to provide those rights without getting married.

Who we allow in our lives to have rights to act on our behalf should entirely be a matter of our discretion and perogative. What if, for example, I do not wish to provide my spouse with certain privileges or obligations. By removing the term marriage and the institution as a bundled set of rights and obligations, we allow much great flexibilty and freedoms in how people assign their individual rights to others.

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

I only mention polygamy because many gay rights activists seem to deny that by legally redefining marriage from "man and women" to "two people" it leaves it just as open to be changed to "three people."


I'm very sympathetic to your argument that the government should be removed entirely from the process of marriage. But I do think (well, more like "suspect" that there is a positive side to having the weight of government behind marriage that would be missed in its absence.

[plural.livejournal.com]

You arent removing the weight of government merely refocusing it, Government, through the civil court system is already used to protect and enforce our contractual agreements. The system is in place and works fairly well, all I am proposing is normallizing the rights granted under marriage to become right which could be granted under any standard contract.

This of course could cause other problems as well, such as corporations requiring certain rights for security of debt, for example on a mortgage, but I think such issues could be fairly easily handled

[dew.livejournal.com]

Another important element is that corporations would have an easy out if marriage weren't supported by government. If marriage represented a contractual agreement, employers would not be bound by that agreement to provide benefits to all parties involved.

Personally I think that this too will run its own course and become an issue much like racial discrimination. Popular opinion 50 years ago was that segregation was acceptable behavior and now its not tolerated. I also feel without pushing the envelope, change will not occur.

[ignote.livejournal.com]

Secondly, No democrat can come out against gay marriage and not alienate huge sections of their voter base, they can not come out for it either because it would alienate the majority of the people in the country who do not support gay marriage, which puts them in the difficult position of sitting on the fence with a post up their ass.

Same for republicans. I watched an interesting interview with Gov. Schwartzenegger on Meet the Press yesterday, and when he was asked about his position on gay marriage, he flat out refused to voice an opinion on it, and said something to the effect of "I'm not going to address that issue until I absolutely have to". I'm eagerly waiting for someone to actually take a stand, have you see anyone make one yet?

[plural.livejournal.com]

Bush has so no other republican needs too, so especially ones with large homosexual populations like Arnold, will avoid doing so entirely, instead resting on either explicit support from Bush, or the implicity support garnered by being part of the same political party.

Unlike the democrats, the republicans do not have a large section of their support base coming out in support of gay marriage, so to be against it is fairly easy, unless they are, like arnold in areas which have significant populations in favor of the idea.

[ignote.livejournal.com]

Really?? Damn, no clue where I was on that one.

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

The homos always seem to end up being the whipping boys(girls).

Consider Clinton who used "don't ask, don't tell" to divert attention away from expanding federal subsidies of Abortion...

The whole issue is a smoke screen.

My question is, what (besides the obvious of poor economy, Iraq, failing war on terror) would dubya have to hide... and more to the point, what is it that the Democrats are willing to hide as well?

[neorock.livejournal.com]

You pose an objection to the actions of the San Francisco mayor on the grounds that the nation is not ready for gay marriages-- on the basis that one needs to be pragmatic and realistic in one's vision... yet your alternative, the dissolution of the institution of marriage is something that the society is equally unconditioned for and unwilling to entertain... and may even be a much greater leap than allowing gay marriages.

That notwithstanding, I agree with you, government sanctioned marriage is stupid, it causes more problems and raises more divisions than if it were seperated into two issues: legal and spiritual, whereby the legal could be administered by the civil justice system as anything else is, and the spiritual aspect left to people's own preference.

Though, one possible problem with the dissolution of the institution of marriage is that within a marriage a couple has the benefit of not dividing property into his and hers, one doesn't take a completely individualistic approach to one's life... if marriage were just a simple contract, it would invariably involve people defining what is his and what is hers, yes, this makes things more efficient, but also more rigid and cold and detached, less human... On the other hand, it forces one to retain some sort of independence, you can't be defined by your union, rather you are an individual within a union, and your sense of self, manifest through your sense of property and entitlement is present on a more conscienous level. I think that theoretically this is better, but in effect it takes us outside of our comfort zone in our perception of what a marriage is... why can't we trust each other enough to keep the more robust and broad concept of union, rather than derive it down to a legal contract, what does it say about our relationships?

Basically, I like the concept of marriage and think simplifying it into just a business contract removes the positive aspects that marriage has, yet at the same time, I don't think government should be the administrator of this institution, as some sort of moral judge deeming one union okay and another not. It seems that both of the scenerios are extreme... Can there a compromise between the two?

[plural.livejournal.com]

actually to be clear

my point was neither an objection to the mayors action nor proposing a solution.

However, while I did feel for the record, that stating my own views was necessary, my point was actually simply that in the political reality and climate of our nation, the mayors action was quite akin to putting a gun in the mouth of the movement he was trying to support, and pulling the trigger.

As for my own views, I do believe marriage is entirely a spiritual institution which our society for convenience and security has attempt to protect and codify into laws and done so quite poorly.

Rather than think of the situation I proposed as a cold business contract, I view it more like an incorporation of a company.

Marriage in law, like corporations, is a legal fiction designed to allow the cooperation on an endeavor to for the betterment of some cause.

Using the incorporation model, rather than the trade contract model, especially if we were to pair it with various legal devices such as a power of attorney, we could exactly emulate, if it was our desire, the legal status of marriage from the point of governance and law, and enjoin entirely our government from any involvement in our spiritual matters.

[lumiere.livejournal.com]

Contract law doesn't fully replace current marriage law. I wrote a little on this recently.

That said, I'm with you: get governments out of the marriage business.