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]

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.