Gay Marriage and Presidential Politics
Feb. 24th, 2004 06:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pluralIt 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
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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 08:00 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 12:12 am (UTC)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.