Political rant

[cnoocy]

Apparently the right has their, um, undergarments in a twist over the idea of gay marriage. It's just so dumb. Though I suppose if I can make an electronic copy of a song and that counts as stealing from the person who still has the original, then for, say, Ian McKellen and his partner to get married somehow reduces the power of my cross-gender marriage. Feh, I say. If you want to defend marriage, enact the following law:
A couple who wishes to become married must allow two weeks to elapse between getting their marriage license and their wedding. At no point during this period may either of them appear on a television show that deals in any way with their marriage. That deals with attention-seeking celebrity marriages and marriage reality shows. It means it's harder to elope, too, but I don't know that that's a bad idea. I suppose I'm actually fairly conservative about the purpose of marriage, but liberal about relationships.
Perhaps I've offended somebody.that would be interesting.

Comments

[fuldu.livejournal.com]

I think the difficulty here is that, no matter what you believe, the implementation of any sort of pertinant law is a legislative nightmare. On the one hand, as homosexuality has become more accepted in American society (and I emphasize more, since clearly it isn't yet accepted fully), the idea of passing a law defining marriage as opposite-sex runs the risk of creating the kind of firestorm that right now looks about two days away. On top of that, the idea of passing a Constitutional amendment (which I doubt would be necessary in the short run, but see the comments in my recommendation below) is beyond ludicrous and is only going to become more difficult with time.

But, there are two prominent ways of implementing same-sex marriages that have been suggested. The first, which I would support, is just calling a marriage a legal bond of two people, regardless of their genders. The country is not ready for this, even if there are certain areas of the country that might be. The second, civil unions, opens the whole can of worms that tahnan mentions about laws differentiating straight and gay relationships. To me, any law like that has a tint of "separate but equal" and should be approached very, very carefully, even if it is, as I feel to be the case, the only one that would actually be implementable the federal level under current conditions.

My recommendation to either side would be just to leave it alone and make sure that your guy gets elected in '04. Unless a Constitutional amendment is enacted, which would semi-permanently fix the outcome, this is a question that is going to be decided by the Court regardless of what legislation is enacted. Don't bother wasting time, energy, and political capital on pushing the legislation through when the Justices will be making the final decision. Use those resources in making sure the Court has a balance that will make the decision you want to see.

In another vein, I really like Ballad of Mary Magdalene, cnoocy, but I prefer the cover by Dar Williams on the Cry, Cry, Cry album she did with Shindell.

[cnoocy]

You're right about this being an issue that will eventually go away. And I certainly don't think that my tiny journal is going to suddenly convert the Pope. I do think that use of the word "marriage" makes this issue more difficult in some ways, and that a more useful (but still impossible) legislative solution would be to remove the word from the civil sphere entirely.

[cnoocy]

On the musical side, I agree a bit about the version. I actually got to see Kaplansky and Shindell perform "By Way of Sorrow" this weekend, with Tracy Grammer standing in for Dar. I've been listening (via iTunes smart list) to our entire music collection, and that just happened to be up when I was finishing the post. Since I still have about π days of music to listen to, and I think the Cry³ version has already played, it'll be a few more weeks before I end up listening to it while blogging.

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

The more I think about Fuldu's prognostication, the more I am convinced he is right (about the issue or issues involved being settled by the Supreme Court). I'm willing to prognosticate even further: I expect the legal issues being decided will eventually involve freedom of religion. Also, due to the US constitution's protection of freedom of religion, the court will be forced to decide whether (from a legislative standpoint) homosexuality is determined from heredity, environment, or a combination of both. As this is an open question from a scientific point of view and it is likely to continue to be, the idea of it being decided from a legislative standpoint is a little ludicrous, but that's what this is going to come down to.

belated response

[(Anonymous)]

why does the "cause" of homosexuality have any bearing on the subject of gay marriage? under the us constitution you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. under the americans with disabilities act you are not allowed to discriminate against handicapped people.

race is genetic. religion is environmental. those both have equal protection. some handicaps are genetic. some are environmental. same protection.

do people really like the idea that society can tell you who you can get married to? sure, it's just a man and woman now - but maybe it should only be a fertile man and woman? statistically, more black people end up in jail. maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

if alice wants to form a commited relationship with eve, and adam wants to hook up with dave, good on them. they should be able to get the same rights from the state as frank and gertrude.

poly was mentioned above and i think the legitimate complaint about that is that it overcomplicates the courts when the partnership breaks down. marriage as a civil institution (which grants a couple certain rights two single people on their own lack) is logically justified to assist in childrearing. one or two parents are sufficient to raise a family so the state only goes that far. the costs (in terms of court time and expense) of a civil union of 3 or more people breaking up would be too high compared to the benefit society might gain from their child rearing.