"certain things, namely removing the rights of a minority group, should NEVER be left to a vote. Why would America, a country that was founded on protecting the rights of individuals let a mob strip rights away from a smaller group they don't like?"
I have to say I agree with my friend.
I have to disagree with your friend, because he doesn't know what the fudge he is talking about.
If we are talking about marriage as it has been understood for the majority of human history then gays do have a right to marry one another. They can go to a lawyer get a contract drawn up and boom: Its F*ck gay day and everyone's celebrating
If however we are talking about state sponsored 'marriage' then gays have as much right to it as hetero's: none. It is a state conferred benefit and as such it could be abolished tomorrow and no-ones rights would have been effected in the slightest.
Neither does pointing out its discriminatory nature have any relevance. It was introduced to promote certain behavior over others, it's supposed to discriminate; and the changes homo's want to introduce would not make it non discriminatory, they would only change the terms by which it discriminates. It is not like subsequent to the 'right' for homo's to marry being recognized dudes would be able to marry their toasters or indulge in polygamy. It would remain discrimnatory for the obvious and inescapable reason that state conferred benefits are inherently discriminatory.
The only truly egalitarian position on the state construction that is commonly called marriage is to abolish it and remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Something I wouldn't be hostile to.
Amazed as I am to say this - I think I agree with you (as does Faux if memory serves). Of course, what you're talking about is far more unlikely to happen than gay marriage becoming legalized.
"Why would America, a country that was founded on protecting the rights of individuals let a mob strip rights away from a smaller group they don't like?"
I have to disagree with your friend, because he doesn't know what the fudge he is talking about.
Amazed as I am to say this - I think I agree with you
Yes, if only for the historical naivety of the first statement. If we can agree to put the rose-tinted glasses away, was the vote result Catholicism at work?
Strangely, I also find myself agreeing with a lot of the rest of Dolo's post...
The only truly egalitarian position on the state construction that is commonly called marriage is to abolish it and remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Something I wouldn't be hostile to.
Amazed as I am to say this - I think I agree with you (as does Faux if memory serves). Of course, what you're talking about is far more unlikely to happen than gay marriage becoming legalized.
Indeed, I do (although I seem to recall you [O-Dub] disagreeing with me in the past).
The only truly egalitarian position on the state construction that is commonly called marriage is to abolish it and remove the government from the marriage business altogether. Something I wouldn't be hostile to.
Amazed as I am to say this - I think I agree with you (as does Faux if memory serves). Of course, what you're talking about is far more unlikely to happen than gay marriage becoming legalized.
Indeed, I do (although I seem to recall you [O-Dub] disagreeing with me in the past).
Here's the thing - in principle, I think it'd be great for the state to get out of the marriage business and if it feels like it wants to confer benefits for people pairing up, then establish a uniform civil union system. I think we, as a society, place too great an emphasis on marriage as a socio-cultural institution which is precisely how we got into this crazy culture war over what amounts to a term - a powerful symbolic term, but a term nonetheless.
However, reality > principle here. We're not going to be rid of marriage in our society. And if our society is going to insist upon keeping marriage as a state-recognized system, then I think it's worth fighting to same sex inclusion within that even if I find the institution itself to be suspect. After all, it's not that I think gay people OR straight people *should* get married. But I think if the option is open, it deserves to be opened to gay and straight couples alike.
Comments
Amazed as I am to say this - I think I agree with you (as does Faux if memory serves). Of course, what you're talking about is far more unlikely to happen than gay marriage becoming legalized.
Yes, if only for the historical naivety of the first statement. If we can agree to put the rose-tinted glasses away, was the vote result Catholicism at work?
Strangely, I also find myself agreeing with a lot of the rest of Dolo's post...
Indeed, I do (although I seem to recall you [O-Dub] disagreeing with me in the past).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone
I guess I'm happy the pro- gay- marriage side pays for lawyers...but, wow. That's some silver-lining approach for sure!
Why are you still here?
The legal dispute was over the nature of the change effected by Prop 8--language is just a shorthand for describing it.
I'M HERE!! I'M QUEER!! GET USED TO IT!!!
"...language is just a shorthand for describing it..."
that's some more of that lawyertalk right there haha
Here's the thing - in principle, I think it'd be great for the state to get out of the marriage business and if it feels like it wants to confer benefits for people pairing up, then establish a uniform civil union system. I think we, as a society, place too great an emphasis on marriage as a socio-cultural institution which is precisely how we got into this crazy culture war over what amounts to a term - a powerful symbolic term, but a term nonetheless.
However, reality > principle here. We're not going to be rid of marriage in our society. And if our society is going to insist upon keeping marriage as a state-recognized system, then I think it's worth fighting to same sex inclusion within that even if I find the institution itself to be suspect. After all, it's not that I think gay people OR straight people *should* get married. But I think if the option is open, it deserves to be opened to gay and straight couples alike.