![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unpopular opinions
Feb. 25th, 2004 02:12 pmApparently I'm in no mood to work on my CHARUN paper, so I'm going to talk about politics instead. I've had some interesting conversations in the last couple of days about gay marriage and the Constitutional amendment that the President has called for, and while I think mine is ultimately a minority viewpoint on all sides, it's my journal and I'm going to talk about it, so nyeeah.
First of all, my personal views on the subject. I am an anarchist and (depending on how you view it) either an atheist or an agnostic. I do not accept the argument that a higher power of any kind, whether God or government, is all that stands between civilised society and some sort of hellish Lord-of-the-Flies-style chaos. Everything I have to say on this subject proceeds from those two premises. I believe that any adult person should be able to enjoy a relationship with any other consenting adult or adults he/she/it wishes. I believe that people should be able to designate inheritance rights, parental rights, hospital visitation rights, &c., to anyone they like. I do not believe that institutions of organised religion should be forced to redefine their ceremonies in ways that contravene their beliefs. Yes, I'm talking about edge cases too; if you're running a Catholic hospital and you don't want to grant visitation rights to the second husband of a woman who's been divorced, it is your right to do that. I believe relationships are a personal issue, and that if a couple/group doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to involve either the church or the state.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), we live in a state with laws, and thanks to this whole social-contract thing, all of us have tacitly agreed to abide by those laws or face certain consequences. Therefore, in this case, the personal is not, should not, must not be the political. We've seen enough hate-based assaults and killings to know that the personal, here, is a deadly double-edged sword.
That's a big, heavy, loaded statement, and I'm going to unpack it with an example.
The mayor of San Francisco has ordered the city government to issue marriage licenses to all couples regardless of gender. This is a courageous personal decision on his part, and his courage is laudable. However, the California Family Code § 300 (2001) defines marriage explicitly:
A municipal executive authority has just opened the door for all manner of scary stuff to happen. If the mayor's action sets a precedent -- that the executive branch of a municipality can override the legislative branch of the state where that municipality is located -- then what happens when the mayor of Bumfuck Nowhere, Alabama decides, "If that Californian mayor can overturn state laws, so can I. It's faggot-lynchin' time!"
And I have to go to class now, but that's the main point I have. SF may have set a precedent for good, but I am fucking terrified of that same precedent being turned on its head and used for evil. Any system is subject to abuse, and we may have just seen the opening of a floodgate that we can't close.
First of all, my personal views on the subject. I am an anarchist and (depending on how you view it) either an atheist or an agnostic. I do not accept the argument that a higher power of any kind, whether God or government, is all that stands between civilised society and some sort of hellish Lord-of-the-Flies-style chaos. Everything I have to say on this subject proceeds from those two premises. I believe that any adult person should be able to enjoy a relationship with any other consenting adult or adults he/she/it wishes. I believe that people should be able to designate inheritance rights, parental rights, hospital visitation rights, &c., to anyone they like. I do not believe that institutions of organised religion should be forced to redefine their ceremonies in ways that contravene their beliefs. Yes, I'm talking about edge cases too; if you're running a Catholic hospital and you don't want to grant visitation rights to the second husband of a woman who's been divorced, it is your right to do that. I believe relationships are a personal issue, and that if a couple/group doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to involve either the church or the state.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), we live in a state with laws, and thanks to this whole social-contract thing, all of us have tacitly agreed to abide by those laws or face certain consequences. Therefore, in this case, the personal is not, should not, must not be the political. We've seen enough hate-based assaults and killings to know that the personal, here, is a deadly double-edged sword.
That's a big, heavy, loaded statement, and I'm going to unpack it with an example.
The mayor of San Francisco has ordered the city government to issue marriage licenses to all couples regardless of gender. This is a courageous personal decision on his part, and his courage is laudable. However, the California Family Code § 300 (2001) defines marriage explicitly:
Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).There is also an explicit statutory prohibition on the recognition of same-sex marriages which are recognised in other states (click the link above, scroll down to § 308 and § 308.5). Incidentally, if you're wondering what the laws are like in your state, you can find nice summaries and pointers to statutes here.
A municipal executive authority has just opened the door for all manner of scary stuff to happen. If the mayor's action sets a precedent -- that the executive branch of a municipality can override the legislative branch of the state where that municipality is located -- then what happens when the mayor of Bumfuck Nowhere, Alabama decides, "If that Californian mayor can overturn state laws, so can I. It's faggot-lynchin' time!"
And I have to go to class now, but that's the main point I have. SF may have set a precedent for good, but I am fucking terrified of that same precedent being turned on its head and used for evil. Any system is subject to abuse, and we may have just seen the opening of a floodgate that we can't close.
