(no subject)

[c9]

What's better: to attempt the thing that is absolutely the right thing to do, but almost impossible to do, or to do the thing that is absolutely doable, but not as right?

Specifically (obviously): should US cities be throwing off the yoke of state law and marrying same-sex couples (the right thing to do), or should they wait so as to not accidentally encourage a discriminatory constitutional amendment, but in doing so continue to discriminate themselves?

Philosophers, attack!

Comments

[bartok.livejournal.com]

They should wait for overall federal decisions, since otherwise it generally becomes anarchy. An over all sense of government control is really needed for smaller governments. Also it's smacking a bit of complaints of "State's rights", which has led to minor skermishes in the past...

[c9.livejournal.com]

You're arguing two different things there though. If the argument is states' rights, then the federales need to butt out, and cities (though they may be pushing buttons) are irrelevant, legally speaking. But yes, there is a worry of anarchy because if cities start ignoring laws when they're discriminatory, eventually we'll all have equalityanarchy and we certainly don't want that.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Ahhhhnie was on the news saying that cities ignoring laws will eventually lead to violence, riots, and death. Clearly (this part is not a quote) equal marriage equals death. :)

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

It's not really a "States' Rights" issue re: San Fransisco, since both state and federal government oppose the mayor's actions.

But I agree, a city has no place disobeying a state law.

However, where do you draw the line? Say the state tried to eliminate inter-racial marriage, despite the fact that legal analysis would indicate that it is unconstitutional? Should a mayor disobey the law?

I'd be more inclined to say yes in that case, because
(1) the legal indications are much more clear on that point, and
(2) it's the state being "activist" by changing the status quo; the mayor would be protesting change rather than instigating it.

But neither of those make strong principled bases for argument.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Although of course that's your regular angle, that has the scent of "can I win this argument in court" to it. Does this mean that those who fight for change are doomed to lose more often than they win?

[alliensis.livejournal.com]

It has been rightly pointed out that the side that is destined to lose in this debate is the one which starts the battle. The San Francisco illegal marriage license move has noble intentions, but the fact that no one else has rallied to the mayor's cause has rendered it a fringe effort.

Come May, they can just come to Massachusetts anyway. *grins*

[c9.livejournal.com]

Come May, there may be a federal constitutional amendment rendering Massachusetts' current progress moot.

And many have come to Gavin Newsom's defence: a clerk in New Mexico examined the law and nearly started issuing licenses until she was threatened, Chicago is about 1-minute-to-midnight on issuing licenses, there's a city in upstate NY that is issuing licenses too. It's snowballing, slowly but surely.

I agree that the side that starts it is taking a big risk. It's all fine and dandy to say "well obviously equality will win eventually" but what about the families that don't get equality right now? I worry. At least they can all move to Canada. :)

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

A philosopher might argue here "right in who's eyes". But, I'm not going to. :)


If there are a (large) number of cities that stand up and issue gay marriage licenses and enough support within those cities grows, there might not be a legal backlash (e.g. contitutional amendment denying same-sex marriage). Other forms of backlash might come to rise as a result, but settle down after the issue is off the front page of the news.

Then there's the issue of polygamy. Should those cities then start issuing marriage licenses for marriages consisting of more than two people? It would only be right to recognize those relationships, too.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Sure, why not? Why does the city have anything to do with regulating my personal relationships anyway? If I want to have a 14-person marriage circle, how does that affect the city / province / country?

Separately: if every single city council started issuing marriage licenses equally, there could still be a US federal amendment. The cities are not involved in the decision making for that, merely the lobbying. And if churches start spending money, then god help us. So to speak. You're right about the front page too -- look at how the issue rises and ebbs in Canada, as the media remembers it and then forgets about it again...

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

Sure, why not? Why does the city have anything to do with regulating my personal relationships anyway? If I want to have a 14-person marriage circle, how does that affect the city / province / country?

A 14-person marriage does in the same way opposite-sex marriages affect society.

Separately: if every single city council started issuing marriage licenses equally, there could still be a US federal amendment. The cities are not involved in the decision making for that, merely the lobbying. And if churches start spending money, then god help us. So to speak. You're right about the front page too -- look at how the issue rises and ebbs in Canada, as the media remembers it and then forgets about it again...

I probably should have been more clear. The momentum of support/attacks from every city would influence the course of an amendment.

Aren't some churches already spending money on the issue?

[c9.livejournal.com]

A 14-person marriage does in the same way opposite-sex marriages affect society.

Which is how? Why is government allowed to tell me what relationships are acceptable? It has nothing to do with them.

I probably should have been more clear. The momentum of support/attacks from every city would influence the course of an amendment.

I agree. The more cities accept equality, the more conservative/religious leaders and power brokers will not. Sadly, the more the cities jump into the fray, the more they encourage a constitutional amendment which will take decades to repeal.

Aren't some churches already spending money on the issue?

Oh sure, but in terms of their potential spending power, they haven't even begun. Every single church collects how much each Sunday? That doesn't all go into charity... it all goes into "save the world from equal rights" investment accounts. And the Vatican's cleaning bill.

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

If allowed, a 14-person marriage would provide many of the same benefits: happy, productive people, etc.

I agree that government should get out of personal lives, at least in marriage issues.

People are missing the point...

[(Anonymous)]

You can't have a mayor take it upon himself or herself to usurp state/federal law, regardless of how it may be discriminatory or wrong. Every mayor probably feels that some laws are wrong, but if they just take it upon themselves to ignore these laws, then what's the point of having laws? If a law is unjust, you challenge it, you protest, you annoy the politicans to no end, but you don't just decide to arbitrarily change the law because you feel like it.

Ahhhhnold was right to speak out against this, not because I think same-sex marriages should be banned (I don't), but because as governor he has a responsibilty to ensure that state laws are respected. (I know, that's really the attorney general's job, but the governor's oath says that he will defend the constitution of the US and of the state.) People are taking all this as an attack on homosexuals, and although I can understand how that can happen, I think people have to separate the issue itself from the process. Then they can maybe understand the point: the law is the law, and for a society to work, it must be respected.

Let's imagaine the inverse scenario: the state passes a law allowing same-sex marriages, with no difference between hetero and homo marriages. The mayor of a city in the state publicly announces that "no same-sex marriage licenses will be issued in my city!" I have a feeling you would not tolerate this resistance, and immediately hold up the new law as the trump card in any debate.

Let us now imagine a totally unrelated scneario: Ahhhhnold decides that the minimum voting age is a discriminatory law, since he feels that teenagers and even some children can also make an informed decision at the polls, so he decides to allow any Californian, regardless of age, to vote in the next election for governor. Should he be allowed to do that, or should the federal constitution take precedence?

Re: People are missing the point...

[c9.livejournal.com]

Excellent points.

Hypothetically, all avenues of protest and annoyance could eventually be exhausted, and one could still be left with an unjust law (racial segregation in the US, for example). At what point would civil disobedience become acceptable / encouraged?

You're right, I'm totally merging the process with the "right and wrong"-ness. It makes it hard for me to provide a fair playing field, because I would hold up a pro-equality law as the trump card, while still not accepting an unjust law.