(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

[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. :)