(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

[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.