(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...

[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*

[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.

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?