Emotionality, Governance, and Gay Marriage
**The date was changed on this post for organizational purposes**
Ok, California just legalized gay marriage and the 24 hour news thing and there is far too much politics... so, it is on my brain at the moment and I am going to let it roll and see where it goes. (It's my conspiracy theory that it was only legalized now so the GOP can motivate their core constituency in the coming election... but that is not important.)
I think that if we were to look throughout the history of law, that great conflict has always erupted when a governing body tried to place emotional value onto a law or policy. Government should not be an emotional institution. And the laws and policies that a government pursues should not be based on the perception of emotional value.
So, if I were king (something you all really should consider C;P), I would abolish "marriage" as a legal institution; that is to say that I would make it illegal for a government to place emotional value on a legal arrangement. People themselves, however, can place whatever emotional value they wish onto their legal relationships. Thus, if two people decided to enter into a legal arrangement where they completely shared their lives and property, no matter who the people are, what sex the two people are, and to what purpose the two people entered the legal arrangement, they must all be seen as the same in the governments eyes; for other institutions as churches and so forth it is their own decision, but the government must remain neutral.
Although, I must add, since it is the right of a community to place restrictions on legal contracts that reflect how the community wants to live - such as having a drinking age to where people cannot drink who are under the age of 21 years - that it would be fair for a community to decide (democratically) that the only legal relationship contracts that were eligible to adopt a child would be legal contracts between a woman and a man.... that would be up to the community. But, there could be no restriction that any person couldn't have their own children regardless of the legal arrangement they were in.
The significance of this is that I believe that we are moving toward a new understanding of community structure that will involve a variety of relationship contracts for a variety of purposes. Something like a cross between a commune of the 60's and a corporation of today.
....or something like that. C:)
Ok, California just legalized gay marriage and the 24 hour news thing and there is far too much politics... so, it is on my brain at the moment and I am going to let it roll and see where it goes. (It's my conspiracy theory that it was only legalized now so the GOP can motivate their core constituency in the coming election... but that is not important.)
I think that if we were to look throughout the history of law, that great conflict has always erupted when a governing body tried to place emotional value onto a law or policy. Government should not be an emotional institution. And the laws and policies that a government pursues should not be based on the perception of emotional value.
So, if I were king (something you all really should consider C;P), I would abolish "marriage" as a legal institution; that is to say that I would make it illegal for a government to place emotional value on a legal arrangement. People themselves, however, can place whatever emotional value they wish onto their legal relationships. Thus, if two people decided to enter into a legal arrangement where they completely shared their lives and property, no matter who the people are, what sex the two people are, and to what purpose the two people entered the legal arrangement, they must all be seen as the same in the governments eyes; for other institutions as churches and so forth it is their own decision, but the government must remain neutral.
Although, I must add, since it is the right of a community to place restrictions on legal contracts that reflect how the community wants to live - such as having a drinking age to where people cannot drink who are under the age of 21 years - that it would be fair for a community to decide (democratically) that the only legal relationship contracts that were eligible to adopt a child would be legal contracts between a woman and a man.... that would be up to the community. But, there could be no restriction that any person couldn't have their own children regardless of the legal arrangement they were in.
The significance of this is that I believe that we are moving toward a new understanding of community structure that will involve a variety of relationship contracts for a variety of purposes. Something like a cross between a commune of the 60's and a corporation of today.
....or something like that. C:)
4 comments:
The second to last paragraph confused me, the bit about people adopting a child.
:-) Yes C:)... Yes xx
*GiGGLeS*
:-)
<-- just smilin' and wavin'....
*waving*
I really want to just smile and wave....
but I really don't think the GOP worked this out to motivate any thing for November. I've been following this subject and specific legislation very very closely....and if any party had a hand in the timing of this...it was the democrats.
IF you were king....and I was your advisor....(cause you KNOW I believe influence is better than power....) I would say to take "marriage" out of the hands of the "state" and put it in that of "religion" (of one's own choosing)
The state would oversee the legal contracts...which would include financial, medical, et cetera...so as to protect both parties. And make certain "contracts" illegal...such as that between a 50 year old man and a 13 year old girl.
Now my concern here heads toward the creation of a series of laws, rules, and codes that would closely resemble the collection of taxes. (you ever seen the actual tax code??) And the establishment of an angency similar to the IRS.
Truthfully...regadless of my own personal opinion....I am not very happy when a judge over rules how the citizens have voted on what is basically a technical point. I am curious to see how we all vote on this issue come November...it could reverse yet again....
Post a Comment