ethernight
ban straight marriage
November 14th, 2008 11:30 am
After discovering the results for prop 8, I twittered something snarky about banning straight marriage. In part, this was spurned by anger and--okay yes--a petty desire to tell the world, "Fine. If you can't play nice with the other kids then we'll just have to take away your toys until you learn to behave."

In truth though, the comment had a lot more of an intellectual basis than my flippant post implied. I've been meaning to write up an entry to expand on these ideas. The "institute of marriage" is a harmful entanglement of emotional and pragmatic concerns. It would be best if we did away with the whole clusterfuck in favor of distinct constructs better suited to achieve these orthogonal goals.

But procrastination pays off again. While I was busy not writing up my thoughts, @ramiel put them into words for me.

"Who is the California Supreme Court (or the California voting public, for that matter) to tell me what to feel, or what I can promise to my lover and life partner? If 54% of a voting population decide strawberries taste like crab grass, how does this affect my cup of Yoplait?"
--Marriage for Nobody. Civil Unions for Everybody.


I have had these thoughts for awhile now and I've gone on at great length about them more than once in the past. In the fallout of the prop 8 vote, one positive outcome is that people seem to be thinking a little harder about the fundamental ideas behind marriage. I am glad to see that in some cases, they are not too thrilled by what they find.
  post comment | watch
From:penguinstampede
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 08:43 pm
(Link)
I totally support this. Let's get those signatures and put something on the ballot in 2010, eh?
(Reply) (Thread)
From:ethernight
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 09:45 pm
(Link)
I would so sign that. I would even write a webpage for it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:ethernight
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 10:12 pm
(Link)
So, I did a bit of research.

I figure that it would need to be a constitutional amendment, ("The state of California does not recognize marriage.") which requires more signatures.

According the the State of California Initiative Guide, we would need to collect 433,971 signatures in 150 days. That's 4629 signatures per day.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:penguinstampede
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 11:28 pm
(Link)
I forgot about the 150 day time span.

Hmm. It's possible. The problem is, with a proposition like this, you really need to sit down and educate everyone on what exactly you're doing. Unless you can manage to sum it up in a sentence that isn't charged and won't send people running away from you because you're an Anarchist.

Or, hell, create a (favourite social media platform) group where admission is inspected, only let in 18+ Californians, and wait until you get close to a million people. There IS time, and all those Facebook kids are just dying to show support against Prop 8. (I say this with only mild sarcasm)

And I would totally help with a website for it as well.
From:ethernight
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 11:32 pm
(Link)
"Or, hell, create a (favourite social media platform) group where admission is inspected, only let in 18+ Californians, and wait until you get close to a million people. There IS time, and all those Facebook kids are just dying to show support against Prop 8. (I say this with only mild sarcasm)"

Yeah, well. I know nothing about this sort of thing of course, but it would be my guess that the best chance would be to get everyone now when they're all pissed off. In a few months, it'll be too late I think.
From:alchemi
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 09:31 pm
(Link)
Civil unions for everyone has always made the most sense. When most people think of 'marriage' they think of a religious institution, the ceremony, etc. When I was married, I was 'married' in the eyes of the State of California when I signed my license (with witnesses, etc). In the eyes of family and friends, it was at the ceremony shortly thereafter. The state did not require me to say "I do" but my family sure did.

Conflating these ideas of what is and what is not marriage in the eyes of the state versus the eyes of various individuals, groups and cultures just mucks things up.
(Reply) (Thread)
From:browascension
Date:November 14th, 2008 - 09:40 pm
(Link)
Yes indeed.
(Reply) (Thread)
post comment