November 14th, 2008

we the people

ban straight marriage

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.