|
The Fabian path to homosexual marriage
The homosexual “marriage” movement receives some interesting strategic advice from the left-liberal blogger Joshua Marshall. He describes himself as strongly supportive of homosexual civil unions, and ambivalent about homosexual marriage—but only for pragmatic reasons. He worries that if the homosexual marriage revolution of San Francisco continues, it could lead to a backlash by us nasty conservatives that would end up killing not only homosexual marriage, but civil unions as well. But, he continues, if the revolutionaries will be content with civil unions for the time being, that will inevitably lead to the promised land of homosexual marriage.
Marshall’s logic goes like this. At present, the state recognizes marriage, and doesn’t recognize homosexual relationships at all. The state simply has no involvement with homosexual relationships. But if civil unions were legalized, that would mean that the state was sanctioning two distinct forms of relationship—marriage for men and women, and civil unions for homosexuals. The “denigration” of homosexual relationships involved in this situation would be obvious to everyone, and the result would be a peaceful evolution from homosexual civil unions to homosexual marriage. Comments
To ask if the state should support homosexual marriage, one must first ask why the state supports normal marriage. The answer is that the state wishes to be viewed as legitimate, insofar as it’s actions appear to reflect the will of the people. Legitimacy in this case may be defined as acting within established cultural boundaries. The State over the last thirty years has enbarked on a series of expensive and disastrous social experiments that absolutely do not reflect the will of the people, and so has come to be viewed as increasingly illegitimate. The solution to this problem, in the minds of government bureaucrats, is to broaden cultural boundaries so that the perception of legitimacy can be maintained, even as the State pursues grander and more destructive programs.
I’m not sure the state “supports” marriage, rather than recognizing it; certainly many state activities have the result, if not the purpose, of undermining marriage. On the other hand, the state loves to support things which wouldn’t exist without its support, since it creates a new set of dependents/clients thereby. Posted by: Agricola on February 26, 2004 11:01 AMAnyway you look at it, call it anything, but it still comes out—A-N-A-R-C-H-Y! I say it’s time to march on Sacramento AND SF City Hall. Where are the wimpbag conservatives here who gleefully put Ahnold, a complete empty suit who only wants to be president (also illegal), in office? They’re hiding under rocks, that’s where they are! Gutless. The governor has no clothes, no power to enforce the laws against anarchy—that’s what “legal scholars” tell us. The mayor should be arrested, etc., etc. Very sad. The fire just isn’t in the belly. With a rogue mayor and a rogue Board of Supervisors, there is a chance here to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Posted by: David Levin on February 27, 2004 12:22 AMMaggie Gallagher makes some interesting points about the recent marriage controversies in her latest column at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040316.shtml soy homoserxual Posted by: fabian on May 20, 2004 9:54 PMIs Fabian Spanish, or vegetarian? Most likely just berserxual. Posted by: Reg Cæsar on May 21, 2004 12:24 AM |