no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Gay Marriage Defeated in Maine

November 4th, 2009

In a charming editorial this morning, The New Paltz Journal applauds Maine voters for narrowly defeating (53% to 47%) a proposal that would’ve legalized same-sex marriage, but chides them for not defeating the proposal more soundly. (Needless to say, I have now and forever canceled my subscription to The New Paltz Journal’s RSS feed; no questions asked.)

Good…This time the voters had to undo something that the Maine legislature and governor had pressed upon them.

These measures for real and actual marriage between one man and one woman should be winning by five to one vote margins, or better

I’d be the last person to reject the citizens’ right to reject what the usurpers in government force upon them, but this is not that.  This is simply projection of one’s own preferences on to the broader mass of the populace, using the full force of government—supported (as always) by the violent process of “democracy“.

Listen close because I will say this once, and only once:

Freedom is not a fucking popularity contest.

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” could be outnumbered and outvoted and outrepresented in the legislature by a margin of 100:1, and I would still offer them my unqualified support. We should not reserve civil liberties only to those who fit a “perceived mold of inclusion” (.doc).

The fact of the matter is that government should not be at all involved in the sanctification of marriage, homo- or hetero- or poly- or whatever. Unfortunately, government has arrogated to itself, the power to grant privilege and regulate and license the hell out of what many believe to be the most-sacred of human relationships. Don’t let all that privilege go to your head.

The NPJ concludes with a slew of neo-theo-con propaganda, which apparently is the default “Plan B” in the absence of basic human decency. Read carefully, more ignorant words have perhaps never been written:

“[G]ay marriage” is both an attack on the meaning of marriage and an attack on meaning itself, an attempt to make 2 + 2 = 5.

…The “gay marriage” thing is not about getting people to accept “equality,” it’s about getting them to accept a lie.

The “equality” sword is one which cuts both ways. Make no mistake about it: heterosexual “marriage” of the one man, one woman variety, is in its current incarnation, very much a state-granted privilege, and nothing more. If the NPJ wants to argue that gay marriage isn’t about equality, let them first renounce all of the state-sanctioned inequalities from which they benefit.

No? Very well then: If you feel threatened in any way by some complete strangers’ same-sex marriage, then this speaks volumes about the sanctity and foundation of your own own, heterosexual relationship: your relationship only has meaning because you are able to exclude others from experiencing the sorts of love, fidelity and friendship that you are privileged enough to enjoy.

Few things are more morally bankrupt than joy accruing to privilege by exclusion.

On Democracy and Gay Marriages

June 18th, 2008

Despite the very real fact that the threat of democracy hangs overhead, like the Sword of Damocles, many gay couples in California have embraced the opportunity to marry—even if it may be rendered symbolic in November. (permalinked PDF)

Although some couples said they preferred to wait until after the election because they feared their marriages would nullified at the ballot box, others said they wanted to make history, especially if the opportunity to get married could be lost.

“There’s a window, and we want to take advantage of that window, because who knows what’s going to happen in November,” said Jay Mendes, 40, as he and his partner of three years, Vantha Sao, 22, waited to obtain a marriage license in West Hollywood.

Whether through ex post facto law or some other usurpation of its privilege, what democracy giveth, so to can democracy taketh away.

This maxim applies to all facets of human life where government intervenes. If it is permissible for a government to say “all vehicles must be equipped with seatbelts and airbags” it is also permissible for a government to decree that no such vehicles can be produced or sold within its borders. If it is permissible for a government to ban certain foods, it is also permissible for a government to require the production and inventory of other foods. If it is permissible for a government by democracy to say “no smoking in any restaurant,” it is also and necessarily permissible if a government by democracy would say, “smoking must be permitted in all restaurants.”

If confronted by different circumstances, my guess is that the defenders of “traditional” marriage would start singing a different tune; that without the crutch of majority opinion, they would have to argue from some other principle: they don’t really believe that “traditional” marriage is right because a majority says so, that’s simply the most convenient argument they can presently offer.

They will never concede that at least in theory, if teh gay and their advocates were numerous enough, the so-called right to “traditional” marriage might be in jeopardy, but indeed this is an indisputable fact and it is the nature of the democratic process, which is evidenced by the constant appeal to a different definition of democracy: if the popularly elected legislators and their appointees permit a behavior, it is incumbent to raise a ballot initiative that would outlaw it. If the entire State ultimately permits the practice, then it is incumbent to petition for an amendment to the State constitution.  If that fails, ask the national government to outlaw it.

Those who believe that only “traditional” marriage should be defined by the State, and hence through the democratic process, suffer from this affliction. It is easy to espouse the ideals of Democracy when you hold or presume to hold the majority opinion. The supporters of Democracy only use democracy insofar as they think they can use it to their advantage. When they can’t, they redefine the rules of the game.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics