Ok, I start my point from as an Atheist, who sees all (hu)man made institutions as socially contructed and culturally evolving, not as eternal verities or nature bound, nor as given by some 'g(G)od' of Natural Law and Rights.
The fact of the matter is, however, the current Western notion of marriage as being only between a single male and a single female is culturally and historically conditioned - there is nothing very necessary or obvious about it. Other types of marriage can be just as stable, just as productive, and just as loving. There is no reason to eliminate them from the category "marriage" except, perhaps, as a means to promote religious or cultural bigotry.
Having said that I believe strongly that gay marriage should become a part of the legal system just as atheists, who fought so hard for the laws to be changed. This is a fight over the legal status rather than a religious or non-religious battle, and should be battled in the higher courts, or on a state by state level.
Obviously in the American system lobbies from the religious Right are working hard to circumvent Atheists, Gays, Women's Rights, etc... from being able to change the system, but that is why we need a populist grass roots effort, one that turns the system against itself, brings back the social protest movements that actually did rock this nation in the 60's and was able to change public opinion.
As long as a minority view of life continues to dictate its ethical rules and regulation through subterfuge and legalese we will never truly have a completed democracy. Whitman, Lincoln, King, and many myriad of individuals have never seen democracy as finished or completed, but as a dream toward which we are all striving....
As for the comment:
"...I'm not sure how useful preaching to the choir is. Telling each other that you support things that most of your friends already know you support doesn't strike me as that useful. But if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post."
It is this sort of retrograde nihilism and relatavistic pessimism that permeates those who are passive and cynical rather than activist oriented. It's this sort of non-participatory attitude that undermines a democratic stance, and supports aquiescing to the immoral drift of governments on our planet. It's this type of attitude that allows inaction and genocidal acceptance in places like Rwanda and the Congo...
I for one am a believer in 'conversation', in the old Socratic need for dialogue and participation as citizens in the public sphere, for protest and active participation in the democratic process. If we sit idly by and let our governments have their way without a word we are no better than the militant Right or Left who would lead us into tyranny. And being a Radical Democrat who has struggled since the sixties against this sort of passive torpitude I say to this person: if we cannot converse with our friends about such things, how much less will you converse with your enemies?
Converstaion strengthens our resolve, hones the metaphoric and metonymic power of our rhetoric, gives us the mental fortitude to fight the good fight, to struggle in solidarity against the darkness that reigns supreme in the halls of government around the world. If we give up our right to converse with each other in the public sphere, sit idly by and do nothing what kind of world will we leave our children? So I say.... not only speak to the choir, get that choir roused up, sing, sing, sing to them, awaken them from their lethargic complacency and activate their desires for a different world, a world where Gays, Atheists, and, yes... even the religious all have the same rights to Marriage and well-being...
Am I preaching to the Choir? Am I not most of all conversing with my fellow humans, raising doubts, challenging them, empowering and facilitating them to take action, move them to change the laws that bind us to worn out institutions of a bygone age?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-10-31 04:17 pm (UTC)The fact of the matter is, however, the current Western notion of marriage as being only between a single male and a single female is culturally and historically conditioned - there is nothing very necessary or obvious about it. Other types of marriage can be just as stable, just as productive, and just as loving. There is no reason to eliminate them from the category "marriage" except, perhaps, as a means to promote religious or cultural bigotry.
Having said that I believe strongly that gay marriage should become a part of the legal system just as atheists, who fought so hard for the laws to be changed. This is a fight over the legal status rather than a religious or non-religious battle, and should be battled in the higher courts, or on a state by state level.
Obviously in the American system lobbies from the religious Right are working hard to circumvent Atheists, Gays, Women's Rights, etc... from being able to change the system, but that is why we need a populist grass roots effort, one that turns the system against itself, brings back the social protest movements that actually did rock this nation in the 60's and was able to change public opinion.
As long as a minority view of life continues to dictate its ethical rules and regulation through subterfuge and legalese we will never truly have a completed democracy. Whitman, Lincoln, King, and many myriad of individuals have never seen democracy as finished or completed, but as a dream toward which we are all striving....
As for the comment:
"...I'm not sure how useful preaching to the choir is. Telling each other that you support things that most of your friends already know you support doesn't strike me as that useful. But if it makes people feel happy, go forth and post."
It is this sort of retrograde nihilism and relatavistic pessimism that permeates those who are passive and cynical rather than activist oriented. It's this sort of non-participatory attitude that undermines a democratic stance, and supports aquiescing to the immoral drift of governments on our planet. It's this type of attitude that allows inaction and genocidal acceptance in places like Rwanda and the Congo...
I for one am a believer in 'conversation', in the old Socratic need for dialogue and participation as citizens in the public sphere, for protest and active participation in the democratic process. If we sit idly by and let our governments have their way without a word we are no better than the militant Right or Left who would lead us into tyranny. And being a Radical Democrat who has struggled since the sixties against this sort of passive torpitude I say to this person: if we cannot converse with our friends about such things, how much less will you converse with your enemies?
Converstaion strengthens our resolve, hones the metaphoric and metonymic power of our rhetoric, gives us the mental fortitude to fight the good fight, to struggle in solidarity against the darkness that reigns supreme in the halls of government around the world. If we give up our right to converse with each other in the public sphere, sit idly by and do nothing what kind of world will we leave our children? So I say.... not only speak to the choir, get that choir roused up, sing, sing, sing to them, awaken them from their lethargic complacency and activate their desires for a different world, a world where Gays, Atheists, and, yes... even the religious all have the same rights to Marriage and well-being...
Am I preaching to the Choir? Am I not most of all conversing with my fellow humans, raising doubts, challenging them, empowering and facilitating them to take action, move them to change the laws that bind us to worn out institutions of a bygone age?