Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Crazy, crazy Minnesota!
Yesterday, it was over 90 here, which is especially odd since it was snowing last week. What up with that? I'm feeling a little whipsawed, to be honest.
That's not the real news here, though. The bigger news (as I posted yesterday) is that same-sex marriage will be legal in Minnesota. Gov. Dayton signed the bill yesterday, an event that was followed by a street party in St. Paul.
It's a remarkable thing, really; this state went from the brink of a constitutional ban on marriage equality to a legal embrace of the idea in a few short months.
A lot of theories are being advanced regarding this political whirlwind, but one thing seems clear to me: The opponents of same-sex marriage never did much to explain in a convincing way how marriage equality would hurt anyone. There was the vague assertion that it was bad for children, but that idea rested on the premise that a mother and father are intrinsically better than same-gender parents. This premise was never really and convincingly laid out in a convincing way to people who were not already committed to that side.
In this country, we tend to lean towards liberty as history progresses, especially in the absence of a countervailing harm. That's a good thing, and consistent with what the framers envisioned. Our impulse towards the expansion of liberty is not something to apologize for. Yesterday, it was properly celebrated.
Things can change fast in Minnesota, but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
More video from Craig Stellmacher:
Things can change fast in Minnesota, but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
More video from Craig Stellmacher:
Comments:
<< Home
A few points:
1. Conversations are a really good thing in a democratic society. As I said yesterday, to the people of good will who won a legislative victory this week: Congratulations! To the people of good will who suffered a legislative setback this week: Carry On!
2. In re our American tendency "to lean towards liberty as history progresses," I would agree in part but offer this slight addition(courtesy of Eric Foner): our history is marked by the constant struggle to define (redefine) what we mean by liberty.
As for the framers, I would argue that they were more concerned with maintaining a logical and healthy balance between "liberty and power." Power is the enemy of liberty. But, important to note, they also saw too much liberty as the enemy of liberty. (Which may prove helpful going forward as we plot out our campaign to enact restrictions on guns.)
3. A final point about "harm." I have always been sympathetic to same sex marriage as a public policy (my libertarian bent). But, I don't think we should fool ourselves that our ongoing sexual revolution is not doing us any harm.
Relaxing laws in re adultery and divorce (and the corresponding social changes that have devalued marriage as an institution) have given us great advantages and freedoms--but at a price. For all the good that the Sexual Revolution has wrought, I don't think anyone can be totally blind to the downsides.
1. Conversations are a really good thing in a democratic society. As I said yesterday, to the people of good will who won a legislative victory this week: Congratulations! To the people of good will who suffered a legislative setback this week: Carry On!
2. In re our American tendency "to lean towards liberty as history progresses," I would agree in part but offer this slight addition(courtesy of Eric Foner): our history is marked by the constant struggle to define (redefine) what we mean by liberty.
As for the framers, I would argue that they were more concerned with maintaining a logical and healthy balance between "liberty and power." Power is the enemy of liberty. But, important to note, they also saw too much liberty as the enemy of liberty. (Which may prove helpful going forward as we plot out our campaign to enact restrictions on guns.)
3. A final point about "harm." I have always been sympathetic to same sex marriage as a public policy (my libertarian bent). But, I don't think we should fool ourselves that our ongoing sexual revolution is not doing us any harm.
Relaxing laws in re adultery and divorce (and the corresponding social changes that have devalued marriage as an institution) have given us great advantages and freedoms--but at a price. For all the good that the Sexual Revolution has wrought, I don't think anyone can be totally blind to the downsides.
WF-- on pt. 3, I think allowing more people into the traditional, committed relationship of marriage cuts against the harm you warn about.
America has it's share of imperfect citizens. Some state governments are labeling,identifying and then excluding them. While in the state right next to them the elected government extends to the same group their equal rights.
Too much legislation reflects the interests of the group that has gained power. State governments are becoming dominated by one party or the other, and the moneyed interests behind them. Today, divided government and government by consensus is rare. This may help explain the reversals in direction on gay rights, minority rights, gun control, and compassionate social programs.
With the redistricting that has taken place, the legislators often do not reflect the majority of the people's views. Get the influence of money out of our elections!
Too much legislation reflects the interests of the group that has gained power. State governments are becoming dominated by one party or the other, and the moneyed interests behind them. Today, divided government and government by consensus is rare. This may help explain the reversals in direction on gay rights, minority rights, gun control, and compassionate social programs.
With the redistricting that has taken place, the legislators often do not reflect the majority of the people's views. Get the influence of money out of our elections!
Regarding harm:
I actually think SSM is not very significant in itself. It is the logical end to several generations in which heterosexuals have redefined traditional ideas about marriage and sex and childrearing.
Given all we have seen in the last fifty years, it would be cruel and illogical NOT to allow same sex couples the freedom to enjoy the various legal and cultural benefits of marriage.
The harm is not really in SSM. The harm is probably already baked in the cake.
In terms of unintended and unexpected consequences of SSM--who knows? It really is a big break with tradition. I make no predictions.
In re your point about healing (restoring "committed relationships"), Mark, I respect your opinion, and I hope you are right. I made that very same argument for years, but I don't think I believe it any more. I do not think that is actually what the "marriage equality" movement is all about.
Post a Comment
I actually think SSM is not very significant in itself. It is the logical end to several generations in which heterosexuals have redefined traditional ideas about marriage and sex and childrearing.
Given all we have seen in the last fifty years, it would be cruel and illogical NOT to allow same sex couples the freedom to enjoy the various legal and cultural benefits of marriage.
The harm is not really in SSM. The harm is probably already baked in the cake.
In terms of unintended and unexpected consequences of SSM--who knows? It really is a big break with tradition. I make no predictions.
In re your point about healing (restoring "committed relationships"), Mark, I respect your opinion, and I hope you are right. I made that very same argument for years, but I don't think I believe it any more. I do not think that is actually what the "marriage equality" movement is all about.
<< Home
