Criteria

[Been having a good time with the communities forums over at Orkut lately. While criticisms of the service are well taken, it beats Friendster hands down, at least so far. (No, I haven't checked out Tribe; who has time for that many social networks?) My main criteria: the communities (which have been a tremendous time-waster for me lately), and the fact that I've actually exchanged email with new people met at Orkut. Friendster, once you've built your little network, and looked at cute pictures of friends of friends of friends, just sorta sits there.]

[One of my favorite communities has been (surprise!) the one set up to discuss gay marriage. (Considering I'm further than ever from contracting my own union, this might actually be surprising...) Lately, one of the points discussed is whether allowing same-sex marriage is a real change in the definition of marriage, or simply a new understanding of the what already exists.]

[I think it's a real change, which maybe sets me apart from some other advocates. For better or worse (well, for worse), marriage has almost always been understood to be a union of a woman and a man. Usually, it's been the tying of a woman to a man, but lately, we've come to understand it to mean two free people choosing to unite. Thruout most of history, those two people have been understood to be mixed-sex, though.]

[This wouldn't matter, except I think one of the legal arguments that will be made against same-sex marriage will be that no one's individual rights are being violated by marriage law as it exists, because any gay person is free to marry a member of the opposite sex. An analogy was offered at Orkut that this is like denying a lefthanded person facilities built for him or her. Unfortunately, I don't think this analogy holds up from a legal point of view. I'm lefthanded, and literally cannot use some tools and equipement unless they're specially built. I could, however, marry a woman, and while I would find it unsatisfactory personally, she and I would then be entitled to all the legal benefits of marriage. The law doesn't include personal fulfillment as one of those legal benefits. (Or does it? Now I'm wondering if the fact that a couple may divorce for "irreconciable differences" doesn't mean something...hmmm...)]

[So, what we are trying to do is change the definition of marriage. The good news is that I think this still can be stretched to meet the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court cases recognizing gays and lesbians as a discrete group. If the Court can be convinced that there's no rational basis for denying the group marriage rights, the fight will be won. It will take a really tight legal argument, and it's not going to be easy, but I think it's possible.]

[Sure would be nice if our newly minted Democratic nominee would come over to the side of the angels, though...]

Previously Next

[Later: If someone feels the need to question why it's "criteria" but not "fora," I'll either kiss him or put his eye out.]