In my Philosophy class, we are reading a book written by John Stuart Mill titled On Liberty. You can read the pdf here. In the book Mill argues on what liberty and freedom means politically and philosophically. In the first chapter, he discusses the tyranny of the government summarized as the "struggle between authority and liberty" and "the tyranny of the majority."
I want to talk about the "struggle between authority and liberty" that Mill mentions. One of the concepts involved with the "struggle" is the Government's reasoning and jurisdiction of a law. Now, we frequently debate about Gay marriage as whether it should be legal or illegal. However, we do not debate whether government should even define marriage.
Where does the Government's authority draw the line? Should the government have authority in marriage, a traditionally religious institution? And if the government should have power over marriage, would that not violate individual sovereignty as it would limit one's personal choices?
These questions I ask of our CSP. Should we be arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal, or should we be arguing whether or not the federal and state governments even have jurisdiction over marriage itself?
Fine. If you want the Government to get out of the business of recognizing marriages, I would be fine with that.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
If there exists marriage as created by the State, then it should be available to same-sex couples as well.
If you want to eliminate marriage and treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally (i.e. by having them ignored equally by the state or federal government) then I will support that.
I would point out that there is no way that you will get popular support for any kind of legislative or political effort to "end marriage."
I do want the government to eliminate its power over marriage so that marital equality will exist. I find that because the government defines marriage, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, is why gay marriage has been for the most part illegal. I support the elimination over state government's control over marriage so that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples would be ignored and thus be treated equal. And while it allows marriage forms like polygamy to exist, that cannot be seen as harmful to others. The only drawback of ignoring marriage is probably how couples get taxed.
ReplyDeleteYet, I'm trying explore the larger context of things involving authority. I wonder, where does the government's power end? Where do they draw the line on infringing personal liberty and civili rights?