Rage

I have just spent 2 hours trying to draft a rational continuation of The Massive Minority; a sequel that would fittingly respect the tragic deaths of 200,000 Burmese and Chinese citizens. These are 200,000 people who probably never contributed to my blog stats, yet they contributed to our world, and theirs, in numerous and valuable ways. Their deaths now contribute to our pain and distress. Millions more suffer their deaths in mourning. Millions again suffer in destitution, physical injury and mental anguish. The philosophical and social implications of this situation are enormous. There will come a time when we can look upon the 21^st century and learn something valuable and inspiring about our nature. It strikes me now, as I try desperately to compartmentalise my emotions into a rational response, that there are times when we must simply express rage.

Dark Horses

I found this poem while cleaning out my junk crates today. I am guessing it dates back to my early-mid twenties, a period heavily influenced by copious amounts of bourbon and Grateful Dead. Can anyone tell me why I called it ‘Dark Horses’?

Space

The Art Predator has been posting some interesting bloggoland analyses of late which reminded me of an attempt I made earlier this year to tap into the advertising potential of Maekitso’s Cafe. Need some space? Let’s do lunch.

—-

Space

Negotiable, valuable

Locating, positioning, accommodating

See your ad here

Place

—-

Do you have a product or service that needs placing?
Looking for a unique way to communicate your message to a discerning readership?
Try my brand new Cinqu-ad. Embed your website in a five line stanza and watch your brand reputation hit ‘diamond-like’ proportions.

Same-sex inequality

According to Jim Wallace, Managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. Furthermore, “It’s not for two per cent of the population to redefine a majority institution, particularly when it’s so important an institution to a healthy society” (SMH, May 5,2008).

Is this opposition to same-sex marriage analogous to the support of slavery? The reported claim being made by the Australian Coalition for Equality suggests the answer is yes. My initial reaction to Rodney Croome’s argument, when I heard it on ABC RN two days ago, was one of sympathy. After considering Croome’s claims in the light of my recent academic focus on John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty; particularly Mill’s argument against the voluntary slave contract; I feel that a strong argument can be made in Croome’s support. While I recognize that I may be preaching to the converted, I will present my support here in the hope that it stimulates further debate against Kevin Rudd’s current Labor Policy position.

According to the New Law Dictionary and Glossary of 1850, a slave is “One who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another” (1998:936).

The argument to deny freedom from slavery, if it were to take the same form as Mr Wallace’s argument against same- sex marriage, would look something like this;

You are a slave. By law, you have no liberty. By law, you are owned. It is not for you to redefine the institution of slavery, particularly since slavery is such an important institution for the health of our society. Our plantations and our economy will sink into disrepair if this institution is not maintained. Your lack of liberty is therefore necessary.

Like the laws that once sustained a tradition of slavery, the law that opposes same-sex marriage seeks to limit a group of individuals, by tradition and utility, to a state of affairs that restricts their equality. If you are interested in confirming the similarities of this hypothetical argument to those of early to mid-nineteenth century supporters of slavery, I recommend the Carlyle-Mill “Negro Question” debate as a starting point.

The critic might counter that same-sex relationships are tolerable; that equality is not the issue. People may choose this particular way of life, and receive all of the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive from the traditional marriage contract. This counterargument is harder to respond to. If such an institution did exist for the benefit of same- sex couples, would they be happy if it was called something other than marriage? I will return to this question shortly.

Slavery is a direct denial of autonomy. As J.S Mill (On Liberty, 1973:583) would say, the slave permanently forgoes their use of autonomy. The denial of equality is a secondary consideration. Lack of equality harms the autonomy of the individual by reducing the options open for choosing. Mill’s ideal government would deny the validity of a slave contract on the grounds that autonomy is directly negated. It is clear that this is not the basis for denying a same sex contract. Nor is the government denying this contract on the basis of indirect harm to autonomy. As has already been noted, the only basis for the government’s position is an argument to maintain a traditional definition of the institution of marriage. That definition is seemingly inseparable from the religious tradition of marriage. While it may be true that many state authorities now allow marriage regardless of religious affiliations, the demand for traditional male/female qualifications still persists. This persistence might be morally justified by a few religious doctrines, but it can’t be justified by a government that claims to recognise equality for all.

Returning now to the question of whether same-sex couples can share equally in the benefits of marriage under a different name. This approach might provide equal financial benefits. It may even lead to equal social opportunities; opportunities that might include free and equal access to adoption centres and fertility treatments. Nevertheless, a society that would seek to institutionally identify some groups as inherently different to other groups on the basis of their non-traditional gender mix is, in my opinion, a long way from accepting a principle of equality.

References:

Burrill, A.M., 1998. A New Law Dictionary and Glossary: Containing Full Definitions of the Principal Terms of the Common and Civil Law, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Originally published: New York : J.S. Voorhies, 1850.

Mill, J.S. (1973) ‘On Liberty’ in The Utilitarians. Garden City, NY : Anchor Books (p 583).

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/texts/carlyle/negroquest.htm

http://news.smh.com.au/gay-activist-questions-govt-decision/20080505-2ay9.html