Is what's right, right?

A few days ago I blogged about the self-determination of Kosovo, and how I did not believe it was right for the ICJ to rule on the country's fate.

This morning there is a story of the courts overturning a clear and present declaration of the will of the electorate, with a Federal Judge overturning the decision of the people of California to disallow same sex marriages.

This presents me with something of a conundrum. As a Libertarian I belive passionately that if two people decide they want to marry, then that is no-one's business but their's. I couldn't care less if these people are of a different or the same gender. It really is nothing to do with me. As long as both parties are content to enter into the marriage and are doing so of their own free will, then nobody else is being harmed, so there is no need for any scrutiny or permission from anyone else.

Indeed I would also say the same about bigamy, if a man or woman wishes to take two or more spouses, then as long as all the parties, existing and prospective, are aware and content, then I see no problem with this.

I was surprised that the people of California decided to reject the concept of same sex marriages. California has always had a reputation as one of the more tolerant states in the Union, but the decision to reject was made clearly by the electorate.

So now comes the conundrum.

Is it right for the electorate to dictate what two people can do with their lives when that decision has no influence on how other people live theirs? I believe not, the freedom of the individual is paramount.

Is it right that the Courts can then go in and overturn the decision of the electorate? I believe not, as a supporter of democracy, the will of 'the people' must be sovereign over the machinery of the State. That apparatus, in a democracy, is there to facilitate the will of 'the people'.

At the risk of sounding like an EU apparatchik, it would have been better had the people of California voted to accept the concept of same sex marriages. In my opinion, they made the 'wrong' decision. However, I have said on a number of previous occasions that in democracy there is no right or wrong decision, merely a decision you agree or do not agree with.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that the decision to reject by the people of California can only come down to two issues.

The first is bigotry, that somehow homosexuality is wrong, and despite the fact that the bigot has no intention of engaging in homosexuality, and will not be effected by the act being carried out by two people unconnected to them, they feel that they are in a moral position which requires them to prevent this sort of relationship being given any legitimacy.

This is likely to be underpinned in most cases by the second issue, that being religion. God says it is wrong, therefore we must prevent it. Never mind that should God exist, He is perfectly capable of making his own judgement and implementing his own sanction. Never mind that should God exist, 'His' word is without doubt the word of men who wrote on his behalf, in a rambling text which is contradictory both in content and the way that its adherents apply the lessons contained within.

I find it amazing that even now, this document is being used to determine the way people are permitted to live their lives, even if no hurt is being done to others.

It doesn't help me with my conundrum though. To promote the ignoring of the will of the people because they have come to a decision I do not agree with would make me as bad as those I rail against. To accept that the apparatus of the State can override the will of the people is a concept that I find repugnant, but do I find it as or more repugnant than the idea that the will of the people can prevent peaceful people leading their private lives, with no detriment to anyone else, as they wish?

I don't know.

The One That Doesn't Understand The Problem . . .

Why are people so obsessed with other peoples' relationships? I remember the very earnest, and in some cases reactionary debate over 'civil partnerships.' I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

I'm straight so would never be interested in marrying a man. If two men or two women decide that they love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, well you're not hurting me, so if it makes you happy, then go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

I was astounded that there was even a referendum on the subject in California over the subject, one which threw same sex marriages out. Why? What possible harm are they doing? If you don't agree with marrying someone of the same sex, then don't do it.

One of the problems is that marriage is seen as the preserve of the religious establishment, and the problem with the religious establishment is that God has told them what should and should not be done. It's difficult to argue with what people say God wants, that is the only response in what quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: Why shouldn't gay people get married?
Them: Because God says so.
Me: But they're not doing any harm.
Them: Yes they are, they're upsetting God.
Me: Well how do you know this?
Them: It says so, in this book.
Me: Well how do you know this is the word of God?
Them: Because God says it is.

And you can go on like that, well, until Judgement Day. I hold the opinion that it is my soul, I'll take decisions regarding it and deal with the consequences myself.

During the debate about same sex marriages I remember a lot of politicians hiding behind the religious argument when the real issue might have been that they just didn't like gay people very much and I think this is evident by the fact that in this country, at least, gay people still can't get married, they can only have civil partnerships. Why stop short? Straight couples can get married without any religious involvement at all, so why should it be any different for gay people?

So it was with interest that I read this story on Al-Beeb today. In a nutshell, Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion (don't even get me started, what in the wide, wide world of sports is that?) had decreed that cultural sensitivity has meant politicians have neglected to discuss polygamy.

She wants all religious marriages to be registered to prevent men marrying more than one woman.

Well, why? What's the problem? Where has this value judgement come from? Why should people only be allowed to marry one person? That may be the majority Christian view, but is that any reason to impose that value on everyone else?

There will be those who say with a hint of indignation that we are a Christian country and should operate as such. Fine, then have the guts to ask for what you really want, a theocracy. I understand religious observance to be complete, you either believe and follow or you don't, there's no 'I support the teachings of the Church except that bit, and that, and some of that, oh, and I don't agree with that at all'. To be faithful means you submit yourself entirely to the will of God. So let's have a theocracy then, let's ban Islam, throw out the Hindus, lock the Jews in a big old warehouse and burn it to the ground, enforce attendance at church every Sunday. Let's take a leaf out of the Saudis' book and have brigades of religious police touring the streets, sweeping anyone up they decide has broken the religious moral code, Lord knows the political police are nearly there.

Look, arseholes, doesn't matter if it's a man with women or a woman with men, there's nothing wrong with polygamy, as long all those involved are adults, aware of the situation and enter into it of their own free will. Who are they hurting? Nobody. So just keep your bloody nose out of what doesn't concern you.

We either live in a country with personal and religious freedom, or we don't. It can't be done by degrees. You can't say 'you have personal freedom unless you want to marry another man or want to live with more than one woman.' That isn't freedom, and don't pretend it is, because I understand that God really hates liars.

The One That Will Not Be Opting Out. . .

Oh, this is easy. What a bloody giveaway.

OK, my view; when the Grim Reaper comes calling, I will be seriously pissed off if any useable body parts of mine aren't given to someone who could do with them. Mrs. Snowolf's mother is a transplant patient so I'm well aware how amazing a thing it is to get a second chance.

So, you'd think I was all in favour of presumed consent, wouldn't you?

But I'm not. This is yet another example of how people's personal choices are swept away to fall into line with the beliefs of others. I would not think well of anyone who refused permission for their next of kin's organs to be used to someone else's benefit when they shuffle off this mortal coil. Let's face facts, the dead person isn't going to be needing their kidneys any more. However the crux of the matter is that these organs are not the state's to take. I detest the arrogance of people who demand that these organs be taken.

We've seen a steady stream of parents of young children awaiting, recently received or tragically passed away for the want of donated organs on TV today. This is emotional blackmail. I completely support the idea of organ transplant and feel that hospital staff should be unafraid to ask greiving relatives 'please, will you give us permission to take your husband's/wife's/son's/daughter's/mother's/father's organs to stop someone else going through what you are now experiencing?'

But to presume it is acceptable just to take them is the worst sort of theft. What is the difference between this and the Alder Hey scandal? Will the burden of proof be on the relatives? Will they have to demonstrate that the recently departed did not want their insides taking away?

It is another example of New Labour imposing their will on everybody else. Don't want to donate your organs? Look at this little boy, he's going to die because of you, you are detestable. Your views are irrelevant. We have spoken. You will comply.

Of course it isn't just Labour that are capable of this conformist arrogance, the Tories are just as bad.

Days after (rightly) lambasting Gordon Brown for using the case of 'Baby P' to score political points, Iain Duncan-Smith does just that to forward his own agenda.

The inference is that Baby P has ended up dead because his parents weren't married.

Oh for crying out fucking loud. HELLO? HELLO? IS ANYONE LISTENING? It doesn't fucking matter. IDS then goes on to trot out a load of meaningless stats with no context that goes to suggest that kids in one parent families are lucky, frankly, to escape with their lives.

I lost my father when I was at primary school and was brought up in a one parent family. My mother worked hard (a nurse), was unstinting in her efforts to bring me and my brother up, faced enormous challenges when the death of our remaining grandparents in quick succession removed the support network, showed us boundless love and we got through it. It wasn't easy, but we did it, and I never, not once saw a social worker. It just wasn't needed.

Don't you dare give me that shit that child abuse happens because people aren't married, you detestable little fuck-bubble, it happens because people are rewarded for having children they are not equipped to deal with and have money thrown at them. Well it isn't money you need, my mother proved that, it is fortitude and a practical outlook on life, but you can't buy that.

But no, we must do as we are told. We must fall in line with their beliefs. They know best, they must do, they've been elected to office, it qualifies them to know everything about everything, but makes them responsible for fuck all, if it all goes wrong.

IDS wants marriage to be encouraged, divorce made harder. He wants laws to make 'informal' relationships difficult and marriage preperation classes get official sanction.

Well, who the fuck are you? What do you know? Nothing.

Whilst I was undergoing a childhood of single parentism, around the corner from me were two boys, the same age as my brother and I, their parents detested each other and the atmosphere in their house was so hostile, it was almost tangible. They stayed married, but effectively seperated in the same house, for the good of the children. The result? Two young lads incapable of building proper relationships, totally dysfunctional with huge (and possibly dangerous) psychological flaws, completely incapable of coping with life. Two adults full of hate, resentment and bitterness. Four lives seriously damaged.

Don't you dare try and impose your values on me, they are meaningless and have no value whatsoever.