| |
|
Ah, but the Erisian viewpoint does not accept the possibility that one group might have the power to impose their views on the other, because either has the opporutnity to move somewhere which is sympathetic to their views - the Netherlands, say. Which brings us over to the other issue about marriage, which Erisian was not originally aware of - that it has legal consequences which it is much harder to recreate if one does not have access to the package of rights and connections termed "marriage" - he was getting "wedding" and "marriage" mixed up. However, I don't think his philosophy really copes well with the second, because it relies on lawmakers, who must on some level attempt to broker rights and entitlements between conflicting ideologies and desires. That role can't exist in Erisia - one can only deal with dissent by fragmenting and reforming. If you find out that your partner believes in giving gay men and lesbians the right to marry and you do not, then you split up and each of you joins a community favourable towards your beliefs. That becomes a bit more complex when there is a set of laws applying to both communities, which decide whether one, both or neither will have their belief supported by legislation. So, you have to have no governmnet either, as the idea of mediating between two opposed ideologies cannot be entertained. Therefore, you end up with small groups of people who can have _weddings_ according to their tastes, but whose _marriages_ have no legal meaning outside their community, because there is no longer any real concept of legality.
Erisia is quite a bit like Leaptopia, except with far less emphasis on hand-to-hand combat. |
|
|
