Hacker News Reader

Nobody is asking for permission. We are asking for equal protection under the law.

There are dozens of boring issues that are bundled with this issue. For me, repeal of DOMA means that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, my husband would be able to continue to live in our home and not have to sell it to pay taxes on his "windfall".

> "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission"

That's what Turing was trying to do. It resulted in:

>shaming and chemically castrating the man

>If worried about my status as defined by the [UK] government and the fairness I can expect from [UK] government, I would just kill myself now.

The issue goes a bit deeper than superficial validation.

This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality.

As much as you dislike the government, you can't just ignore how incredibly powerful it is in people's daily lives. The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples. No amount of saying "fuck off" to the government is going to change whether you're family members will be allowed to live in the same country as you.

In the case of Alan Turing, no amount of him saying "fuck off" to the government could prevent them from criminalizing his relationship and chemically castrating him. The UK government issuing a pardon is a overdue recognition that they instituted a campaign on suffering on many people, one of whom hand a significant part in saving the country from the Nazis.

I stopped reading after "This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality."

>The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples.

A real-world example of this with a name HN readers will recognize is Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil for the past several years because his partner is Brazilian and Brazil recognizes same-sex relationships for immigration purposes while the United States does not.

I'm not ignoring how powerful the government is in people's lives. I'm saying that it holds that power because the masses of people believe that that's the way things should be. Discussions about useless debates happening in the House of Lords lends credibility to a completely ridiculous way of thinking. I don't think my position is the one that has lost contact with reality... I'd say the House of Lords is where reality is truly forgotten.

The last sentence I wrote was: "Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability." I don't think people should stop paying taxes or do other things that put themselves in jeopardy, but I think that when people pay taxes or fight for marriage equality, they need to stay aware of what is really going on: they are victims of the government monopoly on violence.

You can live your life the way you want right up to the point where you want to visit your husband in the hospital or inherit the estate of your dead wife. Then these legal things start to matter.

>inherit the estate of your dead wife

A well written will would solve that issue.

I would argue the opposite: that empty gestures such as these call public attention to the fact that laws and governments are fallible and sometimes unjust.

Imagine the social significance in the U.S. if Congress officially apologized for MLK being mailed a letter suggesting he commit suicide, or for overthrowing the leadership of Iran in the 50s, any of the other misdeeds that have gone down the memory hole.

> My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".

I'm straight, but this is really easy to say when you've never had the experience of not being able to see a significant other in the hospital because you aren't classified as either family or a spouse.

Legality affects many other parts of life as well.

> The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation.

This statement is vague about how many people are looking to governments and religions and how many people you think should be looking to governments and religions. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect nobody to be looking to them, as there are millions of people and thus there are going to be varied interests. There are also some people who I expect to be looking to them, and those are people who are currently, or were formerly, actively involved with a religion or a government.

> If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now.

Pure hyperbole.

You bring up an interesting topic, but I think the issue needs to be framed differently.

Those who want equal rights under the law should just “kill themselves now”? Wow. To borrow your own phrase, the proper response to that is “fuck off.”

Yes. Pursuing equal rights is a lost cause. You and Bill Clinton will never be treated the same by the U.S. government.

The position of government on various issues is far from meaningless. It is as close as we can get to a tangible representation of the common (majority) opinion and common will of the mass of people that makes up a country (see below for a caveat). While you shouldn't base your own opinions on what everybody else thinks, it's ridiculous to think that everybody else's opinions will never affect your life.

So, I think it's unsettling that the question whether Britain still thinks what they did to Turing is OK is even an open question. UPDATE: `notahacker` pointed out that this last sentence is an oversimplification. I think this only strengthens the point that it is important that the government clearly state its position through actions such as pardons.

-----

Caveat: Really, government's representation of the common opinion of the masses of people is not direct, and always a bit out of date. However, the government very directly represents what the masses people are going to do with the common resources they share. For example, whether they will use these common resources to persecute gay people.

It's interesting to observe how public attitudes do seem to have changed in response to relatively minor and symbolic changes.

One only has to look at how the UK political landscape has shifted from the massive campaigns around the abolition of an offensive but essentially toothless piece of legislation preventing "the promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" to being broadly accepting of the logic of gay marriage in less than a decade (interestingly that shift of opinion includes the British Prime Minister). Perhaps it's the benefit of hindsight making the dire warnings of the Right look ridiculous, perhaps the change would have happened regardless of decisions the legislature took in 2003, but either way it's difficult to dismiss the effect of legislative changes that don't make the sky fall in on people's attitudes.

I don't think many people in the UK think "what they did to Turing is OK"; the wider issue is whether a specific pardon is the appropriate response, not least because a pardon implies the recipient is exceptional in deserving it.

Cultural note: That bit of law is called "section 28" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28) - There were worries that it would prevent a teacher from counciling gay pupils, among other things.

While 'toothless' it did have effects:

> As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.

...even though it was mostly not applicable to teachers.

Agreed. This particular "pardon", if he gets it, is coming 61 years too late. The fact that he saved his country's ass ought to have counted for more than this. The whole case is a definition of ingratitude.

well this is certainly a new one.

complete and utter denial of government's existence and influence. not sure where this one falls on the left/right spectrum.

it is another dimension - "anarchy is the mother of order".

It falls firmly in the "I'm a 14 year old libertarian" category.

Someone should print this out and make you read it out loud when you reach adulthood.

In other words "changing the government is hard, let's go shopping".

Gay marriage is different from posthumously pardoning somebody.

Marriage is not just some meaningless thing, it's a contract, and it comes with all kinds of benefits - lower taxes, visitation rights, medical decisions, common property, etc.