When you are talking about women's rights, you are already too slow and too late. Where the rights of recognized individuals is still being debated, there all the society is inundated in self-preservation. It can only result in stagnation and diseased thought. Where tradition is valued but more so understood, there all society is vibrant.

Let sanity conquer my force. There is no requirement for me to expend in such a callous manner. I must dedicate myself to the higher endeavor for fulfillment will always evade me.

Same Sex Marriage

To be sure, same-sex marriage is a non-issue for any society that believes in religion and the law.
It is a sensible and conservative approach.
It isn't anarchy in any way.
Because it is ought to be a non-issue, swift resolution would guarantee time well spent on other important issues.
Primarily the issue of a limit of terms a senator can serve.
The issue of professional politicians.
Those are the real issues.
A society which believes in democracy, must develop it such that the politicians are indeed serving for the welfare of the constituents and not for any personal gain. Political position ought to be a free service and not a professional occupation. Civic understanding must be the duty of every citizen and so should be civil service. All soldiers must first serve as a public servant before they can be sent to the field. For, they above all, ought to know what they are truly fighting for.

The Gay Rights for Marriage Issue

On one side we have Marriage as understood as a social custom. It is, in some sense, a religious custom as well. Many believe it to be a spiritual union of two souls, and not just two bodies. Some more believe it to be the foundation of society as it brings together not just two people but two families. It is the way a society, and along with it, its customs progress.

Marriage is also understood in a legal sense. The government first recognizes the social custom and legalizes it by providing a legal tender which shows that it is not just in the eyes of the two families or two people that they are married but it is also as per the law that they are married. That is, to be married, by virtue of being permitted under the law, can be understood as a right. It is however, not the right of a citizen to be married, but it is a right in reserve. It is certainly not the duty of every citizen to be married but it is a right in reserve which provides a possibility for the citizen to be married. Under legal questioning, can two citizens get married? The answer is yes. What is understood in legal terms as married? This is borrowed mainly from the social custom.

As a legal married couple, it is known that there are certain benefits that only they can get from the government. That is the benefit, from a legal standpoint, of being married under the law. So we have marriage, law and benefits that play a role in this issue.

The Gay rights for marriage is concerned is presently situated at the legal level. Yet, law borrows most of what it knows about what marriage is from society. At the same time, the law must maintain itself as objectively as possible. In the name of democracy it cannot maul over the individual rights of citizens because it would prove very difficult for it to maintain objectivity and justice in other cases. For the law, the most difficult thing ought to be to stop itself from stomping over the rights of citizens.

The Individual

The Individual exists simultaneously as an individual, member of society and as a citizen. As an individual, the individual engages in absolute freedom. That is, a freedom which cannot be curtailed by external sources. However, by virtue of being an individual, the individual is also a member of society. As a member of society, the individual understands in what way his/her freedom needs to be contextualized. A freedom without context, would be like an individual without a world. To give his freedom full meaning, the individual necessarily needs to be a member of society. By being in the world, the individual recognizes his relativity by first grasping his singularity. He recognizes similarity and commonness by first recognizing his uniqueness. Through his uniqueness, he learns to differentiate. Through negation, he learns to abstract. Through abstraction he learns to find common ground. In order for the individual to remain free, the individual needs to remain in the world. IN order for the individual to remain in the world, the individual must interact with the world. In order to interact with the world, the individual must engage with the world on equal grounds. Through negation, the Individual reduces others to his level. Through abstraction the individual finds similarities between himself and others. And then he can interact. When he interacts with the world, he does so as a member of a society. But the society is also made up of other individuals where other individuals are also interacting. The society, through itself, gives rise to a law whereby it states what interactions are good for furthering interactions. The establishment of law, presents the individual to himself now as a citizen. With law, as an individual who is also a citizen, the individual is now free under law. The law is only as stone set as the individual is in developing his/her individuality. That is to say, the individuality of the person, governed by consciousness, is never static, and therefore neither is the law. T

Is Law restrictive?

The development of law comes about not to be restrictive but rather to further interactions - interactions which are willed by free members of society who are at the same time individuals. Law therefore promotes, primarily, freedom. Yet law is restrictive. As Law, it is a general consensus of what furthers a citizen's freedom. As such, it too does what the individual does. It negates and then abstracts. And just as the individual's form is fluid so is that of the law. By those means, the law is not a scientific theory. It can progress and regress, it can be stretched and it can be relaxed. It can seem to be progressive and can also seem to be regressive. It can disallow what it allows and later allow what it disallows. The individual, who defines his individuality according to his consciousness, can therefore never self-contradict himself. Even in denying and affirming at the same time, the individual maintains his individuality. Therefore, the law, which is in relation to a citizen, and a citizen is nothing other than an individual, can also never be self-contradictory. It can change, it can regress and progress, but it can never abstract itself from itself. The law, in this sense, is stoneset. But as the law is a general consensus, and the general consensus is a result of interactions among individuals, the law cannot be established prior to the consensus. The individuals must be allowed to interact, for without interactions, law loses its purpose. If the law is developed prior to the right amount of interactions, the law will no doubt appear restrictive, for it would not be a law that has come about from a society. Similarly if a law is removed prior to the right amount of interactions, it too would appear to be restrictive. Interactions, by their nature, is tense and intimate affair. But they are necessary, for individuals as individuals, member of society and citizens to be free. For citizen to demand freedom, they must be already be free. To already be free, they must have already interacted with other members in society. But to be already free also means to be free under law. Therefore, the citizens must have interacted with members of society according to the general consensus of society.

Rebel

The law is the highest point concerning management of interactions for citizens. There is no more higher to go, per say. Therefore, the line needs to be bent here to create a circle. The citizen gives the law its authority and the law exercises its authority over the citizen. While the citizen is free under law, law exists because the citizens are free. If the citizens aren't free then the law loses its authority. If the citizen tries to dominate the law, the citizen loses his freedom under law. How does the law change? If a citizen changes, the law doesn't change for law is not primarily concerned with a citizen but is rather concerned with the general consensus of society. But, if a law tramples upon the freedom of a citizen, then the law must change. For, the freedom of that citizen, which is under the law, if violated by law itself aims towards a self-contradiction and therefore it is demanding an impossibility. It must change. If a citizen interacts with other citizens in a way that is free under the law but that restricts the freedom of others under the law, the citizen is introducing a self-contradiction in the law. In that case, either the law or the citizen must change. The law, however, is not about fairness or goodness. Justice is not brought about objectively in a sense that it is entirely distant from human connection. Rather, justice is a general consensus of society. Fair, good, or just are not standalone ideals. They are relative because individuals are relatively situated in the world. The state or country of citizens is formed because the citizens are relatively connected to each other. In that case, a group of citizens can hold one rightness relatively superior to other. In doing so, however, they can't introduce a self-contradiction in law such that the law fails. The rebel is a citizen who primarily understands the law. In doing so, the rebel understands that the law cannot be self-contradictory. The rebel also understands that the general consensus aims to introduce self-contradiction in the law. The rebel is therefore the upholder of law, a loyal servant of the law. The rebel is also the law's greatest friend. The rebel recognizes himself as a citizen, but also recognizes that he can only be a citizen under the law. The rebel also understands that if the general consensus is trying to force a law, then the law would become tyranny and therefore will seek to save the law from such condemnation. The rebel will fight, but fight he will as a citizen under the law. The rebel, in fighting, becomes the greatest citizen because the rebel will produce the most amount of interactions. Interactions is the governing force behind the general consensus. By forcing interactions, as a citizen under the law, the rebel is promoting the interaction and is pushing for "progress". The rebel is the driver of society, but he recognizes himself only as a citizen under the law.

Marriage

Marriage under law is marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is brought under law due to the general consensus. But the general consensus is under question. A rebel has emerged and he questions the static nature that the general consensus aims to give to law. Traditions can be described as static, religions can be described as static. Whether they indeed are is an issue of no concern to this rebel. FOr what they can be described as has nothing to do with the law. As a servant of law, the rebel is primarily concerned with protecting the law. The rebel does not wish to see the law as tradition or as religion. The rebel does not want to see the law as scientific fact either. The rebel is narrow minded in the sense that he only sees law as law. Therefore, in exercising his absolute freedom, the rebel also gives rise to absolute law. An absolute law is a law that must not be curtailed by any sources outside of the general consensus and where the general consensus emerges only as a result of interactions between the members of society as citizens.

Gay Rights for marriage

If there is a group seeking marriage, what are they seeking? If they are seeking marriage as understood in social customs then is that a problem? If they are seeking marriage only as understood under the law, is that a problem? Is it even possible? No. It isn't possible to seek marriage only as understood under the law but not as understood by society. Also, it is not possible to seek marriage but not seek marriage in a legal sense. If the individual is an individual, member of society and citizen then the individual by choosing one is choosing all three. It is a fact that a citizen is a member of society and is also an individual. Therefore, the notion of choosing one sense of marriage over another is nonsensical. The citizen, must, seek marriage as understood as per social customs and as under the law. However, a difficulty arises. Marriage is borrowed by law from society. Society in-turn borrows essential features of marriage from religion. Marriage can certainly be understood entirely from a religious point of view. If so, must the citizen also choose marriage also in a religious way? Herein lies the basis of the problem. Because of the nature of marriage, we find that religion influences what it is when the society is forming a general consensus. However, in the prevailing means we find that it is not just the religious people who can be married under the law. So we find that the general consensus isn't entirely dictated by the religious point of view. Therefore, in seeking marriage a citizen isn't necessarily seeking marriage as it may be understood religiously.

Is the issue a religious issue at heart?

Is the gay marriage issue really a religious at heart? It seems as though there are strong religious under-currents but based on an understanding of the general consensus' definition of marriage, are there no other oppositions? For if it is only a religious opposition then it is an incomplete opposition. So we are considering the issue of what progresses society?

Does society truly progress? Progression of society is entirely dependent on the progress of its members. Each member of a society is an individual, and each individual progresses in his own manner. An individual progresses when his consciousness progresses. But consciousness is not perched upon a linear path where by it can move towards a particular goal. In fact, consciousness merely changes. It merely changes because it essentially can only change. Consciousness can do no other thing than change and it must only do that. So an individual's progress, by measure of his consciousness, only changes. It is not a progression on a linear path, rather it is shift from one state of mind to another. The next state of mind is neither better nor worse than the other, it is merely different. It is merely and most essentially only different. Hence the notion that the individual can at one time seem to be progressing but at another time seem to be regressing. The individual, as absolute freedom, can always revisit a previous state of mind or he can come to an entirely new state of mind. The way an individual progresses, or changes, is therefore also the way a society progresses, or changes. And it is also the way a law progresses, or changes. So does a society truly progress?

A Society truly progresses when the general consensus pertaining to an issue merely changes, and essentially only changes. But, the individual is forever changing, since an individual is his consciousness and consciousness while being can only do but one thing. Therefore, the general consensus is not a consensus which closes the agenda. The general consensus is a consensus which only moves the agenda. It moves the issue from one position to the next. Every consensus merely only does that, it can only essentially do just that. A consensus, is therefore not to be understood as a consensus which is a law.

But why does there need to be a general consensus?

The general consensus emerges from the interaction of individuals. Individuals recognize themselves as individuals but in doing so they recognize that they are situated individuals. They are individuals that are out in the world, exposed to interaction with other individuals. The individual, in order to remain an individual, must interact. To facilitate interaction is the individuals primary interaction in the world. To maintain that interaction, is his primary concern in the world. Without that, the individual ceases to be. The general consensus is developed as a result of this desperate, core need of an individual. Therefore, there is need for a general consensus because an individual needs to be an individual.

The law is needed because the individual aims, to solidify the general consensus. The individual knows himself, and understands himself as a member of society and yet aims for something more static. In yearning for this staticness, the individual wants to immortalize his freedom, and his interactions. But it is what every individual is trying to do at the same time. Despite it being against his nature, the law is established as a way to provide that comfort of a static environment. The law, however, is not static. It cannot be. It is developed in an environment of change and by change. The law, must, change and it most certainly does, albeit at times slower or faster than the general consensus. The sense of a struggle needs to be hit upon here. The general consensus is a battle fought on the grounds of freedom. It is freedom clashing against itself. Two gigantic waves hurling themselves together into each other, and they disintegrate onto each other. But in disintegrating, they also return to the same sea, perfectly assimilated into that environment as if the two were never different to begin with. Such is the nature of the general consensus. One interaction crashes into another and the two disintegrate and assimilate into each other at the same time. Such is also the fragile landscape upon which a static entity such as a law is being attempted to be erected. But the law does not give rise to new individuals. The law does not provide a new environment for the individual to be in the world, nor does it transport the individual to another universe. The individual remains, as a ctizen, under the law, but also in the same world. His dream of a static comfort, is just that, a dream, an everlasting yearning. He yearns for it, because at least that much he can do. His law will not be static. He himself will destroy it. But in yearning for a static law, the individual is also doing something. In destroy the law, the individual is also doing something. And in doing something, the individual can remain an individual. If the law were ever to be static, the individual would lay in comfort? On the contrary, the individual would essentially and absolutely cease to be.

There is significant tension in the air. I await important news. Not necessarily good but positive news. A new direction awaits to be opened, one of massive instant relief. The relief may last only momentarily but it will be very deciding.

It is emerging, rather surprisingly, that Levy didn't quite capture Sartre's concept of freedom. He seems to be leaving it by bringing together Absolute and Freedom when the two need to be taken separately and then be brought together. Freedom needs to be absolute but Freedom by itself is related.
Sartre signals this when he states that freedom is always situated. For that Sartre isn't trying to suggest any different freedom but that freedom which is to be absolute. This freedom, which is absolute, is always situated. In that sense, Freedom is related to variables outside of it. What is it? Freedom is none other than the being of man, or more precisely stated, freedom is the nothingness of man. This related freedom is certainly then limited, here as a whole, as an absolute freedom. So, the absolute freedom is limited by the external variables.
One need not go as far as CDR to find the talk of limitations in Sartre's thought. Facticity is mentioned frequently by Sartre and he means nothing other than what facticity as a limiting variable. Perhaps not explicitly stated but the manner in which it is mentioned it is nothing too far away from being explicitly stated as such. It is clear, from Being and Nothingness itself, that he wanted to answer the issue of capriciousness. He wanted in no way want an arbitrary or capricious description of freedom, and he made significant, successful, attempts to do just that. If one stops merely at the mention of absolute and understands only capriciousness then their critique of freedom may only be valid if it isn't concerned with the freedom that Sartre describes.
It remains, however, unclear that Sartre's existentialism and marxism are essentially different. Perhaps they are, but it isn't clear why that difference is necessarily to be felt in his conception of freedom.

I think the real difficulty lies in the usage of the world "absolute". Now, it is certain that someone like Sartre truly understands words and so his use of 'absolute' cannot be a simple adjective.
It is quite possible that the term absolute means exactly what it means in regular usage and I think viewed from this point of view, Sartre's usage does not necessarily present any difficulties. Having said that, we must maintain what Sartre specifically means by using the word absolute. Absolute, means total. Absolute freedom is all of freedom where freedom is limited by nothing other than itself. That is the definition of absolute.
However, the real crux of the matter for Sartre is not "absolute" but freedom. For what it is this thing which is to be 'absolute'. Hence, it isn't in the world absolute that the problem really hangs rather it is the word 'freedom' which brings about difficulties.
Freedom is an indescribable for Sartre. But just as 'nothingness' is an indescribable and yet Sartre managed to, in some way, explain what it is; he hopes of explaining what freedom. More than an explanation, however, he attempts to describe what freedom is. In the process of describing he de-constructs this concept-like 'Freedom'. Freedom is not a concept, per se, but in order to undertake the task of describing it we must at least initially pretend to treat it as such. Only then will we be able to deal with the intricate relationships that freedom engages in. Freedom is, first and foremost, the nothingness of man - in that sense, freedom is the being of man. The adjective of absolute is derived from this facet of what freedom is. In this sense, freedom is never abandoned, or can never be abandoned because the self can never let of the self. Freedom is the way in which the self makes itself, in the way that it chooses itself, and hence freedom is in that sense synonymous with the self. If one were to, however, take that description of freedom outside of this context and try to posit the self and freedom as equal to each other they would be committing a grave error. The self is not freedom, but it is freedom as long as freedom makes the self, as long as the self intentionally makes itself. Conceptually, or in the realm of concepts, they are not equatable, but once we apprehend freedom subsequent to epoche we can state, in a descriptive language that freedom is self and the self freedom.
Hence, the absoluteness of freedom refers to absolute attachment of freedom to self. That it is full form of freedom which allows the self to make itself. This freedom, which is not manifest from any source outside of the self, and this freedom that resides entirely and fully in the self, with the self, as the self, is the cause and effect of the self, of itself. Freedom is exhausted only by freedom and therefore, the self is exhausted only by itself.
What has been thus far established is only the relation between the self and freedom. Though language presents them as two components conjuncted, the reality is that they are one and the same. Yet, in language we always speak of them differently. What hasn't, however, been developed is what do we exactly mean by 'freedom'.
To be redundant, freedom is absolute. But the absoluteness needs to be in the presence of something. What is that then? For that Sartre brings about the relationship freedom shares with facticity. Now, facticity are all external factors. But as external factors, facticity also includes the individual's past. The self's past, once it has happened acts as external to it. Though we can recall our past, we are not exactly living that moment and as such that past is presented to us in an objective sense. Our past is not necessarily ours in the present moment. Once it has become, it is an object like any other object in the external world. It is a plenum.