Hm!

I'm reading transcripts from the DOMA debates, and, of course, I can't help seeing the parallels between Marvel's various registration acts and the DOMA debates.

I copy from the Senate Debates (09/10/1996, 104th Congress-2nd Session, Sen. Trent Lott R-MS speaking):

This is not prejudiced legislation. It is not mean-spirited or exclusionary. It is a preemptive measure to make sure that a handful of judges, in a single State, cannot impose an agenda upon the entire Nation.
The Defense of Marriage Act is not an attack upon anyone. It is, rather, a response to an attack upon the institution of marriage itself.
This matter has received so much attention in the national press, that everyone should know by now what the problem is and why we need to pass DOMA, as it is usually referred to.
The problem is the serious possibility--some say even the strong likelihood--that the State court system of Hawaii would recognize as a legal union, equivalent or identical to marriage, a living arrangement of two persons of the same sex.
If such a decision affected only Hawaii, we could leave it to the residents of Hawaii to either live with the consequences or exercise their political rights to change things. But a court decision would not be limited to just one State. It would raise threatening possibilities in other States because of article IV, section 1 of the Constitution.

Hm, sound familiar? I copy from X-Men (2000):

Senator Kelly: You're evading the real question. Three words: Are mutants dangerous?
Doctor Jean Grey: That's an unfair question, Senator Kelly. After all, the wrong person behind the wheel of a car can be dangerous.
Senator Kelly: Well, we do license people to drive.
Doctor Jean Grey: But not to live.

Maybe the parallel's a stretch, but, for me, it's there, as clear as a bullet. And I think Mr. Lott and Mr. Kelly would have similar kinds of difficulty specifically answering why they felt uniquely positioned to be legislating for the safety of all Americans.

The registration acts, unlike DOMA, stirred up some complications. According to proponents, it was to promote the "safety" of all those innocents. Yes, true. Provide the government with a list of potentially dangerous people and you just may be able to prevent the deaths of "innocents" across the country. But it's those words: "potentially" and "may." How many of those with superpowers turned out to be dangerous? In the comic books? I would imagine only those necessary to provide interesting stories.

I'm more interested in the thought of extrapolating out to consider a realistic world where people actually had special abilities: who would turn out to be dangerous? How could we prevent it? Would demanding that superpowered people stand guard over the innocents be a fair demand? Do these people function outside of the law-or should they conform to some sort of vigilante code (e.g., no killing)? How would these people be funded? How would these people be evaluated?

Various authors have weighed in, ranging from cock-eyed altruism to sinister mistrust. Funding: private fortunes, the government, or theft. Evaluation: volunteerism, recruitment via appealing to a universal notion of "humanity" (or..."mutantity"), brain washing, or kidnapping. Who's to say that any of these is more heroic or more villainous? For example, government funded brain washing of superpowered children to produce an army (ahem, ahem, Weapon X anyone?) that protected us against a new 9/11 would certainly gain a lot of support from those invested in national security (which, I imagine, isn't limited to right wing, neocon crazies). After all, The Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan (the only one with actual superpowers) was the US's shield against possible Soviet nuclear attack, and no one argued with that despite the fact that he and Silk Spectre were all but kept prisoner in a government facility.

A lot to consider.