I want to remind everyone that "the Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law." (Jesus of Nazareth) It is highly important to keep this in mind. It is a moral imperative that, if the "Law is a ass" (Mr. Bumble, from Dickens' Oliver Twist), then the Law must be changed.

While there is an extremely long history of a human's wealth being measured by the number and type of animals which he "owns", it is a history which is morally ignorant and repugnant and beyond the pale of the logic of Interdependence. The validity or invalidity of any law can be judged by whether it is applicable to the larger whole. The question of whether I could be governed by said law is particularly applicable. If I could not be governed by the law, then it is invalid. As example, the new law in California which states that a chicken has the right to be able to stand up, turn around and spread its wings is ludicrous when I think of it in terms of it being legal for me to be able to stand up, spread my arms and turn around. These actions are not legal responsibilities, they are rights.

If any law that governs a being who is sentient is unjust, it is my moral responsibility to change that law. If those labouring for the abolition of human slavery continued to be governed by the law which advocated human slavery, it might never have been outlawed.

I am unable to consider the animals who share my life to be my property. We are in relationship. Further, I consider all animals to be a part of my life. And I a part of theirs. That about sums it up. We are a part of a Sentience and, at this juncture of time, that Sentience is far more vast and Interdependent than we can even imagine.