Gay Marriage

[anthony]

Equality,

I think you are grasping at straws.

You have a standpoint on gay marriage that is a traditionalist, conservative, one - and post facto, you are trying to justify it via Objectivist/libertarian principles("soul-body dichotomy"!)

Your "marriage implies children" is rationalized, and fallacious.

Of course the state should have nothing, or the minimum to do with marriage - but that's goes for all marriage, and everything private and personal.

I don't fully understand homosexual relations (then again, I don't fully understand heterosexual ones either ), but by their nature -as we know now- and by their choice, it is Objectively sound, I am convinced, that two adults have the moral right to form that union we have 'traditionally' called marriage.

Tony

[equality72521]

Equality,

I think you are grasping at straws.

You have a standpoint on gay marriage that is a traditionalist, conservative, one - and post facto, you are trying to justify it via Objectivist/libertarian principles("soul-body dichotomy"!)

Your "marriage implies children" is rationalized, and fallacious.

Of course the state should have nothing, or the minimum to do with marriage - but that's goes for all marriage, and everything private and personal.

I don't fully understand homosexual relations (then again, I don't fully understand heterosexual ones either ), but by their nature -as we know now- and by their choice, it is Objectively sound, I am convinced, that two adults have the moral right to form that union we have 'traditionally' called marriage.

Tony

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2004/05/A-Gay-Mans-Case-Against-Gay-Marriage.aspx

BY: Michael Bronski

The best argument against same-sex marriage is the argument against marriage.

I've been a gay activist since the gay-liberation Stonewall Riots in 1969, and today I'm a visiting professor of gay and lesbian studies at Dartmouth College. I'm often asked why gay men and lesbians are fighting for same-sex marriage, and my answer is always the same: I don't really know. To me, the fight for same-sex marriage seems not so much shortsighted as beside the point.

Don't get me wrong. I completely support giving gay men and lesbians the right to partake of civil marriage, and the basic economic benefits that come with it, simply as a matter of equality under the law. Within a generation most states will likely follow Massachusetts' bold lead and insure marriage equality for all couples. It's a no-brainer: states that don't allow gay men and lesbians access to the legal status given to heterosexuals blatantly discriminate.

What I don't understand is why gay men and lesbians want to get married. The unswerving fight that gay men and lesbians have waged for marriage equality has been predicated largely on the idea that traditional marriage is the best possible form a relationship can take. For gay-marriage advocates, marriage carries the gold seal of approval: however loving, fruitful, or productive other relationships are, they are, by definition, not as good as marriage.

This is curious, given how deeply ambivalent heterosexuals are about marriage. It's there in the 50 percent divorce rate, the high rates of spouse and child abuse, the incidence of adultery-check the record of the congressmen who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, never mind average couples. Despite their distinct 1950s ring, jokes about balls-and-chains still abound, and the famous Mae West quip, "Marriage is an institution, I'm just not ready for an institution yet," still gets laughs.

What makes gay people think marriage will work better for them? It probably won't.

I'm not the sort of gay activist who thinks everything heterosexuals do is wrong. I see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" as a show about five busybodies who interfere in other people's lives with intrusive product placements. I also recognize that some marriages work marvelously: my parents' 50 wonderfully happy years together ended only with my mother's death a few years ago. But as it is practiced in the United States, we can all agree that marriage is not perfect, and for so many of us marriage no longer suits our current emotional or social needs. We-homosexuals and heterosexuals alike-might do better by spending some time rethinking how we want to live our emotional and sexual, private and public lives.

Humans, straight and gay, have an amazing capacity for invention. In the past decades, we have seen myriad variations of expanded and extended families. These have had their flaws, too, but many have worked as well as, if not better, than traditional marriages. By the very fact that we have been forced into the position of outsiders, gay men and lesbians have invented new ways of forming community, of shaping and living our lives. Deprived of the right to traditional marriage, we have proven we can get along without it very well.

Gay-marriage proponents argue we should end these experiments, some saying marriage will "civilize" gay people by making us act more responsibly toward one another. William N. Eskridge titled his 1996 book "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment." Well, that just seems silly to me. Heterosexual marriage has not guaranteed better behavior once men and women tied the knot. Not incidentally, it is deeply homophobic to imply that gay people cannot and do not act decently or "civilized" now.

Other gay activists point to the benefits civil marriage brings in the form of tax breaks, inheritance arrangements, access to health care, and guaranteeing loans and credit. But we need to find a way to ensure that these are available to all people, not just those who decide to marry.

Much of the discussion about same-sex marriage concerns deeper economic and social-justice issues: health care, raising children, and protecting family units from outside forces, especially poverty. But these too aren't really the concern of marriage. If you want to ensure that all families are secure and safe, if you want children to be healthy, and well fed and safe, there is plenty to do. You can fight for universal health care or a higher minimum wage, for a negative income tax that will benefit anyone living close to or under the poverty line, for federally funded childcare, for federal funding to pay parents (both mothers and fathers) who choose to work at home caring for their children. When it comes to fighting for social justice, the right to traditional civil marriage seems pretty low on the agenda.

The gay-marriage movement isn't about these things. Nor it is about commitment or the sanctity of marriage. It is about sentiment and the power of advertising. People-gay and straight, but especially women-have a profound emotional attachment to the idea of marriage. (It is no surprise that close to 75 percent of couples who have applied for same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco and now in Massachusetts are lesbians.) It is what we have always known, and we have a difficult time thinking of any other way to organize our lives. We also live in a culture that has a multibillion-dollar wedding industry, which inundates us everyday with the message that we will only be happy when we are married.

Equality under the law is nothing to scoff at. But will it make gay men and lesbians happier? In the long run, I doubt it. At least no happier than they are now, and certainly no happier, or unhappier, than heterosexuals. Now that we have it, I wonder if people will think it was worth the fight.

[kiaer.ts]

Equality,

I think you are grasping at straws.

You have a standpoint on gay marriage that is a traditionalist, conservative, one - and post facto, you are trying to justify it via Objectivist/libertarian principles("soul-body dichotomy"!)

Your "marriage implies children" is rationalized, and fallacious.

Of course the state should have nothing, or the minimum to do with marriage - but that's goes for all marriage, and everything private and personal.

I don't fully understand homosexual relations (then again, I don't fully understand heterosexual ones either ), but by their nature -as we know now- and by their choice, it is Objectively sound, I am convinced, that two adults have the moral right to form that union we have 'traditionally' called marriage.

Tony

The problem with your position, Tony, is that you are defining marriage as a ceremony of commitment between two indiviuals. That is a different sense of the word, and is a private matter, and no state bans such private religious ceremonies.

But the relevant question here is one of what the government's involvement should be. Laws already exist and have long existed in many states allowing adult adoption to designate next of kin. (Surely you don't think being a committed sex pair has anything to do with this?) Once homosexual couples start producing babies there will be a rationale for laws to protect the children they produce, just as there is a rationale for common law marriage today.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no problem with state gay marriage so long as the state is in the marriage business. (I really wish it would get out of the marriage business, but that's another matter.)

My problem with this whole debate is the overlap of religion and government. Several religions (and social conservatives) see gay marriage as an attack on what God intended. They want to enforce their understanding on all citizens through government power.

I have no problem with a religion refusing to grant the title of "married" to gay couples. But then, religion should not have the force of law. Let the gay couple choose another religion if that is what they seek.

But the government is for all citizens. Let the laws reflect this.

At one time in the past, it was considered an abomination for whites to marry blacks. Thankfully, that was thrown out. But it was contentious as all get out on the way to the garbage bin of history.

I expect the gay marriage thing to follow the same course, but without a civil war.

In my opinion, the government should get out of our private lives. And we should butt out of the lives and private affairs of those we do not know.

I am more cautious about gay couples adopting children, though. In theory, I am not against it. In practice, I think more needs to be known about how this impacts the psychological health of the children. (However, I will say that--sight unseen--I prefer a child to be reared by a responsible gay couple than by a heterosexual couple of crack cocaine users.)

Michael

[equality72521]

I have no problem with state gay marriage so long as the state is in the marriage business. (I really wish it would get out of the marriage business, but that's another matter.)

My problem with this whole debate is the overlap of religion and government. Several religions (and social conservatives) see gay marriage as an attack on what God intended. They want to enforce their understanding on all citizens through government power.

I have no problem with a religion refusing to grant the title of "married" to gay couples. But then, religion should not have the force of law. Let the gay couple choose another religion if that is what they seek.

But the government is for all citizens. Let the laws reflect this.

At one time in the past, it was considered an abomination for whites to marry blacks. Thankfully, that was thrown out. But it was contentious as all get out on the way to the garbage bin of history.

I expect the gay marriage thing to follow the same course, but without a civil war.

In my opinion, the government should get out of our private lives. And we should butt out of the lives and private affairs of those we do not know.

I am more cautious about gay couples adopting children, though. In theory, I am not against it. In practice, I think more needs to be known about how this impacts the psychological health of the children. (However, I will say that--sight unseen--I prefer a child to be reared by a responsible gay couple than by a heterosexual couple of crack cocaine users.)

Michael

Michael my problem is (and what you have not acknowledged) is the deconstructionist ploy. "I don't care who makes the laws, who teaches your children, who preaches in your church, or what they preach, just let me control the language and I will shape society to anything I want"

Edited October 18, 2010 by equality72521

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alan,

Deconstruction by the left?

You think the proponents of gay marriage are part of a commie plot?

Sorry, I don't.

I think they are gay folks doing their damnedest to make life work and make it feel right to themselves.

I think they're right to do it, too. It's their lives, not mine. If I were gay, I would probably be after the same things they are.

At best, I believe the left uses this issue to help attack the status quo culture, just as it uses many other elements. But I haven't see left-wing penetration all the way down into the heart of this issue like I have with, say, environmentalism. What I have seen pinko-wise on wedding bells is mostly skin deep.

The real intense players are gays in love (often with a raw-nerved chip on their shoulder) and religious folks who are afraid. The hard left eats the crumbs from that meal, they don't sit at the table.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Alan,

Deconstruction by the left?

You think the proponents of gay marriage are part of a commie plot?

Sorry, I don't.

I think they are gay folks doing their damnedest to make life work and make it feel right to themselves.

I think they're right to do it, too. It's their lives, not mine. If I were gay, I would probably be after the same things they are.

At best, I believe the left uses this issue to help attack the status quo culture, just as it uses many other elements. But I haven't see left-wing penetration all the way down into the heart of this issue like I have with, say, environmentalism. What I have seen pinko-wise on wedding bells is mostly skin deep.

The real intense players are gays in love (often with a raw-nerved chip on their shoulder) and religious folks who are afraid. The hard left eats the crumbs from that meal, they don't sit at the table.

Michael

That's gay identity politics, hook, line and sinker. The only relevant legal issue is designation of next of kin, which everyone should be able to do through adult adoption, no matter whom they do or do not bugger. The right of adults to designate next of kin has nothing to do with children or wedding ceremonies. The legal institutionalization of social engineering has nothing to do with the self esteem of rational people. It is indeed all about manipulation of the language, and the use of anti-discrimination laws to make it illegal for private citizens to treat gay couples differently from married couples. "Gay" couples will be declared infertile couples, entitled to state aid in acquiring children. A whole host of legal BS will come down the line.

There is no legal impediment now to gay people shacking up or declaring each other next of kin.

Not to mention the high minded condescension here, as if one's beliefs on the matter either flow from one's sexuality, or can only be opposed on grounds of bigotry. A sloppy sympathy for the desire of some portion of gays to have others view them as no different from parents is not a rational basis for subverting language and making the law into an instrument of mere vanity.

The state is not a joke. The law is about threatening people with guns. Why do we need to establish the institution of "gay marriage" at gunpoint?

[Roger Bissell]

Alan,

Deconstruction by the left?

You think the proponents of gay marriage are part of a commie plot?

Sorry, I don't.

I think they are gay folks doing their damnedest to make life work and make it feel right to themselves.

I think they're right to do it, too. It's their lives, not mine. If I were gay, I would probably be after the same things they are.

At best, I believe the left uses this issue to help attack the status quo culture, just as it uses many other elements. But I haven't see left-wing penetration all the way down into the heart of this issue like I have with, say, environmentalism. What I have seen pinko-wise on wedding bells is mostly skin deep.

The real intense players are gays in love (often with a raw-nerved chip on their shoulder) and religious folks who are afraid. The hard left eats the crumbs from that meal, they don't sit at the table.

Michael

That's gay identity politics, hook, line and sinker. The only relevant legal issue is designation of next of kin, which everyone should be able to do through adult adoption, no matter whom they do or do not bugger. The right of adults to designate next of kin has nothing to do with children or wedding ceremonies. The legal institutionalization of social engineering has nothing to do with the self esteem of rational people. It is indeed all about manipulation of the language, and the use of anti-discrimination laws to make it illegal for private citizens to treat gay couples differently from married couples. "Gay" couples will be declared infertile couples, entitled to state aid in acquiring children. A whole host of legal BS will come down the line.

There is no legal impediment now to gay people shacking up or declaring each other next of kin.

Not to mention the high minded condescension here, as if one's beliefs on the matter either flow from one's sexuality, or can only be opposed on grounds of bigotry. A sloppy sympathy for the desire of some portion of gays to have others view them as no different from parents is not a rational basis for subverting language and making the law into an instrument of mere vanity.

The state is not a joke. The law is about threatening people with guns. Why do we need to establish the institution of "gay marriage" at gunpoint?

Well said, Ted. Very nicely nuanced comments.

Back in the 60s, we anti-statist rabble rousers used to say that the solution to Selective Service was not Universal Slavery (draft everybody). Similarly, opening up the floodgates to another group of would-be moochers is not the solution to the existing unearned benefits given to heterosexual married people.

Beyond this attempt to illegitimately expand the reach of illegitimate entitlements, gay marriage truly is just a vanity issue. Kudos to Ted for so forthrightly stating what should be obvious to all.

I, for one, would gladly give up the state's "seal of approval" of my marriage, if we could end all the legalized looting that the institution "qualifies" people for. As Ted points out, the power of next-of-kin designation should be all that is needed -- or wanted -- by rational individuals.

REB

[Rich Engle]

"Ah, yes, the redoubtable fuckyounitarian fuckyouniversalists. No doubt your marriage ceremony lacked civility."<BR><BR>Really? And all niggers steal color television sets too, right? <BR><BR>Seriously, though, it was extremely civil. Civility is a required and a given at the church. Being a free church, a multi-faith denomination (if you can figure that one out), there are standards held as to how we treat one another. UUs do not "believe in everything," as it is often hurled. For instance, a skinhead racist anti semite would not be welcomed there if they talked hate. There is a way that those people are handled. Welcoming congregations draw many different kinds of people exploring and seeking. As a somewhat interesting sidenote--do you know what the largest problem facing the UU church is, the one being most heavily addressed worldwide? It is the demographic fact that the UU church is overwhelmingly composed of upper middle class, white intellectuals. This is very similar to the situation facing Objectivism. <BR><BR>The ceremony itself was serious, but joyful, not highly somber. In order to do it at all, you first meet with the reverend--she asked obvious questions like "why marriage?" and "what does it mean to you?" Marriage means different things to people. UU weddings are always different each time, because the people are. The ceremony is tailored to each couple, but usually there are some basic UU things put in--certain basic concepts. In our case, it was that and what we added; things we read to each other. For instance, I read her one of my favorite e.e. cummings poems. <BR><BR>You are under the eyes of the universe, spirit of life, all that is, God, whatever you call it, and you are within the auspices of the UU church, which is a very warm and welcoming thing.<BR><BR>Ours was pretty short, maybe 30 minutes. We wanted it that way for various reasons, one small one being that it was about 100 degrees out there that day. But we wanted to do it out there in the garden--that's right in the center of the church and it is very beautiful. <BR><BR>Really nice, and not drudgy and packed with all kinds of somber and scary crap like you see in some weddings (I've been to a few Catholic ones that made me wonder why anyone would put themselves through what is being demanded of them. . .geez, some of that rhetoric is just coffin-like).<BR><BR>It was about us, and for us. It was something we had the pleasure, choice, of being able to do.<BR><BR>

Edited October 18, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's gay identity politics, hook, line and sinker.

Ted,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The issue for me is not "gay identity." It is "individual human being identity."

The only relevant legal issue is designation of next of kin...

Relevant to whom?

You?

Sorry. I disagree. And "you" is not a good enough standard for me.

Equal treatment under the law is quite relevant, gun or no gun. Butting out of people's personal lives is quite relevant. I could go on.

Blanking these issues out and/or ignoring the parts you don't want to address does not make them irrelevant, nor does it make them not subject to legal nuance. The law deals with these issues and that is fact. Thus, that makes these issues legally relevant.

I find your slant on marriage a bit myopic. Just because "next of kin" is involved in the legal issues of marriage, that does not mean it is the only issue. Just because guns are involved with government, that does not make it the only government issue in marriage. Etc., etc., etc.

This method of reasoning is very typical of many oversimplifications by Objectivists I have observed over the years. From what I have observed, it goes like this: a person has a bias, then focuses on one aspect of an issue that supports his bias and he declares that what he focused on is the fundamental issue. Thus the other aspects do not need to be considered and his "fundamental issue" is the only fundamental issue because he says so (or because Rand says so, some other person says so).

I look for supporting reasons, but it almost always boils down to "just because." In other words, someone said so.

My mind is a poor receptacle for that kind of metaphysics. I use my own eyes to see. If what I see is not what someone else said I should see (no matter how wound up the person gets), I will use my own eyes as my main reference.

Oversimplification is a license to blank out. You used the word "sloppy." I consider this method of reasoning sloppy.

As to the government entitlements you mentioned like "state aid in acquiring children," I do not support this (except, maybe, adoption laws and the legal structure of last-resort orphanages), and, even then, I do not consider this a prohibitory issue.

In my manner of thinking, the government entitlement argument is tantamount to saying, during Civil War times, that black slaves should not be set free because they would become eligible for the same government entitlements that whites are. Thus, transposed to the current issue, gays should be prohibited from marrying because they would become eligible for the same government entitlements that non-gays are.

That doesn't convince me. It sounds like double standards on equality issues.

In fact, in none of your arguments have you convinced me why the opinion of any one person about marriage should be imposed on other people to the point of excluding them from equal treatment under the law.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I, for one, would gladly give up the state's "seal of approval" of my marriage, if we could end all the legalized looting that the institution "qualifies" people for.

Roger,

I have nothing against this position. I stated earlier, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business.

If it did, I would be against state government gay marriage, since all state government marriage would be banned.

As I also said, I would not be against religious (or philosophical) organizations that performed marriage ceremonies from excluding gay marriage. Nor would I be against others that do perform gay marriage.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apropos of the deconstruction thing, this older video popped up on The Blaze, so I imagine it will get some real mileage.

It presents a history of political correctness as a formal Marxist outgrowth. I believe the gay marriage issue might have some elements of this in it, but I don't believe this is the main story.

The video was produced by the Free Congress Foundation, so it reflects the biases of that group. But it is very informative as a quick historical overview. (It's about 22 and a half minutes.)

I believe it is well worth seeing. Issues like gay marriage need to be analyzed correctly. Looking at the proponents and discerning whether they fall into the Left camp, or are just gay folks trying to to get equal treatment under the law, or are other people with other premises, is extremely important. If we pretend one is the other, we will not address the real issues and we will not convince anyone. For instance, tell a gay capitalist that he is really red underneath because he wants to marry his partner is the surest way to lose all interest by him in what you have to say.

On a personal level, I used to have some books by Theodor Adorno on music. (He is mentioned in the video.) Try as I may, I could never get through them. They were boring as all get out. Now I know why. I thought I was reading about music, and totally focused on music at the time, but instead I was reading about Marx mixed with Freud with some music thrown in. That's why I couldn't grok it back then. (Man, did I used to be naive... )

Enjoy.

The History of Political Correctness

featuring William Lind

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=8630135369495797236&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I, for one, would gladly give up the state's "seal of approval" of my marriage, if we could end all the legalized looting that the institution "qualifies" people for.

Roger,

I have nothing against this position. I stated earlier, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business.

If it did, I would be against state government gay marriage, since all state government marriage would be banned.

As I also said, I would not be against religious (or philosophical) organizations that performed marriage ceremonies from excluding gay marriage. Nor would I be against others that do perform gay marriage.

Michael

Michael, I'm glad you agree in principle that government should not be certifying marriages (as against registering domestic unions, however labelled, as a legal basis for resolving marital disputes regarding children, joint property, etc.).

If I had time, I would like to reply at length to your longer, previous post, which I think has some serious problems with it. But even this briefer post of yours troubles me, and these comments will have to suffice.

Now, you are perfectly willing to abolish gay state government marriage, if all state government marriage were abolished. But ~only~ if, right? As you said previously, citing "equal treatment under the law"?

This is just like saying that you would favor not drafting women into the military, if the military draft were abolished -- but ~only~ if. Otherwise (again citing "equal treatment under the law") women must be drafted too, so that women and men are treated equally, and none get a special burden not laid upon others.

It really doesn't matter whether it is a privilege or a burden, an "entitlement" or a penalty -- if it is not derived directly from a RIGHT, then government has no business benefitting or penalizing anyone, period.

The only legitimate job of government is to defend our rights. Which means to defend our ~freedom of action~ against aggression by other individuals, groups, or governments (including that government). Not our "freedom" to receive tax-paid handouts, privileges, etc.

If the government gave out "good guy" certificates to only redheads, the legitimate Objectivist, libertarian, or common-sense response would ~not~ be to demand (or support calls to give) "good guy" certificates to ~everybody~, but to demand that the giving out of said certificates stop, sooner than later.

On the other hand, if government were to deny recognition and protection of domestic-union contracts to certain couples, while granting them to others, ~that~ would be a matter that would justify raising an ENORMOUS protest. It would be over not just a privilege issue or a vanity issue, but a matter of PROPERTY RIGHTS, viz., the right of contract.

So, you see, Ted actually had it right, and you were wrong to accuse him of "just because" arguing about domestic unions, next-of-kin designations, etc. being the "fundamental" issue. He was zeroing in, unerringly, on the basic and only legitimate legal concern that we, as Objectivists and/or libertarians, should be concerned with: the right of contract.

"Equal protection under the law" is a non-essential basis for supporting or opposing some measure or institution, an insidious trap that can lead to all manner of social havoc -- as it has. The ~only~ proper issue of law is: has an individual's right to freedom of action been violated -- not has that individual been "treated equally" by the government.

I expect such tactics egalitarians, and even after years of their fruitless attempts to reinstate the draft in the guise of some form of universal national service, they do not disappoint or shock me, even to this day. But I am truly disappointed and shocked, Michael, that you trot it out as a counter to Ted's rights-based argument.

"Equal treatment under the law" is a two-edged sword that accomplishes nothing good and, eventually helps to push us further and further down the road toward full statism.

REB

[Guyau]

Roger,

I do not agree that equal protection under the law is a non-essential basis for supporting or opposing legal measures. It is a necessary requirement for the justice of all laws, whether they prohibit/enjoin or they confer legal powers (I think you agree with that). The lives of individuals who are legally discriminated against run to their last breath waiting for imperfect, mixed laws to be first minted purely for the protection of correct individual rights before allowing the underling class of persons to receive equal protection under the law.

Military conscription is not some sort of impure or mixed way of protecting the rights of the conscripted individual. It is wholly a violation of the rights of the conscripted individual. The legal powers recognized by state marriage license are not any such whole evil for the eligible parties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

The Law in My State

etc.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I expect such tactics egalitarians, and even after years of their fruitless attempts to reinstate the draft in the guise of some form of universal national service, they do not disappoint or shock me, even to this day. But I am truly disappointed and shocked, Michael, that you trot it out as a counter to Ted's rights-based argument.

Roger,

You know better than to use intimidation on me.

That works on fundies and the weak-minded.

But if you want to go the intimidation route, are you equally shocked that my position is essentially the same one as Barbara's? Right here in this very thread? Are you equally shocked at her? Look at her words:

I object to Social Security. Nevertheless, if I receive it at the age of 65, I would object to my 65-year-old neighbor -- who similarly has paid into it all his working life -- arbitrarily being denied it. Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it.

Nor do I see any reason why homosexual couples who wish to be married by the state should -- in my view preposterously -- be accused of "an assault on culture," and of wanting to"destroy Rights." Nor do I see that "gay marriage is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture." Despite the views of what I call "the Fundamentalist Objectivists." not everything we don't like is A Conspiracy Against The Good, and not everyone who disagrees with us is Evil.

If homosexuals who want to he married by the state are conspiring against the rest of us -- were we who are married heterosexuals not also Evil Conspirators against America when we were married by the State? When blacks protested the laws that made it impossible for them to marry whites, were they Evil Conspirators hurling around deadly anti-concepts?

Yes, there are people in this world-- many people -- who are engaged in destructive conspiracies; there are people who are evil, and there are people who wish to destroy America. But they are not likely to be found in the line-ups of gay and lesbian couples hopefully waiting outside government marriage bureaus, eager to receive the same cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions that heterosexual couples receive.

Is she suddenly an "egalitarian" who leaves you "truly disappointed and shocked"? Or is her argument different because she is Barbara and she talked about paying taxes in the mix, and somehow that does not add up to equal treatment under the law?

You also know better than to brush aside the parts of my argument that pertain to me wanting the government out of the marriage business.

If I used that standard, picking what I want in an argument and leaving the rest out--and I mean essential points--so I can make accusations, I could easily accuse you--because you want to prohibit gays from marrying--of wanting to keep elites lording over lesser classes by law. In other words, you want to be a tyrant, especially since you already pertain to the ruling class.

How does that sound?

But I'm not going to go there. I know you are not a collectivist, even though you are quick to accuse me of being one when you know I am not.

That whole manner of thinking is part of the Objectivist oversimplification mindset that I object to.

I stand for equal treatment under the law. Yes I do. Also, common sense. In fact, equal treatment under the law is the one thing that has pushed our republic to do the right thing over the centuries. When the USA started, "all men are created equally," worked like this in practice: "all white men are created equally." That did not include Indians, blacks, women or other people.

They had to get their civil rights like voting, owning property, equal justice, etc., by dragging the rest of the country kicking and screaming into agreeing that they merit those rights under the law. And they eventually got their civil rights.

Now... if you want to discuss what rights are truly civil rights or not, I'm more than willing to go there. But if you want to attribute me with upholding government encroachment into the lives of individuals because I uphold equal treatment of all individuals under the law, in other words, simply because I uphold equal justice this allows you to accuse me of proposing social justice, then I suggest you reread a bit of my writing over the last few years. There's plenty of it all over the web. And it doesn't say that.

You know better than that.

(You want more intimidation and let me tell you how shocked and disappointed I am in you? That you are like some really evil folks out there? That I never imagined you would stoop so low? Etc.? I mean, how dare you think for yourself? )

We disagree. I live easily with that without having to insinuate all kinds of evil motives in you--as you did me just now. I live easily with it also because, in this case, you are flat-out wrong.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

I do not agree that equal protection under the law is a non-essential basis for supporting or opposing legal measures. It is a necessary requirement for the justice of all laws, whether they prohibit/enjoin or they confer legal powers (I think you agree with that). The lives of individuals who are legally discriminated against run to their last breath waiting for imperfect, mixed laws to be first minted purely for the protection of correct individual rights before allowing the underling class of persons to receive equal protection under the law.

Military conscription is not some sort of impure or mixed way of protecting the rights of the conscripted individual. It is wholly a violation of the rights of the conscripted individual. The legal powers recognized by state marriage license are not any such whole evil for the eligible parties.

Stephen, the ~legitimate~ "legal powers recognized by state marriage license" are also recognized by domestic union laws, are they not? If so, aren't state marriage licenses redundant in this respect (as Ted has implied)?

And if so, what else is there to be recognized by "state marriage license" except the "legal power" (i.e., entitlement) to loot the taxpayers by seeking to special benefits financed involuntarily by single people?

As for "equal treatment" being essential for justice, it is not. The ~only~ relevant, essential issue is: is ~this individual~ being deprived of his freedom of action by some other individual, group, or government? If the court's response is: well, ~no one else~ gets this freedom of action (or this other group does not get this freedom of action), so why should ~you~, ~that~ is the inevitable bitter fruit of the "equal treatment" approach to justice.

You cannot argue against the draft on that basis, and you should not argue in favor of something you know is not necessary to provide any legitimate protection of rights, and instead is only going to expand the reach (and cost) of tax-mandated benefits to certain privileged people.

Unless you can show me facts to the contrary, Stephen, I believe that committed, married (in spirit) couples ~already~ have sufficient laws in place -- laws regarding domestic unions -- to protect their legitimate freedom of action in regard to contract (property, children, etc.). If so, then the state marriage laws really perform no essential function of protecting rights, and instead are a conduit for violation of rights of taxpayers -- a conduit which would only be widened by extending state marriage certification to non-heterosexual couples or multiple-person unions (gotta give equal time to those LDS folks!).

As for previous groups that have been discriminated against by the law, that is an enormous rat's nest of specific issues to sort out. Should blacks have had the right to drink at the same public drinking fountains as whites? Of course. Should blacks have had the right to force restaurant or hotel owners to accommodate them? No, of course not. Should the state have recognized domestic unions between mixed race couples? Of course. Should the state have extended marriage certification to mixed race couples? No. The differentia in all these cases is: does it involve an issue of being necessary to defend individual rights to freedom of action. If not, then "make no law" (or ~repeal~ existing law, if necessary).

One more point: you contrasted marriage laws and conscription laws. Apart from their acting in the opposite direction (conferring privileges vs. imposing burdens), they ~both~ ~unnecessarily~ piggyback on ~legitimate~ functions of government, while also intervening into people's liberties. The marriage laws are unnecessary for protecting couples' rights of contract, and the conscription laws are unnecessary for protecting citizens against aggression by foreign enemies -- yet both functions are ~necessary~ functions of government, and should be performed by government in ways that do ~not~ increase the predations on the property (via taxes) or liberty (via conscription) of individuals.

Again, "equal treatment" ends up being nothing so much as the statist camel's nose under the tent, allowing in further invasion of our freedoms in the name of rights protections that could better be done by means ~not~ allowing burdens of taxation and conscription.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for "equal treatment" being essential for justice, it is not.

Roger,

In a nutshell, this is a poor foundational principle for any government. Talk about a camel's nose under the tent.

This is a flat out legal justification for protecting elites qua elites. And don't think the camel won't go in with that principle if it ever becomes mainstream.

It will.

I think you err when you dismiss equal treatment under the law. It is not only just as important as the other individual rights you maintain, it is an individual right.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I expect such tactics egalitarians, and even after years of their fruitless attempts to reinstate the draft in the guise of some form of universal national service, they do not disappoint or shock me, even to this day. But I am truly disappointed and shocked, Michael, that you trot it out as a counter to Ted's rights-based argument.

Roger,

You know better than to use intimidation on me.

That works on fundies and the weak-minded.

But if you want to go the intimidation route, are you equally shocked that my position is essentially the same one as Barbara's? Right here in this very thread? Are you equally shocked at her? Look at her words:

I object to Social Security. Nevertheless, if I receive it at the age of 65, I would object to my 65-year-old neighbor -- who similarly has paid into it all his working life -- arbitrarily being denied it. Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it.

Nor do I see any reason why homosexual couples who wish to be married by the state should -- in my view preposterously -- be accused of "an assault on culture," and of wanting to"destroy Rights." Nor do I see that "gay marriage is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture." Despite the views of what I call "the Fundamentalist Objectivists." not everything we don't like is A Conspiracy Against The Good, and not everyone who disagrees with us is Evil.

If homosexuals who want to he married by the state are conspiring against the rest of us -- were we who are married heterosexuals not also Evil Conspirators against America when we were married by the State? When blacks protested the laws that made it impossible for them to marry whites, were they Evil Conspirators hurling around deadly anti-concepts?

Yes, there are people in this world-- many people -- who are engaged in destructive conspiracies; there are people who are evil, and there are people who wish to destroy America. But they are not likely to be found in the line-ups of gay and lesbian couples hopefully waiting outside government marriage bureaus, eager to receive the same cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions that heterosexual couples receive.

Is she suddenly an "egalitarian" who leaves you "truly disappointed and shocked"? Or is her argument different because she is Barbara and she talked about paying taxes in the mix, and somehow that does not add up to equal treatment under the law?

You also know better than to brush aside the parts of my argument that pertain to me wanting the government out of the marriage business.

If I used that standard, picking what I want in an argument and leaving the rest out--and I mean essential points--so I can make accusations, I could easily accuse you--because you want to prohibit gays from marrying--of wanting to keep elites lording over lesser classes by law. In other words, you want to be a tyrant, especially since you already pertain to the ruling class.

How does that sound?

But I'm not going to go there. I know you are not a collectivist, even though you are quick to accuse me of being one when you know I am not.

That whole manner of thinking is part of the Objectivist oversimplification mindset that I object to.

I stand for equal treatment under the law. Yes I do. Also, common sense. In fact, equal treatment under the law is the one thing that has pushed our republic to do the right thing over the centuries. When the USA started, "all men are created equally," worked like this in practice: "all white men are created equally." That did not include Indians, blacks, women or other people.

They had to get their civil rights like voting, owning property, equal justice, etc., by dragging the rest of the country kicking and screaming into agreeing that they merit those rights under the law. And they eventually got their civil rights.

Now... if you want to discuss what rights are truly civil rights or not, I'm more than willing to go there. But if you want to attribute me with upholding government encroachment into the lives of individuals because I uphold equal treatment of all individuals under the law, in other words, simply because I uphold equal justice this allows you to accuse me of proposing social justice, then I suggest you reread a bit of my writing over the last few years. There's plenty of it all over the web. And it doesn't say that.

You know better than that.

(You want more intimidation and let me tell you how shocked and disappointed I am in you? That you are like some really evil folks out there? That I never imagined you would stoop so low? Etc.? I mean, how dare you think for yourself? )

We disagree. I live easily with that without having to insinuate all kinds of evil motives in you--as you did me just now. I live easily with it also because, in this case, you are flat-out wrong.

Michael

Sorry you felt intimidated, Michael. I was just expressing my disappointment that you resort to the same kind of argument as do egalitarians. I guess my expression of emotion, rather than being simple communicative openness and rhetorical pointedness, can seem like a logical fallacy. But it's just telling you how I feel about your bogus argument, Michael.

Barbara's argument(s) had holes in it. I don't have time to explore them all. But "cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions" does NOT require governmental action. Just ~cultural~ action. I.e., all those ~individuals~ who wish to recognize and sanction those "loving unions" should be free to do so. What does the ~government~ have to do with that?

As for Social Security, I was ~forced~ to pay into it, and I am entitled to get as much of my money back from it as I can. That is not an issue of "equal treatment." It is an issue of ~individual right~. Same for every other individual.

Finally, Michael, the fact is that as long as an illegitimate institution exists, you ~do~ want to expand it in ways that will further harm taxpayers, and in the name of "equal treatment." Unless you explicitly add to your advocacy, "removing all taxpaid privileges given to married couples," that is the necessary corollary of your advocacy of gay state legalized marriage.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Finally, Michael, the fact is that as long as an illegitimate institution exists, you ~do~ want to expand it in ways that will further harm taxpayers, and in the name of "equal treatment." Unless you explicitly add to your advocacy, "removing all taxpaid privileges given to married couples," that is the necessary corollary of your advocacy of gay state legalized marriage.

Roger,

But of course that is a principle I want to fight for. (And I do not want to expand government power. Stop it already...)

Why does holding one automatically mean you negate the other?

It doesn't.

And, btw, from what I know, gays pay taxes, too. If married heterosexual couples get civil services paid for by, among others, gay couple taxpayers who are denied those same civil services, and married heterosexual couples want to keep it that way, what does that say about married heterosexual couples?

Moocher?

Michael

[Selene]

Interesting arguments.

If there is to be "equal protection under the law," is it unequal to tax single persons and childless couples through property taxes for funding public school?

Adam

[anthony]

Statist intrusion has already done untold damage to our lives.

Even, and especially, when government did 'the right thing' for the wrong reasons. For now those things can't be undone.

Caught between the reality of what exists, and what should rightfully be, we are often going to be arguing at cross-purposes, I believe.

What is 'capitalism', when none of us has experienced it (in its pure form.)?

What is 'marriage', when it has always carried the imprimatur of religion and state?

One can only imagine, think, and aspire.

Tony

[equality72521]

Alan,

Deconstruction by the left?

You think the proponents of gay marriage are part of a commie plot?

Sorry, I don't.

I think they are gay folks doing their damnedest to make life work and make it feel right to themselves.

I think they're right to do it, too. It's their lives, not mine. If I were gay, I would probably be after the same things they are.

At best, I believe the left uses this issue to help attack the status quo culture, just as it uses many other elements. But I haven't see left-wing penetration all the way down into the heart of this issue like I have with, say, environmentalism. What I have seen pinko-wise on wedding bells is mostly skin deep.

The real intense players are gays in love (often with a raw-nerved chip on their shoulder) and religious folks who are afraid. The hard left eats the crumbs from that meal, they don't sit at the table.

Michael

I would suggest that you attend a gay pride parade. I am not saying gays are commies, what I am saying is that if you look at the leaders of the identity politics you will see a common thread. and unfortunately just like the union leaders, just like the black leaders, just like the hispanic leaders, just like the green leaders, the gay leaders have a red, red flag.

[Roger Bissell]

As for "equal treatment" being essential for justice, it is not.

Roger,

In a nutshell, this is a poor foundational principle for any government. Talk about a camel's nose under the tent.

This is a flat out legal justification for protecting elites qua elites. And don't think the camel won't go in with that principle if it ever becomes mainstream.

It will.

I think you err when you dismiss equal treatment under the law. It is not only just as important as the other individual rights you maintain, it is an individual right.

Michael

I think not.

If "equal treatment" is an individual right, then women have the right to be drafted into the military, so that they too are treated equally to men who are drafted. I.e., the men being drafted are being deprived of their "right" of "equal treatment" if the women are not also drafted.

See where this B.S. ends up?

Also, Michael, I hope that in accusing me of "intimidation," you are not trying to accuse me of using "argument from intimidation." I have adduced plenty of facts and logic to make my case, and I have ~not~ demanded that you abandon the idea without discussion under pain of being morally unworthy. Last I checked, intimidating rhetoric coupled with facts and logic is just good arguing. So are attempts to accuse one's opponent of hypocrisy, so kudos to you for your side. :-)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

As for "equal treatment" being essential for justice, it is not.

Roger,

In a nutshell, this is a poor foundational principle for any government. Talk about a camel's nose under the tent.

This is a flat out legal justification for protecting elites qua elites. And don't think the camel won't go in with that principle if it ever becomes mainstream.

[...]

Michael

Perhaps so, but "equal treatment" -- while laudably intended as part of one of the "Civil War Amendments" -- was also infamously used in the 1960s to deprive countless retaurant and hotel owners of their rights to liberty (free association) and property. Blacks, you see, have the "equal right" to accomodation and service from those engaging in "interstate commerce." (Even if they're not.) So, yes, "equal treatment" ~is~ a camel's nose under the tent, and I am really surprised that I have to remind you of this, or that Stephen would trot out the civil rights laws as an example of something good that was accomplished by the "equal treatment" principle (in re voting rights), without also acknowledging the gross evil it permitted. (If this is intimidation, make the most of it.)

As for what elite is empowered by the presence or absence of a robust policy of "equal treatment," I think we all know what elite is ~currently~ riding high due to its presence. Despite the Republicans being the ones pushing for individual rights for minorities prior to the 60s, the Democrats were the ones that cashed in on it, because it enabled their statist agenda (of destroying property rights). No one will cheer more loudly than I on November 2, when the liberal-socialist juggernaut is brought to a dead halt. And Rand Paul was right about the civil rights laws, by the way; he just rather poorly handled the gotcha questions from Rachel Madcow on PMSNBC.

REB

[rodney203]

As I pointed out earlier, granting any kind of equal advantage status to homosexual couples, along with hetero couples, (regardless of what the union gets called !!!) leaves out any number of still persecuted groups of relationship types. The more I think about this now the more pissed off I get, and see this whole thing as just PC crap. Aren't we supposed to be big thinkers here? Shame on you'all. The only just answer to this whole issue is getting the state out of the business; period. Why dick around here and promote giving homosexuals equal rights to participate in special favors, while acting like the horrors of state meddling in the family don't even exist?

Yes, I agree; "gay marriage" is certainly a non-concept. You damn right it is!!