Same Sex Marriage Stuff
The latest KIEM TV poll asks whether you agree with the Supreme Court's recent ruling legalizing same- sex marriage. I was surprised to see over 40% saying they didn't, although I can see valid reasons for voting No even if you're supportive of SSM- legal aspects, if you will. I would have expected the No votes to be more around 20%.
As for libertarians, I'm still hearing a few murmurs of dissent. Some are principled, and I respect that. The most common refrain probably being, "Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place". I agree for the most part, but can't help but think those saying that feel nervous about giving more full support to SSM lest everyone else feel they're queer by doing so.
To that I generally reply that government probably shouldn't be involved in marriage but, since it is, it should be available to all. After all, marriage is a legal contract. Anyone of legally determined age of sound mind should be able to engage in a legal contract. Over at Reason magazine, Sheldon Richman generally agrees with me:
"Let’s get something out of the way at the start: the state—even if it should exist—should not be involved in marriage. But libertarians who think that this is all that need be said are wrong. To see this, imagine that the government declared that blacks could not use the interstate highways. Would it be enough for libertarians to say that the government should not own and operate highways, remaining agnostic on the particular policy? Of course not, because that’s not all there is to the matter. Libertarians should say that as long as the government does own and operate highways, it must not discriminate irrationally or invidiously in their use."
I agree with almost his whole commentary with exception to the last part:
"Many same-sex couples want to make that statement. They don’t want to be civilly united. They want to be married. The word matters. (The court has not redefined the word. The concept marriage has evolved.)
It is insulting and condescending to tell them they ought be to satisfied with civil union and its merely material benefits.".
My difference being I think all "marriages", hetero or homo, should be civil unions, at least as far as government is concerned- a legal contract recognized by government. Everyone else, everywhere else, can call it whatever they want.
As far as the SCOTUS decison on this, I voted Yes over at KIEM, but it's like anything else. As a wise man once pointed out, "When you give the government the power to give you everything you want, you also give it the power to take it away"- B. Goldwater.
The next time they make a ruling along this line, we might not be so pleased.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:26 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
The next time they make a ruling along this line, we might not be so pleased.
That kinda goes without saying. No matter what decisions are made, half the people won't be happy. It's a bi product of having a two party system.
Fred, the term "same sex marriage" is no longer used. It is simply called Marriage.
The begining and the end of marriage, as far as the gubmint is concerned, is a legal contract. The interjection of moral ideas and ideals do not belong in the hands of the beauracracy. Two parties, of legal age and sound mind, should be abe to create a legal partnership no different from any other binding contract.
I like Reason Mag, but the analogy they use is false. The use of the interstate is real, a marriage is a legal fiction.
The analogy is correct, at least as far as big L libertarians are concerned. You'll often hear Libertarians say the roads should be privatized, or something along that line. Richman is simply pointing out that is irrelevant since government does own and operate the highways.
As such, the highways should be available for use by everyone as should be marriage, or whatever you want to call it. Thus, insofar that government controls marriages, it should be available for everyone.
To clarify:
Roads should be privatized= government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
Neither is current reality and government is involved with both, as such people should be allowed equal use of each.
BS. A marriage is a legal fiction and the nature of that contract can be changed with a stroke of a pen. (As demonstrated by the SCOTUS)
A highway is real estate, not a legal fiction.
Apples and oranges.
As far as government involvement, I'll disagree. Both are areas where Libertarians (not capital L) think government shouldn't be involved. Government is involved, to whatever extent. That's the argument there that you simply can't understand. perhaps because you're neither a small or big L libertarian.
S/he's probably a Cannibuttarian.
Post a Comment
<< Home