The lone Republican in the House of Representatives who supports same-sex marriage now says she thinks government should stop licensing marriage altogether:
"...The government should not be in the business of defining marriage, just as the government should not be in the business of forcing individuals to enter into binding contracts with private companies, or to regulate inactivity.
And that is what we are all here for tonight.
This is what we all are working so hard for;
To remind everyone that the principles of conservatism and those of the Log Cabin Republicans are in perfect harmony." - Gay South Florida
Perfect harmony?
Dr. Jennifer Morse and Maggie Gallagher have both explained why sound political reasoning supports the conclusion that it is right for government to protect the institution of marriage.
7 Comments
“SUPPORTING HOMOSEXUALITY is the stuff of hardline capitalists who do not care about real human values, the president of Iran has said”.
You don't have to like the man, his country or his religion. But he hits the nail on the head with that remark. And we know libertarianism and Republicans are no slouches when it comes to capitalism!
Did any of us think that saving marriage was going to be a walk in the park? We really do need a “new world order”. It will come, no fears; born of the Good and of “real human values”, and not of the love of money. We have to clean out our own house, and our own homes, (and our own bank accounts – Ow! that hurts), if we want to get out of this mess.
To Wall Street, The City of London, the banks and hardline capitalists there is absolutely, and sincerely, no difference between “Money” and “the Good”. And this “good” necessarily includes the total liberty to go after the making of money without any restrictions; for this would be restricting the potential for “good”. And sex, homosexuality and human desires (including the desire for children), are what easy money is made of. Obtaining the total freedom to commercialize homosexuality, and the successful confiscation of the word marriage (that institution that unites parents to children), are indeed going to be Jackpot days for hardline capitalism.
Thank god there are those who speak out against it... Ow! That hurts too. But Islam is not our enemy. The enemy is in our own home. Islam, as well as LGBT activists, are only used as smoke screens* by the enemy. (Some would say that that enemy is the Devil; others would say its more down to earth than that. Either way, arms have been given to combat it.)
Thanks to NOM for being one of those down to earth arms; by simply being a voice and taking a visible stand. And also, where is that NOM Donate button? I know, I know, money again:-). As if money was the good that could save the day. It isn't, and it can't. (But it can serve a purpose.) Sad and confusing state of affairs we all find ourselves in; and a deep deep hole to climb out of... But stand strong all of you, together we will keep this thing, the Good, and real human values, from extinction. We'll climb onto each others shoulders if we have to, to get out of this mess. Money, or no money!
*Islam (the idea of Islam): for the easy money from the business of war and the threat of war.
LGBT: for the easy money from the business of sex, and artificially assisted procreation.
http://dnanews.com.pk/irans-president-says-backing-gays-is-for-capitalists/
Now that IRL has come around to the idea that government should not be in the business of sanctioning private relationships between adults, perhaps someone can explain to her the compelling public interest in ensuring that men and women who enter into relationships with the potential to produce offspring be permantly bound by law to care for each other and said offspring.
Great post #2, as you point out that old double standard again.
Libertarians don’t force people into private contracts, but the government is not forcing people into marriage either. Libertarians do expect government to protect and enforce contracts once they are freely entered into. Family law should serve an equivalent role with marriage. Business law also recognizes that the state needs to protect individuals too young to enter into contracts. Similarly, the state needs to protect children via family law, as 3LeggedStool correctly points out.
If one believes that marriage is just a way to endorse loving relationships (the idea behind ssm), then it follows that such an endorsement is not a legitimate state interest.
Thankfully, marriage serves a meaningful societal purpose, as noted by 3LeggedStool.
Talking about the Public Purpose (interest) of man-woman marriage by the State (and the same applies to polygamy) is a nice way of putting the issue positively. Getting the government out of 'marriage' sounds like a savings, but in reality can wreck a State's budget with exponentially rising social services costs (e.g., California is bankrupt, workers leaving, etc.)
But there is a negative way to say it too: with a WEAK, badly regulated, man-woman marriage institution by the State, and specially 1man-1woman marriage by the State creates great costs for a government.
Civil man-woman marriage SAVES government lots of money, because it builds families in which, on average, take on the expenses of caring for children properly. Out of control social services can easily bankrupt a State. Civil marriage for 1man-1woman is the optimal way for government to regulate the type of partnerships that really matter, financially for the State, and in turn for the tax payers.
All arguments against this definition of marriage, and for same-sex marriage take a 'back seat' to this formidable argument - the short-term effect to each State's finances.
To my knowledge, there's not even one single piece of legislation which seeks to add so-called 'gay marriage' to the institution. That peculiarity in the issue i think is a check-mate against same-sex marriage. It is not possible to legislate 'gay marriage' because 'gayness' cannot possibly be measured objectively, and no one even tries to. And 'gays' have as much right to marry someone from the opposite sex as everyone else. No one is guaranteed to marry the person they love. Sometimes we have to take a second option. (I didn't get to marry Sandra Bullocks, but i'm not complaining.) Marriage is a biological union which continually brings together, more and more, a man and a woman, until they seem to be 'one'.
'Opposites' attract, so goes the saying. By bringing together 'opposites', even to the extent of being opposite in biological anatomy, and hormonally as the cause, 1man-1woman civil marriage (and sacred marriage) manages, on the average, to build COMPLEMENTARY partnerships which are very powerful in conjunction. For instance: 'two heads are better than one'. But two very different heads (minds) are much better than one.
Hi, Ash: if "marriage is just a way to endorse loving relationships" and there's no other criterion for marriage, it follows that loving relationships are (logically speaking) also the criterion for divorce.
Yet it becomes the love for another person that justifies divorce from the person married. All this if love (and adulthood, and no blood relation) is enough to merit a marriage license from the State.
Some people say: if love is enough for marriage, then it is also enough to justify polygamy as part of the marriage State institution. A stronger argument is, i think: love as the only criterion for marriage, is automatically a criterion for divorce. In fact, that is already why there's so much divorce, and so many splits in homosxual relationships - because love is enough for friendship, but not enough for marriage.
In Christian doctrine, love without works is void. Therefore love is put into action with the vows of marriage. When a man says to a woman "I will love you", it means "I will act my love towards you", not just "i get a good feeling inside". A good feeling inside, we can feel also for another person outside of the marriage, often leading to divorce if that feeling is permitted to take hold in one's identity. We actually vow in marriage not to let love germinate in us for another person. So, if it alone enough for marriage, it is also enough for divorce.
So the SSM issue has not only helped us realize why marriage is defined that way, but has also helped us realize why divorce is so easily justified (creating serious pain for all involved, including any children borne). Of course, sometimes it has to do with finances, relocation, etc. which causes couples to question whether they were wise to have made their marriage vows.
Anyway, if marriage is 'just' a civil contract. Then it is simply a matter of going to court to annul it. There's allegedly no other significance to it. So, marriage almost needs the moral aspect to have it be long-lasting. That moral aspect need not come from Christianity. Therefore, what is intended is really not a simple civil contract, but more.