Help me, Mona
I just listened to the "Marriage Thing" podcast and it left me uneasy. {Full disclosure, I adore Mona Charen and Peter and James and Rob, so nothing personal here} Peter R. succinctly asked Mona about the libertarian attitude toward gay marriage; to wit, that marriage is between individuals and none of the government's business anyways. Mona's response troubled me. If I heard it right, her answer was (I paraphrase): Raising children is super important. Having married heterosexual parents is the best way to raise children. Therefore the state has a justifiable role in getting involved in who gets married and how.
Boy, that logic scares me. Isn't that the same line of thinking which says ____________ (fill in the blank) is important, therefore the government should get involved. Isn't that the same thinking that has brought us nationalized health insurance, individual mandates, government-run agriculture, government-directed housing, government-run schooling, etc. and everything else we conservatives/libertarians don't like? It seems to me that the marriage issue is a real litmus test for conservatives: here's an issue we truly think is important, but are we consistent enough to believe in it without the force of the government backing us up?
Let me know if I'm missing something.
- Comment (168)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Aren't most of those (except agriculture, anyway) a direct product of the decline of the family unit? Once divorce and then single-motherhood were no longer frowned-upon and the family fell to pieces, it was left to government to do the things (health, housing, education, nutrition) that families used to do. So you could see those very same examples as powerful arguments for why an independent family unit, strongly protected and encouraged by government, is a necessary and essential part of any libertarian society.
To borrow Kathy Shaidle's formulation, libertarians are like the teens who throw awesome parties in their parents' home when the folks are out of town. It's great, and a lot of fun, but in order to throw a house party, you need a house, so don't go tearing down too much of society or there won't be any place left to party...
Edited on May 12, 2012 at 10:15pmOct '11
Re: Help me, Mona
RSD, spot on. Just like most "liberals", many "conservatives" seem to think that a thing's importance to society determines whether that thing is subject to the rule of force by the society. (Actually, by society's dominant members, but that's another analysis.)
Adrian, I think Shaidle is right that "libertarian" positions are often indistinguishable from those of a morally preening freeloader. But it is not necessarily libertarian to use a different measure than desirability to find what is properly within the purview of government.
What does the Constitution imply about the licensing of marriage? Not a thing, beyond the same kind of hallucinatory penumbra that protects unfettered prenatal murder.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
I'm it's covered by the Commerce Clause. Don't married people by things?
Seriously though I thought the same thing when listening to the podcast. We have come so far from the Libertarianism I first learned about at Hillsdale College back in the early 1970s and from what Murray Rothabard described almost 40 years ago in his book "For A New Liberty".
Jul '11
Re: Help me, Mona
This was one of the rare instances where I didn't want to listen to the podcast, because Charen was on, and I knew it would boil down to the paraphrased summary at the top. To be fair, I should listen to the podcast, then comment, but I've heard the similar arguments before that the gov't should be promoting or encouraging marriage, between men and women only.
Nonsense. It's the same kind of interference in individual lives that has nothing to do with individual liberty. I can state that we all benefit if Citizen A has a job, pays taxes, and visits sick kids in the hospital, but it's quite a different thing to craft policy that encourages or supports behaviors politicians deem worthy. The same goes for tax policy, which seems to encourage behaviors (marriage, house-purchasing), which become election fodder for narcissists looking for a platform to run on. There's a reason the tax code is over 4,000 pages long - it's because politicians want to be re-elected by giving something back to you that was never theirs to give: Liberty.
Feb '11
Re: Help me, Mona
The difference is that society can reap the benefits of marriage without telling anyone what to do with their lives; only one particular set of circumstances provides any worthwhile benefit and justification for societal involvement; participation is entirely voluntary. Same sex couples remain free to live together, love one another, own property together, adopt, commit to one another. etc.
This is different than the other formulations that go: health is important since it impacts everyone's cost, tax burden, etc. so therefore we must compel people to change there lives, e.g. no salt, no sugar, no happy meals, no smoking, etc.
However, communities certainly do face communal challenges and have communal standards, and they should be free to address those challenges and reflect those standards as they see fit. We shouldn't fear this reality so much as we should be vigilant in restraining its overreach; federalism is a good tool for this job along with strong civil institutions.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
1. The social dissolution that prompted the rise of big government happened under the noses of the conservatives/libertarians of the 60s/70s, most of whom went along with 'live and let live' ideas (or were afraid of being seen as wet blankets) and so did not bother putting up any kind of a fight ... good job you guys, thanks so much...
2. While I don't know if Constitutional debate is really necessary on this issue (it's states that have been voting on this, isn't that okay, or does the Constitution forbid them doing so? and as for federal marriage amendments, well, that's why they have to go through the amendment process...), I will in the spirit of charity offer up my deep thoughts. If you got a bunch of fish together to draft a constitution, and I wouldn't be shocked if you did, I bet they would come up with all kinds of interesting laws about how to govern their little fishy society - and I also bet not a one of them would mention the fundamental importance of remaining constantly immersed in water. But I doubt that proves water isn't important to fish.
Mar '11
Re: Help me, Mona
I think the government interest angle misses the point. I also feel that the marriage as a contract theme on other threads is off. Marriage defined as a man and woman, predates our contract laws and our Constitution. The issue is the definition of marriage. Our society has understood this definition for centuries. What right does the government have to redefine a social institution
Edited on May 13, 2012 at 1:02amApr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Lots of good comments here. And others have touched on this, but I do think that the way to calm nervous libertarians is by making clear that resisting homosexual marriage *is* limiting government, both on a theoretical and on a practical level. On a theoretical level, the primary point of the homosexual marriage initiative isn't to *enable* homosexuals to do something they can't do now. Homosexuals can already legally do anything that married couples can do. What they want, though, is a stronger position from which to coerce others into giving their partnerships full social sanction. Limiting freedoms, not expanding them. On a practical level, this is an assault on the traditional family, the breakdown of which will inevitably lead to more social breakdown and more intrusion of government. So truly, libertarians and conservatives have every reason to oppose gay marriage.
Apr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Rhetorical questions disguise suppressed premises.
Here is an example:
Isn't that the same line of thinking which says ____________ (fill in the blank) is [are] important, therefore the government should get involved?
Allow the blank to be filled with the following:
Notice that the above examples may punish violations with fines or confinement yet these constraints on liberty, in large part, enjoy citizen sanction.
Many laws give structure and support to a society like a trellis to a vine. Marriage laws are in this category.
Overall, remember that reliance on theory over history and experience is the hallmark of the intellectual.
Re: Help me, Mona
First of 4:
Dear Rosegarden sj dad,
Thanks for the nice comments.
I will attempt an answer, well aware that others have made the case far better than I can. I would say that even libertarians believe some government to be necessary. Certainly our Founders believed in limited government. Only anarchists believe that human beings are capable of arranging their societies without any government at all.
You’re right, of course, that liberals are constantly finding things that they label as “important” and then subsidizing, regulating, or taxing them. Laws regulating marriage are different, I submit, because the family is not a mere good but the necessary and indispensable foundation of civilized life. It must come before neighborhoods, cities, states, and nations. It is supported by more than a thousand years of tradition. Chesterton reminded us that:
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors.
It is the democracy of the dead.
Monogamous marriage is also the triumph of Western civilization – offering far more rights and fulfillment to women and children than polygamous marriage. Monogamous marriage conduces to social peace, because the wealthiest and most powerful men are not permitted to monopolize the women.
Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:43pmRe: Help me, Mona
Liberals tend to think that traditions are arbitrary and often benighted. They toss aside established institutions in their confident march toward an imagined glorious future. Conservatives are the circumspect party – offering respect to the past and wary of discarding established ways when we don't fully comprehend all the good they do.
In addition to respect for tradition, we have reams of social science data supporting the insight that married man/woman families are the ideal setting in which to rear children. Over the course of the past 40 years, as marriage has collapsed in some American communities, we've seen the accompanying unravelling of nearly everything else as well. Where families fail to form, education declines steeply, lawlessness increases, habits of work and industriousness decline (see, e.g. the great work the National Fatherhood Initiative, or Charles Murray's Coming Apart), and reported happiness nosedives.
So, the state supports and encourages marriage because the nation cannot exist, at least not in its intended form, without the preexisting social substructure of family life. As Edmund Burke wrote:
Re: Help me, Mona
To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.
Some same-sex marriage advocates argue that theirs is a conservative position, seeking the stability of marriage. There are two answers to that. First, nothing prevents homosexual couples from solidifying their arrangements through contracts. Second, I would argue that there are traits inherent in the sexes that are best for raising children. In a recent column, I said:
Men and women bring different and complementary qualities to parenthood. The genetic tie . . . while not essential (I speak as an adoptive mother), is helpful in maintaining loyalty and support for the long haul. Having parents of opposite sexes gives children male and female role models. And the sexes differ in a thousand little ways that, when blended, tend to redound to kids’ welfare. Just to name a few: Mothers are more protective, fathers more challenging; mothers are more comforting, fathers more stimulating; mothers are more relational, fathers more disciplinary.
Re: Help me, Mona
This is not to say that some single parents and some same sex parents don't do a great job of raising children. And without intending to hurt anyone's feelings, I would add that it isn't the ideal, and it isn't something we should encourage.
Finally, there is the problem of defining marriage down. If marriage is simply the ratification by society of love between individuals, it's impossible to make a principled case against recognizing other loving unions as marriages. That would include polygamous unions.
To conclude on the main point, states are right to recognize traditional marriage because it comprises the essential undergirding for society. Individuals do not spring up ready and able to shoulder their responsibilities as citizens without the care and nurture of families.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
I cannot believe Mona Charen is commenting on this post. I love Ricochet...
Ms. Charen, one of my favorite possessions is my copy of Useful Idiots! It was a graduation present from my high school math teacher.
Oct '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Mona Charen:
Finally, there is the problem of defining marriage down. If marriage is simply the ratification by society of love between individuals, it's impossible to make a principled case against recognizing other loving unions as marriages. That would include polygamous unions.
I think you have point there. I support gay marriage, but not the version you describe. You were right on the podcast: the slippery slope argument really is hard to answer. That's partly why I push the idea among social conservatives; I think that for gay marriage to work, it will have to come from them, not social liberals (who tend not to like or understand marriage).
Given the current state of elite American opinion on the issue and the various power factions involved, I'm not sure I'd vote for it in an election today. It is a sad fact of American life that we tolerate a far greater degree of nihilism in our power elite than any other developed country. We may need to deal with them first.
Edited on May 13, 2012 at 7:53pmJun '10
Re: Help me, Mona
I'm with Mona in the recognition that marriage is about family life. When you put all the peripheral benefits aside, the importance of marriage is providing the best environment possible for the propagation and raising of children. Conservatives can't emphasize this enough. Since the family is the very foundation of a civilized society, the proposition that marriage is the union of one man and one woman should be a bulwark of conservative social policy.
As for the role of government, ask yourself who demanded that marriage should be redefined? And where did they go achieve this aim? That's right, the left took the issue (as they always do) to the courts, hoping that an activist judge would overthrow centuries of tradition. Now that marriage is a political issue, conservatives have been forced to defend the traditional norms. We didn't start this fight, they did. And they chose the battlefield. We don't have the choice but to meet them on their ground.
In an ideal world marriage would be regulated by local government according to community norms. If the left wants to make it a national issue, I say bring it on. They will lose.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
You have usefully highlighted two core differences between libertarians and conservatives: (1) libertarians do not give any particular credence to tradition and history, and (2) by looking with suspicion on any use of power by the government, libertarians have trouble recognizing the powers that are necessary for maintaining civil society (and therefore freedom).
Hundreds of years of the British and American common law (and, secondarily, statutory law) evidence government support of marriage. The first question we should ask is not, why should the law continue as it has before; but, rather, why should it be changed? In other words, we should seek to learn from past generations their reasons for their policy, especially since that policy is of such long-standing.
Second, civil society cannot be maintained merely through the threat of punishment for injury to person or property. It relies more on the proper rearing of children, through which new humans, born in ignorance, learn what is loveable and unloveable, admirable and detestable, beautiful and ugly, decent and indecent. They learn their obligations toward other human beings - family, friends, members of the community.
Without these things, society will become uncivil, and nothing short of tyranny will prevent chaos.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Furius Camillus:
Overall, remember that reliance on theory over history and experience is the hallmark of the intellectual. · 3 hours ago
I think Thomas Sowell may have written a book about this...
Dec '10
Re: Help me, Mona
"Let me know if I'm missing something" I believe you are. Please see Furius Camillus above.
Sep '10
Re: Help me, Mona
While I respect the tradition of marriage, I do not think that, in the civic realm at least, it lives up to its reputation, and it's the civic realm I'm concerned with (trying to riff on Augustine and Luther, both of whom discussed the separate realms). In the Old World, the Church was a de facto state, and this I think is why the religious tradition lingers of forcing morality on others for their own good. For better and worse, America is not the Old World. The state covers everyone, good and not-so-good (so-called). On the Hinderacker–Ward experience podcast, the gay fellow said he thinks marriage makes men better. I don't. I think good men are drawn to good things, like marriage. Otherwise, what do the stats indicate? The culture? I came from a marriage, and I can tell you it was not the growing up experience that Mona and Peter seem to think materializes through the use of the word. In my philosophy, which I recognize most folks here don't adhere to (which I honor as their absolute right), it's always the person, never the tool.