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:
Feb '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
.....
Doesn't legal enforcement of contracts show also show distrust for individuals? I'd say it does.
Is legal enforcement of contract a government welfare program just because the government lends a hand? I'd say it isn't.
Is legal enforcement of contract a legitimate use of the state, even to libertarians? I'd say it was.
I think you believe that marriage ought to be a private contract, right? Then you believe that there are some steps (contract enforcement) the government could legitimately take to "lend a marriage a hand" without destroying the privacy of a marriage contract or resorting to "welfare".
Being a libertarian doesn't mean having to trust all individuals all the time. After all, what would become of the libertarian reputation for paranoia? ;-) · 2 hours ago
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Why do you think that marriage is, or ever was, simply a contract amongst individuals without a formal public component?
Jul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno: "This is one of the arguments that I have difficulty accepting.
"I know of no couple that is together because the the government thought it good, therefore I see no couples detaching because the government allows others to marry. Nothing in my marriage depends upon the status of others."
Perhaps you have trouble accepting the argument because you continually fail to understand it, as made obvious by the way you continually misrepresent it.
No one is making the case that recognition of homosexual "marriage" will cause already-married heterosexuals to suddenly run out and void their marriages.
As I should have thought would be obvious by now, the real argument against such recognition is about what it will do to society over time, as one generation after another is brought up to believe that heterosexual marriage is just one lifestyle choice among many, no better or worse than lots of other arrangements and offering no particular benefit to our society.
Tommy, if you get nothing else from this thread, please stop accusing us of arguing that homosexual marriage will cause you to stop loving your wife. Nobody said it; nobody believes it. It's a silly distraction.
Re: Help me, Mona
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Why do you think that marriage is, or ever was, simply a contract amongst individuals without a formal public component? · 33 minutes ago
Because that's exactly what it was for centuries. People simply ageed to be married, and needed nothing from government to even evidence its legality.
In fact, the Marriage Act of 1753 was designed to stop the penchant for fraud that accompanied marriage claims in inheritence proceedings (which is why I support a registration requirement, no different than deeds).
Feb '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
.....
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation. · 45 minutes ago
Edited 44 minutes ago
So do you also maintain that at the point of breach courts are able to declare that the relationship doesn't qualify as a marriage because of the genders of the people involved? If so, then welcome to the basic so-con position (people are free to do what they want and no one else is obligated to recognize or accept their arrangement). If not, then why even pause to make this irrelevant distinction between formation and breach; why not stay on target by saying that gender is never a legitimate basis for third parties (including government) to reject a claim of marriage on the part of a same sex couple?
Re: Help me, Mona
Peter Christofferson
As I should have thought would be obvious by now, the real argument against such recognition is about what it will do to societyover time,as one generation after another is brought up to believe that heterosexual marriage is just one lifestyle choice among many, no better or worse than lots of other arrangements and offering no particular benefit to our society.
I understand your argument. I reject it as baseless.
Heterosexuals will marry heterosexuals; homosexuals will marry homosexuals.
No one will see them as the same. If heterosexual marriage is as important as you assert (I think it is) then we will marry ourselves, with no urging from government, because we are smart enough to see it is good whether government likes it or not, and whether you like it or not.
Back to my original comment to Mona, I have faith in the individual to marry because marriage is good. You think government is our shephard on virtue.
You have zero empirical evidence to show heterosexuals will reject marriage if gays can do it, so why should I believe you? Must I believe human caused climate change based upon the number of people predicting it?
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 3:22amRe: Help me, Mona
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
.....
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation.
So do you also maintain that at the point of breach courts are able to declare that the relationship doesn't qualify as a marriage because of the genders of the people involved? If so, then welcome to the basic so-con position (people are free to do what they want and no one else is obligated to recognize or accept their arrangement). If not, then why even pause to make this irrelevant distinction between formation and breach; why not stay on target by saying that gender is never a legitimate basis for third parties (including government) to reject a claim of marriage on the part of a same sex couple? · 3 minutes ago
The issue is whether gender requirements should be a breach; assuming both parties know the other's gender, there is no breach.
I'm trying to work within a system whose basic premise I reject - I don't want government selling licenses to anyone to marry - straight or gay.
Feb '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Why do you think that marriage is, or ever was, simply a contract amongst individuals without a formal public component? · 33 minutes ago
Because that's exactly what it was for centuries. People simply ageed to be married, and needed nothing from government to even evidence its legality.
In fact, the Marriage Act of 1753 was designed to stop the penchant for fraud that accompanied marriage claims in inheritence proceedings (which is why I support a registration requirement, no different than deeds). · 6 minutes ago
Any old "people" - without qualification? Are you saying that a same sex couple could have presented themselves to the public as married and their claim would have been respected? After all, I could claim to be the president of the United States and I wouldn't need any evidence of legality either - until I started making claims on others based upon my claimed status.
Re: Help me, Mona
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Contract breach and contract formation are different topics. I have always maintained the courts be involved in breach, which does not require the legislature to define contract formation. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Why do you think that marriage is, or ever was, simply a contract amongst individuals without a formal public component?
Because that's exactly what it was for centuries. People simply ageed to be married, and needed nothing from government to even evidence its legality.
In fact, the Marriage Act of 1753 was designed to stop the penchant for fraud that accompanied marriage claims in inheritence proceedings (which is why I support a registration requirement, no different than deeds).
Any old "people" - without qualification? Are you saying that a same sex couple could have presented themselves to the public as married and their claim would have been respected? After all, I could claim to be the president of the United States and I wouldn't need any evidence of legality either - until I started making claims on others based upon my claimed status.
Nero married a man, so I don't see why not.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Astonishing
Tommy De Seno
I'm misleading no one. . . .
Misleading, and simply historically incorrect, is your contention that the . . .
You assert this historical nonfact to support your contention that goverment should stay out of the question ofwhat constitutes marriage because (as you mistakenly claim) governmenthas historically not been involved in that question.
Bigamy has been astatutorycrime underEnglish law since at least1604.
. . .
You keep ignoring the marriage formation, which is the topic weare on.
Do you claim the 1604 English statute prohibiting bigamy had no relevance to marriage formation?
The difficulty is not that I ignore "marriage formation" (which you unilaterally dictate as "the topic we are on"), but that you elevate form (the name of the organization, if any, whose stamp is on the marriage document, if any) and ignore substance.
Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores the substantial fact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married to Fido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance?
Feb '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Ed G.
.....
Any old "people" - without qualification? Are you saying that a same sex couple could have presented themselves to the public as married and their claim would have been respected? After all, I could claim to be the president of the United States and I wouldn't need any evidence of legality either - until I started making claims on others based upon my claimed status.
Nero married a man, so I don't see why not. · 6 minutes ago
I'm asking seriously. Is this your serious response?
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
I'm misleading no one. . . .
Misleading, and simply historically incorrect, is your contention that the . . .
You assert this historical nonfact to support your contention that goverment should stay out of the question ofwhat constitutes marriage because (as you mistakenly claim) governmenthas historically not been involved in that question.
Bigamy has been astatutorycrime underEnglish law since at least1604.
. . .
You keep ignoring the marriage formation, which is the topic weare on.
Do you claim the 1604 English statute prohibiting bigamy had no relevance to marriage formation?
The difficulty is not that I ignore "marriage formation" (which you unilaterallydictateas "the topic we are on"), but that you elevate form (the name of the organization, if any, whose stamp is on the marriage document, if any) and ignore substance.
Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores thesubstantialfact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married to Fido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance? ·
Gays aren't dogs.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
...No one will see them as the same....
I'm simply shocked you can believe this.
Are you not aware of the decades-long campaigns to teach our children in so-called "public" schools and public and private universities that it's immoral to make any distinction based on "sexual preference" (it's just a preference, you see, like choosing Pepsi over Coke)?
Have you never heard of Heather Has Two Mommies?
What about the attempt by the Ivies and other universities to ban military recruiters because the military "discriminated" on the basis of "orientation" (another relativistic word)? Congress had to intervene to stop that one.
Never heard of hate speech codes?
What do you think awaits the rest of us if same-sex marriage is authorized and we refuse to recognize such marriages - at work, in schools, etc.? We will be told to accept same-sex marriage or lose our jobs; we will be penalized for hate speech; we will be sued for discrimination.
Re: Help me, Mona
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Ed G.
.....
Any old "people" - without qualification? Are you saying that a same sex couple could have presented themselves to the public as married and their claim would have been respected? After all, I could claim to be the president of the United States and I wouldn't need any evidence of legality either - until I started making claims on others based upon my claimed status.
Nero married a man, so I don't see why not. · 6 minutes ago
I'm asking seriously. Is this your serious response? · 1 minute ago
It's a short answer, but yes.
It really depends upon which civilization you are talking about. At times in Rome, Greece and China, yes.
Even the Church had a formal ceremony for male bonding. While not sexualized or even a marriage, I'm confident it would be met with derision, claims of homosexuality and other complaints if it were performed today.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 12:12pmRe: Help me, Mona
Leporello
Tommy De Seno
...No one will see them as the same....
I'm simply shocked you can believe this.
Are you not aware of the decades-long campaigns to teach our children in so-called "public" schools and public and private universities that it's immoral to make any distinction based on "sexual preference" (it's just a preference, you see, like choosing Pepsi over Coke)?
Have you never heard of Heather Has Two Mommies?
What about the attempt by the Ivies and other universities to ban military recruiters because the military "discriminated" on the basis of "orientation" (another relativistic word)? Congress had to intervene to stop that one.
Never heard of hate speech codes?
What do you think awaits the rest of us if same-sex marriage is authorized and we refuse to recognize such marriages - at work, in schools, etc.? We will be told to accept same-sex marriage or lose our jobs; we will be penalized for hate speech; we will be sued for discrimination. · 2 minutes ago
You are mixing what homosexuality is, and how we should treat homosexuals.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Tommy De Seno
I'm misleading no one. . . .
Misleading, and simply historically incorrect, is your contention that the . . .
You assert this historical nonfact to support your contention that goverment should stay out of the question ofwhat constitutes marriage because (as you mistakenly claim) governmenthas historically not been involved in that question.
Bigamy has been astatutorycrime underEnglish law since at least1604.
. . .
You keep ignoring the marriage formation, which is the topic weare on.
...Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores thesubstantialfact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married to Fido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance? ·
Gays aren't dogs. · 6 minutes ago
Huh.
I never realized that before.
Astonishing, did you ever realize that before?
I bet not.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Leporello
Tommy De Seno
...No one will see them as the same....
I'm simply shocked you can believe this.
Are you not aware of the decades-long campaigns to teach our children in so-called "public" schools and public and private universities that it's immoral to make any distinction based on "sexual preference" (it's just a preference, you see, like choosing Pepsi over Coke)?
Have you never heard of Heather Has Two Mommies?
What about the attempt by the Ivies and other universities to ban military recruiters because the military "discriminated" on the basis of "orientation" (another relativistic word)? Congress had to intervene to stop that one.
Never heard of hate speech codes?
What do you think awaits the rest of us if same-sex marriage is authorized and we refuse to recognize such marriages - at work, in schools, etc.? We will be told to accept same-sex marriage or lose our jobs; we will be penalized for hate speech; we will be sued for discrimination. · 2 minutes ago
You are mixing what homosexuality is, and how we should treat homosexuals. · 1 minute ago
Non sequitur - not that I'm surprised. Good night.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno
Tommy De Seno
I'm misleading no one. . . .
Misleading, and simply historically incorrect, is your contention that the . . .
Bigamy has been astatutorycrime underEnglish law since at least1604.
. . .
You keep ignoring the marriage formation, which is the topic weare on.
Do you claim the 1604 English statute prohibiting bigamy had no relevance to marriage formation?
. . .
Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores thesubstantialfact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married toFido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance? ·
Gays aren't dogs.
No one said they were.
Notably, you do not answer whether the 1604 English statute criminalizing bigamy constituted government invovlement affecting marriage formation.
Notwithstanding the rhetorical distraction your latest reply deploys, your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" remains utter nonsense, debunked by a moment's consideration of actual history, and in no way supports your implication that government should stay out of the question of what is a valid marriage.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 3:58amNov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Leporello
Tommy De Seno
Tommy De Seno
I'm misleading no one. . . .
Misleading, and simply historically incorrect, is your contention that the . . .
You assert this historical nonfact to support your contention that goverment should stay out of the question ofwhat constitutes marriage because (as you mistakenly claim) governmenthas historically not been involved in that question.
Bigamy has been astatutorycrime underEnglish law since at least1604.
. . .
You keep ignoring the marriage formation, which is the topic weare on.
...Your claim that the "state only became involved in marriage in 1753" ignores thesubstantialfact that "states" have always been "involved" in determining what qualifies as a "marriage" with legal significance. Perhaps you could "privately" deem yourself married to Fido, but what would that matter if Obama would not mandate adding "spouse" Fido to your health insurance? ·
Gays aren't dogs.
Huh.
I never realized that before.
Astonishing, did you ever realize that before?
I bet not.
Apparently I had not.
Yes, this is that predictable inevitable moment in discussions of this subject when, in the absence of evidence or argument against my modest little point, I must feel properly bullied or shamed into apologizing.
Sorry!
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 4:17amApr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Leporello point 2 libertarians have trouble recognizing the powers that are necessary for maintaining civil society (and therefore freedom).If there is any question about the role of the larger power to keep society civil, move to Zambia where there is very little marriage and see how poorly women are treated and how bad the economy runs. Obviously, the issue is government role creep but starting with marriage for children as the base is critical. I just listened to Mona on the podcast and she is brave to speak about the female nature. Having been a raving feminist myself, she speaks for me.
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
"Silly distraction" is a rhetorically effective form of argument, than which the only things sillier are those like us who play the "straight" man.
When you offer facts debunking one silly assertion, you will be confronted with distraction after distraction, until finally a distracting implication might be made that you think gays are dogs, or some such silliness.
I do not think gays are dogs.
But even if I did think that, how would that have relevance to my modest little point that Tommy De Seno was uproariously incorrect about an important historical fact when he asserted the
All I can do to resist the silliness is return boringly, relentlessly, to my modest little counterpoint, which is that the political power (i.e., "the state") has always been "involved" in determining what constitutes a valid marriage. Ask Henry VIII. See the 1604 English statute criminalizing bigamy. Read a little history of Roman law.