Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
There is an important chart everyone needs to see:
There are two trend lines, one is going down and one is going up. There may be a couple of bumps, but the direction of each line is clear. That is the future.
Tuesday night, Maine, Washington, and Maryland passed laws legalizing gay marriage and the one banning it in Minnesota lost.
That's the future. Look at those trend lines again.
You can object. You can talk about "redefining" marriage. I've heard it all before. But look at that trend line. That is the way the United States of America is trending. That's where the public is at. You need to adapt or conservatives will keep losing elections.
I know most of you reading this have very strong feelings about gay marriage. I'm not going to argue about your feelings, your belief structure, or what you think. All of us here at Ricochet have done that plenty of times.
What I am going to do is suggest a change for conservatives, one that I first encountered out of the mouth of a man who I know to be, frankly, a bigot.
Here is the solution: The separation of marriage and state.
Marriage is a lot of things, among them a legal contract. As it stands now, one needs a license to get married. A license is legal permission to do a thing. We license marriages now, but we did not always. It doesn't need to be licensed. Many of you will think of practical objections. "What about X?" There's always a solution for X.
Separating marriage from the state doesn't mean the end of marriage. It means the end of getting permission from mommy government to do a thing that is a natural right of free people to do.
Separating marriage and government means that how I feel about gays and gay marriage and how you feel about gays and gay marriage don't matter politically. We can both be on the same side without either of us compromising our belief systems.
It's also not an electoral loser.
- Comment (250)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (20)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I'm not sure what I believe about marriage law, but when I began thinking about these issues, I was in the "get the state out of marriage law" camp. I hate to state the obvious but there is no movement for this. None. Zilch. It's fantasy land. I hate even debating it, policy preference of mine though it may be, because it's like talking about how fairies are going to take us to find the pot of gold. · 8 minutes ago
Oh, Mollie, how long ago was school choice fantasy land?
Or medical marijuana?
Or actual legalization?
There's no movement for it yet. Ricochet is where these discussions start. What if some cynical yet politically atune pol reads my post (and we know some do) and realizes that is the way.
I know anarcho-capitalism is fantasy land, but I talk about it because the ideal is worth perusing. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and just because no liar, crooks, thieves or whores in Congress want to do it yet doesn't mean its not worth talking about.
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
This thread isn't about gay marriage! It's about the separation of marriage and state!
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
We've developed a method for dealing with tricky issues. It is called the contract. No reason a pre-conceptual agreement couldn't be worked out for who has rights to what.
It always delights me how traditional free market form can always adapt to new social circumstances.
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
Okay, that makes total sense. I'd also imagine it'd do hell to the court system, as everybody starts suddenly declaring themselves to be married to the defendant.
Fred, it seems that government accreditation/certification of marriages provides an easy means to enforce reciprocity. What kind of emergent structure would be created to fill this function and how would it be better than the (rather benign) state power to do so? · 13 minutes ago
If it were me, I'd treat it like any other legal contract.
What's to stop me from suddenly declaring you and I are business partners and me suing you? If I took you to court, they'd ask to see our business agreement forming a partnership.
My problem isn't legal enforcement so much as the requirement for a license, government permission, to initiate the contract.
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
Oh, Mollie, how long ago was school choice fantasy land?
Or medical marijuana?
Or actuallegalization?
There's no movement for ityet. Ricochet is where these discussions start. What if some cynical yet politically atune pol reads my post (and we know some do) and realizes that is the way.
I know anarcho-capitalism is fantasy land, but I talk about it because the ideal is worth perusing. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and just because no liar, crooks, thieves or whores in Congress want to do it yet doesn't mean its not worth talking about. · 6 minutes ago
They were never fantasy-land. They were totally reasonable and moderate things with broad support from the public. Divorcing marriage from state? No one even wants that (except for the less-than-one-percent of us libertarians).
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Astonishing:
Just don't expect me to like gay marriage, or goat marriage, or gay goat marriage, or to be pleased about paying for the resulting social, economic, psychologial, moral, and medical misery.
But youwillexpect me to pay for it. And you willevenexpect me to pretend to like it.
You're mixing in a couple of things.
First is the strawman about goats. Animals can't enter in to contracts.
Second, I don't expect anyone to pay for anything and certainly am against forcing anyone to pay for anything.
I don't give a damn if you approve or not approve. Do you care if I approve of your marriage? Why should you?
Nov '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
They were never fantasy-land. They were totally reasonable and moderate things with broad support from the public. Divorcing marriage from state? No one even wants that (except for the less-than-one-percent of us libertarians). · 1 minute ago
...YET!
School choice and legalization had to have broad movements built around them. It took time.
Look at this trend line. When Gallup first starting asking, 12% of people supported marijuana legalization. Now its a majority of people.
I'm talking about this because banning gay marriage, right or wrong, is a political loser and conservatives need to find a way, consistent with their own values to square those values with public attitudes with respect to public policy.
This may be fantasy land today, Nov. 9, 2012, but this is a workable solution to square that circle.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 5:24pmMar '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
This thread isn't about gay marriage! It's about the separation of marriage and state! · 5 minutes ago
Fred: Let's not be coy.
The first item on the thread is a chart tracking opinions of gay marriage. It is mentioned several times throughout your original thread, including its electoral impact on Republicans. Your thread concludes by noting the virtues that separating marriage from public law because it defangs a social issue, and will be an electoral winner.
If it isn't about gay marriage, you sure fooled me. But if you think that separating marriage from public policy wouldn't inflame social conservatives and inevitably turn, in our moment, into a discussion on gay marriage (which, of course and self-evidently, it became from the first member response), then you fooled yourself.
Jan '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
If it were me, I'd treat it like any other legal contract.
What's to stop me from suddenly declaring you and I are business partners and me suing you? If I took you to court, they'd ask to see our business agreement forming a partnership.
My problem isn't legal enforcement so much as the requirement for a license, government permission, to initiate the contract.
Is that really so different from how it is? How is it functionally different from getting a contract notarized? The only differences I can think of are age and gender requirements (in most states).
May '11
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I don't accept the premise of the question.
"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage?"
"Do you think apples should or should not be recognized by law as tasting the same as oranges?"
Before you answer the question about what is valid under the law, you have to work out the definition marriage. For most of human history it has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Even in the few examples of one man having several wives, the man is still married to each wife, the wives are not married to each other.
Do I think that same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couple, yes, but legally saying an apple tastes the same as an orange does not make it so.
Same Legal rights, sure, same thing culturally, I don't think so.
Domo
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Ron Paul basically supports the position that Fred is advocating here. I remember that during the Republican primary NOM actually ran an attack ad against him for holding that position. So I think it is unlikely that they would do a 180 on this to try to preserve what they can even if that was the only way to prevent government from recognizing gay marriage.
By the way, I'm not the biggest fan of Ron Paul, but I think NOM was mischaracterizing Paul's position on marriage in a very dishonest way by suggesting that he wanted to "abolish" marriage. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for 55 years. I don't think he wants to abolish marriage. Also, NOM probably should be pointing to Paul's marriage as the example that people should be trying to emulate.
Aug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
I'd like to see that chart juxtaposed next to a chart for a question like: "Do you think the law confers too many privileges on married couples that are not available to non-married couples?"
My point being, maybe people wouldn't support gay marriage as much if they thought it represented a grab for entitlements.
Jun '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Fred Cole
Astonishing:
Just don'texpectmetolikegaymarriage, . . . or to be pleased aboutpaying for the resulting . . . misery.
But youwillexpect me to pay for it. And you willevenexpect me to pretend to like it.
. . . Second, I don't expectanyonetopay for anything and certainly am against forcing anyone to pay for anything.
I don't give a damn if you approve or not approve. Do you care if I approve of your marriage? . . .
Fred, this is the thing you don't seem to understand. (I am a Pentecostal Christian, I believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God. I am also libertarian, I am trying to see both sides)
You say you don't need approval and it's irrational to seek someone elses approval, you are correct. BUT, that is exactly what the LGBT community absolutely insists on. Approval, and nothing less.
So with the trends as they are, they will keep pushing until they get the State to mandate approval. That is why I would argue that the Church needs to divorce itself from the State. It is for self-protection. No State licenses, no tax-exemption, no non-profit status.
Reject the State, there is no reforming it now.
Mar '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Judging from this thread and others, the Republican party is in danger of going the way of the Whig party.
Insert gay marriage/abortion for slavery and this sounds like where the Republicans are today.
I am of the opinion this may be a good thing for the long game.
May '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Keith Bruzelius
You say you don't need approval and it's irrational to seek someone elses approval, you are correct. BUT, that is exactly what the LGBT communityabsolutely insistson. Approval, and nothing less.
Is the LGBT community really that monolithic?
Dec '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Let's be honest. Even if we take the libertarian view, the left will not be appeased. Let's say marriage is totally private. Anyone can do it and churches can marry who they please. How soon before one church is sued for discrimination because they won't marry two men? How soon before Churches start getting taxed into oblivion because they are "hate groups?"
One is not allowed to discriminate in private (see hiring practices). You might as well fight because you cannot appease.
Aug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Tom Meyer
Fred Cole
If it were me, I'd treat it like any other legal contract...
Is that really so different from how it is? How is it functionally different from getting a contract notarized?
It's not the same, because the state imposes the terms of the contract (in the absence of a pre-nuptual agreement), and judges have enormous freedom to make arbitrary rulings in the event that the "contract" is broken.
Where in ordinary contract law is there such a think as "no fault"?
If one side breaks the terms of a business contract, the courts don't say, "oh well, nobody's at fault, we'll just split everything 50/50."
Every couple should be required to negotiate and sign a genuine, binding, marriage contract. If you want "no-fault", then let both sides agree to it in the contract.
At least you Yankees have the option of a pre-nuptual agreement.
Up here in Canuckistan, pre-nuptual agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. No agreement is allowed to contradict statutory marriage, divorce, or family law.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 6:02pmAug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind a new Whig Party. It'd be a nice alternative to the overly-rigid Libertarian Party.
Of course, it's not a perfect world, and any serious third party would simply benefit the Democrats.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 6:00pmOct '12
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
Misthiocracy
It's not the same, because the state imposes the terms of the contract (in the absence of a pre-nuptual agreement), and judges have enormous freedom to making arbitrary rulings in the event that the "contract" is broken.
This is really the biggest point: that the issue needs to be shifted as strong as possible out of marriage qua marriage, and into marriage as a set of legal rights.
The libertarian argument is simply that contractual rights are embodied in the right of free association, and that there should be no discrimination on the ability of members of a free society to form contractual relationships. In that sense, all of the so-called "what we gain" from marriage for same-sex couples is relegated to the purely legal rights for two people to determine their assets and insurance rights are pooled, visitations in prison and hospitals, etc.
I agree with those who say society will adapt to support same-sex marriages, though we can argue over that. Still, if Conservatives insist on fighting from the rear-guard they will lose ground on the marriage as family, but even more so on their ability to form free moral judgments.
Aug '10
Re: Social Conservatives, Gay Marriage, and The Future
You know, marriages didn't have to be registered with or sanctioned by the state until the UK Marriage Act of 1836.
Before that time, it was a church and/or private matter.
1836 is not that long ago, really.