Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Limited Government, Gay Marriage & The Future
Last week I had a post about how the fight over marriage equality is over. Gay marriage has won. In the ensuing discussion, the entire point seemed to have been lost. We have passed the tipping point on this issue. Just a reminder:
Look at that trend line.
It’s not just this Gallup poll. Public sentiment, as well as legal and social momentum, is clear and in one direction. My entire point is that there’s no fight to be had here politically.
I think I’ve established here on Ricochet that elections aren’t my main focus. It doesn’t matter as much to me.
But it matters to many of you, my friends here at Ricochet. What I’m trying to tell you is that if you keep pushing on this, you’ll keep losing. Electoral politics depends, rightly or wrongly, on appealing to the public. You can’t do that by pushing on issues that the public is on the complete opposite side of. If you do, you’re going to keep losing.
The problem is that we’ve reached a point where the federal government has become dangerously out of control, and since I can’t just go off into the woods and live in a cabin with my cats, I have been drawn, with enormous disgust, into having to care about this stuff.
Let me be uncharacteristically communitarian for a moment. We — those who care about human freedom, those of us who care about the future of this nation — have to stop losing elections. At a certain point, if we continue on the course we are presently on, there will be a massive, sudden, probably violent change in our government or our way of life. Frankly, I’m tired of losing elections to dangerous statists because for some reason the better candidate gets tripped up talking about gay marriage.
Enough of this.
I thus present a solution, one I have presented before here on Ricochet.
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. We’ve been through all of that over and over. I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me.
What I is suggest a change in emphasis for conservatives who care about traditional marriage. This solution I first encountered out of the mouth of a man who I know to be, frankly, a bigot. (Not in the diluted sense of the word so frequently used today. An actual bigot.)
The solution: Separation of marriage and state.
Marriage is a lot of things, among them a legal contract. As the law stands now, one needs a license to get married. We license marriages now, but we did not always. Historically, there weren’t licenses. There were records. The clerk merely recorded what others had used their freedom to do.
The point of recording marriage is to resolve legal disputes. Marriage need not be licensed. People could simply register with a government clerk. Many of you will voice practical objections. “What about X?” There’s always a solution for X.
Separating marriage and government means that how I feel about gay people and gay marriage and how you feel about gay people and gay marriage don’t matter politically. One side isn’t forcing its definitions or values on the other. We don’t need to fight. We can both be on the same side without either of us compromising our belief systems.
It’s also not an electoral loser.
Published in General
I will restate the question.
If “gay marriage” (ie, gender neutral marriage) is a done deal, what do you hope to accomplish with your proposal, that is not being accomplished with the implementation of gender neutral marriage?
Incrementally reducing the reach of the government. Moving people away from relying on the government for unnecessary recognition. In my opinion, your strongest argument was that gay marriage was an increase in government involvement.
Oh. The same thing I always seek: harmony and love between people.
Let’s look at different solutions:
Solution 1 – Marriage equality gets implemented.
Solution 2 – Marriage equality is prohibited.
Solution 3 – The Fred Solution
In solution 1, your feelings get hurt. You feel imposed on, discriminated against, etc.
In solution 2, other people’s feelings get hurt. They feel imposed on, discriminated against, etc.
And rightly so, on both accounts, one group is jamming their values set down the throat of another group.
In solution 3, nobody is forcing or imposing their particular values set on anybody else. People are free to live their lives according to their own values and decide what is best for themselves.
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
I appreciate that you don’t want people’s feelings to be hurt, Fred. I really do.
Solution 4, a free people decide as a political community what specific forms of relationship they believe are worthy of special affirmation and legal recognition.
See, here’s the thing: you have one idea about marriage. I have a different one.
Not everybody has the same ideas about what marriage means. I’m an individualist. So my marriage is about me and by extension my wife. If others want to accept it and celebrate with us, fine. If not, well then, to hell with them.
But I’m not going to tell you whats best for you because I’m not arrogant enough to presume to know. I’d rather let you, an adult, a free citizen, make your own decisions. So if you think that your own marriage should be a community affair, subject, by obvious implication, to a heckler’s veto, that’s your business. I’m not a communitarian the way you are.
And thereby create the plague of every democracy: the disgruntled minority.
I believe all they have to say is “I do”, a parrot is perfectly capable of that. In the past all people needed to do was make their mark. I would hope we could adjust or remove age constraints but many parrot live well past the normal age of consent So that to can work within current rules.
Some parrot species seem to live longer on average than humans.
Marriage, like every social institution, has a real meaning based on its place in history and practice. It is not subject to individual understanding but has a real meaning. You can believe marriage is about the interaction between humans and extraterrestrials but you would be wrong.
Then can I assume your marriage was not officiated by a state designated representative and recognized by the state?
It’s not a question of what is best for you or me but what is best for the community. There is no force involved here, a couple voluntarily presents itself to their community and asks for its recognition and the people of that community, represented by the state, voluntarily decide the basis upon which recognition will be granted.
So is a five year old, so the analogy fails.
.
And….
First I was not making an analogy I was stating an intention and hoping that Fred being as open minded as he is will support me in my goal.
If I was making an analogy I am not sure why it fails? Historically young people have been married at similar youthful ages. The definition of marriage has and is changing. The gay rights success and the now blooming poly movement give me hope that people will open their mind and allow any combination of marriage in order to extend the benefits of the institution of marriage to all.
I realize that my marriage partner species, age and number choices may not conform to others standards but so what, this is about us, not them. Why should our marriage be constrained by others small mindedness?
I sincerely wish you and Mrs FJG success in your pursuit of happiness, but can you explain how getting the govt out of marriage means that all contracts can now be entered into without informed consent?
Has there ever been a government in human history which did not involve itself in marriage?
Marriage is a contract, whether it is in a religious sense or a secular sense. The job of the government is primarily the resolution of contact disputes.
No government in marriage means no divorce court, no inheritance laws, no alimony, no joint liability, no child support etc.
I know many libertarians think this is a good idea, and brush aside with a wave of the hand any of these little “complications”, but this suggestion is far far more difficult to implement, and far more destructive, than to say “marriage is males and female couples, civil union is for others.”
This argument isn’t over. Not by a long shot.
I believe this to be fundamentally mistaken. Marriage is not the agreement between between the individuals but society’s affirmative recognition of that agreement as special and worthy of unique legal status. The community (either civil or religious) is the prime actor in marriage, not the individuals getting married. It is a representative of the community who pronounces the couple married.
That doesn’t change the argument in any way. It’s still a contract, and the government’s role is still in providing resolution to contract disputes. It doesn’t matter whether this is viewed from the individual’s POV of “society’s” POV.
In fact, you made my point exactly. As long as we’ve had “societies”, we’ve had the need for some third party to recognize and enforce agreements between two parties. If there wasn’t some third party to recognize and enforce agreements, there would be no law. There would just be “trust”. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t trust you enough not to have you sign on the dotted line, on pain of excommunication.
I am offended! We prefer the term “Non-local Intelligences.” After all, there are many “extra-terrestrial” bacteria, but who would want to marry them?
Well put. This is why it is rather absurd when journalists and others call laws “gay marriage bans”. They are simply laws restating the definition of marriage as it has been defined since this country has existed (and modern western history), and the definition on which all laws pertaining to marriage have been build on since this country has existed.
Once you remove the actual meaning of the institution of marriage, all you are left with its “all you need is love”. That’s all the pro gay-marriage movement has to offer as an argument, once everything that contradicts their goals has been stripped. All you need is love. So then….anything can be a “marriage”. Hence, there is no “marriage”.
Even if marriage was made a completely religious event, the Gay Mafia still won’t be satisfied until we enthusiastically approve.
The Colorado baker who refused to make them a cake ( for something technically illegal in his state no less) has now been ordered into Re-education Camp AKA “Sensitivity Training” by the court.
“Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.”
This was my point in the polyandry post. While the state is involved, there will be some kind of majority rule. If you want individuality, the state needs to be out of it.
Nice way to wave away any practical objections. They don’t exist, because there must be a solution for them somewhere, no matter what the problem is, and no matter what the contours of such a solution might be. This gave me a good chuckle.
But assuming every problem has a solution: What if the populace sees greater Federal government involvement as the best solution? In that case, we would end up with more restricted liberty.
Here’s an alternative electoral approach: Make a full-court press for federalism. There seems to be little objection to Federal judges overturning duly-passed state constitutional amendments. Looking at the national polling says, effectively, that the people of New York should be able to tell the people of Utah how to live. But that only works if we subordinate the sovereignty of Utah. Most people seem to understand that we should have no say in whether France or Sudan adopts marriage “equality”. People should have no say about other states, either.
Fred, you argue quite persuasively and you’ve captured a big chunk of the debate inside my own head, between Girl with a Pearl and Girl with Tattoos, Twitter and nose ring. I think you are dead right about the trend line. The fix is in. At least two generations of youngsters along with weak minded, ill-informed middlesters and oldsters who’ve succumbed to cultural browbeating and refuse to unplug their teevees, has virtually guaranteed a lock on same sex marriage. There has been no substantive debate. Only propaganda, emotional appeals and increasingly fascist tactics.
The “debate” is not about marriage. The “issue” is never the issue with the Left. I’m a little surprised that you swallowed that line and proceeded to very logically play out a rational appeasement plan based on the agitators’ false premises and rules. It won’t work. The demands will only increase and become more floridly debauched and destructive to the natural order. But that is going to happen anyway I’m afraid, whether we appease now or appease later, and I certainly don’t blame you for that trajectory…
… one thing I’d like to recommend everyone watch is a 26 min. video produced by Mass Resistance (as in Massachusetts Resistance). It’s extremely eye opening, calmly and carefully presented by an ordinary citizen who has a unique view from inside the petri dish of a now-decade long experiment in same sex “marriage.” See for yourself whether the Left is interested in making a rational deal, and whether the Left will accept simply “separating marriage and government.”
WHAT ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ DID TO MASSACHUSETTS:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/video_2013/index.html
The difference with marriage is society’s role is much bigger than merely resolving dispute. Society defines the terms of the ‘contract’ and becomes, in effect, a party to it. It is the inclusion of the community into the relationship that makes it ‘marriage’ not the relationship itself.
Back in the day, I remember asking why libertarians who were strongly opposed to government control of heterosexual unions were so eager to extend that government control to homosexual unions. I’m still wondering, but I suspect the answer has something to do with the fact that, to many, libertarian principles are less important than the equal distribution of government goodies. Or perhaps, the equal distribution of government goodies is now a libertarian principle.
Not to mention — just as a single example among many — the wholesale regulatory rulemaking that would be required in the areas of taxation and Social Security. (My guess is that the rulemaking in these two areas would result in greater Federal involvement in people’s lives, not less.) And if we’re talking about practical electoral strategies, the answer can’t be that we need to establish a libertarian paradise by repealing the income tax and Social Security.
Right after reading your article Fred, I came across a new book with a very effective marketing video. I ordered the e-version on the spot. A Breitbart article informed me that this book is being intentionally ignored by conservatives. I am not surprised because so many Cons have decided to willfully ignore reality and go all in with the appeasement strategy. Especially FoxNews and lately Mormons, by the way. (See: http://barbwire.com/2014/05/28/media-conservatives-buying-homosexual-propaganda/)
I wonder if Peter Robinson will interview Mr. Robert Reilly about his new book: Making Gay Okay – How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything?
[EXCERPT] The outcome of this dispute will have consequences that reach far beyond the issue at hand. Already America’s major institutions have been transformed-its courts, its schools, its military, its civic institutions, and even its diplomacy. The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic.
WATCH THE AMAZING VIDEO AND READ MORE:
http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/RobertReilly/
Fred is right in that the SSM genie is out of the bottle. It won’t be over for a long time, just the same way and for the same reasons the battle over abortion isn’t over. It hasn’t been decided by democratic process, but by judicial fiat.
The Totalitarian Left won’t settle for victory, or silence on the part of the vanquished. It will demand positive affirmation of SSM (along with all other points in their creed) like North Koreans required to cry at the death of Kim Jong Il.
What politicians are going to have to do if they want to get elected is realize that they are not the smartest kid in the room, and that their extemporaneous ramblings are not necessarily brilliant just because they uttered them. They have to anticipate the questions they’re going to be asked (about SSM, or abortion, or income inequality), work out coherent answers, practice refusing premises, and learn how to flip the question back on the reporter or debate opponent. Then practice, practice, practice. They need to know what they’re going to say, and how to say it.