RoR: Forum

Mr. Rockwell,

Just what is a civil union and why would the government have anything to do with it? Do you view it as some kind of contract? What are the terms of the contract? What obligations or prohibitions does one agree to when signing such a contract, what property is involved, and what actions are required?

Why would one have to involve the government to make such a contract with anyone in the first place. It is not necessary for other contracts?

Or, maybe you think a civil union is something else, which I, at least, would be interested in knowing about.

Regi

Post 1

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:22pm

Regi,

I agree with you that ultimately we'd like the government to have no involvement whatsoever in domestic contracts. However, until that time comes, I think there would need to be an interim step, and this is why I suggest a "civil union."

There are currently certain benefits (such as social security) that are extended to a person's spouse after their death. If the government grants this benefit to a married person, a single person should likewise be able to name someone in their life to be the beneficiary of their benefits. A civil union would entitle everyone to name a "significant other" in their life, be it spouse, friend, or relative to receive the rights currently limited to those that are "married."

In another thread, Jeremy Johnson proposed the ideal amendment as follows:

Law of Consent: No part or branch of the government may fashion laws restricting or promoting relations between consenting parties, which do not abridge the rights of third parties.

I think this is just plain brilliant. I also think there are currently so many laws acknowledging specialized treatment of married people, that there would need to be a practical step toward Jeremy's fully libertarian policy. We're not going to change things over night. Civil Unions can be a step in this process, allowing some of the old legislation regarding marriage to stay in place, shifted to civil union, without violating equal protection as it does now.

Post 2

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:44am

Eric,

Just out of curiosity, what happened to the original article?

There are currently certain benefits (such as social security) that are extended to a person's spouse after their death. If the government grants this benefit to a married person, a single person should likewise be able to name someone in their life to be the beneficiary of their benefits.

Since Objectivists are opposed to SS in the first place, why should they be for extending that which is immoral to even more parasites?

We're not going to change things over night. Civil Unions can be a step in this process, allowing some of the old legislation regarding marriage to stay in place, shifted to civil union, without violating equal protection as it does now.

You are probably not going to change things at all, at least not for the better. With rare exception (e.g. prohibition) once the government gains a power it never gives it up. Shifting "old legislation," to a new broader form just allows more people to make claims on, "entitlements," no one is morally entitled to in the first place. Since government laws governing marriage are not a protection of rights, but a violation of them, what you are attempting to equalize is not protection but oppression.

The only right thing is for government to be totally divorced from any regulation of relationships individuals choose to enter into. To say, we cannot do that, therefore, we'll just extend what we've got now means, "we can't do the right thing, so let's do a little more of the wrong thing." Good grief!

Regi

Post 3

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:22am

I accidentally added it instead of queued it, so it was only up for about 10 minutes. Since you're already discussing it, I'll probably put it up tonight for the rest of the world to see as well.

Post 4

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:21am

Regi,

Excellent points! In terms of the Big Picture, I agree with you and would love to see government butt out entirely.

However, if there are going to be speed limits, I'd prefer they apply to all drivers; if there is taxation, it should applied equally as well; if there is mandatory jury duty, every citizen should be a candidate. While I don't believe in speed limits, taxation, and mandatory jury duty, that doesn't mean that I think the laws (even the ones I disagree with) shouldn't be applied evenly.

Since you're suggesting that extending marital rights to everyone via civil unions is going in the wrong direction, let's consider if going the opposite way would be moving in the right direction: Step One - limit said rights to relationships consisting of "one man and one woman." Step Two - limit them further to "one man and one woman, both of the same race". Step Three - "one man and one woman of the same race, both of the Christian faith." We can just keep narrowing the definition down, thus decreasing the number of people who can claim these benefits. Obviously, this is compounding something already wrong (the government's involvement in marriage) with something even more evil. Just because there would be less people who are "parasites" doesn't justify the inequity.

In the end, though, you are absolutely correct about the role of government in such matters, and I may write another article on how dismantling the system entirely would be the best solution. Thanks for the feedback, Regi.

Eric

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 3/16, 10:27am)

Post 5

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:56pm

Thanks, Jeff

It was really strange. I read the article, posted a reply, and when I went to look at it....poof! it had disappeared. Thought I was in the twilight zone.

Regi

Post 6

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:11am

If we want to be fully consistent here, there shouldn't be a state definition of marriage-- there shouldnt even be a state enforced concept of marriage. it is not the business of the government to provide obsolete religious based legitimation rituals to loving humans.

Post 7

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:57am

Exactly, Robert! Well said!

Post 8

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:47am

However, if there are going to be speed limits, I'd prefer they apply to all drivers; if there is taxation, it should applied equally as well; if there is mandatory jury duty, every citizen should be a candidate. While I don't believe in speed limits, taxation, and mandatory jury duty, that doesn't mean that I think the laws (even the ones I disagree with) shouldn't be applied evenly.

Certainly the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, allowing churches to hand out any certificates they choose, as others have suggested.

My concern is with the proposal of extending benefits already opposed. There is no moral salvation in demanding "equality" in something you oppose anyway, especially when such a change would most likely strengthen, and not reduce, the policy. Including more people into a government sanctioned licensing agreement is not a step in reducing such a program.

For instance, if there is a law that gives the 20% of high school students a "free" (by that I mean tax-funded) education, would then your position be to give, so as to not discriminate against the other 80%, a tax free education as well? Because this would be an equality issue as well. And if your stance is "well, I oppose the issue but support the equailty of the issue," then you have to face issues like this that, while different in scope, are basically the same.

Post 9

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:50am

Dustin,

Excellent point. You've inspired me to re-think my position slightly. I'm 100% for getting government out of the marriage business entirely. But let us assume social security is abolished so that is not an issue here. This doesn't need to be about expanding government benefits. It can be looked at as more of a legal issue.

If a person is on life support, who should have the right to make the life-and-death decision for them? The doctor? The government?

If someone fails to make out a will, who should be the beneficiary of the deceased person's assets? The community? A family member? Which family member?

Or if a new mother dies shortly after childbirth leaving behind a surviving infant, who has custody over the child? The biological father? (Even if he conceived this child in rape?) The state? The child's aunt and uncle?

All these questions can be dealt with to a certain extent if the person has, through forming a Civil Union, identified the single Significant Other in their life. Each of us, heterosexual or homosexual, should be able to identify such a person, and have it "count" legally. It is blatant discrimination f this right is limited to heterosexual married couples.

Post 10

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:53pm

If someone fails to make out a will, who should be the beneficiary of the deceased person's assets? The community? A family member? Which family member?

Or if a new mother dies shortly after childbirth leaving behind a surviving infant, who has custody over the child? The biological father? (Even if he conceived this child in rape?) The state? The child's aunt and uncle?

Well, then basically your argument is that civil unions will act as a will. If this is the case, and assuming it takes not too much more effort to create a will than to get "unionized," wouldn't it make sense just to make the will? Instead of getting a civil union license, fill out a will. Simple as that. Then get married in whatever church makes you happy.

All these questions can be dealt with to a certain extent if the person has, through forming a Civil Union, identified the single Significant Other in their life.

Not really. For one (example1), if both people die, say in a car accident, a civil union really does little in deciding who will get the remaining assets (a will, however, will solve this). And there is nothing preventing a women (example 2) from naming either the father or guardians should something happen to her after childbirth, which is often done. After all, there are a large number of babies born in families without a married set of parents anyway.

Post 11

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:26pm

Dustin,

Are you saying then, that there is never an occasion where a marital union or an equivalent would need to be recognized in some civil/legal way?

Why do people get married, and why do those who can't desire civil unions? Is it just to reap undeserved benefits from the government, or are there other practical legal concerns?

If the ultimate solution is to make marriage a completely private matter, not to be recognized by the law or the government in any way, the question is how do we get there from where we are now? Isn't it possible that de-politicizing the marriage issue by shifting current legislation to "civil unions" would at least get the religious component off the table, and in addition solve the discrepancy that exists now between heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Until marriage is completely removed from legal and government matters, don't you think something needs to be done to provide equal protection? Or are gay people just plain out of luck?

Eric

Post 12

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:38pm

Eric, stop fixating on gays, religion, etc. It's about individuals living their lives and making arrangements by their own standards to suit themselves.

You're falling into the same trap that busy-body bureaucrats do: My god!, we have to do something!

Wrong!

Here's a radical idea: do nothing!

Hands off, baby. Laissez-faire!

In fact, someone wrote a brilliant article on this very topic not so long ago--I think it might have been me.

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Elliot/Constitution_Bashing.shtml

Ross

Post 13

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:12pm

Ross,

Here here! I thought your article was terrific; it's right on the money regarding the proposed constitutional amendment.

A truly laissez-faire system would be terrific. But that's not what exists now, so when you suggest doing nothing, are you saying what currently exists is close enough so we should leave well enough alone?

Don't the proponents of gay marriage have a valid point? Are they supposed to passively accept discrimination because demanding equality would entail continued government entanglement?

If we were to take marriage out of the government's purview, mightn't there need to be some legal contract to maintain the myriad rights and protections that currently exist for married people?

I'm with you on the ultimate vision. My proposal for civil unions is but a means to that end. In your article, you wrote:

And that is all a marriage is: a special relationship, as determined and defined by the persons involved, that is voluntarily entered into. If any disputes subsequently arise, then as a matter of common law, the courts can make judgements.

Since you are saying a marriage is "defined by the persons involved" I take it that you support gay marriage. And I can certainly go along with that. I just can't accept that marriage is only between a man and woman and therefore only those relationships are granted those protections and recognized in the courts.

Post 14

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 6:05am

Hey Eric,

Just wanted to agree with you on this one 100%. You can oppose the government's involvement in marriage, but so long as it's there request that it be applied to everyone equally.

This is different than opposing free school lunch and therefore requesting that everyone have access to it. The 20% of people who receive it now should meet the income requirement set. However, if the requirement was meeting a certain low-income threshold, AND being white, I'd have a HUGE problem with that even though it's less people who are now covered.

We all agree that we oppose government's role in marriage. But few people have written articles on how to banish marriage as a government intrusion. Instead, everyone's saying "don't make gay marriages legal". There is a big difference. Eric said it right earlier, in that if you oppose something, and then they give the privilege to less people through discrimination, that doesn't make the situation any better. There was a time when whites could marry, blacks couldn't. Then it was a while after that when people of different races were allowed to marry. If many people's defense of why gay marriages should be banned hold true, they would be all for going back to the time when marriage was defined as a white man marrying a white woman. That would be a victorious day for objectivists indeed...

Folks, all instances of reducing marriage rights are not created equal. Saying that discrimination against people based on who they prefer to spend their life with is okay - because it helps your overall agenda in reducing marriage rights - is nothing more than justifying the ends via any means. It's just discriminatory in my opinion masked by the fact that you can say "but I oppose marriage so it's a step in the right direction". Bush has no plans to do away with marriages. By helping him to ban gay marriages you're helping his religious paranoid agenda of saying it's wrong to be gay.

-Elizabeth

Post 15

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 7:12am

Are you saying then, that there is never an occasion where a marital union or an equivalent would need to be recognized in some civil/legal way?

Yes, there do not need to be civil unions (as recognized by government) to handle issues that can be dealt with by contracts or wills. So, yes... never.

Why do people get married, and why do those who can't desire civil unions? Is it just to reap undeserved benefits from the government, or are there other practical legal concerns?

I'm sure many people have their own reasons. Some do it for the rebellion, some for the recognition, some perhaps for the benefits. Each case is different I am sure. And again, these "practical legal concerns" can be handled in other ways.

If the ultimate solution is to make marriage a completely private matter, not to be recognized by the law or the government in any way, the question is how do we get there from where we are now?

I know the answer is to not increase it in scope. It is like proposing to triple the education budget so that you can reduce it later. Riiight.

Until marriage is completely removed from legal and government matters, don't you think something needs to be done to provide equal protection? Or are gay people just plain out of luck?

Do you think that since some kids get free government-subsidized educations while the majority do not, that we should give free college educations to all in order to "provide equal protection? Or are the" kids who don't get free tax-paid college educations "just plain out of luck." If you objectively accept your principle based on fairness and equality according to pre-existing governmental practices, then you must also objectively accept what I propose above. Because the root of the problem is the same, and to change the answer would be to alter conclusions to your liking. And if you do accept the conclusion that "because it is done by government on one scale to one set of people, it should be applied equally to all people on the same scale," which is what you are saying, then objectively you would have to accept a fully socialist or communist state. Because really, all laws are applied to a minority of people, not all people, and not all equally. If we raise the scope to give all things (that government currently gives) to all people that few people have (what you are saying is "fair") then only a socialist state could occur. You are falling into a dangerous area of philosophical grayness, a trap which is avoidable.

Post 16

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:08am

I won't speak for Eric, but I think I mentioned above why you can support gay marriages and not support providing free education to an entire country. I support lessening or doing away with government benefits, but not on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, the color of you teeth, or the trailer that you might live in (list goes on for things I wouldn't discriminate based on).

But, Dustin, you didn't answer if you'd support a bill that took away marriage rights from everyone who wasn't white. I think your logic follows that less is always better and moving towards your goal, so you'd support it. You'd see it as a step in the right direction.

On a different note, besides government benefits, there were a couple of things I heard that marriages allow for that you can't just put into a will. Like either gay parent picking up their kids from school if they're sick or attending parent-teacher conferences as opposed to only the one legal guardian [unless this has changed & now both are legal].

-Elizabeth

Post 17

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 9:38pm

I won't speak for Eric, but I think I mentioned above why you can support gay marriages and not support providing free education to an entire country.

Yes, but you can only claim this by altering two answers to what is essentially the same question. It leads to a basic philosophical contradiction to come to one conclusion in one instance and another in another instance based on what one believes to subjectively be fair.

But, Dustin, you didn't answer if you'd support a bill that took away marriage rights from everyone who wasn't white. I think your logic follows that less is always better and moving towards your goal, so you'd support it. You'd see it as a step in the right direction.

I sent my response in before I saw your post. But I will answer. For one, my position is not a "by any means necessary" of going in the right direction. Second, my logic does not follow, in this instance, that "less is always better" it says "enhancing something already bad isn't better." By increasing the number of people who are eligible for a certain service, you are merely increasing the number of people who are happy with its existence. Basic economics. Once people get something, they do not want to get rid of it. You don't reduce the welfare rolls by allowing more people to be eligible for them.

On a different note, besides government benefits, there were a couple of things I heard that marriages allow for that you can't just put into a will. Like either gay parent picking up their kids from school if they're sick or attending parent-teacher conferences as opposed to only the one legal guardian [unless this has changed & now both are legal].

Actually, in most places I know of when enrolling the child at school, you have a list of people who are allowed to be listed as caretakers, or picker-uppers or whatnot. This is nothing new. When I was elementary school years ago my neighbor was on the list of people to pick me up should I get sick, I think someone could manage to sneak a gay person on the list if non related neighbors can get on there... but that's just my guess.

Post 18

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:33pm

This discussion, is perhaps, becoming circuitous. However, I would like to make a couple of comments.

Eric:

Since you are saying a marriage is "defined by the persons involved" I take it that you support gay marriage.

No, Eric, I don't support gay marriage.

And, I don't support black marriage or white marriage or marriage between consenting epileptics, or any other combination you may think of. I support the right of an individual to associate and form contracts (specific or implied) with any other individual or group they so choose.

"Congress shall make no law..." and so it should be with marriage. You cannot extend freedom by circumscribing individual actions. It's a contradiction.

So, no to the proposed marriage amendment and no to a legislative definition of civil union. If gays (or epileptics) are being discriminated against by state or federal laws then it is up to those concerned to challenge that under the equal protection principles set out in the applicable constitutions. Further, if constitutional protections are not robust enough or are being misinterpreted by the courts then an amendment would be needed to establish the sanctity of contract and equal protection without reference to any collective. I would support those actions because I support the right of the individual to their own life.

Ross

Post 19

Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:31am