RoR: Forum

Hi Elizabeth,

Just a couple of thoughts:

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 ...

I support "lessening or doing away with government benefits," on any basis including, "race, gender, sexual orientation, the color of you teeth, or the trailer that you might live in," especially if that was the basis on which the benefits were granted in the first place, which almost all of them were. There are no special rights, and the idea that taking away some "entitlements" on the basis of some particular group affiliation is a, "prejudice," assumes group affiliations do grant special rights. The, "prejudice," is in the fact they are getting unearned benefit in the first place. Taking away some unearned benefit from some group but not all, does not do that group a disservice, it restores, at least to that group its rightful place in a moral society. The right attitude is, lets get busy and do the same for all other individuals.

... if you'd support a bill that took away marriage rights from everyone who wasn't white ...

Ah, how easily we fall into the trap. What are, "marriage rights?" They sure get us to use their language don't they?

In any case, since government involvement in "marriage," is a mistake in the first place, I see nothing wrong with a bill that took government interference in marriage, "from everyone who wasn't white," which would be to their benefit. The prejudice, if it can rightly be called that, would be against those left under the thumb of the government.

Regi

Post 21

Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:38am

Imagine the days before Brown v. The Board of Education. Conservatives are appalled that their little white children might actually have to share a classroom with children of other races. They argue that culture, religion and history are clearly on their side; that there must continue to be segregation now, as there has always been. Their protests are highly emotional, fueled by their racism and their fear of integration. To them, allowing a black child into a white classroom is destroying the "sanctity" of education.

On the other side you have social liberals and civil rights activists who are arguing that a public school should serve not just white children but all children, irrespective of race. They, too, have an emotional argument, fueled by their disgust at the injustice and prejudice.

Now imagine someone saying, "I don't believe in public education. Therefore, I will not take a stand on this issue." By default, by refusing to take a position, this individual is sanctioning segregation.

Wouldn't it have been possible for this individual to say, "I do not believe in public education. However, if my tax dollars are paying for it anyway, I will voice my opposition to the current prejudice and stand with those that argue for integration."

Post 22

Friday, March 19, 2004 - 2:58pm

How about "I will voice my opposition to the current prejudice and stand wherever my values lead me"?

My values don't say "since some people are getting recognized with benefits--or punishments--based on some irrelevant trait, there should be an egalitarian distribution of those benefits--or punishments--to everyone else." If you're going to take a stance on this, you may as well take the one most relevant to your values. The government has no business circumscribing "marriage rights". Just because realizing that single value is far-fetched and not likely to happen soon doesn't make it less worthy. Or more worthy of compromise. Why even entertain the slightest vague suggestion that the government has even a sliver of a right to tell Americans whom they can or cannot wed in the privacy of their own personal chapel, or has the right to dispense extorted private wages to promote or denigrate one type of marriage more than any other?

The segregation question? Just an off-shoot of the Big One, and irrelevant in the long-run--just like gay marriage or polygamy. Segregation's despicable, but it stems from government interference in the first place. The hydra has many many heads, guys. You can chop them off all you want, but it'll grow some more. (Giving it a swift ideological kick in the jewels, though....)

I don't like the idea of compromising my values just because the government felt like promoting one type of relationship over another, or keeping one type of classroom snowflake-white or not. It makes the rabid, uncouth libertarian backtrack, sputtering "well, of course I'm against public schools and government-sanctioned marriage, but since the government is committing injustices already why not just for second sort of go along with it until everyone sees the light? I mean, they'll stop intruding eventually, right?" No, in fact, "they" won't.

My advice? Don't vote, don't pay taxes. Take your sanction and your money away and the government might wake up quick. (I am a completely law-abiding citizen, Mr. IRS Agent.) Now, on to convincing the other 300 million of us. Adoo!

Post 23

Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:22pm

Hi, Elizabeth

I'm with Dustin on this one.

In NZ we have a plethora of ministries and commissioners for various collectives. We have a Ministry of Women's Affairs, we have a Ministry of Youth Affairs and we have a Ministry of Maori Affairs. Needless to say if you're a young, brown-skinned female, you've got much more "recognition" in our society than I do as a white, adult male. And yes, believe it it or not, from time to time people have suggested that we need a Ministry of Men's Affairs to even up the balance.

Now, men (and most women) laugh at this suggestion, not because men remain in a dominant position (we're not), but because we realise it's ridiculous to redress discrimination by enacting more "special" legislation when a simple abolition of the current legislation will achieve the better result. It's the same old story about government regulations causing problems that it then seeks to correct by the creation of more regulations and so on.

It is beyond me why activist groups seek special enactments to protect their rights when they should be challenging the very constitutionality of the laws that oppress them. Isn't that the best way to redress lawful discrimination?

Fighting for special legislation is a cop-out as I see it. Gay support organisations are very vocal in their activism. Surely, a well funded and articulate lobby could be formed to eradicate discriminatory laws based on constitutional principles. Now, that would be a great and far more important debate with more extensive implications than the narrow and fiat recognition of gay relationships.

Ross

(Edited by Ross Elliot on 3/19, 4:26pm)

Post 24

Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:25pm

1. Although marriage provides benefits that I don't agree with, I'd rather live in a world where we don't discriminate based on sexual orientation than one where we do and I pay less taxes.

Elizabeth, In essence, what you are trying to tell me is that you would support a communist state (if you were to "equalize" the US economy fully) because of your support of equality over something you disagree with entirely! This is absurd. But what is even scarier is your over-easy willingness to give up on the idea of capitalism, thus giving up on your right to keep what you earn through idea and effort, thus being willing to enslave yourself, thus giving up your life... so gays can do something you (allegedly)philosophically oppose.

Their is no rationality involved in such a premise. Building from the ground up your premise (essentially: "anything bad done by the government should be enforced equally among all people") would have to be universally true for any question I pose. So, let me pose a few multiple choice questions to test you:

1) The US Government allows opposite sex marriage. Your position is:
a. while I disagree with opposite sex marriage, if it is going to be government-sanctioned, I don't think it should be done based on sexual orientation. Thus, homosexuals should be allowed to marry..
b. I disagree with marriage, and will neither sanction it as is currently being done nor support its spread towards the rest of the citizenry.

2) The Nazi Germany Government is rounding up Jews and killing them. Your position is:
a. while I disagree with killing Jews, if it is going to be government-sanctioned, I don't thin it should be done based on ethnic orientation. Thus, all citizens should be killed.
b. I disagree with the killing of Jews, and will neither sanction it as is currently being done nor support its spread towards the rest of the citizenry.

You have already answered number 1 as "A." My answer is "B." If your are to maintain true and without contradiction to your stated premises, then you answer will not change for number 2. Mine has not. But apparently you would have stood up for a much larger holocaust. A=A.

Post 25

Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:01pm

Dustin, I still think that it follows that if you see not awarding gays the right of marriage, that you'd see it as a win if we took away the right for biracial couples to marry (or insert other group of choice). Is this right? Because I think there are two options here. First, you value equality over the government hands out that you don't agree with.

False. I do not value either marriage or taxation at all. So I could not value one over the other. I will not sanction, support, or increase something in which I am philosophically opposed to. You, however, will. A moral failure. So, in areas where slavery is government-sanctioned over one race, I guess you would support it being spread to all races (after all, even though you may 'oppose' slavery, you support it being enforced 'equally' right?

Second, you value the victory of less government funding over equality.

No, I favor less government funding and equality (when applied and used correctly). But I do not favor equality of things I philosophically oppose: high taxation, slavery, murder, forced military service, marriage!

I mention in #1 I'd rather lose the tax battle in this case for equality.

The problem is you are willing to lose a basic objectivist principle for a fully liberal emotional stance. One cannot be both rational and a Democrat.

I don't really see a 3rd option, unless you can prove that discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't really discrimination.

At least you have something right in this debate: you "don't really see a 3rd option." Thats because there is not one. Either something is, or it isn't. An apple is an apple or it isn't an apple. There are only 2 things that need be looked at. That either government sanctioned marriage is right or it is not right (there is no in between). If your answer is "it is not right" then by what reason should equality be enforced? Why should equality be enforced over that which is not right? This is not a battle of "low taxes over equality" it is a battle of right vs wrong, and of good vs. evil.

(Edited by Dustin Hawkins on 3/22, 10:10pm)

Post 26

Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:12pm

Judging from a lot of the threads I've studied on this forum, I think I'm about to do something unheard of here: Change My Mind.

This has been a worthwhile discussion, and as a result of the many good arguments put forth, I've amended the article to express both my original, pragmatic solution, and to go further in support of the more integrated view which I've come to embrace.

In the revised draft of this essay, I've quoted some of the individuals whose ideas helped me to reconsider my initial view. Please re-read and respond if you like. Thank you again for the excellent discussion.

Post 27

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 3:05am

Dustin! Ha! Comparing marriage to the holocaust. Don't get that opportunity very often.

The rest is a little out there. Like people are lining up to get married, not to be sent to concentration camps.

And you say that "That either government sanctioned marriage is right or it is not right (there is no in between)." Well in fact, there is an in-between. The current legal status of marriage is a hodgepodge of programs. There are elements that are bad, and elements that are good. For instance, some married couple get tax breaks. Would you consider this evil? Also, marriage is a method of setting someone as your next of kin. This was discussed before with wills, but it also applies to visiting people at hospitals, living wills, and lots more. If marriage was just government handouts, I think you'd have no problem convincing every Objectivist/Libertarian that it's a bad thing, and should go.

Of course, even if it's a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that government discrimination is a good thing. Take public roads. They're expensive, and the more people that use them, the more we pay. Again using Elizabeth's argument, would you support kicking all women drivers off the road (I mean politically support it).

Also, you take Elizabeth's statements about equality before the law, and you interpret it to mean egalitarianism.

Let's see if I can take a crack at her point. There are certain structural aspects of the government that are, over time, protectors of our rights. Separation of power, checks and balances, written constitution, independent judiciary, due process, trial by jury, etc., etc., and of course equality before the law. You get rid of these at your own peril. You might win a short term battle, but you destroy the barrier that keeps tyranny away. Stupid example is calling for the government to ignore the Constitution because it has section on the post office.

Even if marriage really is completely without merit, which hasn't been proven on this forum by any means, it would be a hollow victory if equality before the law was dropped. It's true that equality before the law can have be bad, if the law is bad. Your example of the concentration camps is terrible one, because if the law really had to include everyone, it would quickly go away. But we can imagine there are cases where there would be some worse violation of rights. Fine. But is it worth the cost of destroying one of the strongest safeguards against tyranny?

Post 28

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 1:15pm

Dustin! Ha! Comparing marriage to the holocaust. Don't get that opportunity very often. The rest is a little out there. Like people are lining up to get married, not to be sent to concentration camps.

Oh, but I wasn't comparing the holocaust to marriage (that would be absurd). I was using her means of reasoning in a far more severe instance. The formula for reaching the conclusion remains the same. Unless what is true today isn't true tomorrow.

And you say that "That either government sanctioned marriage is right or it is not right (there is no in between)." Well in fact, there is an in-between. The current legal status of marriage is a hodgepodge of programs. There are elements that are bad, and elements that are good. For instance, some married couple get tax breaks. Would you consider this evil?

That does not mean the means used to reach a tax break are noble. But at least we find a time when inequality is acceptable. Now I have to get married to *maybe* get an extra tax break. If I conclude that marriage is not a right, and thus shouldn't be sponsored by government, anything resulting from that wrong does not make it any less wrong simply because some good elements may arise. If I were to take over the US by force with an army, one might be able to conclude that this is either right or wrong, good or evil. I am sure that if Canada were somehow able to do this, we would brand this as fully wrong, no? But if the Canadian government gives us a tax break, is it then slightly more acceptable that they took over our country by force? After all, tax breaks are good, correct?

Also, marriage is a method of setting someone as your next of kin. This was discussed before with wills, but it also applies to visiting people at hospitals, living wills, and lots more.

Then if this is the case, married couples have more rights than individuals. So, I guess that those people who choose to remain single are second-class citizens and won't be getting any hospital visits for some time to come. Is the only remedy marriage? Because if the best remedy for "visiting people at hospitals, living wills, and lots more" then I guess most people are just out of luck. Oh well.

Of course, even if it's a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that government discrimination is a good thing. Take public roads. They're expensive, and the more people that use them, the more we pay. Again using Elizabeth's argument, would you support kicking all women drivers off the road (I mean politically support it).

Knowing how women drive, my rational faculty would have women kicked off the road anyway. But you are changing the nature of the discussion. There are rational and irrational approaches to reducing that which has already been done. Kicking women drivers off the road would do more harm then good, and would not help in any way to making the roads more private (which is the central issue). My argument for reduction does not include, as I stated before a "by any means necessary" approach. While I would favor privately owned road systems, there are rational and irrational ways of going about it. But I can clearly find many levels of discrimination on expanding roads. Some people don't even have paved roads! Are we going to step up in the equality department to make sure Billy Bob 400 miles awy from the closest city has a nice road? After all, he pays taxes for roads and shouldn't be discriminated against for not having one.

Even if marriage really is completely without merit, which hasn't been proven on this forum by any means, it would be a hollow victory if equality before the law was dropped.

Then I guess since some people are fully taken care of by the government, while others are not, that all people should be taken care of by the government to ensure equality. After all, even if socialism is "completely without merit... it would be a hollow victory if equality before the law was dropped." And as for having to prove that marriage is or without merit, I guess I will simply cite Ayn Rand on the functions of government: "The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run." [Ayn Rand - Playboy 1964]. I'm surprised she forgot to include marriage all those years!

Post 29

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:51pm

Dustin,

"Oh, but I wasn't comparing the holocaust to marriage (that would be absurd)." Absurd, yes. But also hilarious! Shame it wasn't intentional.

As for the rest of what you've said, it just confuses me. Everything you say implies that, since public roads are wrong, we should get rid of them. And yet, you resist a measure that'd take about half the drivers off the public dole! Public roads weren't on Ayn Rand's list of proper functions of government, I notice.

You say that kicking female drivers off the road would "do more harm than good". It's not the government's job to do good! Are we suddenly making value trade-offs? Some people might argue that disallowing homosexual marriages does more harm than good. But you dismissed this because government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage (you assert). But your reasoning equally applies to public roads.

"If I conclude that marriage is not a right, and thus shouldn't be sponsored by government, anything resulting from that wrong does not make it any less wrong simply because some good elements may arise." Thank you. Same with public roads. I think you're being inconsistent. This is where I'm supposed to call you a statist for a stronger effect. Statist!!!

From your argument against equality before the law, I take it you're not a proponent of equality before the law. And since your argument could be used against everything else I mentioned, you're also not in favor of a written constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, trial by jury, rule of law, voting, etc? You would be willing to get rid of all of these for some temporary increase in freedom (emphasis on temporary)?

See, I wouldn't. I wouldn't be willing to trade my safeguards against tyranny for such a low cost. Nor would I encourage the plunge into race-based or sex-based class warfare. I wouldn't accept a great evil to win a minor good, and a temporary one at that.

I don't agree with you, not because you're consistent and I'm not, but that I'm looking at the bigger context and you're not. You think if it creates a little more liberty, great. But you ignore the looming threat that approaches when you kick down our defenses against tyranny. You dismiss equality before the law (and by that reason, anything else) as if it were some child's toy, something to chuckle at, but not to take too seriously. You act as if these safeguards mean nothing, and shouldn't be factored in your thinking at all. I think that's short-sighted.

One last point: "I am sure that if Canada were somehow able to do this, we would brand this as fully wrong, no?" That would definitely be wrong. So very wrong. Metaphysically wrong! It'd be like allowing contradictions in reality. The impossible being possible. Makes my head spin even thinking about it.

Post 30

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 8:51pm

I may have missed something, so I need some clarification. Joe, are you referring to equality before just and proper laws, or equality before whatever laws the government comes up with?

Thanks,
J

Post 31

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:45pm

The principle, Jeremy, is equality before the law. Period. It's not equality before just good laws. That would be redundant, wouldn't it?

The idea is, if the government has to treat everyone the same, there won't be unjust laws. Or less of them, anyway. If a bad law applies to everyone, it will be resisted by all. And it'll be less likely to be created. Also, the thugs in charge would also be subject to the same laws, further protecting against tyranny. It's certainly applicable in a democracy, where the majority likes to club the minorities over the head.

I'm not saying that bad laws suddenly become good when applied to everyone. That's not the issue at all. Bad laws are still bad laws. But compounding it by destroying equality before the law removes those safeguards. It allows the creation of a ruling class, not subject to the laws they enforce on others. It allows for persecution of people based on race, sex, etc. It pits one collective against another in a war for unequal treatment. Each group wants to loot and oppress the others, while retaining their own rights.

And Jeremy, I could ask you the same question about any of the others. Do you think rule of law is good, even some of the laws are bad? Do you think a written constitution is good, even if it makes allowances for a post office? Do you think electing officials is good, even if some of them are pandering bastards? Is there any protection against tyranny that in all cases is good? No. But if you get rid of them for some token improvement, you're taking a huge risk.

Here's a stupid example. Someone gets elected to President. He says "I'd love to get rid of the drug war, but that whole Constitution thing is getting in my way. You guys wouldn't mind if we just burnt that little piece of paper, would you? After all, we'll have more freedom afterwards!". Anyone who wants to grant him absolute power "to do good" is not looking at the big picture.

Equality before the law is a protection against rights violations. There may be cases where it seems better to not have it, but once that principle is allowed to be rejected, you've got your slippery slope.

Post 32

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 1:30am

Here's a few of the problems I'm having here.

If a bad law applies to everyone, it will be resisted by all. And it'll be less likely to be created.

But what I've said before is that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. The government has taken a stance on it, and created laws to reinforce, and enforce, its position throughout the populace. This is wrong. This is an example of bad law. It isn't being resisted--do to the nature of our nation, I know--and in fact the proponents of government-sanctioned gay marriage want to add on to these bad laws. I don't see how that equals resistance.

But compounding it by destroying equality before the law removes those safeguards.

Not destroying equality before the law, but destroying equality before bad laws, and destroying the bad laws themselves. That's not shredding the Constitution. It's getting the government out of private matters where no party has been victimized by another.

Here's a stupid example. Someone gets elected to President. He says "I'd love to get rid of the drug war, but that whole Constitution thing is getting in my way. You guys wouldn't mind if we just burnt that little piece of paper, would you? After all, we'll have more freedom afterwards!". Anyone who wants to grant him absolute power "to do good" is not looking at the big picture.

I still don't get it. How does getting the government out of private matters mean you must toss the Constitution? Rule of law: good. Elected officials: good. Written constitution: good. Governments telling people who they can and can't marry, and doling out benefits or punishments therein: bad. Bad, bad, bad!

I'm trying to grant the Constitution "absolute power", not some elected official. Hence the "J Amendment". I don't see how bringing more people under the umbrella of "Government-Approval" is a better answer than trashing the umbrella itself.

We need laws, and a government to enforce them. We don't need government-certified marriage, or government-certified businesses, or government-certified schools, or government-certified farms.

The marriage issue is just a by-product of government intrusion. By "granting" gays the "legal right" to get married, you're admitting that the government has a legitimate say-so in such matters. I say it doesn't, and it never should.

The principle, Jeremy, is equality before the law. Period. It's not equality before just good laws. That would be redundant, wouldn't it?

I must have missed something, I swear! There's some fragment of your argument that I skimmed over, I just know it. Just in case I didn't, though, I'll give this one a go. No, I don't think equality before good laws is redundant. That assumes that because the government is viewing all its citizens as "legally equal" it must therefore only create or enforce laws which are good.

If the government views all its citizens as possessing the right to be strung up by the Big Toe and not the Little Toe (thus giving them equal, if not proper protection, before the law) then it is, indeed, enforcing bad laws. Sure, it gives everyone the "privilege" not to be strung up by the much thinner and weaker Little Toe, but is hanging us up by the Big Toe any better? Should the government even create laws committed to stringing people up by their toes?

Say it does, but only a selected group of Americans are "allowed" to be hung from the rafters by their Big Toe; are the ones only "allowed" to be hung by the Little Toe correct in pursuing the "right" to be hung by the Big Toe? No, goddammit! 8^P They should be trying to abolish Toe-Hanging!

Anyways, that's about as much as I can come up with at this hour. Call me a context-dropper for comparing government-sanctioned marriage to punishment-by-Toe-Hanging, but I'll just call you a dummyhead in kind! : P

Post 33

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:21am

Jeremy, you can't pick and choose when it comes to equality before the law. If you decide to drop it in some cases, it's dropped for all. Either everyone is equal before the law, or they're not. If they are "sometimes", then it's conceding the principle that the government can have separate laws for separate people.

This has nothing to do with whether government should get out of the marriage business (it should). Your amendment would be fine because it would be applied to every party.

By "granting" gays the "legal right" to get married, you're admitting that the government has a legitimate say-so in such matters.

By "granting" government the ability to create separate laws for different people, you're admitting it has a legitimate position.

The current legal opinion of the Mass. Supreme Court is that the government cannot discriminate. It has laws, whether you want to call them legitimate or not. And those laws need to be applied to everyone, not just straight people. The government is constrained to apply it's laws to all of the citizens.

I think you did miss the part about redundancy. If you're dealing with sound laws, they are by nature applicable to everyone. You don't have a "good" law that only gives rights to white people or whatever. Good laws are by their nature equal. Equality before the law would be an empty phrase if you only applied it to good laws.

Your big toe thing is no better than Dustin's concentration camp one. And you miss the point. If the government passes laws saying it can go around killing a class of citizens, this is enabled by the lack of equality under the law. Not to mention you make the same mistake of phrasing marriage as a punishment. The original arguments against marriage were better...it's (partially) free loot. And thus you have people clamoring for their 'fair share' of the loot. That's why you have lines of people trying to get in on it.

But that makes you misunderstand how equality under the law helps. When a benefit is given to one group alone, they will fight to keep it. Loot is only useful if you can take it from one group and give it to another. In the case of these government handouts, inequality is the source and motive power behind it. You wonder how equality before the law could help this situation, since people are clamoring for more goods. But it's the lack of equality that's the key to it all.

"Rule of law: good. Elected officials: good. Written constitution: good."

Rule of law: bad. When the laws are bad. Elected officials: bad. When the elected officials allow government to initiate force. Written constitution: bad, when the constitution has horrible defects like a post-office.

The arguments against equality under the law are just as easily used against any of these and more. The question is, do you throw all of these away assuming them worthless whenever you can gain a smidgen of freedom? Or do they have enough value as a defense against tyranny that you don't let them go without a struggle? You seem to dismiss the value of equality under the law because it's not good when there are bad laws. Name something that is? Constitution? Rule of law? All of these would be as easily rejected.

And that's the problem. You can easily have situations where any one of these gets in the way of having more freedom. Especially true if a tyrant wanted to create some kind of tension there. I'm saying simply that if you go for the short-term freedom at the expense of these pillars of a free society, it will be just that. Short-term. And for my great example, I give the Objectivist dictator. Yes, give me absolute power over mankind, and I'll get rid of all of these horrible laws. All you have to do is put absolute power into one man's hands. Don't worry, you can trust me. I wouldn't abuse it. Of course, if I were to get killed, someone else would then have all that power. Willing to go down that road?

If your still missing it, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you can explain to me why things like a written constitution is good, and what you'd do if it impeded freedom in some marginal way. In fact, ours does. So do you call for our political leaders to ignore the constitution (hehe...like that'd change their behavior)? Of do you say that the minor infringements on our liberty is better than letting those thugs have free reign?

Oh yeah, for the record, you're a dummyhead!

Post 34

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:50am

So do you call for our political leaders to ignore the constitution (hehe...like that'd change their behavior)? Of do you say that the minor infringements on our liberty is better than letting those thugs have free reign?

I call for our political leaders to get rid of anything that creates inequality before the law. Not get rid of the rule of law, or the Constitution itself. Just the things within the Constitution that create inequality before the law. Get rid of the umbrella (the bad laws), not the guy holding it (the Constitution). It isn't an all or nothing proposal. Prohibition got sorted out nicely without destroying the freedom of speech. And imagine, if during Prohibition, the government decides to let only white males produce or drink booze. Should blacks, or women, be petitioning the government for their particular group's right to drink? No. They should be telling the government to screw off, because everyone has the right to put into their bodies what they wish.

And the big-toe/little-toe scenario wasn't exactly comparing marriage to punishment, as in "hey, being married is like being hung by the toe!" I meant it as a play on the government creating unjust laws that infringe on everyone's freedoms. When the government then decides that only certain groups can collect a certain benefit (Big Toe hanging) the groups left behind (Little Toe hangers) shouldn't be trying to amend the law so that they can be hung by the Big Toe as well. They should be trying to get rid of the law itself. (Not the rule of law, or the Constitution, but the laws within that cause so much trouble. Toss the bathwater, keep the baby.) I could have easily exchanged "toe-hanging" with, say, government-sanctioned business transactions. Only a man and a woman are allowed to transact money or products. Gays then petition for the right to transact. Why? Why not abolish government control over such things? Because one thing ("allowing" gays to transact) is easier than the other (not acknowledging the government's ability to dictate such things, and thence destroying legislation that permits it to do so.)

I suppose what I'm really missing in your argument is why it has to be an all or nothing proposal. Perhaps because a sufficient, thoroughly libertarian solution (like, say, the "J Amendment" hehehe) isn't readily viable. Such a thing would never get passed in our compromising, baby-statist Congress. So what? Forget that there are such things as bad laws and compromise our own political beliefs, so that yet another group gets more "rights"? I don't think it requires an absolutely powerful dictator to accomplish this. It requires a lot more than that. Not just one guy who thinks liberty is a good idea, but millions. If I'm going to take a stance on this, I'm going to take the consistent one--as in, consistent with my belief that marriage has nothing to do with legality. People that are recognized right now as legally married shouldn't reap benefits or punishments for an irrelevant, private trait. Neither should anyone else. If the government got rid of the benefits or punishments--including the taxation to third parties--but kept the part about "only such and such groups are allowed to be married", I'd still be pissed off. It's none of their business.

As for the legal usefulness of being married, as in hospital visits, property disputes, picking the kid up from school, or whatever, these can be handled by next-of-kinship or inheritance agreements. The "significant other" will still make those important decisions that you would only want them to make.

Post 35

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:53pm

Dustin says:

"If I conclude that marriage is not a right, and thus shouldn't be sponsored by government, anything resulting from that wrong does not make it any less wrong simply because some good elements may arise."

You're saying marriage is wrong, so it doesn't matter if they discriminate or not, it's not any more "bad" than it was before. I say the same thing for discrimination. It is bad. Just because you discriminate in a fashion that benefits me (i.e. less government benefits to some people) doesn't mean it is any less wrong to discriminate.

"Kicking women drivers off the road would do more harm then good, and would not help in any way to making the roads more private (which is the central issue)."

Again, this is what I'm saying with marriage. By not allowing gay marriages, you are not any closer to making marriage a private issue. You could kick women off the roads, gays out of marriage rights, and autistic children out of public schools, you are no closer to getting rid of public roads, marriages or public schools.

Jeremy said:

"No, I don't think equality before good laws is redundant. That assumes that because the government is viewing all its citizens as "legally equal" it must therefore only create or enforce laws which are good. "

Jeremy, citizens are either equal or they're not. You can't want them to be equal in the face of laws that you agree with, and be okay with non-equality when you don't agree with a law. It's that simple.

Everyone opposing gay marriages here understands that the government is not decreasing their involvement in marriage rights by not allowing gays to marry. They have no desire to do away with marriage, they only want to select which groups get that right and which don't. By supporting it, you are setting a precedence. You are saying that as long as they only discriminate in situations you don't like in the first place, you won't step in to say it's wrong.

This is I think Joe's point, and if I am understanding correctly has more implications than I even realized before, further strengthening my stand. You may have your own agenda for opposing gay marriages, but in the eyes of the government, it's saying in general terms, that not everyone has to be treated equally in front of the law. So while this time it was to your advantage, next time it may not be. Bush may take his Christian crusade further and say "no two men or two women may rent a 1-bedroom or studio apartment together". After all, if gays can't marry, why let them share an apartment? Now I don't think you have any objections to gays living together, but that doesn't matter. You have allowed the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the eyes of the law. And this isn't too far fetched. When I lived in Pittsburgh you couldn't have more then 4 non-related girls living together unless it was designated "dorm housing" because it was considered a brothel. That is the big picture here.

Post 36

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:11pm

As a follow-up, I thought this was interesting about a county in Oregon...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm

They're saying pick or choose, either allow our citizens to marry or don't. Don't let some of them marry and not others.

To also give some more examples where this might lead, let's say Bush wins his ban on gay marriages. Now that he's shown he can discriminate based on traits he doesn't agree with; next he'll pass a law giving government funded daycare benefits to Christians in the country on Sunday when they go to church. What a stupid law, but at least he's only giving it to Christians! What a victory for objectivists! Or, he decides those people who can prove they were virgins when they get married get more marriage benefits than non-virgins; or senior citizens who have been divorced get no Medicare coverage, only those who have not sinned against God get the extra special Medicare benefits upon retirement. See where this is going? What you think is a victory is awarding powers to a government that they should never have, no matter how much you disagree with a law currently in place.

Eric, I just reread your article, just one comment. No one here disagrees that ideally there would be no marriages or civil unions. The question is, until we do away with them, do we treat everyone equally or is it better to restrict what lucky group of people have access to these freebies? Should the government be able to say that heterosexuals get more rights than homosexuals, that men get more rights then women, that people in the oil industry get government health care, but others don't?

-Elizabeth

(Edited by Elizabeth on 3/24, 3:26pm)

Post 37

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:04pm

Hey Elizabeth. Have I given the impression that I am for a ban on gay marriages? Because I'm not. Such a "ban" shouldn't even be considered as a course of action. I'm against government restricting or promoting marriage of any kind. I don't want to ban gays from getting married in whatever fashion they see fit. I also don't want to ban peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Such things have no place in the realm of written constitutions.

Essentially what you're saying is that if I'm against gay marriages then I'm against equality under the law. Actually, I'm against such laws that even bring the question of "marriage equality" into the picture. I'm not favoring one group over another. I'm applying the idea of freedom from government intrusion equally and impartially, and striking down the laws that create an atmosphere of legal inequality. I don't care what two or fifteen different private citizens do to solemnize their vows of commitment to one another. But I do care that government has weeded its way into this issue at all.

Post 38

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:59pm

Hi Jeremy,

I am not sure if I misunderstand you... When you say you are not against banning gay marriages, are you saying that in today's context, or in the ideal situation where government has no influence in marriages? (or both?) Because I say it in both situations. Laws should be applied equally to all citizens, whether I like the law or not.

I understand that you are:

against government restricting or promoting marriage of any kind

I think we all agree on that here. But I think that is a cop-out for those who won't fight for equality as things stand today.

Essentially what you're saying is that if I'm against gay marriages then I'm against equality under the law.

Not at all, but if you are only for gay marriages when it's defined as you like it, not as it is defined today by law, then you are against equality under the law.

Forget gay marriages, peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, fishing licenses, road licenses, big toe hangings, etc. The government is going to pass laws and provide benefits (at least for now). You will agree with some of the laws passed, and disagree with many. Should the government have a right to pass some laws/benefits and apply it only to people of certain races, genders, sexual orientations, religious beliefs, etc. or not?

-Elizabeth

Post 39

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 5:34pm