RoR: Forum

...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.

First, I don't want to define any marriages. That's none of my concern. Marriage is a private matter. Legal contracts are written up every day that handle just as many, if not more, issues that may come up in the private dealings between two people. A marriage solemnized by law isn't necessary; especially when that solemnization brings with it heaps of "rights". Let the concept "marriage" (as in wedding, husband, wife) remain a private matter.

You're right about the law as it's defined today, though. I am against equality under that particular law. Not because I don't think gays should be married, but because that particular law is flawed. If there were a law guaranteeing every citizen except gays a healthy lettuce salad, I wouldn't demonstrate for "Gay Salad Rights". I'd demonstrate the government handing out salad. It's not that I don't want gays, blacks, or Mexicans to get salad. I just don't want them getting it from the government. And I don't want the government thinking it has the ability or "right" to hand out salad based on what it thinks constitutes a healthy meal.

Post 41

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:37pm

Elizabeth,

I revised the article to make it clear which option would hold the top priority; that being to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. As you pointed out, we all agree on that. Then it becomes a question of what to support when that option is not on the table.

I am with you on supporting equal treatment under the law. Because of that, I would oppose the president's constitutional amendment, which is blatantly discriminatory. Still, in expanding marital rights to gays and lesbians, a basic inequity continues. What if two elderly sisters live together; shouldn't they have the same rights as married couples and gay couples?

This is why I originally suggested civil unions, which could include homosexual, heterosexual, or platonic relationships. They would be available to ALL people; Every individual could designate any other person to be their "significant other" in a civil union.

This is only a second-best solution, of course. But until such matters are correctly privatized, the best solution is one that treats all citizens with equal respect.

Post 42

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:56pm

Jeremy,

The reason I sound like I'm saying it's all or nothing is because it is. Equality before the law requires equality under every law. If it were just equality under some laws, there's no point to it at all. You open the door wide for tyranny. It must be equality before the law, not a law. You can still disagree with any particular laws, as we all do. And you may not like the result of having equality before every law (as you wouldn't with any bad laws). But that's part of the reason equality is so important.

It's true that these problems wouldn't exist in a libertarian society. We would only have just laws that protect our rights, and they would naturally be universal. And your recommendation for the J amendment would be a good step. So yes, the reason this is an issue is because we don't live in the kind of world. In this one, we have to fight for certain principles, and we can't let them go when we get them.

As for next-of-kinship laws, that'd be a good start. But do they even exist? The only two methods I know are adoption, and marriage. I think that's where Eric's article tried to solve the problem with "civil unions". It's a method by which the government recognizes a legal relationship you have with someone else. As he said, it has nothing to do with marriage, and could be applicable even to platonic relationships. This was dismissed earlier as overstepping the bounds of government, but that's arguable. A legal next-of-kinship status has implications to your rights. Call it what you will, but certain legal relationships should be recognized by a government. It's the same principle behind recognizing a corporation. The government must recognize the relationship in order to effectively protect the rights of the individuals involved.

Post 43

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:20am

Many of you are saying "I don't believe in government marriages, so it's okay for me to turn a blind-eye to discrimination". You think that if you believe something is wrong, that it won't happen or have consequences. As Joe said, we don't live in a perfect world yet. There will be bad laws that we may not think the government has a "right" to pass, but as things stand today they are given the ability to implement them. Jeremy, you give an example when you said:

And I don't want the government thinking it has the ability or "right" to hand out salad based on what it thinks constitutes a healthy meal.

True, they don't philosophically have the "right" to hand out salad. But if they are able to pass a law and get the powers that be to put it in effect, you telling them they have no "right" won't mean diddly squat to stop it. And you saying "well, I don't believe in handing out salads, but if you're going to make a law, _at least_ only give it to certain people (Jewish, cleft-lips, whites)" doesn't make it less bad. It gives the government even more power (now they get to implement the program AND pick who gets to benefit) and you're washing your hands of your responsibility for demanding equality at least.

If you get caught with drugs, you'll go to jail, no matter how much you say "government has no right!"

Imagine the world we live in today. There are laws that we don't necessarily like, but at least they apply to everybody. Would you prefer our world or the following:

1. the post office is run by the government, but they don't deliver mail for 'Jews'
2. there are still government roads, but only men are allowed to drive cars
3. there are still public parks, but only white people can use them
4. there are only drugs laws for Hispanics
5. there is free education, but only for women
6. there are 1,000 federal government benefits and 400+ state benefits, only available for heterosexuals
7. freedom of speech only applies to whites
8. the right to a trial only applies to white men
9. the need for a search warrant only applies to families who own a house

I can go on & on & on.

You see, you can't stop at only the laws you don't agree with. If you give the government the power the implement laws, and let them pick & choose who gets the benefits based on race, gender, religion, you're opening a big ol can of worms. I'd prefer to live in a country with some bad laws, but at least where everyone is given the same opportunities.

Thanks for the discussions,
-Elizabeth

Post 44

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:32am

Alright, Joe and Elizabeth. I see what you're getting at. I happen to think that the bad laws themselves open the door wide for tyranny; but hey, disagreements are going to occur...even between brilliant minds. 8^P

The civil union idea is a good one. You can't very well call a personal relationship recognized by law a merger, even though the same principles should be applied. I'm pretty sure people can do this anyways, no matter their gender, at least to the current extent of willing their property to whomever they choose. The civil union concept would be better for handling the mundane, everyday problems that come up. That's a step in the right direction.

But bowing before Evil Laws (muahahaha!) is selling out your liberty! Bow to your bureaucratic masters! Bow to them! Statist! ehhh hehehe. 8^P

Thanks.
J

p.s. I do think it's an injustice to label me in favor of inequality before "the law" simply because I refuse to sanction "laws" that are detrimental to a free society. But hey, sh*t happens. : P

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 3/25, 11:26am)

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 3/25, 11:30am)

Post 45

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:50pm

And you saying "well, I don't believe in handing out salads, but if you're going to make a law, _at least_ only give it to certain people (Jewish, cleft-lips, whites)" doesn't make it less bad.

Yeah, that doesn't make it less bad. That's why I didn't say anything like that. I'm saying "don't make a law". That's it. Just because the government saw fit to pass these laws, I'm supposed to countenance a law I don't agree with, and sanction adjustments to that law which grant more people unearned benefits and grant government more authority? No way, man! Fight the Powah! 8^P

Post 46

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:58pm

Hey Jeremy,

I think you realize the government is not doing this for the same reason that you are. You are giving up a permanent freedom to enjoy a short-term victory. You in theory are trying to decrease the government's power in areas you don't feel they should be in the first place. But even though it looks like you're winning, the government actually has more power now. You can fight a law, but it is harder to fight a power the government has been granted. In my scenario, the government has a right to enact laws, but only evenly to everyone in the country. Now as a law comes up, citizens can fight it or allow it. But in your situation, you have awarded the government -on top of a right to enact laws- the ability to pick and choose who has to follow the law. So next time it's not as easy as "is this law good or bad?" You're now fighting against a government you just awarded another level of power to.

And to all - just something in general that I don't understand clearly... aren't civil unions marriages but only with state benefits?

-E

Post 47

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:09pm

Jeremy,

The question comes down to, if laws are going to get enacted that you may not agree with, is it to your benefit to have the chance for all laws to be unevenly applied?

Yeah, that doesn't make it less bad. That's why I didn't say anything like that. I'm saying "don't make a law". That's it.

My problem with this is, that there will still be laws for now that will get enacted even if you say "don't make it a law!" It won't always be up to you. It would be great if every bad law that came up didn't get passed! But the fact of the matter is, they do get passed. At that point all you get to say whether they're passed evenly or not.

The way I see it, you have two choices. Apply laws to everybody evenly, or say you allow for discrimination. And the rule would have to apply to both good laws & bad laws.

-E

Post 48

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:38pm

The way I see it, you have two choices. Apply laws to everybody evenly, or say you allow for discrimination. And the rule would have to apply to both good laws & bad laws.

That's a really good point. However, good laws don't allow for questions of discrimination, like Joe said.

But because the government--through whatever means--passed laws that compromise freedom, I am forced to take a position within the bounds of those corrupt laws? Hehe...I don't think so! Doesn't that constitute "stacking the deck", or...a kind of blackmail?

(I think the "civil union" Eric was talking about has different connotations; he may be redefining the phrase; I'm not that familiar with the original, though; so you'll have to ask Eric.)

Post 49

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 2:31pm

I am broadening the term "civil unions" to imply any domestic partnership.

In the current political discourse, the term is designed only for couples who have what resemble marital relationships. As I pointed out in the article, this would simply continue the discrimination that exists now. But unlike marriage, civil unions could easily be extended to all kinds of relationships. Extending marriage in this way is unlikely.

Will and Grace, Lucy and Ricky, Felix and Oscar. In my view, each of these relationships should qualify for equal protection. In the current system, one of those relationships is rewarded with more protections and benefits than the other two. For more on the inequities in TVLand, check out my article (linked below) and note my own tongue-in-cheek bias against non-marital-seeming couples.

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rockwell/Insurance_by_Remote_Control.shtml

Post 50

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 5:53pm

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!

Point to me where I implied ways of rolling back. I did not present any method for rolling back marriage, nor roads, nor, well anything. The only argument I made is that we should not increase what is already done. Nothing more. I think there are proper ways to roll back certain things, but I have not discussed them. But, if you can quote exactly, in the context I used, where I implied that I would love to see it.

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 are merely mixing different questions and answers to suit your argument. Note that my only mention of the Ayn Rand quote was to respond to your claim that no-one had made a convincing argument as to why the government should not be involved in marriage. For no other reason than to refute that did I mention the quote. Of course, that is why I directly quoted "Even if marriage really is completely without merit, which hasn't been proven on this forum by any means" and followed it up with my response.

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?

Not at all. But there are rational steps to reducing the amount of government and irrational once. Some ways actually help your cause, others will not. It took a couple hundred years of slowly growing government to get to the point where we are today. That cannot be simply fixed overnight. There are 10 million things I could say that would reduce the level of government but would not be wise to do and I would oppose. This is a main reason I could not vote for Harry Browne. His vow to get rid of all things unconstituional within 1 day of being in office would lead our country into a tailspin in which we could not recover. It takes time to scale back, just as it took time to scale up, and some ways of scaling back are better than others.

"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!!!

Again, I don't understand your "gotcha" reasoning whatsoever. But at least you are impressive name-caller! Allow me to clarify: Yes, I disagree with public roads. My comment regarding marriage equally applies to my comment about the roads and EVERY other governemnt program that opposes my philosophy. I am fully consistent in that regard, even though you claim to know I am not (jumping to conclusions is a basic PoliSci101 nono). Unless you can show me where I have supported the public road system or its benefits as an argument of mine, which I don't think I have. Change that, I know I have not. That being said, there are right ways and wrong ways of scaling back government. Good methods and bad. My desire for smaller government is not the equivalent of a certainty to support any method of reducing such government. If you would like to rationally break down my inconsistency we could debate this better rather than you simply saying "you are inconsistent" without showing me two statements that reach different conclusions. You have not done this, and I do not believe you can.

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.

So I can't compare gay marriage to the holocaust but you can compare it to fully kicking down our defenses against tyranny. Cute. But anyway, you conclusion that I don't seek equality before the law is understandable. In fact, there is no discrimination in the marriage law as it stands in not allowing gays to marry. No more can a gay man marry a gay man than can a straight man marry a straight man. All people are excluded from marrying someone of the same gender, and all people are permitted to marry one person of the opposite gender. There is no sytematic selection of people fully being denied the right to marry (say denying black people the right to marry a person of the opposite sex while whites may not, for instance). In reality, the law as is is not discriminatory. Because every person can marry someone of the opposite sex and no person can marry one of the same sex. You cannot claim inequality, because the law is equally applied to everyone.

Post 51

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:04pm

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?

There is no discrimination. I cannot marry my best male friend but a gay man can marry his best female friend. I can aslo not marry my sister, nor can a gay man marry his sister. Nor can I marry an apple, nor a lesbian an apple. The law does not say that I have to be straight to marry, or prevent me if I am gay to marry. Again, its just plain bad law... but not discriminatory.

Post 52

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 6:15pm

The reason I sound like I'm saying it's all or nothing is because it is. Equality before the law requires equality under every law. If it were just equality under some laws, there's no point to it at all. You open the door wide for tyranny. It must be equality before the law, not a law. You can still disagree with any particular laws, as we all do. And you may not like the result of having equality before every law (as you wouldn't with any bad laws). But that's part of the reason equality is so important.

Then we must start marching for every college student a free college education, because some kids get it while others do not (let's see 20,000 bucks per year X 30 million students) Whew. Hell, we are already bankrupt and we havent even gotten to the real good welfare laws yet! "Equality for bad laws" is bad practice. Applied economically the US would fall in a year. Bad laws should be opposed, not expanded. Expanding the authority of bad law only encourages the creators of bad laws. Equality for correct and right laws, should be enforced. I could easily extrapolate for you every single bad law which exists.

Post 53

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:23pm

Dustin, I still think you're being inconsistent. You state simple principles for opposing gay marriage. Being that government involvement with marriage is bad, and there's absolutely no reason to support it. Fine. And yet public roads are also bad, and yet you refuse to apply the same principles. Instead, you're suddenly taking into account factors you reject in the gay marriage topic. You say it'd do more harm then good, when before you were saying it's bad, and nothing good can come of it. You flip and flop here. The only difference between the two seems to be that one inequality already exists, while the other is hypothetical.

So if I really need to phrase it that way, I will. Say congress passes a law that eliminates women drivers. Shall we assume that you'd support it, and not call for a repeal of that law? Or will you be inconsistent and say that that law is wrong, and should be repealed? That certainly would be a violation of your argument! So is it that you're not willing to support that kind of law before it's passed, but you would afterwards?

Or let's phrase the marriage debate in that context. Say that marriage, up until last week, was between any two consenting adults. It's was a kind of property agreement, and that's all. Then Bush, with his Christian Crusaders, decides to make homosexual marriage illegal, cause "that gay stuff is just wrong". Do you support the new law?

I am a little surprised I have to explain the value of equality before the law to someone who claims to have an understanding of politics. Take your example of the free college tuition. I have no idea what you're talking about, but let's pretend there are laws that give some people a right to free education. You say expanding the program would bankrupt "us", by which I assume you mean the US. Haven't you figured out that this isn't an attack on equality before the law, but an argument for it? You're acting like a Democrat who thinks that increasing taxes won't affect the economy, so the government will get a linear increase in tax "revenue". You assume a static system, ignoring the causes for change. In this case, some stupid program, if forced to be universal, would bankrupt the nation (according to you). And yet you sit there pretending that we would keep that program despite the bankrupting effect. Doesn't it occur to you that may, if the costs were so high, that they might just cancel it?

I've already explained this when you talked about killing Jews. If the laws were universal and applied to everyone, don't you think that maybe there'd be more resistance to them? Or do you think, after a Supreme Court somewhere says "it's legal to kill Jews, but you have to kill everyone else as well", that maybe, just maybe, they'd get rid of that law?

I can't believe this conversation is still going on. How easily libertarians would be willing to destroy equality before the law for some miniscule gain. Would you be so quick to tear up the Constitution for an equally small gain? Perhaps get rid of democracy in favor of a benevolent dictatorship? You talk about equality before the law as if it were entirely worthless, or even a bad thing.

Post 54

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:47pm

In fact, there is no discrimination in the marriage law as it stands in not allowing gays to marry. No more can a gay man marry a gay man than can a straight man marry a straight man. All people are excluded from marrying someone of the same gender, and all people are permitted to marry one person of the opposite gender.

Indeed, the state is merely legislating which personal choices it approves of and which it disapproves. No bigotry or discrimination intended, I'm sure!

According to what you've just spelled out above, the president's proposed constitutional amendment would be just dandy. After all, such an amendment would "chip away" at the extent to which government was involved, would it not? In limiting relationships to "one man and one woman" it's not only non-discriminatory, according to you, but it also limits the scope of something we all agree is fundamentally flawed.

Do you support the amendment? If not, why not?

Post 55

Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:28am

Dustin, I still think you're being inconsistent. You state simple principles for opposing gay marriage. Being that government involvement with marriage is bad, and there's absolutely no reason to support it. Fine. And yet public roads are also bad, and yet you refuse to apply the same principles. Instead, you're suddenly taking into account factors you reject in the gay marriage topic. You say it'd do more harm then good, when before you were saying it's bad, and nothing good can come of it. You flip and flop here. The only difference between the two seems to be that one inequality already exists, while the other is hypothetical.

Flase false and false. I am not being inconsistent. I maintain that I disapprove of both. I maintain that I would oppose the governmental expansion of both. I maintain that I would support the removal of government from both, in a reasonable and correct fashion (not in the fashion you describe). I don't know what is so confusing here for you. When I say it would do more harm than good, I mean it is a very irrational way of trying to reduce the government. You have somehow come up with the conclusion that I support the public road system because I do not support a stupid hypothetical policy to reduce it. If you were to give me a stupid hypothetical policy to reduce taxes, or end marriage, I would oppose that too. I mean, making only people between the ages of 34 and 35 allowed to drive on roads or to get married would have the same effect, but would be stupid irrational policy of retraction.

I am a little surprised I have to explain the value of equality before the law to someone who claims to have an understanding of politics. Take your example of the free college tuition. I have no idea what you're talking about, but let's pretend there are laws that give some people a right to free education.
You say expanding the program would bankrupt "us", by which I assume you mean the US. Haven't you figured out that this isn't an attack on equality before the law, but an argument for it? You're acting like a Democrat who thinks that increasing taxes won't affect the economy, so the government will get a linear increase in tax "revenue". You assume a static system, ignoring the causes for change. In this case, some stupid program, if forced to be universal, would bankrupt the nation (according to you). And yet you sit there pretending that we would keep that program despite the bankrupting effect. Doesn't it occur to you that may, if the costs were so high, that they might just cancel it?

Well, let us look at it this way. We have a welfare system that gives "freebies" to some people and not to others. They may be poor or homeless or retarded, but class discrimination is no better than any other form of discrimination. On your level, you would have to support the expansion to all people, as a form of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. You are correct that this would never happen in our political system because it would be impossible to implement as the costs are too great. Nonetheless, you would have to support it in order to avoid being a hypocrite. You attempt to run around it by saying that if it were implemnted it would just have to be scratched altogether, but refuse to say that you would support its implementation as a form of equalizing bad law, which is what your entire argument is based on. Whether or not the results of your support are possible, your fundamental principles would have to remain the same. But, let's then start a little smaller. Some people get free government milk, cheese, and diapers. Most people do not. It is class discrimination to prevent some from getting this and others not. Would you support equality under the law in giving everyone milk, cheese, and diapers? Or are you just going to run around this and say "well, if everyone had to have free milk, cheese, and diapers it would be too expensive and the government would just scrap it altogether." That is not an answer, because the government would merely just revert back to giving it to those people who presently get it, thus making it inequality before the law again. Personally, I would oppose it as bad law, and oppose its expansion, even under the name of "class discrimination," while supporting its reduction to elimination in rational means.

I've already explained this when you talked about killing Jews. If the laws were universal and applied to everyone, don't you think that maybe there'd be more resistance to them?

I understand your point quite well. But first you would have to initially support such "equality under bad law" before you could get to that point. At the time when jews are being slaughtered, you would have to either say "I support the expansion of this bad law under the name of equality" or "I do not support the expansion of this bad law even though it is currently not being equally applied." Can't you just tell me one or the other? It has to be one or the other, why no straight answers? The applicability and probability of passage makes no difference on your philosophical support. After all, your position is to support the equal implementation of bad law. It does not matter what the consequences may or may not be (because most likely your opinion will not enable this expansion.) You are merely skirting around the issue so you do not have to answer it and show your inconsistency.

Post 56

Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:47am

Indeed, the state is merely legislating which personal choices it approves of and which it disapproves. No bigotry or discrimination intended, I'm sure!

Like I said, this is bad law, but not discriminatory. I merely exposed more reasons why it is bad law. Any man (regardless of race, gender, religion, class, and most importanly sexual orientation) can marry any women, and vice versa. That is the context of the law. And it is not discriminatory based on anything that I have listed (sexual orientation included).

According to what you've just spelled out above, the president's proposed constitutional amendment would be just dandy. After all, such an amendment would "chip away" at the extent to which government was involved, would it not? In limiting relationships to "one man and one woman" it's not only non-discriminatory, according to you, but it also limits the scope of something we all agree is fundamentally flawed.

For one, I would oppose the amendment because it would merely re-inforce the existence of bad law. Second, show me how it is discriminatory. I have explained how it is equally applied to all persons, which it is. You merely rolling your eyes to the back of your head (tacked on to an impressive use of sarcasm) does not constitute an argument of how it is discrimination. The only form of sexual orientation discrimination that could exist under the law would be if gay men were prevented from marrying a woman, or lesbians prevented from marrying a man. But this is not the case. The ability for people to marry one person of the opposite gender is extended to all people, just as is extended to all the inability for people to marry any one person of the same sex, or multitude of persons, or animals or bricks, or siblings. Is this objectively spelled out enough for you?

Post 57

Friday, March 26, 2004 - 9:09am

Dustin,

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that limiting marriage to "one man and one woman" is not discriminatory. Fine.

Now, you've said that this is your position:

"I disagree with marriage, and will neither sanction it as is currently being done nor support its spread towards the rest of the citizenry."

Well, what I don't understand is that if you don't support it's "spread towards the rest of the citizenry" then why aren't you for the proposed constitutional amendment? After all, that's exactly what it's designed to do. The reason it all became an issue is that "activist" judges were expanding the traditional definition of marriage, and thus it was "spreading." Bush and the religious right responded by proposing an amendment that would keep marriage from spreading towards the rest of the citizenry, which is what I thought you wanted.

Since the proposed amendment is neither discriminatory in your view, and since it keeps marriage contained as you would prefer, why aren't you for it?

You write:

"For one, I would oppose the amendment because it would merely re-inforce the existence of bad law."

So you are against extending marriage to same-gender couples.
And you are against an amendment that would keep that from happening.

Since you've also said that you know it would be impossible to just divorce government from marriage in one fell swoop, do you have a plan in mind for how we move towards the libertarian vision that we share?

(Edited by Eric Rockwell on 3/26, 10:32am)

Post 58

Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:17pm

Dustin,

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that limiting marriage to "one man and one woman" is not discriminatory. Fine.

Now, you've said that this is your position:
"I disagree with marriage, and will neither sanction it as is currently being done nor support its spread towards the rest of the citizenry."
Well, what I don't understand is that if you don't support it's "spread towards the rest of the citizenry" then why aren't you for the proposed constitutional amendment?

Uhh, because I am not for further cementing bad law. I thought this was clear. Once it is in the constituion it is near impossible to do anything about it, and that would therefor also be an expansion of the bad law. Now, the only Constituional amendment I would support regarding marriage would be one of full separation of marriage and state. I would also not support the expansion of welfare benefits, but I am not going to support a constitutional amendment limiting to what we already have.

Since you've also said that you know it would be impossible to just divorce government from marriage in one fell swoop, do you have a plan in mind for how we move towards the libertarian vision that we share?

Sure, first you would start on the federal level and get rid of any penalties or tax breaks or benefits, and fully remove the federal government from the issue altogether. Then work on the states. However, before even this would happen a general level of government deregulation and retraction would have to occur.

Post 59

Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 9:09am