Ravenwood - 03/06/03 11:46 AM
Lawmakers from the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts are trying to pass a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They hope to circumvent the need of the state supreme court to weigh in on the issue.
Democratic Rep. Philip Travis, one of the sponsors of the legislation says, "the (state) Supreme Court is trying to rule on something that's up to the Legislature, and up to the people."
Now, marriage has been around for thousands of years, certainly longer than this nation has been around. The idea of any two persons being required to seek permission from legislators and citizens to enter into the age old practice of marriage is baffling. Even worse, couples hoping to marry are subjected to such nuisances as blood tests, age limits, taxes and fees.
The only reason I can come up with, aside from wanting tax revenue and control over people's lives, is that marriage licences offer some protection against polygamy, fraud, and dead beat spouses. In the day and age of divorce, I can see where having some up front paperwork might make things easier.
Still, the idea that legislators or citizens can prevent any couple who is of sound mind and body from entering into the bounds of marriage is disturbing. It's one thing to tax it, but to deny someone their fundamental right to take a spouse is wrong.
Marriage isn't, nor ever has been, an institution for homosexuals. I'd no more approve of expanding the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples than I would to approve of polygamy, frankly, because it is an age-old practice, and if it lacks any exclusivity, any moral boundaries, then the institution is effectively destroyed.
A 'marriage' between two men isn't a real marriage -- it's some warped modern redefinition of marriage, one that we ought to soundly reject.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at March 6, 2003 7:12 PMWe'll just have to respectfully disagree then.
Personally, I don't think it is any of my business to tell two adult persons whether or not they can share their life with each other. At the same time, they shouldn't depend on me to either recognize or not recognize their marriage. As a third party, I shouldn't even be part of the equation.
Just like I wouldn't butt in and tell a guy that his girlfriend is too fat, too controlling, or all wrong for them, I'm not going to step in and interfere with a gay person's life.
Also, the idea that their sharing their life with each other would somehow cheapen my own relationship with someone doesn't make sense to me. Nor does it make sense for me to try to impose the will of my religion on them. Just like I wouldn't tell Jews, Arab, or Hindus that their marriage is bunk because they weren't married in the name of my religion, I'm not going to do that to gays either.
As a libertarian, I say, what they are doing doesn't hurt me, so what the hell do I care?
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 6, 2003 7:58 PMSteve,
What about polygamy, then? What about incestuous marriage? Are you willing to set any boundaries whatsoever?
Besides that concern, it seems to me that the hard-libertarian position would be to remove all governmental recognition of marriage in an institution, and not provide support for a governmental redefinition of marriage to pander to the whims of anyone who wants to use it for whatever purpose. The former would be unintrusive, while the latter is very instrusive since it impacts an institution in which so many participate. Thus the former is libertarian, the latter is just, well, liberal.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at March 6, 2003 8:47 PMActually, the boundaries should be quite simple, as long as a person's right to life and liberty are not being denied.
In the case of incestuous marriage and polygamy, it depends on the people involved. If three people are happily married, what's the big deal? On the other hand if someone was forced or coerced into marriage against their will, or is being battered into submission (which can happen in all marriages, including those described as 'traditional') then the authorities should be involved.
Still, it depends on the willingness of the person involved to stand up for their own rights. Just as it is tragic that some battered women return to their abusive husbands and refuse help from outsiders, polygamous and incestuous marriage are undoubtedly plagued by the same situations.
As a libertarian, I live by the rule that if all parties involved are happy, what's the big deal?
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 6, 2003 10:29 PMC'mon, Owen, things like the ease of divorce and annulment and shit like Married by America haven't ALREADY eroded the precious "institution" of marriage??
Posted by: Jim S at March 7, 2003 5:13 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
