Now, Tacitus, one of the conservative bloggers who had made the "slippery slope" argument, replies:
[T]he substance of my argument changes not at all: the setting-up of alternative structures meant to ape marriage in any form, be it civil unions or
samenlevingscontracts, while evading or negating the fundamental features of marriage, serves only to negate marriage itself by opening the door to the slippery slope toward the world wherein hideous Dutchmen can marry multiple women simultaneously. And that's in a better-case scenario.
What, then, does Tacitus suggest? No legal protections of any kind for same-sex relationships — not even essentially private, legally enforceable contracts? Leaving aside humane and moral considerations, would that even be politically viable, in this day and age? It seems to me that the answer is clearly "no."
Hence, I repeat the question I asked in my original post. If the chief concern is the dilution of marriage by "alternative structures," isn't the full legalization of same-sex marriage the "safest" option, as Andrew Sullivan argued years ago? Or, at least, a Vermont-like civil union system that is not available to heterosexuals or to people already married?
12 comments:
I agree with Mark B. Many, many conservatives have learned not to say so, but their belief that homosexuality is offensively immoral is what is at the root of their opposition.
I, myself, have problems with the erosion of the the word 'marriage', but only because I have seen the financial protections for people who sacrificed in order to raise children erode at the same time.
I agree that all people should be treated equally, but the institute of marriage arose to give people who either had children or who had the strong possibility of having children a shot at doing so without winding up starving.
The need for such things (financial aid for married people) has become very cloudy since the middle of the last century, when children became optional. Is a union between a heterosexual couple who have no intention of having children any different from that between two men, who can't? I don't think so.
Given that we are moving toward a society in which the non-traditional arrangement is becoming accepted, we need some other model to help people who choose to have children.
If you gather from this that I think the 'slippery slope' is a reality, I do. And I think it's a good thing.
* I've just reread this, and it's a little confused. Blame the cold medication, please.
dean wrote, "the institute of marriage arose to give people who either had children or who had the strong possibility of having children a shot at doing so without winding up starving."
I don't think that is correct. The historical evidence suggests that marriage arose in order to protect a man's property interest in his woman and his offspring. A man provided for his household out of self-interest, not out of any legal duty, just as he would provide for his pigs and cows. The "duty" to provide for one's family was added to marriage after the institution had come into existence.
Actually, I think this is a superfluous debate. As a good libertarian (classical, or whatever!), you might want to consider advocating that government get the hell out of marriage all together.
The fact is that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two people. The only difference between a marriage and a private contract is that people in the former are being lazy allowing the state to define the terms of their union and potential disunion.
It would be much better of two people - whatever their sex - decided between themselves what the terms of their union will be and how it might be dissolved in the future. If they don't want to deal with it, they could seek out a group or a religion that produces these contracts for them based on a set of principles. This would require that people think about what they are getting into, which are far cry better than how most people go into a government licensed marriage.
Everywhere government sticks its hands in personal relationships it makes a mess with unintended consequences that far outweigh whatever "problem" policy makers are trying to correct.
iguana -
most libertarians see protecting children's rights, at least against their biological parents' whims, as a legitimate function of government.
Iguana, I noticed that you still refer to "a legal contract between two people." If the government "gets out of the marriage business" altogether, is there any reason not to recognize such a contract between three or more?
While I agree with iguana, it is worth noting that one of the reasons that many gay couples don't simply draw up a contract, but instead wish to be able to marry, is that marriage provides for more than just the terms of their union and how it may be dissolved in the future- it also provides economic benefits such as tax breaks, and legal benefits such as being able to make a decision regarding an incapacitated partners health treatment, and other benefits, which aren't available in many states to non-married couples.
Kate,
That is true, but it should be noted that many of those gay and lesbian couples who are pursuing legal marraige, already have drawn up cohabitation agreements, living wills, powers of attorney, etc.
I have to tell you... being 'illegally' married is very expensive.
z
First of all, let me say that I support gay marriage.
But I don't see the argument for preventing the "dilution" of marriage by recognizing gay marriage. What further dilution will that prevent? Allowing gays to marry is a lot more radical and untraditional than allowing polygamy, after all.
Also, a comment about this:
The historical evidence suggests that marriage arose in order to protect a man's property interest in his woman and his offspring.
That makes it sound like women got nothing out of the arrangement, which is of course ridiculous. The institution of marriage served to protect men AND women -- it guaranteed a man exclusive access to a woman, and guaranteed the woman support for herself and her children.
Paulson has led the planning and nine other creditors.chi flat iron Paulson said the group already has $ 12000000000 in the claims, including $ 9400000000 unsecured senior debt chi flat irons holding company, Lehman Brothers.
Team members include the California state employees pension system, WEE CHI Flat Ironsand Owl Creek Asset Management LP.
nice share thanks a lot :)
download free pc games
affiliate review
bransport Section speaker Patricia Klinger claimed the organization features because answered the warnings as well as the circumstance seemed to be sealedYour woman Discount Burberry Cheap chatted in order to him quickly through phone and also stated this individual talked about a thing about an electric surpriseIt makes sense Ed Hardy Shop some other high-profile pipe injuries in recent monthsThe couple have to be betrothed the following month Seafood along with Wildlife workers to the Nike Air Jordan Cheap picture called doubts about fauna affects to a Exxon Mobil spokesman Kate, a fan of your fresh as well as its sequels, told air jordan clearance her she'd read it again Which drew sharpened judgments by Mt GovHONG KONG (AP) Radiohead has brought a new sensitive walk into censored Air Max 2011 Chinese language internet, however the English rock band has been essential involving China's man protection under the law record That was required to Discount Burberry press the particular river upwards yet again, with all the subsequent top prediction with regard to Tuesday mid-day, meteorologist Albert Richmond said gas Ed Hardy main series erupted with San Bruno, Calif
Welcome to http://www.mmoggg.de website to buy RS Gold, offer a lot, of course, Diablo 3 Gold or Diablo 3 Gold Kaufen and WoW Gold, to be purchased at any time, at any time shipment, and look forward to your visit!
Post a Comment