Re: Gay Marriage
- From: "Dennis" <dennybop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:40:05 -0700
"Engineer" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qv2dnYgHJbTZ3cnb4p2dnA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip...
Governments are created voluntarily by a free people to do
two things:
[1] To protect the inalienable rights of each individual --
to insure that they remain inviolable.
[2] Accomplish certain common goals that the people cannot
accomplish individually, and to do so without violating [1].
The above seems an odd thing to say. Unless you are proposing that
Governments *should* be "created voluntarily by a free people to do two
things:" The majority of governments currently and historically do not seem
to meet these criteria. Of that I'm alsmost sure you will agree.
The libertarian view is that individuals have a right to enter into
contracts of their own choosing, and that contractual disputes are
best handled by courts. It doesn't matter whether the individuals
entering into the contract are a man and a woman, tho gays, three
owners of a taco stand, or a speed metal band. And it doesn't
matter what bthe details of the contract are -- no "one size fits
all" defined by the state.
I agree with the above. However, it seems to me the issue gets murkier when
we say "contractual disputes are best handled by the courts". Of course
"the courts" are an arm of government. It is entirely possible that they
decide against the legitiamacy of any contract based on percieved policy or
social whims. After all courts are overseen by people who may or may not
have certain prejudices and/or agendas.
The libertarian view is that the issue of "sanctity" is not an
issue for the government to decide, but rather for the indibvidual
or the church of his/her choosing to determine.
Yes. And it is also the view of many others who do not call themselves
libertarian.
Marriage as defined by the state today is unfair and unjust.
It offers special financial benefits to one class of people.
The Libertarian view is to remove the injustice, not to expand
it so gays are included in the favored class. To do that is
not fair and not just. What about two sisters who never marry,
live together all of their lives and have finances in common?
Is it just that when a man dies his wife gets benefits (estate
succession, medical power of attorney, social security benefits,
custody of adopted children and the like), that when a member
of a gay couple dies, the partner gets the same benefits, but
when one of the sisters dies, the other is just out of luck?
If marriage is indeed about a union or a commitment then ones individual
beliefs should guide them. If marriage is about "love" the government has
no business deciding who deserves to be married and who does not. I think
that what you present as the libertarian view is valid. My only problem is
that reality tells me that things are not bound to change any time soon. In
the meantime many people, gay straight, etc. etc. are being illegitimately
deprived of a natural right. The only way I can see to proceed is for
individuals to formalize their relationship via contract. As a step in the
right direction, I'd like to see the government/church control of marriage
abolished and replaced by one civil institution for all who wish to be
legally be recognized as married. Religious union is quite a seperate
isuue.
Dennis
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gay Marriage
- From: Engineer
- Re: Gay Marriage
- References:
- Gay Marriage
- From: Dennis
- Re: Gay Marriage
- From: Engineer
- Gay Marriage
- Prev by Date: Re: Ritual
- Next by Date: Re: Gay Marriage
- Previous by thread: Re: Gay Marriage
- Next by thread: Re: Gay Marriage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
