Thursday, April 30, 2015

You Cannot Always See The Outcome, But Sometimes...

 I fully understand that many of our readers are more conservative than I am and they would completely disagree with my opinions. The historical idea of marriage, dating into antiquity, is one man/one woman. Anything else is serious sin.

Nonetheless, gay marriage is coming. 17 States already have it and it seems likely that the Supreme Court is going to make it the law of the land.  For good or bad, gay marriage is here to stay.

In June of 2009, I wrote a post about what being a libertarian meant to me. In it, I mentioned gay marriage and made a proposal:
Gay marriage? I think the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. You should get a contract from the government to form a personal corporation with your partner(s). Mormons want plural marriage, gays want same-sex marriage, someone out there might want some arraignment we haven’t thought of yet. (*emphasis added) They get a contract, same as me. Then, find the organization of your choice, religious or not, and there is where you have a marriage, if you want. Same rules for everyone.
And now, yesterday, April 29th, 2015, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, was this exchange between Justice Alito and Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer speaking on behalf of a same-sex couple:
Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?
Here's the whole discussion. He didn't just suggest 4 people, he specifically suggested 4 lawyers. I think we can all agree that would be unnatural.


genericviews said...

y0ou almost have it right. individuals should not get their marriage "contracts" from the state. Nor should the state have any enforcement powers. They should be private contracts, enforced by private organizations. The government getting out of it means getting them ALL the way out.

libertyman said...

"...I mentioned gay marriage and made a proposal"

That's funny right there.

Divemedic said...

The easiest way to solve this is to eliminate the government from marriage. Instead, create a legal contract that people may enter that spells out the terms of the relationship under the law. Make it like a law office partnership. This way, legal issues like survivorship, division of property, and tax issues would be handled by the partnership.

Allow the institution of marriage to be specifically the purview of the church, but with no requirement that the people in a partnership have to be married in a church. The entire reason that marriage licenses were created was to prevent interracial marriages.

The down side to this idea is that polygamy, homosexual, and plural marriages would be legal under such a system. (and the standard church argument of people marrying animals and children couldn't happen, because children and animals can't enter into contracts.)

This would require that the church mind their own business, and I just don't think that they are capable of that.

Ted said...

Having grown up in a household with TWO lawyers I can confirm that was unnatural Four Lawyers would self distruct ( probably spectacularly ) in a matter of weeks!

ShallNOTBeInfringed Original said...

"Having grown up in a household with TWO lawyers I can confirm that was unnatural Four Lawyers would self distruct ( probably spectacularly ) in a matter of weeks!"......

..........dogs and together.....MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

jon spencer said...

The only reason that the government is involved with who can be married is money.

Paul Bonneau said...

Get government out of everything.

Not that the results must necessarily improve. Marriage exists for the children, more than anything. Some forms of marriage might be better or worse for children (e.g. Heinlein's "line marriage"). But I don't care, get govt out in any case.