I would be interested to hear some of the ideas people have on getting government out of the marriage licensing business. What are some of the shortfalls and issues with doing such? Is it an idea who’s time has come? I was reading some information on www.governemntfreemarriage.com and found their arguments to be quite compelling.
Sounds about right.
I use marriage in debates as a way to ‘bridge’ left and right politics by showing that whatever your stance is, its government that is the problem.
I recommend reading The Gay Adoption Conundrum by Jeffrey Tucker. I quite literally just finished reading it in his most recent book Bourbon For Breakfast. Weird coincidence.
Here is something I wrote on this. The State recognizing only traditional marriages excludes gay couples. The State recognizing gay marriage excludes single persons or couples who don’t believe in marriage. The government needs to get out of the marriage business.
EDIT: Dustin, that was an interesting article by Jeffrey Tucker, specifically when he says this:
I’ve listened to Eminem my entire life. Many people like the way his music sounds, and many others hate the content of his lyrics. Nonetheless, the latter is the attitude many people hold when it comes to music create my Eminem (and other rappers in general, I suppose). For me, though, his music taught me to write. My background in writing is fiction. I used to love to write poems (I still do), and Eminem’s music taught me about formatting poetry - how to make lines even, how to switch around sentences for a different rhythm, and all of that - so studying his writing made my writing more appealing to read. Same thing with how some people (including myself) don’t think gay marriage is as genuine as traditional marriage. It affects everyone in different ways.
I really enjoyed your article. The responses to it are hilarious. You’re not the most popular person at ASU are you? lol
Thank you! I appreciate it! Haha, I was really surprised at how many people disagreed with the government just getting out of marriage. I’ve learned through many e-mails that the campus is pretty left-leaning. Oh well.
It’s an excellent idea, however, the tax benefits that are already associated with marriages are a very tough sell to depart from.
That’s very true. Pretending there’s ever a proposition to stop the government’s interference in marriage, I feel like it’d get passed much easier if there were tax cuts included so traditional couples wouldn’t be simultaneously voting for themselves to be taxed more. Of course, that’s assuming it’s something on which the people directly vote.
oh man… you’re the lone ranger of the free markets over there at ASU…
Tell me about it. I wrote a long two-part column criticizing the “Wall Street regulations” (basically saying how the SEC employees would be working for hedge funds if they were smart enough and that the Fed would become even more centralized), and I got so many angry e-mails. So many. Luckily it was during the summer months and I wasn’t in Arizona at the time!
Marriage is a foundaitional institution of all societies, so obviously governments should recognize it.
What? Define “marriage” in terms of the quantity of people involved in the marriage and the gender of those persons. And then tell me what makes someone who wants to get married better than someone who raises children alone.
“Marriage is a foundaitional institution of all societies, so obviously governments should recognize it.”
Is this a stealth argument that government should define marriage? I don’t think anyone is talking about whether government should “recognize” marriage or not.
It is better that marriage remain a private contract between consenting adults. To make them public can only result in a fight to define and standardize those contracts. Marriage need not be public for government to recognize them. The government recognizes private contracts all the time in the courts. Government need not sanction marriage to judge in divorce.
From a statist,
“if government is out of marriage, how will insurance for ‘married’ couples work?”
Actually, the URL should be www.governmentfreemarriage.com Sorry for the typo.
Marriage was/is and probably will be religious union (if I am not mistaken about its roots). What people, in my opinion, should advocate instead, is partnership between couples, not “marriage”. Marriage became a privilege from a state. It very little has to do with partnership. Sure, maybe married couples are more “stable”, but after all they esier indoctrinate their children into statist dogma. I don’t believe in marriage.
Government does not define marriage primarily, it just reflects how public opinion conceives of it. This is inevitable.
What do you mean by “reflect?” If the government reflection of public opinion influences tax policies and various legal issues for wedded couples, then the government has therefore defined marriage. I’m assuming by public opinion, you also mean a majority of sorts, as I doubt that there is a unanimous opinion on marriage regardless of the detail in question.
I mean if there were broad support for this new redefined concept of marriage that includes same sex couples there would hardly be such a cultural war.