Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Recent Comments
•By Bryan
 at Jul 08, 9:17 AM about
 DEFENDING MARRIAGE
•By Michael Lonie
 at Jul 08, 12:42 AM about
 DEFENDING MARRIAGE
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 7719 sources banned.

DEFENDING MARRIAGE

So Mike Kinsley (God love him, because after proposing the abolition of marriage his wife may not) proposes "privatizing" marriage and as predictable as the sunrise a bunch of libertarians shout either "Great idea!" or "Hey, we thought of it first!" Well, good on ya. It's one of the dumbest, least libertarian ideas to come along in quite a while, but if you want to take credit for it go right ahead. My own weakening libertarian leanings prevent me from standing in your way.

Here's the thing: marriage keeps the state out of your face. Eve Tushnet is on to this truth, promising more posts on it in the future. I'm looking forward to them--she's as sharp as they come. My own initial meandering take on it is a few posts down.

Not to pre-empt her, I'll take another tack entirely from the ones I expect her to take. The idea that we should suddenly "privatize" or abolish marriage is itself an idea only a tyrant could love. The US is currently home to about 300 million people; most adults living here get married at some point. No one's forcing us to marry. We don't have many arranged marriages in this country anymore. We marry because we want to, we choose to, and we stay married for all sorts of reasons--for the kids, for the tax incentives, or for the good old fashioned reason that we actually love the one we're with.

Abolishing marriage would, presumably, force everyone currently married to suddenly become un-married. Millions of marriages would be crushed instantly under the government's bootheel, whether those married people wanted it or not. Even if a majority voted for it (which isn't happening), you'd still have put the state in the position of forcing people who want to stay married to break their bonds. That's a breathtakingly totalitarian move. Even the Soviets never went quite that far. Libertarians should oppose it for its sheer and obvious invasiveness. The state would enter every married home in America and tear up their marriage licenses, forcing us all into the very common law arrangements that we eschewed when we freely chose marriage in the first place.

Libertoids and your erstwhile ally Mike Kinsely, if you seriously want to abolish marriage, start with your own and see how far you get. Leave me and my family out of your arrogant social engineering.
Post to del.icio.us

Posted by B. Preston on July 6, 2003 8:36 PM
Trackbacks: View (0)Ping
Comments

Libertarians seem to share a characteristic with the socialists. They demand that all institutions be justified by explicit, formally logical reasoning based on assumptions they share. None of your God-bothering nonsense please, just the assumptions a rational atheist could share. To say that over thousands of years societies have found it best to arrange sexual relations and the raising of children in certain ways is anathema to them, mere tradition can have no say in this matter. Thus if libertarians can find no logical reason, based on their assumptions, to deny “marraige” to homosexuals, then nobody ought to do so. QED.

Morality has evolved, as did economies, as a spontaneous order. This is something Hayek pointed out, especially in his last book “The Fatal Conceit.” (I sometimes wonder if libertarians who praise Hayek actually read or understand him.) We may change these arrangements, but ought to do so cautiously and slowly, taking into account the dangers, as you mention, of unanticipated consequences. They should evolve at the rates people accept, not be forced on them by judicial fiat at the behest of some wild-eyed social engineers, whether they call themselves libertarians or socialists.

Posted by Michael Lonie on July 8, 2003 12:42 AM

Very well said.

Post a comment