Posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by presidio9
Two recent developments have returned same-sex marriages to center stage. At one pole lies the conservative effort to steer a Family Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriages, through Congress; and at the other, the implementation of the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health, which requires equal treatment for same-sex marriages.
These two parallel episodes offer powerful evidence of an unhappy wedge between the majoritarian and libertarian wings of conservative legal thought. Generally -- and here the illiberal FMA is a jarring exception -- conservatives insist that most important structural questions in the U.S. should be decided through the democratic political processes, in the separate states. The libertarian wing regards democratic government as an imperfect means in service of the larger end of personal liberty, and thus strongly pushes the guarantees of individual rights to their logical conclusion. Both sides struggle to accommodate the rival impulse: All majoritarians recognize some limitations on government. All libertarians recognize that there are some inherently political decisions that no personal rights can trump. But how to draw the balance?
Conservatives regard the Goodridge decision as unprincipled meddling of the worst sort. After all, current canons of constitutional interpretation require judicial deference to legislation. The courts must uphold any statute, however unwise, as long as a rational basis can be discerned. But after Lawrence v. Texas last year, in which the Supreme Court struck down a longstanding Texas antisodomy law, social conservatives are right to ask why -- if such laws are struck down as unconstitutional -- the prohibitions on same-sex marriages won't be next on its agenda, notwithstanding the Court's own disclaimers on this explosive question.
Constitutional libertarians hold that the state must always put forward some strong justification to limit the freedom of association of ordinary individuals. Those justifications might include stopping pollution and cartels, but they cannot include the offense that the majority takes to practices they regard as contrary to public morals. Their remedy is to refrain from participation in the practices they dislike, not to stop others from doing as they please.
When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No proponent of gay marriage wants to ban traditional marriage, or to burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays. All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of association that are held by other people. Let the state argue that gay marriages are a health risk, and the answer is that anything that encourages monogamy has the opposite effect. Any principled burden of justification for the ban is not met.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That's what I thought. Ignore #96.
Wow. #97.
If governemnt is to remain involved in such things, then gay marriage is a must by any secular moral standard.
I cringe as I type...Why?
That's why government needs to get out of the marriage/relationship business. The fact that you are willing to support immorality and injustice simply because they exist is unacceptable and a shoddy standard by any means.
Marriage is not a right, any more than driving a car is. You have to qualify. Gay people do not qualify, and by definition they should not qualify. Their issue now is that they are trying to change the standard for their own benefit.
I don't know how to answer you in the legalise you seem to crave. If it is discrimination, it is necessary to protect the institution of marriage.
later,
Michael Medved doesn't call them "Losertarian" Party for no good reason!
I didn't ignore # 96. I don't want government involved in marriage in any shape or form--but if it has to be then it is certainly morally better for it to recognize gay marriages.
Both marriage and driving a car are rights, in spite of the present governemnt tyranny to the contrary. You know nothing of liberty and freedom--no wonder we've fallen so far into statist oppression...
No, not all all. The word marriage has an ancient meaning, as given in my above posts. Folks have a right to define words with concepts that are accepted by a mojority in the culture. Homos fit that definition of who can be recognized as married as well as a human and a swarm of mosquitoes.
Marriage is contract law. The State involves itself in this for purposes of property ownership recognition, first of kin recognition and child custody, rearing and responsibility purposes.
Most folks don't want the State recognizing a perversion as something acceptable to be taught and protected as normal.
That's bull, and is the sort of twisted morality that has been used to justify the tyranny of the majority throughout and the violation of human rights throughout history
Nonsence! The word has a universal meaning, regardless of any peripheral claims. THe fact that the word has that meaning is in no way tyranical whatsoever. What is tyranical is that the govm't seeks to impose a perverted minotity definition of the word.
The rights violation is being done by the perverts and their leftist allies, not by anyone else.
Hardly universal. Polygamy, for instance has been practiced in many cultures throughout the course of history. Yet another reason that government should not be involved in such things; these are private matters, and governemnt has no place in determining them.
It's universally hetrosexual and outside of Africa it's restricted to one woman.
"Yet another reason that government should not be involved in such things"
You haven't given a reason. Govm't is involved to recognize and protect rights. If you don't want govm't involved, then don't ask them to get married. Tthose that wish to be called married will get the license and be officially recognized as such.
You are perfectly free to call and have any relationship you want with whatever sex, species, or thing you want, but no one and no arm of the govm't will recognize the relationship as a marriage. It is a rights violation to coerce others into conforming to, or accepting that as marriage.
"LIBERTARIANS ARE IDIOTS"!
Government wants a monopoly on the contract. I have no problems with governemnt upholding the contracts agreed upon by private individuals, but governemnent has no legitimate authority to set the terms of the contracts themselves.
You seem to have ignored my comments about universiality and human history, Furthermore, polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabi and other countries, which are outside of Africa.
They do not. They have given an extremely limited criteria to the contract they will recognize as marriage. That limitation arises out of what is culturally held as a supermajority holding. That criteria is that the contract be exclusively between 1 man and one woman.
" polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabi and other countries, which are outside of Africa."
Right, the religion of berkkas, stoning, beheading and in general, pieces... This is the US and marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
And that's the monopoly. It's view is unjust and limited and it recognizes no other authority or view in the matter. In other words, monopoly.
Right, the religion of berkkas, stoning, beheading and in general, pieces... This is the US and marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Changing the subject, eh?
Nonsense, the word monopoly refers to business and the lack of competition. The subject here is simply recognition of what IS!
"It's view is unjust and limited and it recognizes no other authority or view in the matter. In other words, monopoly."
The unique and supermajority nature of the concept of one man, one woman that defines the fundamental aspect of marriage makes it an authority on the matter. The word and it's concept belong to the individuals in that group. All others can eat sand.
"Changing the subject, eh?"
You brought up other cultures. I did notice that you failed to note any that had homo marriages, or allowed them, or any variation of marriage with other speceis, or things. This is about the American culture and the ideas and concepts we hold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.