Replies

The myth of "two consenting adults."

WRT the homosexual agenda, libertarians often resort to the argument that, "whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their homes should be no business of the state." In a vacuum, this is true. With respect to the homosexual agenda in particular, and in the definition of family in general, this argument has no place. The state is very much involved for the following reasons:

If the issue were really about what two people do in privacy there would never be any public debate. The homosexuals have brought the issue into the public forum precisely because they are not satisfied to keep the matter private. For whatever reason (and I'll hold my theories to myself) they insist that it not be a private issue. Having asked the state for an opinion, it is reasonable for the state to offer one. The same would be true of polygamists and people who want to marry under-age.
A family is not merely a private contract nor merely a religious construct. The state has attached specific legal rights to families for its own good. Since this definition is for the good of the state, the state must take part in maintaining the definition. If the state did not define a family then we would have to provide private contractual arrangements for transference of property upon death, custody of minor children upon death, handling of joint funds, taxation, insurance benefits of all types, etc. The overhead of managing all of these issues without a standard definition of family would be enormous and take people away from productive tasks.
Families today are the means of protecting children until they are of age. U.S. law codifies that parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children unless there is clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. Because of this presumption, the state can ignore many issues involving the safety and security of children that it might otherwise have to address at significant cost and effort. If the definition of family is changed then the purposes and motivations of parents can not be presumed.
People don't get married - families do. Families determine relationships including "in-law" relationships. If two men get married it is automatically not a private issue because both men have introduced sons-in-law to their parents, brothers-in-law to their siblings, and uncles to their nieces and nephews. These relationships are powerful for maintaining family property (see above) but could not be so used if the concept of family is privatized.
Speaking personaly, I have friend with a sister who insists she is "married" to another woman. The mother blames herself for the daughter being gay so she won't chastize the living arrangement. Therefore my friend must decide between breaking off family ties and exposing her children to a sick lifestyle. So much for a "private" relationship. It has impacted everyone these two women are related to.
The family is the mechanism by which our culture passes its values to its future generations. Traditional families can be counted on to transfer traditional values. Changing those values changes our culture in ways that we can not forsee. If we change the definition of the family, we will change the definition of America. It won't happen in a day or possibly in a single generation. But it probably won't take more than two.

The list is probably longer than I can imagine. I have not spoken to adoption, except obliquely in the issue of whether a parent can be presumed to be acting in the best interests of the child. Nor have I spoken of likely changes in divorce rates. But I don't need any more to demonstrate that the state has a compelling interest in the definition of a family. It is not a private contract, it is a contract between two people and their society. As such, government has a place in defining and regulating it.

Shalom.