Home › Blogs › Einzige's blog ›

I am disappointed in Maine.

Submitted by Einzige on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 01:16
in

I am disappointed because, when push came to shove, they demonstrated clearly that flaw of democracy that we libertarians have long sounded the alarms about: the masses simply cannot be trusted with it.

I support gay rights for the same reason I consider myself a small-government libertarian - I cannot, in good conscience, demand that the State both stay out of my bedroom and impose my will on those with whom I disagree (and, for the record, I don't especially disagree with homosexuality).

What we see today, increasing with distressing frequency, is a tendency on the Right to want to use the mechanics of the State to impose itself upon those social elements with whom it takes grievance. This is an historical error: for a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

But, unfortunately, our society is hardly free.

I will push on as I always have, trying to right (and Right) the wrongs foisted about American conservatism by the New Right and its cronies in FOX and the National Review. And I want you to help me.

2.4
Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (5 votes)

Comments

Marriage is an INSTITUTION not just a contract.

Submitted by Soulsamurai on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 04:37.

First, marriage is an institution as well as a covenantal contract. 

Second, your logic is flawed for several reasons.

Gay's as members of the human race already have the same inalienable rights as the rest of us, they don't need additional rights. Just as we already have laws for violent crimes we don't need additional laws for "hate crimes". Assault is assault, battery is battery, murder is murder, it's all hate. A violent act is a violent act. Speech is speech. Hate speech may be reprehensible, but if you believe in free speech it must apply to offensive speech as well as politically correct  or polite speech. 

If you cannot in good conscience demand that the State impose your will on those with whom you disagree, or it's own Governmental will upon you as a private citizen even if you disagree, then how can you in good conscience support the "gay rights" agenda which is arguably all about imposing it's views on you and the rest of us? How can you support gay rights when they are seeking to redefine marriage for everyone not just gays? 

Lastly, despite your fear of the Right's "tendency" to impose it's will on those with whom it takes grievance, I think the Left has been using the mechanics of the State to impose its values on society far more than the Right ever has or ever will. The Left also has been far more successful in legislating it's values and promoting social change than the right has. Which suggests to me that your fear is grossly misplaced and perhaps indicates a guilty conscience concerning your own values and/or choice of lifestyle.

Just because you seek freedom to live as you please does not mean that actually doing so is always in your best interests. If you want to speak and live freely then you also have to respect the rights of others to speak and live freely and that might include the offering of unsolicited advice, opinions and even judgement between those who hold to different beliefs. If we're going to be free to live as we wish, then we also have to accept the consequences of our choices, and be willing to make a reasonable defense and/or accept criticism for them. 

 

 

Let me put it this way.

Submitted by Einzige on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 05:45.

If some Godless Pinko Commie government were established in the United States, and it identified firearms and ammunition as part of a "redneck lifestyle" and tried to confiscate it, or banned the wearing of camoflague, wouldn't you then be up in arms (probably literally) about it?

No, the gay rights movement isn't 'forcing' anything on anyone. It is not asking, for instance, that I marry my neighbor. It isn't coercive, and hence is not opposed to a libertarian philosophy. And this is because marriage isn't an institutiion - just a contract. At worst, it's a contract between individuals and an institution: churches and other religious organizations ought to have the right to marry whomever they want. If the Quakers see fit to marry homosexuals, isn't it an impedement of their right as a private institution for the State to say that they cannot?

To return to my Godless Pinko Commie example: there was recently a brou-ha-ha over some racist Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who refused to perform an interracial marriage. Now, racism is repugnant, as repugnant as socialism - a remnant of a time when men were primitive and still thought in collectives. But it is entirely his right not to perform an interracial marriage. That he voluntarily retired probably saved me the headache of having to defend someone I cannot and could not support. But the point stands. I would have been angry had the State of Louisiana passed a law requiring its officials to wed anybody - just as I would be if it passed a law preventing them from marrying anyone.

Institutions are collectives of individuals - they are not, in themselves, extant entities (this is a position we call 'nominalism'). If the individuals within a religious institution believe that it is acceptable to marry homosexuals, it is a violation of their right, as private personages collected into a group, not to accord them that respect.

And I concur: I do not support hate crimes legislation. I do support gay marriage - though what I really want is for the State to be out of the business of marriage altogether, and leave it to private institutions like churches (or any other place of worship, or institution specializing in marriage generally). I do not believe the State has the right to deny any private individual his rights.

I miss the old-school Republicans: the Republican Party of Bob Taft, the non-interventionists, the real small-government conservatives (I no longer even consider myself a conservative).

Real small government

Submitted by JMR on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:00.

Isn't nearly as popular these days as *talking about* small government.

And well said regarding Taft. I'd separate not just marriage & state, but school & state. http://www.schoolandstate.org has more. I fear both the left and the right are, in the end, showing us the only god they *really* worship, even if they'll never admit it. Big government.

It comes as a soul-shattering

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:01.

It comes as a soul-shattering shock to far too many conservatives that when they're denied the ability to persecute, they are not, themselves, being persecuted. If they can't use the state to impose their religion on children via the schools, they tell us they're being persecuted. If they can't use the state to deny homosexuals the ability to marry, they're being imposed upon. When, only a few years ago, the latest challenge to state sex laws went before the Supreme Court, American conservatism lined up to tell us civilization itself would eventually end if we didn't maintain these laws.

It's why I take issue with conservative claims of opposition to "big government." If the state can  take up residence in our most private sanctuary and tell us who is allowed to have sex, and in what manner, what on earth could reasonably be put beyond the reach of that state?  With that as precedent, what possible logical argument could there be for denying such a state any power it wanted?

The obvious answer is also the correct one.

What we see today, increasing with distressing frequency, is a tendency on the Right to want to use the mechanics of the State to impose itself upon those social elements with whom it takes grievance.

That isn't a new tendency; it's been with us from the birth of the republic. And yes, I know the conservatives aren't a monolith on these questions (as this thread itself demonstrates), but the "Libertarian" conservatives who are more reasonable on them wouldn't poll out of the single digits among U.S. conservatism as a whole.

The Bush administration demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, the devotion of U.S. conservatism as a whole to dictatorial government. While Bush constructed an embryonic police state, the right not only said  essentially nothing in opposition to it, but actually cheered it on like rabid fanatics. There they were, faced with a president who, in the face of the constitution and of U.S. law, both asserted and employed the "power" to kidnap anyone, anywhere in the world, including U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and dump them in a deep, dark hole forever, and they were handing him 80% and 90% approval ratings the whole way. Bush established a criminal wiretapping enterprise that went on for years; when it was revealed by the press, the conservative reaction was to insist those who had printed it be prosecuted.  Bush illegally listened in on our conversations, illegally dug through our financial records, illegally read our emails, asserted in writing that he had the power to suspend our fundamental constitutional rights at will, and more other horrors than can be easily listed, and he wasn't just given a pass--the conservatives gave him their hearts.

ACLU took same sex marriage from the bedroom to the classroom

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 19:06.

The same sex marriage debate is not about what goes on in the bedroom. But in coming out of the bedroom into other private businesses, into schools and saying that parents can not tell their children what they believe is moral in their own living room or bedroom for that matter. Business can not live by their beliefs, and churches can not practice their beliefs. Same sex marriage is not about protecting the rights of people.

Marriage is the institution for the benefit of children. It is not about a statement of a strong feeling for another person, or a statement that you want to live with that person for the rest of your life. Marriages based on emotion run into problems because emotions change. Relationships outside of marriage are more likely to end with the emotion changes. Children need the institution of marriage - they should not be denied a father or a mother.

You may want to use the rebuttal of why should old people get married then - the answer is they set an example to the young to not have sexual relations outside of marriage because sexual relations exist for creating the next generation, without man woman relations humanity dies.

 

It's not really about gays or marriage

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 23:19.

First, you cannot lay the resistance of America to gay marriage at the feet of conservatives.  Every time that THE PEOPLE have voted on it, it has been defeated; in red states, in blue states, in purple states.  Gay marriage hasn't won a single referendum anywhere.  To say that opposition to gay marriage is a sin that should be owned solely by conservatives is simply not consistent with the facts.

Second, I might point out that the results from Maine are completely consistent with our current president's position on gay marriage.

But my main point is that the whole debate over gay marriage really doesn't have much to do with gays or marriage themselves.  It's about culture.  Liberals generally desire to have a more permissive culture, while conservatives don't.  From Burke on forward, conservatives have desired a society that is firmly rooted in tradition, since tradition encapsulates a great deal of ancient wisdom and timeless principles.  Liberals generally dismiss tradition as a source of wisdom, preferring modern knowledge instead.  But, because society is a delicate interconnected web, throwing out one tradition or another has unknowable future consequences.  For instance, we now know that throwing out taboos surrounding sex leads to a culture that is vastly more sexualized and permissive in all its sexual mores, not just with premarital sex.  Is it any surprise, then, that the racy pornography of 50 years ago is considered tame by today's standards?  This is no accident.  And I think the same phenomenon is at work with gay marriage.  It's not really about wanting to prohibit gays from marrying.  It's about the consequences of throwing away the very ancient tradition of marriage.  I am highly certain that redefining marriage today will have minimal effect on today's marriages.  But what about marriages 50 years in the future?  No one here is qualified to render judgment on that question.  And because marriage is such a pivotal institution for all of society, being the major source of social stability and wealth generation among all societies, it is especially perilous to mess with it.  So I think America's resistance to gay marriage is a manifestation of our society's underlying center-right character, where "right" should be interepreted not as partisan Republican, but intuitively conservative, i.e., cautious.

You first deny that

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 16:20.

You first deny that resistance to gay marriage can be chalked up to conservatives, then explain how it's born of conservatism. Very convincing.

 

I am unconcerned with tradition, because I am not a Burkean.

Submitted by Einzige on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 01:59.

"Tradition", and "conservatism" itself, mean absolutely nothing to me. My sole and overriding concern is personal liberty, not the maintenance of "traditions" or "institutions" which may very well be outdated and worthless at the present time. Freedom means more to me than all of the traditions of the world.

Neither does social stability, for that matter - a stagnant culture is a dying civilization. The "conservatives" of the land can rot, so far as I care; I am a libertarian, and where you challenge liberty, you are my enemy. I will fight you where you stand if it means attaining a little more freedom for anyone.

Liberty - true freedom, not the pissant 'freedom' that conservatives bellow about (the freedom to be defined by social mores) - is my passion, my reason for life. And where you hinder it, you are not my friend.

That's the spirit

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 16:31.

"Tradition", and "conservatism" itself, mean absolutely nothing to me. My sole and overriding concern is personal liberty, not the maintenance of "traditions" or "institutions" which may very well be outdated and worthless at the present time.

And that, more importantly, serve solely as a cover for injustice. Kick over a "tradition" a righty has waved in your face, you'll almost inevitably find some injustice, some moral offense, or someone with a vested interest in not having it changed, or in being against anyone who wants to change it. Love the spirit. Don't let it lead you to look down upon wisdom. Just don't confuse the nonsense chemjeff is spewing with "wisdom."

 

conservatism and libertarianism

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:27.

I used to think like you, but then I realized it's an incredibly short-sighted view.  How do you know which traditions are ones that should be tossed?  How do you know which ones are worthless?  It takes an incredible amount of arrogance to singlehandedly decide that the traditions that have served mankind for thousands of years should be brushed aside so easily.

What really did it for me was when I finally realized that we only have liberty in this country because of our customary embrace of it.  The Constitution does not give us liberty; fear of punishment doesn't give us liberty; we have liberty because of the society we live in.  Consider: We have more guns than people in this country.  Why aren't there gun battles raging every day on every street corner?  There are not nearly enough police officers in this country to protect every citizen.  Why isn't every unprotected house ransacked on a daily basis?  Hell, why do people obey traffic laws when nobody's looking?  It is because of the individual's values - values of respect for others and respect for the rule of law.  These values are not dictated to us by the Constitution.  They are instilled in us through the society we live in.

I recommend reading Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind.  It's a tough read but it's well worth it.  IMO you should not so casually dismiss giants of conservatism like Burke.

Why does this country exist?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:43.

 Because the Founding Fathers decided to toss the tradition of monarchy - a tradition that had served mankind for thousands of years. Yep, they just brushed it aside in favor of the hithertofore untried notion of government by the people.

To answer your quesiton: how do you know which tradtions are ones that should be tossed? Use your brain. It is simple if you try.

BTW, unlike you and and John Boehner, I know the Preamble to the Constitution by heart: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, yes the Constitution gives us liberty.

The Chinese live in an entirely different society, and yet even there unprotected houses go unransacked every day. Amazing!

 

 

liberty

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 12:07.

To answer your quesiton: how do you know which tradtions are ones that should be tossed? Use your brain. It is simple if you try.

This is the response of a six-year-old.  "How do I know when I should have candy?  When I want it!"

So, yes the Constitution gives us liberty.

How?  Does the Constitution walk into your house and free you from your chains of bondage?

Ah, yes, but six-year olds don't vote, do they?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 12:14.

 There is a reason why we leave the decision making up to the adults.

The Constitution frees me from my chains of bondage by firmly establishing that my rights are equal to those of every other citizen. 

BTW, if the tradition of marriage is so sacrosanct, when you are you going to start working for the abolition of divorce? That should be fun when Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich chime in.

Abolition of divorce should be done in the Church.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 14:55.

I have no interest in trying to keep people who do not respect marriage together - Britney Spear's Las Vegas marriage was not a "sacrosanct" marriage. Like I said in a different post - there is an argument for the state to be out of the marriage business. No fault divorce is one of the reasons. People who get "married" so they can pretend to be "not" committing adultery -  or righteous in other people eyes - with no interest in the actual commitments of marriage are engaging in a "hypocritical" (or pretend) marriage may their pretense give them happiness because their will be no "blessing of joy" that comes from a true commitment. Like giving a child who does poorly on a test an "A" for effort - the accomplishment, knowledge of worthyness does not flow out of the pretense.

There is a benefit to society for real marriages, but none for "fake" marriages.

[added]

Where is it written "let no man seperate what 'the state' has joined"?

 

And so therefore abolition of gay marriage should also be

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:10.

 done in the Church. Meanwhile, out it the reality-based community, if you are willing to have the state sanction an unlimited number of marriages for an individual so long as they are done one at a time and, like handgun purchases, with an appropriate "cooling off" period between each one, then it is incomprehensible to say that the institution is so supremely sacred that we couldn't possibly extend to to a gay couple.

 

I've heard this before

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:33.

It leads to a hopeless situation where because something was allowed yesterday, it should continue today. As if somehow if it happened before then it is good, correct and righteous. The reality is that yesterday was not perfect or correct. Yesterday a Muslim went into a military base and killed people - not good, correct or righteous.

Yes the Church should repent for allowing no fault divorce. People of faith should pray on their knees for mercy of their failings. Then they should get up and sin no more. If you look at what is happening in family courts with children today - the pain and suffering caused by no fault divorce. And think it is good than you have no conscience.

So you DO want to ban divorce?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:40.

 Please clarify.

 

I don't think we live in a theology.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 16:07.

The State can either recognize the institution of marriage, which existed before the state and the state signed onto the concept and agreed to recognize marriages of the Church and of other nations. Or it can do its thing with civil unions. Although it may be inevitable that the state will create hypocrital marriages - It would be better for children that they did not.

There are reasons for separation of marriage, such as unfaithfulness, such as abuse,  ... so no a complete ban would be wrong. Error comes in pairs and both of the extremes are wrong. I wish it was not so but it is reality.

Let me also answer it this way

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 16:46.

As knowledge of right and wrong exists in our hearts.

Do you come from a broken home?

If not would you have liked to?

If yes are you grateful because one of the parents was abusive?

...

You see the discernment is really not hard.

[added]

God does not join people to suffer. Many people are "married" today in a marriage that was not joined by God. There is no benefit to the community to force people in to a contract where they suffer.

But there is a benefit to the community in denying

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 17:00.

committed, loving gay couples the ability to enter into a contract which would bring them joy (and put their long term household financial planning on a firmer footing in the process)?

Joy does not come from a piece of paper - nor from laws or money

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 17:24.

Feeling are not something that can be captured by a piece of paper. The state can not give  happiness - nor does money create happiness.

A corporation is also a better venue for financial planning and a will overrides any inheritance from a marriage. A marriage contract does not create wealth.

Where is the firmer footing when a couple can get a no fault divorce and if they don't have children the court relies on verbal contracts between the parties on splitting up assets? It is easier to end a marriage than to end a cell phone contract.

Other people are not on earth with the purpose of giving you happiness ... Same Sex Marriage does not create happiness for your community even if it did for the couple - it is not in the communities best interest to reward selfishness.

 

 

So if marriage is so meaningless, why is it so important?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 17:42.

 n/t

Children are not meaningless

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 17:56.

I've already pointed out the benefits of marriage. If you do not see the benefits from your own childhood then that is all the more reason to defend traditional marriage.

So no first marriages for women who are post menopausal?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 18:08.

 n/t

Addressed that too

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 18:24.

http://www.thenextright.com/einzige/i-am-disappointed-in-maine#comment-4... Third paragraph.

I see - so you want to ban sex outside of marriage!

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 18:37.

 Why didn't you just say so.

 

Don't be frustrated into trying to put words in my mouth

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 19:10.

Nobody is talking about "banning" sex. The subject of overeating has come up ... but nobody is talking about "banning" food. If you are interested in Same Sex relations - have them outside of marriage. Again we don't live in a theology if we did -  we are saved by grace Galatians 1 - No stoning,

the Constitution

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:03.

The Constitution frees me from my chains of bondage by firmly establishing that my rights are equal to those of every other citizen. 

Sigh.  You miss the point.

Who interprets the Constitution?  People.  Who is elected to pass laws subject to the Constitution?  People.  Who signs those bills?  People.  Who enforces those laws?  People.  Who popularizes those laws among the public?  People.  Who teaches the next generation about the importance of those laws?  People.

You can write pretty words on paper and dress it up in fancy words like "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" but the words have no value if the people don't respect those words.  And why do we, in our current society, have people who, by and large, do respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?  It is no accident.  It is because of our traditions, customs and culture. 

In fact, someone much more famous than I made the same argument:

Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.

 

"People" don't interpret the Constitution.

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:14.

 The Supreme Court does. There is one hell of a difference there.

You can write pretty words on paper and dress it up in fancy words like "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" but the words have no value if the people don't respect those words.

Tripe. Majority opinion does not trump an individual's Constitutional rights.  See Little Rock.

 

"People"

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 15:56.

"People" don't interpret the Constitution.Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 14:14.

 The Supreme Court does. There is one hell of a difference there.

And who sits on the Supreme Court?  People.  Human beings.  Individuals belonging to our society and acclimated to our particular set of values and customs.

 

True liberty does not violate other people's liberty

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:40.

As a society we balance liberty and justice. Ultimate liberty would allow one the freedom to go into a store and take an item without paying for it. Justice dictates that taking something without paying for it is not fair. Ultimate liberty, unlimited liberty, is not freedom it is anarchy. - It is mob rule (ironically the mob would not recognize same sex marriage)

The state, a society, a community, has a interest in protecting people's ownership in property. So laws exist that limit the liberty of somebody to take someone else property. The police do nothing but stop people from doing what they would will and call unrestrained liberty. The state, society and community have an interest in protecting children; A committed man and woman who the society recognizes as a unit or a family protects children. A marriage limits the liberty of those who are married - it does not grant them additional liberties. It removes property rights from the individuals and grants them to the couple, it insures resources go to the children.

Maybe today there is an argument that could be made that the Government no longer has an interest in what a man and woman do. Marriage was more important when infant deaths were higher than they are today, and when the Government was not so involved in how children are raised, how they are educated. The Government could use DNA to establish financial responsibility.

That being said let me ask you this question; "What is the interest to society to maintain a same sex marriage?"

I understand you want liberty, but institution of marriage is not about liberty it is about something bigger than the couple itself. Its effects live past the deaths of the couple. What happens in marriages today effect what the society will be like in 2040. If every time two people had emotions for each other they and married the results would be a disaster in 2040. Marriage is not an public statement of strong feelings. It is a contract to be celebate outside of the marriage - with enforcement by the state. I understand that strong feelings create the desire to bind a partner to such a contract, But what is the interest of the state to enforce it?

Freedom of speech is a true liberty

My speech does not take anything from you. Same Sex Marriage as it exists with the ACLU takes away that liberty.

Consumer choice is a true liberty

If I buy something from somebody else it does not take anything from you, my money was never yours.

Under the same choice who a business wants to hire to be their representative does not take anything from anybody. If there business model calls for a cross dresser they are free to hire one - likewise if their business model is towards conservatives they are free to hire somebody who represents that model.

Same Sex Marriage + ACLU takes away liberties

ACLU insists by your - what you call private ack in the bedroom - Schools must teach to children that Same Sex marriage and male woman marriage are the same in every regard. Parents are not allowed to disagree or point out that society is not protected by Same Sex Marriage the way ... I could go on, I am sure you have seen the ads supporting traditional marriage.

Bravo to Maine

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 17:31.

Annoying faux libertarian socialists who are really morally confused is the icing on the cake to the really good news out of Maine: protecting a vital insitution of our society from an assault and erosion.

Well done, Maine.