Gilligan's Island Game Theory and Gay Marriage

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in a case about the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was a pro-active attempt to squelch same-sex marriage, Iowahawk offers up three reasons to support marriage equality:

First, I'm against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts. Second, I see no reason why broadening the definition of marriage to same-sex couples devalues or diminishes mine. Finally, there's the purely utilitarian Gilligan's Island effect: if Skipper and Professor decide to wed in a tasteful lagoon-side ceremony, I've got Ginger and Mary Ann to myself at the wedding luau. And if it's Mary Ann and Ginger hooking up, well… I'll be in my bunk.

Read the whole thing over at Breitbart.

And for god's sake, follow Iowahawk (Dave Buerge) on Twitter; his feed is one of the best.

Comments

[Auric Demonocles]

Finally, there's the purely utilitarian Gilligan's Island effect: if Skipper and Professor decide to wed in a tasteful lagoon-side ceremony, I've got Ginger and Mary Ann to myself at the wedding luau.

I'm pretty sure the gay guys wouldn't be gobbling up your hotties regardless of whether they are married or not.

[LTC(ret) John]

Yeah, that one kind of didn't really make sense.

Should have stuck to the pro-liberty arguments.

[JW]

That presume that The Skipper and Little Buddy are full-on ghey.

They might just like snails *and* oysters.

[Scarecrow Repair]

I used that argument all the time years ago, when I lived in San Francisco. I'd mention where I lived, guys would ask why I'd want to live there, I'd say it left more wimmen for me, and they didn't know what to say. The confusion sliding over their faces was well worth the stupidity of the argument, and it caught them so off-guard that I never got called on its stupidity.

[Fist of Etiquette]

First, I'm against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts.

The island reference is apt, in that on that island if the Skipper and Professor want to wed, there's no incentive or impediment from the state. Have at it. That's the libertarian world. What people here in America are wanting is a contract between them and the state, which is what a marriage license is.

[DJF]

That is the whole purpose of laws, to force people to do things that they don't want to do. If they wanted to do it there is no need for laws to force them.

So in this case some people don't want to recognize homosexual marriage but others want to use the law and the state to force them.

[VG Zaytsev]

yep

[Lost_In_Translation]

I'm pretty sure most things involved in this controversy revolve around the government being involved in private contracts and playing favorites on who can sign contracts they (and therefore anyone who works with them) recognize. Laws aren't forcing people to recognize gay marraige, in many instances it allows companies to recognize the contract because the government does. The majority of ills is because the government inserted itself into the process it should never have been in.

[Finchster]

Laws aren't forcing people to recognize gay marraige

They will. Once gay marriage is found by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right in all 50 states, good luck explaining to the courts why your business offers benefits to opposite-sex married couples but not to same-sex married couples. They'll be in the same position as Catholic business owners who don't want to comply with the HHS mandate.

In Canada, the Knights of Columbus have run afoul of the "human rights" commissars for not renting their hall for lesbian weddings, photographers have have been sued for declining to photograph gay weddings, etc. Gay marriage isn't just about private contracts. It's also about there being one correct view of homosexuality, which the state is going to enforce.

[Skip]

They expect Mr. Howell to pay for their gay wedding.

[Vince aut Morire]

"I'll be in my bunk." man I miss Firefly.

[Gilbert Martin]

Get government at all levels out of the social engineering business by offering tax (or other) incentives for certain behavior and start treating all individuals exactly the same and it wouldn't matter.

It's just as egregious to discriminate against single people as it it is to discrimiate against same sex married people.

[Auric Demonocles]

Whoa, treating everyone equally? That's crazy talk. You can't treat people all the same, that's racist.

[Tony]

Can we try equality under the current regime for just a little while first?

To which other minorities are you willing to say just wait out your unequal legal status for a couple thousand years until Libertopia arrives?

[some guy]

What are you talking about, Tony? Gilbert's position is that government treat everyone the same. Who would have to "wait out" their "unequal legal status" if everyone is being treated equally under the law?

[Tony]

Well the waiting would of course end on the day the state gets out of the marriage business... in a thousand years.

[some guy]

So then we aren't actually "trying equality under the current regime are we?" We're just adding another small group into the larger "preferred treatment" group. Does that really make things any better?

[Tony]

Yes. It fixes one problem (discriminatory law), and actually contributes to your goal: the total liberalization of marriage. You're looking at it wrong. Would re-forbidding interracial marriage contribute to the goal of ending state-sanctioned marriage, or would it just keep marriage exactly the same while introducing a whole other harm?

Marriage has become less and less relevant as society has liberalized. If your goal is to make it totally irrelevant, why would you stop that process in its tracks?

[some guy]

Yes. It fixes one problem (discriminatory law),

No it doesn't. The law still discriminates against those who choose not to marry or who choose to marry more than one person.

Would re-forbidding interracial marriage contribute to the goal of ending state-sanctioned marriage, or would it just keep marriage exactly the same while introducing a whole other harm?

The best way to end a injustice in a democracy is to make a majority of the people suffer from that injustice. Adding more people to the group that benefits from that injustice is just making things worse for those left behind.

Marriage has become less and less relevant as society has liberalized.

Not true. The relevance is simply shifting from a cultural and spiritual focus to a political focus.

[cavalier973]

*Marriage has become less and less relevant as society has liberalized.*

Then...why the push for "same-sex marriage"?

[Tony]

Well the push for same-sex marriage is, in a way, a conservative push. Marriage is supposed to be good for social stability and whatever, so let's extend access to it to gay couples so they and their children can benefit from its alleged virtues too.

But it's fallacious to treat it as a numbers game, as in marriage becomes less entangled with the state just because fewer people are married. Changing how marriage is treated by the law is a completely separate mission from the one being discussed, and I say have at it. Until you're willing to do that legwork, then you're just making excuses for opposing equal treatment under the law. Why can't you be for both?

[some guy]

We've been over this, Tony. The more people you add to a special class that receives preferred treatment, the harder it is to get rid of that special class that receives preferred treatment. Proponents of gay marriage are just another special interest looking for special treatment from government.

[darius404]

I mentioned this last night, but here it is again in case anyone missed it:

Amash makes the libertarian case for private marriage.

"My view has always been that government should not be in the business of defining or redefining marriage," Amash said. "I see it as a private issue. I personally see it as a religious issue."
....
"To be clear, I don't support having marriage be part of the law, whether it's for any of the particular benefits you're talking about," he said. "I would try to make the law marriage neutral."

[robc]

I personally see it as a religious issue.

This.

And hence, all marriage licensing laws are a violation of A1 (and A14).

Did Amash steal that whole quote directly from my posts on here?

[Tony]

Marriage is certainly entangled with religion, but for the purpose of getting a marriage license, it need not be. Atheists can marry and they don't have to go to a church. Marriage is just a special type of contract.

Of course there are only two realistic options on the table: continued discrimination or equality under the current accepted state-sanctioned marriage regime. Nothing else is remotely plausible, and I don't see the point of indulging in fantasies.

If, however, you want to further the goal of liberalizing marriage until it no longer exists, you should be supporting the incremental step of liberalizing it to include gay couples.

[some guy]

So including more people in the preferred group that benefits from state-sponsored marriage is an incremental step towards ending state-sponsored marriage? Interesting theory, that.

[Tony]

I believe so, but it's still two separate issues. If you don't like the fact that there are state benefits for getting married, then go forth and convince a few more than the 2% of people who agree with you, and godspeed. Until that day comes there's really no constitutional option except to treat gay people equally under the law.

[califernian]

and every other marriage arrangment too, right?

[Tony]

There are plenty of arguable issues with polygamy, incest, adult-child marriage, and adult-animal marriage that make them differ from gay marriage. There's no rational reason to deny equal rights to gays. Maybe the same applies to (some of) the other groups, but that's their case to make.

[some guy]

Adult-child and adult-animal marriage have problems with consent. Polygamy and incest do not. What "arguable issues" are there for polygamy and adult incest marriage that don't apply to gay marriage?

All are non-traditional. All have unresolved issues regarding child-rearing.

[Tony]

Polygamy is almost always wrapped up with patriarchy and abuse of women and has all sorts of problems with consent, inheritance, etc. (For example, in a dual marriage, each partner has an equal say in the composition of the marriage and whether it is dissolved. In a plural marriage, who gets to decide on such issues as which spouse to eject and what not?)

Incest is an innate cultural taboo, but I admit that if, say, infertile adult relatives want to marry I struggle to argue why they shouldn't be able to.

But I don't think gay couples should have to defend polygamy and incest before they get equal rights. Let the other groups go to court on their own dime. It's a bizarre argument really: Are you saying that it's a slippery slope and thus allowing polygamous and incestuous marriages is a bad thing we want to avoid? Or are you arguing for opening up marriage to these groups, thus obviously favoring opening it up to gays too?

[some guy]

Polygamy is almost always wrapped up with patriarchy and abuse of women

As homosexuality has always been wrapped up with child abuse. Most homosexual relationships now are between consenting adults, but the history is there and it still affects people (just ask the Pope.)

Or are you arguing...

My argument is that government has no business creating a special class of people (married people, in this case) who receive preferred treatment. If no preferred treatment were given then the existence of this special class (and the rules regarding who can enter it) would be a non-issue. But so long as preferred treatment is given, adding anyone to that special class is bad.

It's just like subsidies. I don't like giving them to oil companies, but I don't think also giving subsidies to wind farms is going to help fix the problem.

[some guy]

To continue that thought.

Gays aren't fighting for the right to marry. They are fighting for the right to join a special class of people that receive preferential treatment from government. Gays are already free to interact with one another in any way they choose. They can even enter into contracts that have the approximate effect of being married (sharing property rights, liabilities, child custody, power of attorney, medical decision rights, etc.)

[Tony]

As homosexuality has always been wrapped up with child abuse.

WTF is this idiotic lie doing here? There is no evidence that child abuse is perpetrated disproportionately by gay people.

It's just like subsidies. I don't like giving them to oil companies, but I don't think also giving subsidies to wind farms is going to help fix the problem.

So instead of making things fair, you prefer to sustain unfairness in the hopes that one day, far off in the future, your marriage- and subsidy-free utopia might arrive? I don't get how making things fair puts that date further off.

They are fighting for the right to join a special class of people that receive preferential treatment from government.

Yeah, they're fighting to have themselves recognized as equals before the law. Straight people can be single or can pair off and get legally married. Gay people can be single... or nothing. Since gay people are full human beings, there is no justification for denying them the same rights. You can still work for your utopia. Making current law accord with principles of equal rights doesn't do anything to block that.

[Tony]

But for the record, anyone using a dreamed-for utopia as an excuse for being in favor of discrimination is, in fact, arguing in favor of discrimination, period.

[califernian]

Anyone who is in favor of discrimination, as you are with polygamists, is in favor of discrimination, period.

[Tony]

I don't give the slightest shit if you want to endorse legal recognition of polygamy. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion except insofar as people inserting it into the discussion are trying to distract from their own wrong opinion on the actual issue.

[some guy]

But for the record, anyone using a dreamed-for utopia as an excuse for being in favor of discrimination is, in fact, arguing in favor of discrimination, period.

So you finally admit you are in favor of discrimination? I've been willing to admit that for years now. Everyone discriminates. Some of us just don't admit to it. The question is whether government should be allowed to discriminate. I hold that it should not and that allowing gays to marry would just further entrench this discrimination.

[some guy]

WTF is this idiotic lie doing here?

Sorry for responding to your unfounded assertion with my own. I assumed the sarcasm would be obvious.

A better way of shooting down your attack on polygamy would be to point out that marriage is traditionally wrapped up with issues of patriarchy and abuse of women...

[robc]

Violating my rule here, but I want to make this fucking clear (it wont get it):

I dont want to liberalize marriage until it no longer exists. I am a huge fan of the concept of marriage. I want it to be separate from the state entirely.

Marriage existed long before government licensing, it will exist long after.

[Tony]

But marriage that's not a contract (i.e., government-licensed) is not marriage, it's just a thing two people call themselves. It's always been a matter concerning a civil or church authority. Otherwise what's the point? You can already call yourself married or whatever other term you want without getting the license.

[cavalier973]

You are incorrect. Marriage contracts do not depend on government licensure.

See here: http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.28/

"When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What's recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we."

[Tony]

If it's legally binding isn't it tantamount to a license? The issue is that gays are not allowed to get legally binding marriages.

[some guy]

But they are to draft and sign contracts that have the approximate effect of being married. (As I discuss above, the only thing missing is government recognition of marriage and the preferred treatment associated with that).

[Tony]

I don't care what benefits government gives or doesn't give to married couples as long as they are the same for straight and gay couples.

The issue isn't marriage. The issue is equality.

[some guy]

The issue isn't marriage. The issue is equality.

Agreed. And there is no equality if married people are treated differently from non-married people.

[Tony]

If they are treated the same then marriage ceases to exist... this is silly.

[some guy]

If they are treated the same then marriage ceases to exist... this is silly.

Once again you are failing to separate government from the society it supposedly serves. If government treats all people the same, private organizations can still treat people differently (that is to say, private organizations can still discriminate.)

[Lost_In_Translation]

Good on Amash. I hope the fainting spell in congress was permanent. Most of those people are absolute dicks.

[Auric Demonocles]

What the hell is with everyone's Facebook picture being a red image with a big pink equals sign? I gather that it's supposed to show support for gays (though it really just shows that you're a tool who can't shut the fuck up about your political views in nonpolitical settings), but what does this particular image have to do with anything?

[darius404]

"=" = "equality".

[Auric Demonocles]

And it's all pink cause it's for gays?

[darius404]

There's a Facebook group called "The Tyrannitarian Party" that posted this.

[generic Brand]

My favorite was my friend who put up a red square with two strips of bacon as the "equal sign". He really likes bacon.

[albo]

Iowahawk for president:

I'd be completely horrible at managing the American economy. So I won't"

[Jam]

Recently unfollowed the hawk, he's just too right wing statist (for any 'libertarian')

[Rights-Minimalist Autocrat]

Yeah, but he's funny sometimes.

[califernian]

First, I'm against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts. Second, I see no reason why broadening the definition of marriage to same-sex couples devalues or diminishes mine.

Hypocrisy test: You're talking about polygamists, right?

[Auric Demonocles]

Ha! Good one. Tony has been clear he won't address that.

[Tony]

I've addressed it. I say let polygamists have their day in court. I don't want to deny them that right. Of course it's irrelevant to the current issue. To quote Ted Olson on polygamy, though, there are issues with "exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody" that the court has explored. "[I]f a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

[Auric Demonocles]

Tony TLDR: I have a right to marry a dude, but people don't have a right to marry 2 dudes.

[Tony]

I don't have a strong opinion on plural marriage. Let them make their case. Gays shouldn't have to make it for them, though.

[generic Brand]

No, gays should be making the case for everyone if they want to be seen as equal and not just an additional class trying to get "theirs".

This is why I have repeatedly said I am sympathetic to the goal of the gay marriage cause, but highly skeptical of the movement. They care nothing about "equality", but just about becoming special like hetero married couples.

[Tony]

So gays should have to agree with the dubious claim that polygamy, incest, and bestiality should be legally recognized before they can believe that gay marriage should be? WTF? What else do they have to endorse? Human-toaster marriage?

[Tony]

And should straight couples have to similarly defend all possible forms of marriage before they're allowed to marry? Or are they special?

[WTF]

Let them make their case. Gays shouldn't have to make it for them, though.

Translation: "I got mine; they can go fuck themselves."

[Tony]

Not fuck themselves, go to court. Why should gays have to defend interests they may not even agree with before they can legitimately defend their own interests?

[WTF]

Or how about gays just defend their own rights without actively undermining other non-traditional marriages by arguing against things like polygamy as part of their 'defense'.

[Vince aut Morire]

So you are for equal rights for some but not all. If gays were concerned about equality and fairness they would care about all people and not just themselves. Otherwise their fight is not for justice it is for special treatment.

[Tony]

You mean the same special treatment straight people already get? Shouldn't straight people have to join the polygamy parade too? Or are they special?

[WTF]

I think you would find that libertarians already have no problem with polgymy, incest, or any othe relationship/voluntary arrangements between consenting adults. But you knew that already, you disingenuous little fuck.

[Vince aut Morire]

You know what I meant. Answer the question. Are you for equality or are you for subjective application of the law?

[Auric Demonocles]

Either make a case that doesn't apply to them, or admit that they are being "oppressed" too. For not having a strong opinion you put a lot of effort into being a monogamist bigot.

[Tony]

I'm making a limited case: that gay and straight couples should be treated equally by the law. I simply don't have a strong opinion or give that much of a shit about polygamists. I'll make a case if you really want me to, but I just don't give that much of a shit, and I definitely don't think I'm required to in order to make the case for gay equal rights. Because if gays have to do it, then so do straights. Do you endorse eliminating marriage for straight couples until they all get behind bestiality?

[Auric Demonocles]

that gay and straight couples should be treated equally by the law.

You are. You are perfectly welcome to go marry a chick.

I simply don't have a strong opinion or give that much of a shit about polygamists. I'll make a case if you really want me to, but I just don't give that much of a shit

If you really didn't care you'd stop argue around doing it for so long and either ignore the thread or just do it. Look, it's really simple: "People should be allowed to marry who they love, assuming consent."

Because if gays have to do it, then so do straights. Do you endorse eliminating marriage for straight couples until they all get behind bestiality?

There's a possible consent issue that arises with bestiality, so you choose a shitty example. But anyway, people trying to keep the marriage definition where it is aren't using an argument that applies to bestiality or polygamy. It's probably based on religion. If you want to argue that your position is based on dogma that marriage is between 2 people but regardless of gender, I'll be willing to change your designation from "disingenuous" to "stupid".

[Tony]

I'm not arguing that it's not an expansion of marriage rights. It is, and that's the whole point. Allowing polygamy ("a person may marry the person or persons of his or her choosing") is a further expansion and one I'm not required to endorse.

[Eduard van Haalen]

One thing which troubles me: Why is Ginger v. Mary Ann even a contest? Mary Ann is obviously preferable. She's the girl next door, while Ginger is a high-maintenance drama queen. And Mary Ann in clearly more attractive. How is this even a debate?

[Drake]

Obviously you didn't understand the article. We are talking about Ginger AND May Ann. Why the false dichotomy?

[Mongo]

As a teen, my best friend had a skin mag from the late 50s (?) with a topless Tina Louise in heels and stockings (and a pistol? - trying to recall here) gallery.

I wonder if pics are online or not (I'm at work right now).

Anyway - Ginger winz.

[Vince aut Morire]

http://heresie666.free.fr/filles/tina/25.jpg

[darius404]

She's wearing some sort of flesh-colored shirt, unless flesh normally wrinkles like that. Look on her body just to the right of her arm and you'll see what I mean. You only get that sort of distortion with cloth.

[Vince aut Morire]

It is a possibility.

[Mongo]

The gallery I saw was b&w pics.

The spread also mentioned her film 'God's Little Acre' (the pics were shot just before or just after that movie).

I'm still at work.

[cavalier973]

*First, I'm against restrictions on adults entering into voluntary contracts.*

Is there some sort of legal restriction on two gay men (or women) having a wedding and declaring themselves married?

[Tony]

Nope, just on their marriage being treated equally under the law. If libertarians don't want any state benefits of marriage, they can just have a show ceremony and call themselves married.

[Joe M]

I asked this question of my online liberal friends and have gotten some interesting responses. For supporters of gay marriage, do you think siblings should be allowed to get married?

One person claimed they are not analogous and thus doesn't support sibling marriage. Others seem more open-minded. I'm really just trying to bust someone implying that it's icky.

[Tony]

It's pretty clear that redefining marriage to be "genderless" as the pro-Prop. 8 argument puts it doesn't do anyone any harm and doesn't affect state interest. The same is not clear for redefining marriage to be between any two people even if they are siblings. But incestuous couples are welcome to make their civil rights case.

[Joe M]

Well, I found out the person who doesn't like it says it's because incestuous couples have a high chance of having kids with health problems. But according to gay marriage supporters, marriage isn't supposed to be about procreation.

[Auric Demonocles]

It's pretty clear that redefining marriage to be "genderless" as the pro-Prop. 8 argument puts it doesn't do anyone any harm and doesn't affect state interest.

Okay, let's go ahead and assume that's true.

The same is not clear for redefining marriage to be between any two people even if they are siblings

Where the fuck does this come from? Who is harmed if two brothers freely decide they want to marry each other?

You don't think "marriage equality" means "being able to marry who I love (assuming they love me back)". So don't argue for that. You already have the same option straight people have: marry a person of the opposite sex that is of age, not a relative, and not already married.

[Tony]

I'm not necessarily arguing against incestuous marriage. But like polygamy that IS a behavior and not a class of people. You can restrict all people from marrying siblings. You can't say straight people can marry siblings but gay people can't. That would be the correct analogy.

[Auric Demonocles]

So you choose to be gay?

[Tony]

I believe the point is the opposite.

[darius404]

Gays choose to be you? Now I'm confused AND depressed.

[AlmightyJB]

While I do have a thing for red heads I would have to say Mary Ann.