Scott Shackford on Huffington Post Live at 11:10 a.m. (Eastern), Discussing Separating the Church and State on Gay Marriage

Credit: Erin M

I'll be joining a panel discussion at Huffington Post Live at 11:10 a.m. this morning (that's 8:10 a.m. for you West Coasters) that asks the question, "Should Religious and Civil Marriages Be Separate?" Here's their summary:

As gay marriage laws change, some conservative pastors say they won't perform any type of civil marriage. Even liberal clergy are asking if civil and religious unions should be explicitly distinct. Does marriage need a separation of church and state?

I don't know if we'll get into any sort of libertarian discussion about whether marriage should be separated from the state entirely, but we'll see. Tune in here.

UPDATE: For anybody who missed it, watch below:

Reason is your voice in debates about politics, culture, and ideas. Our annual Webathon is underway and your tax-deductible gift will help us fight against big government, crony capitalism, the drug war, and so much more. For details on giving levels and swag, go here now.

Comments

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

Sure looks like Anthony Wiener getting "pinned" there.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Give 'em hell, Shackford.

[Free Society]

'As libertarians we can't just force the state to not infringe on personal relationships.' /John Derp

[FUQ]

Removing governement from marriage is the only real answer. 2 or more people living in the same household shouldn't give them extra benefits from the government. Let people have contracts to define arrangements between adults and let the religious have their church marriages that are not legally binding without a civil contract.

[Free Society]

let the religious have their church marriages that are not legally binding without a civil contract.

So you would still leave the matter of whether or not a marriage is considered 'legal' up to statutory interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate 'civil contract'.

[Riven]

I took him to mean that the church can still have their ceremony, but that doesn't mean there's some kind of binding contract between the two.

Basically, there's no contract unless they've actually signed a contract; a ceremony in a church doesn't stand in for one.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Zod forbid!

[Marktaylor]

So what are you gonna do, ban verbal contracts in your utopia?

[Riven]

Verbal contracts are great for short term agreements. A long term verbal contract is only as good as the integrity of the participants, which frequently degrades when the contract is contested or in the process of being dissolved.

Years down the road, unless there's a recording, it's all going to be he-said/she-said. Good luck enforcing that.

[Marktaylor]

That's why they have a ceremony in front of witnesses. That is how the ceremony evolved. You think two people that want to get divorced after two years, five, ten or whatever will be able to say we never married? Nobody will remember?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

That's why they have a ceremony in front of witnesses.

So why do the terms need to follow the government's guidelines? As it stands, I have no alternative but to accept the government's definition.

Fuck that. WHat I contract for is none of their goddamned business.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I don't want to ban anything that doesn't violate the rights of others in my utopia.

But, if you are relying on a verbal contract, you're an idiot.

But hey, good luck with that.

I don't need government to define what marriage legally means. I can contract for something that mutually benefits both parties that's completely different than the government definition if I choose. Who the fuck are they to define my marriage?

[Riven]

Pretty much all of this ^

Francisco said it better than I ever could.

[Riven]

The government really has no place in anyone's marriage. I'm in the middle of getting divorced, and the paperwork requirements to split the sheets are absurd. We divvied everything up equitably according to us, and if I go in to court next week and the female judge gets her knickers in a twist about anything, I'm going to be one enraged panda.

[Warty]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Say he hit you. Tell the judge that he was looking at child porn. TAKE ALL OF HIS SHIT

[Riven]

That I could probably do exactly what you say and actually take him to the cleaners is a clear indicator to me that the system is proper fucked.

Seriously, some women just don't have integrity/a moral compass/big enough boobs to attract another meal ticket.

[Warty]

Boobs, you say? No moral compass or integrity, you say? Go on...

[Riven]

Basically, this .

Trigger warning: it's just an awful song.

[Zeb]

No boobs are worth listening to that asshole for.

[Zeb]

I find it really weird that you have to go to court at all if you have no kids and you both are in agreement about how to settle things.

[Riven]

Right?!

If we mutually agreed about divvying up the assets, why do I need to go to court?

And why do I have to fill out so much goddamned paperwork, including listing how much cash I have on my person at the time? How is that shit relevant?

[JW]

Domestic law is majorly fucked up.

It depends on the state, but they're asking about cash, as you may have earned some wicked lucre during the marriage and not shared it equally with the spouse.

Is Montana one of the states that demands that half of your pension/retirement earned while married go to your ex-spouse, 30 years later? That's my favorite gotcha.

[Riven]

I'm not sure, actually. It goddamn better not be.

If some Nazgul tries to give me half a house, half a 401k, or any other cash prizes, I'm just going to write a check and give it right back.

Also, when I said "cash on my person," I don't mean fat stacks of cash you made and put away somewhere. They actually want to know how much money you have in your wallet. Right now.

[JW]

They actually want to know how much money you have in your wallet. Right now.

Weird. Make them guess and then low ball them.

As to the retirement, just make sure that everything is laid out in the separation agreement. when I split from Wife-unit #1, we had a clause in there that we both surrendered all rights to future earnings, retirements and were responsible for all debts in each of our names.

That still didn't stop the creditors from bugging me when the sweetheart declared bankruptcy years later.

[Riven]

Good to know. I don't lay a claim to any of his earnings: past, present, or future. Period. But I suppose it's necessary to have that in writing somewhere.

How did you reconcile this hideous process with possibly getting married again?

[JW]

How did you reconcile this hideous process with possibly getting married again?

Don't mention the war.

Love is stupid. Very, very stupid.

[Mad Scientist]

That's because you just know that somewhere in the sordid history of messy divorces a spouse was asked how much money they had in the bank. They answered, "$2.19," and neglected to mention the $20k of cash they had on them. So now they have to ask you how much you have with you.

[Riven]

I'm sure that's not too far from the troof at all.

[antisocial-ist]

Ok, I was just wandering about something. Aside from religious reasons, why would anyone want to get married if it were a matter of civil contract? As it stands now there's lots of government benefits attached to marriage but if its just contracts wouldn't most benefits go away? There's some inheritance benefits for spouses buy that could be taken care of separately from a marriage contract.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Too many people enjoy those bennies, including commenters here [accusing stare], for them to ever go away. It's possibly the most intrenched entitlement.

[Apatheist ?_??]

I would still be married even if it were a matter of civil contract, it still has meaning even though we aren't religious. Plus there are benefits to forming a partnership financially even without government benefits (which we are currently aren't receiving anyways, paying extra taxes even).

[Zeb]

Health insurance from work. That's why I got married. And that is entirely because of federal tax policy. It's also convenient for inheritance and if you have children.

I have yet to encounter any of these supposed government benefits attached to marriage. I guess I pay a slightly lower tax rate, but that's just because my wife has little income.

[SusanM]

Untangling the mess of state, county and city laws punishing pre-marital sex, sodomy even between married opposite-sex couples, cohabitation and a host of other little morals laws which favor marriage will be fun to watch if marriage is legally disestablished.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Hey, they're talking about porn - did I click the wrong link?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yeah, totally safe for work!

[Fist of Etiquette]

THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT THAT APPOINTED TIME IS NOW BUT THERE'S NO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOW. I RESCIND MY DONATION. I DON'T DONATE TO LIARS.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You donated to teh HuffPo?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Oh God no.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Well, *they're* the ones who lied!

[Fist of Etiquette]

Do you even know what a write-off is?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

When a man and his money love each other very much...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

How to Have Really Awkward Discussions About Porn With Your Teenagers!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"You see, honey, on the Internet there's a lot of sexually-themed material called pornography..."

"You mean like PornHub, YouPorn, GetYourKinks.com, Spanking.net - is that what you mean, Mom?"

"..."

[Riven]

Not even a mention of RedTube? Wow...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I think (I hope) that these are mostly made-up sites.

[Riven]

You're too precious for this world, Notorious.

[Warty]

Oh, Eddie.

Redtube is the best solely because of the video titles. "She loves a thick cock within her pussy walls", etc.

[Zeb]

Pretty much anything using properly spelled words definitely exists as a website for porn.

[Brett L]

"You see,son. When people want money very much but don't have much talent or drive, but do have basically healthy bodies..."

[Fist of Etiquette]

Shackitta! Shackitta! Shackitta!

[Warren]

Late night Scott? Jesus don't you have a GIF or something you can use when you don't have time to clean up after rolling out of bed?

[Scott S.]

Journalists are born with a special gene that cause us to look rumpled at all times.

[Fist of Etiquette]

People only want ceremonies so they can get gifts and force people to waste an entire Saturday watching them put themselves on display. THERE I SAID IT, YOU CASH BAR FUCKS.

[HeteroPatriarch]

We had an open bar. It was fun. But super expensive.

[Riven]

Well, thanks for the invite! Jerk!

[Zeb]

Yeah. You can't have a party with a cash bar. If you do, you are worse than Hitler.

I still want to know where all my wedding presents and money and shit are. Apparently you have to tell people what to buy you or something. I thought it just happened. Where's my fucking Kitchen Aid mixer you cheap sons of bitch?

While I am ranting insanely, wedding gift registries are awful and tacky. If you are going to tell people exactly what to buy you, why don't you just ask for cash?

[Riven]

They are super tacky. I made a registry so we could buy shit after the shindig went down, but I didn't include the bullshit mailers they give you in the invitations.

[trshmnster the terrible]

Wedding gift registries are very efficient. They cut out the middleman, and let you know exactly which color of kitchenaid the couple wants, which knife set, which silverware set, etc. When we got married, we only had to exchange 1 thing, and that was because the person thought that their choice of crockpot was better than the one we registered for.

Plenty of people got us stuff not on the registry, too.

[Zeb]

Just asking for cash would be even more efficient, though.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The pledge-signers were *all* "unavailable"?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Wait, there are 326 signatories, clerical and lay!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

[Fist of Etiquette]

Paranoia? Tell that to the cake makers forced out of business.

[Marktaylor]

The entitlement thing is mostly bullshit, you don't see much of anything for getting married. Most women would be fucked without marriage, if their husband left them after 20 years they enter a job market having not worked, likely at a minimal paying job. Splitting up the assets at the moment will benefit whoever has been in the job market (usually men).

The marriage contract says when you promise to do something (like take care of someone financially), and you break that promise you owe them money. The doing away of marriage contracts would just lead to so many contracts of exactly the same type that it would become standardized. Which is exactly what we have now.

[Riven]

Whose fault is it that the woman didn't continue to work?

A coworker's father is going through a divorce right now, and the harpy he married hasn't worked for the entire 30 years they've been married. So she hasn't contributed financially at all, but she still gets half the house, assets, etc. which were all bought with his money. I could understand a little "go-away" money to help her get her own place, but she asked him if he was going to buy her a car before the divorce went through even though she already has one...that he bought her.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The idea is she has a 'reliance interest.'

[Riven]

Hmm...

That's just so messed up.

[JW]

That's just so messed up.

Yep. We're still paying the price decades later for 1960's housewives and Bunny Lebowskis.

[trshmnster the terrible]

You still have to draw a line somewhere. Even businesses have a hard time claiming future lost profits for a contract breach.

There should be two measuring lines drawn in calculating a divorce, one at the day of marriage, and one at the day of divorce. If you can properly calculate all of the damages caused by the dissolution of the contract, including reasonable reliance damages (present and future mitigation taken into account), you should be able to come to a nice round number of assets and liabilities that each person gets. None of this "30 years later" bullshit, no indefinite payments. One simple number, and a negotiation on the payment plan.

[Marktaylor]

I'm gonna guess the marriage vow covered something about forever. It really does matted who's at fault because it's essentially a breech of contract. The man gets sex, the woman gets financial reliability for children. Now that women are basically obsolved of any responsibility I would argue marriage is a bad deal for men.

But she made her decisions based on that promise. So you can't just say too bad. Unless the divorce was her idea, but now there's no fault divorces.

[Riven]

The man gets sex, the woman gets financial reliability for children.

I don't know how to respond to that. The rest of your post is lost on me.

I guess I better reread my marriage contract; I had no idea that was in there.

[Zeb]

It's not explicitly in there, but maybe it should be. Sex is kind of an essential part of the whole thing (hopefully for both parties). TO look at it in a rather unromantic way, marriage is, in large part, an agreement to sexual exclusivity in exchange for sexual availability.

This doesn't seem to go down well with a lot of women, but I think that if a married woman (or man, but that seems less common) loses all interest in sex and doesn't want to do it anymore, the spouse ought to allow them other sexual outlets. Or at least be understanding about any fooling around.

[Zeb]

If feminists (of the obnoxious leftist variety, I don't think that a libertarian feminist is a contradiction in terms) were at all honest about what they are after, they would be clamoring for reform of this sort of thing. I think no fault divorce is a good thing, but it should include no burden either. If you just decide that the marriage was a mistake and you want to dissolve the contract, then both parties should simply be released from their agreement unless you can really prove that the other party breached the contract.

[HeteroPatriarch]

Since when does "Standardized" equal "enforced by state violence?"

[Marktaylor]

Whether it's standardized or unique it's enforced with state violence. Are you saying end all contracts?

[Zeb]

The difference is that the marriage contract as it exists now can be changed by legislatures. Even if you got married 50 years ago, the contract is what the law says today. I think a standardized contract (or set of contracts you can choose from) that can't be changed after the fact by third parties would be preferable to the current situation..

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Religious freedom is absolute, but it doesn't apply to for-profit wedding chapels or "marriage mills"?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Then you hitched your eternal salvation to the wrong dogma.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Ha, yeah, forcing people to acknowledge your marriage is exactly the same as cultural acceptance.

[TheZenomeProject]

Obviously, though, no right-thinking person would ever call that privilege "force", because it is almost always about how shiny and beautiful the end result will be and how everyone will have to love your marriage. I'm not saying all progressives think this way, but I do believe that's what the majority of them think "equality of respect" should mean.

[Kaptious Kristen]

don't know if we'll get into any sort of libertarian discussion about whether marriage should be separated from the state entirely

Then what's the point, really?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yeah, at a time when people are uncertain about getting married in the first place, tell them that if they want a religious marriage, the government will simply consider it an unlicensed shacking-up. The way to make it real is to drop by some clerk's office.

Yeah, that will encourage the institution of marriage!

[Warty]

Who the fuck cares? Jesus Christ, you cultists are weird.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

And I wasn't even appealing to God - I was making a sociological observation. You can say that it *won't* affect the marriage rate, you can say a lower marriage rate doesn't harm the community, but you can't just say "OMG sky fairy how silly!"

[Bo Cara Esq.]

He wasn't commenting on the basis of your social engineering as much as noting it's social engineering (who cares part). Why should the government be 'encouraging' one set of relationship arrangements? Especially if the one you prefer is so obviously superior naturally and sociologically, most people will not need much persuasion to opt for it.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"most people will not need much persuasion to opt for it"

That's the very point I'm disputing.

There are plenty of cultures, many in the U.S., where marriage rates are low. So it's not as natural and self-evident as you suggest.

Government-recognized marriage carries lots of benefits, as has been rehearsed in detail in the gay-marriage discussions.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If more and more people are not choosing it, then perhaps it's not so great. Having government push or nudge them into it is, in general, not a good policy.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, that's why the prisons are disproportionately occupied by fatherless men and youths who enjoyed the benefits of a marriage-less upbringing.

And if you're into racial justice, note that if you control for family structure, the black crime rate looks about the same as the white crime rate. IOW, if more black youths were raised by intact families, there would no longer be such a disproportion between white and black crime rates, and in addition to less crime, we'd have more harmonious race relations.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Correlation vs causation..how does it work Eddie?

Couldn't possibly the other way around? That shitbag parents are less likely to marry?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Well, I'm not saying I can refute you, but just that I'm skeptical - the explosion of unwed births in the U.S. is of recent date, and "happens" to coincide with (until recently) growing social pathologies. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about, got tarred as a racist, and then things happened as he predicted, and then they say it would have happened anyway!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I would agree that people's morals, wrt child rearing have gone to shit, and that caused the spike. Shitbag parents raise shitbag kids.

Has nothing to do with race, and to claim it's a result of not having a government/church issued piece of paper is absurd on it's face.

If I had to hypothesize as to the cause of the decline in responsible parenting, I would have to point to a decline in individual responsibility likely brought about, in part, by the entitlement culture that's been created.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Has nothing to do with race, and to claim it's a result of not having a government/church issued piece of paper is absurd on it's face."

The Scarecrow's family reunion had fewer straw men!

marriage:marriage license::business:businss license

See? They're *not the same!*

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I don't follow. If you're trying to make a point, you're not doing a very good job.

Splain what you mean for us stupid people.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

All right - the government has often recognized marriages even in the absence of a marriage license. I can take or leave the license, it is not essential for govt recognition.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I can take or leave the license, it is not essential for govt recognition.

But it is essential for government to "encourage the institution of marriage?"

[Notorious G.K.C.]

To the extent marriage licenses are justified (and I'm not sure I'm fans of these licenses), they are a record-keeping and revenue-raising measure, so there's a central source of info in each state as to who got married in that state, and the govt takes a cut of every wedding ceremony.

I'm skeptical about the whole licensing thing, since there's nothing to stop the govt from recognizing a marriage even if there was no prior "license."

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Like every statist plea you argue we should get government involved because it really will benefit society

[Warty]

Oh, yes I can. You cultists are weird and you worry exclusively about trivial things.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

When you get robbed by some kid who never had a father and consequently fell into bad company (a disproportionate number of such criminals are from broken homes), you'll see how trivial it is.

[Riven]

How about we blame the welfare state, instead, since that's what enables single motherhood?

[Warty]

Without the state enforcing marriage contracts, no fathers would raise their kids. OK. Sure.

I'm always amazed at how much contempt you religious types have for people.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I'm always amazed at how much contempt you religious types have for people."

I'm amazed at the contempt some (not all) of you secularists have for the social arrangements which human beings developed over millennia to promote social progress and stability. Now we suddenly have become so much wiser than our ancestors and can tear these institutions up by the roots, and nothing bad will happen.

At least in domestic policy, the neocons were right - for secular reasons (and they're generally secular) the government shouldn't be promoting family breakdown.

[Warty]

State marriage licenses are far from an old institution. They only became the norm something like 150 years ago. But you're just pretending not to know that, aren't you?

And as far as tearing up old institutions? If they're brutal institutions, well, fuck them. But wait, I'm talking to someone who wants to bring back the auto-da-f?. Never mind.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

auto-da-f?, what's an auto-da-f?, it's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

But who *wouldn't* want to bring back an institution with such fabulous dance numbers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZegQYgygdw

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"State marriage licenses are far from an old institution"

OK, let's get back to the topic at hand - state *recognition* of marriage.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The reason the welfare state subsidizes single motherhood is that the government is *already* moving away from the idea of favoring traditional marriage.

The welfare-reform bill of 1996 put a dent in the welfare culture by limiting payments to single mothers, but now with underminging that bill and the increase of "disability" payments we're retrogressing.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Eddie, you know that's a common argument from liberals regarding a host of their programs. If you don't support college grants or elementary schooling or head start or fill in the blank they'll note that a disproportionate number of criminals are deficient in these areas so you should support them.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

See, Warty, I don't need to reinstate the Inquisition, Bo has the heresy-hunting down to a science!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Ease your victim status tears Eddie, I'm just noting that the road your describing is the commonly experienced one to serfdom.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I would only be able to claim victim status if I were losing, which I'm not.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's your 'oh noes Bo is applying his purity test, sniff'
You want the government to social engineer but for a really good cause. We get it, a libertarian inquisitor isn't necessary here.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So you're not necessary but you're here anyway?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Watching you clumsily dance is amusing, what can I say?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Encouraging the institution of marriage=social engineering Eddie.

If you think it's is important, encourage it with your words and deeds, not via coercive governmental methods.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

So having the government recognize you marriage is coercive...unless you're a same-sex couple, of course, in which case it's a Vital Issue of Human Rights!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So you just want a little government sticker on your marriage that says 'government approved?'

[Notorious G.K.C.]

If Nigel and Bruce can get a sticker, why not a man and a woman who marry in church?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The only claim Nigel and Bruce have to a sticker is that they're handing them out by the buttload to relationships that you approve of.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, that's the argument of many H&R folks - "until we reach libertopia and the government totally ignores marital status, let's at least be fair to Nigel and Bruce by recognizing their relationship!"

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Fairness in government treatment is kind of important.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yeah, it's kinda required under the Constitution.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yeah, that will encourage the institution of marriage!

Why would I want that?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Uh, because you don't want to be robbed by some fatherless youth who, lacking proper male role models, fell into bad company and became a criminal?

[Riven]

Why can't we just teach them not to rob?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Uh, because you don't want to be robbed by some fatherless youth who, lacking proper male role models, fell into bad company and became a criminal?

WHAT THE LIVING FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MARRIAGE?

No morality without government/church say so, is that it? Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell raised a bunch of criminals? No single parent can raise a moral child?

What a load of horseshit!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You refute ideas which are "not only undefensible, but undefended."

In other words, since I didn't say any of these things you listed, writing a rebuttal would be pointless.

Not every cigarette smoker gets cancer. Not everyone with an unhealthy diet gets a heart attack.

Ergo, cigarettes and unhealthy diets are harmless, QED!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I don't want government pushing smoke free and low fat lifestyles either.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

That whooshing sound you heard vaguely above your head is my point.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yeah, Eddie, you're pretty good at making implications and then claiming that's not what you meant. Say what you mean and quit tiptoeing around it, then.

You just implied that in order to raise a moral child you needed to do so within the confines of marriage. And I called bullshit.

Are you now claiming that those that do raise moral children outside of marriage are the exception to the rule? Because, if you are, I once again call bullshit!

Bad parents raise bad kids. Has nothing to do with them being married or not. And there is absolutely no reason in the world (other than Jebus says so) to "encourage the institution of marriage" for the social good.

Causation vs correlation.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"You just implied that in order to raise a moral child you needed to do so within the confines of marriage. And I called bullshit."

No, I didn't, so who's the bullshit artist?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No, I didn't, so who's the bullshit artist?

Horseshit Eddie!

If that's not what you meant when you said:

Uh, because you don't want to be robbed by some fatherless youth who, lacking proper male role models, fell into bad company and became a criminal?

Then explain, plainly, what you really fucking meant without the fucking tapdancing!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I already said - a *disproportionate* number of violent criminals are fatherless men and youths.

I notice that you never attempt to deny this, and go about straw-manning me instead.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Because your being coy. You clearly are trying to say 'we should encourage my preferred lifestyle because if we don't ROBBERZ!!!!' But a central feature if libertarianism is that the government shouldn't get involved just because some indirect result is less than desirable.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I missed the part where I said I was libertarian. I'm a fellow traveller. But given that a lot of what the govt does is wrong and usurpatory, libertarians are valuable allies to fundie Sky-Daddy fanciers like myself.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yes, pointing out the difference between causation and correlation is a strawman...

derp

You point to the statistic that:

a *disproportionate* number of violent criminals are fatherless men and youths.

As proof that this is CAUSED by not listening to Jesus and stuff when it proves nothing of the sort. You claim this because it supports your belief in the Almighty and you think it gives you some kind of mandate to force your will/beliefs upon others.

Your statistic is nothing more than correlation, proving nothing. In fact, it is far more likely that shitbags are likely to raise shitbag kids and shitbags are ALSO more likely not to get married. Forcing (or encouraging) shitbags to get married, isn't going to do fuck-all towards reducing the shitbaggedness of their neglected spawn.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I've explained which way I think the causal arrow points.

But let's get back to the straw men - you imputed absolutist views to me which I did not hold:

"No morality without government/church say so, is that it? Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell raised a bunch of criminals? No single parent can raise a moral child?
What a load of horseshit!"

Suppose you said "cigarettes are bad for your health," and I replied, "no they're not because my granddad smoked and he lived to 102!" And you said you were speaking of the increased risk, not of *every single frickin' case,* and I said you were backtracking and being coy.

Frankly, I think you are easily "triggered" by anything associated with God or religion, or any*one* associated with these topics, so that your critical thinking skills are...impaired in such cases.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

But let's get back to the straw men - you imputed absolutist views to me which I did not hold:

You do see the question mark [emphasis added] right Eddie?

No morality without government/church say so, is that it?

Frankly, I think you are easily "triggered" by anything associated with God or religion, or any*one* associated with these topics, so that your critical thinking skills are...impaired in such cases.

Could be something to be said for that. I have no problem with you being religious. I'm a libertarian. You may do as you wish provided you don't infringe on the rights of others.

HOWEVER, I will not accept "cuz God sayz so" as an argument for anything as no such entity actually exists.

And government "encouraging the institution of marriage" cuz God sayz does infringe upon my rights as I'm paying for such nonsense.

[Azathoth!!]

Uh, because you don't want to be robbed by some fatherless youth who, lacking proper male role models, fell into bad company and became a criminal?

WHAT THE LIVING FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MARRIAGE?

No morality without government/church say so, is that it? Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell raised a bunch of criminals? No single parent can raise a moral child?

What a load of horseshit!

You may very well be right--but I can't help notice that the word 'bastard' evolved into a slur that refernces far more than lack of a father.

Marriage predates civilization. As, apparently, does bastardy.

[Zeb]

tell them that if they want a religious marriage, the government will simply consider it an unlicensed shacking-up

Why would the government consider it anything at all? You don't need a license to have a room mate or to have sex with someone. And laws still on the books about that sort of thing are never enforced.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Let's not forget the origins and nature of what we're talking about here. The traditionalist, religious conservatives of yesterday (the forerunners of today's 'socons') had an idea that only one type of sexual relations and attendant cohabitation was acceptable. Then they built around that idea a Byzantine, complex edifice of social benefits tied to those who chose that arrangement as well as coercive, harsh punishments for those who chose otherwise (laws punishing cohabitation, adultery, sodomy, bigamy, etc). They did this even when it seemed to on its face contravene our political philosophy and Constitutional provisions (see the SCOTUS Mormon case).

Slowly, people worked to whittle away this edifice, especially on the coercive side. Now a group wants in on the benefits side, a relatively small group, and now, all of a sudden, a lot of people on the Right are upset. Natural libertarian allies indeed.

[OldMexican]

Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

Now a group wants in on the benefits side, a relatively small group, and now, all of a sudden, a lot of people on the Right are upset. Natural libertarian allies indeed.

I still don't see what does this have to do with the fact that it is my money you're taking so fuck you.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You might want to hold on your insults, I don't think the state should have any interest in living arrangements like these, I'm just pointing out that people are complaining about the mote not the log.

[OldMexican]

Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

You might want to hold on your insults

Well, I am a bitter clinger... but the insults were not lobed at you. Trust me.

[Marktaylor]

Yeah, that's it. People fucking and raising children in the biologically necessary pairs was created by a SOCON, probably like 100 years ago when they made the constitution.

[OldMexican]

Re: Marktaylor,

Yeah, that's it. People fucking and raising children in the biologically necessary pairs was created by a SOCON, probably like 100 years ago when they made the constitution.

Well, maybe that's the case! Are you older than 100 to say otherwise?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The legal benefits and punishments surrounding it are not natural things Mark.

[Zeb]

What does that have to do with anything? Fucking and raising children is quite possible without legal definitions for the relationships involved.

[OldMexican]

I don't know if we'll get into any sort of libertarian discussion about whether marriage should be separated from the state entirely

It's the Huff, so don't bet the house on it.

[TheZenomeProject]

LOL, actually they did take the time to discuss my comment at 10:58 about questioning the whole role of state in marriage, so I'll give the Huff journalist that, it was far more than I expected that they would give to the libertarian side of this. Rauchenbush's reaction was telling, though, it seems that many people in the gay community look at this issue as "equality of respect" under the law, which I really don't think is all that possible under the law.

[John]

There is another name for "getting the government out of marriage". It is called civil unions. Civil unions are nothing but contract based unions that the government promises to recognize and enforce in court. When libertarians say they want to get the government out of marriage, they are talking about civil unions. The government is always going to be involved to the extent that the union only means something if you can go to court to enforce it and the government will recognize it and it is not an illegal contract.

Think about his for a moment. Civil unions were offered as a compromise on gay marriage years ago. Offering gays civil unions was offering gay couples exclusive admission to the very same contract based system that Libertarians claim would be best for everyone. Somehow, that wasn't good enough for the gays or for their Libertarian supporters. Only court mandated state marriage would do. So now, gays will get court mandated state marriage and the religious people will opt out and effectively have civil unions.

Is there a Libertarian movement anymore or has it just become a small wing of the gay rights movement? Or is that Libertarians hate gays and secretly want to stick them with government marriage, something Libertarians claim to hate, while allowing everyone else to escape to civil unions?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Somehow, that wasn't good enough for the gays or for their Libertarian supporters."

They used to offer blacks their own waterfountains too.

[John]

But this wasn't the water fountain you fucking half wit. It was the very system that Libertarians spent decades claiming was better and should be adopted for all marriage. It wasn't, from the Libertarian perspective separate but equal. It was separate but superior.

Did you read the first paragraph of the post or did you just mindlessly post an idiotic talking point? Are you that stupid or just that lazy?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You use this phrase 'separate but equal,' but don't seem to get how that was worked out in, say, Brown. Did you know the Court assumed actual equal facilities in deciding that case? So what do you think they based their decision on? The idea that if you have to come up with something totally separate to serve some group, even if equal, it carries with it a stigma of disapproval.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The funny thing is that the SoCons that you're quick to defend are firmly of the opinion that government endorsement of marriage is a valuable thing in and of itself (as Eddie seems to acknowledge).

[John]

You are either too stupid or mendacious to have this conversation with. You have had two bites at the apple and completely ignored the point in both cases. I don't know what else to do for you. Sometimes Bo, you are just not ready to sit at the adult's table.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You become nastily insulting so quickly, and ironically it's you that have a misunderstood premise. When libertarians say it would better to have civil unions they are not saying that in a system that recognizes hetero relationships as marriage and gay ones as unions the unions are better.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

One problem with "contract based" arguments is that it doesn't answer questions like "can the courts force spouses to testify against each other?"

To have this sort of marital privileges the government has to recognize at least some relationships as marriage.

If the government stops recognizing marriage, then it will be able to force married people to testify against each other, since in the eyes of the law they're just a couple of individuals who happen to be shacking up.

[John]

That goes to the larger issue of "getting the government out of marriage" does no such thing. All a contract based system does is move the debate over into the contract realm. It doesn't necessarily make anyone any freer or make the government less involved in marriage. It could, but it doesn't have to. Libertarians don't get that and frankly I have given up trying to explain it to them. So go with me here.

The point is that gays were offered a contract based system in the form of civil unions that was from the Libertarian perspective more free and better than the traditional family law system. And yet, Libertarians threw a fit and wouldn't support that.

If the idea is go to a contract based system, wouldn't allowed a whole class of couples experiment with that system and opt out of the traditional system be a good idea? It would if you gave a shit about marriage and viewed gay marriage rationally instead of just another club in the culture war and a way to show your prog friends how wonderful and reasonable you are.

[JW]

Libertarians don't get that and frankly I have given up trying to explain it to them.

I think they do, but also realize that it's irrelevant to the overall idea. One has nothing to do with the other. One is contract law. The other is criminal law.

Being free from gubmint interference doesn't automatically transform the world into Rainbow Puppy Island. It just means that you're free to do what you want, including massively fucking up.

[OldMexican]

Re: Notorious G.K.C.

One problem with "contract based" arguments is that it doesn't answer questions like "can the courts force spouses to testify against each other?"

That legal principle is based on English Common Law and not statute. Why would a court not extend that protection to civil union spouses is something you will have to explain.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, but then the government still wouldn't be neutral regarding marriage (the argument some people seem to be making), it would simply be renaming and redefining marriage but giving benefits to those it defines as married (or substitute term of choice).

[John]

Because it is not a marriage Old Mexican. It is a civil union. But that problem is easily solved; just write the civil union law so that it requires courts to recognize the privilege.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

One problem with "contract based" arguments is that it doesn't answer questions like "can the courts force spouses to testify against each other?"

You're asking the wrong question.

Why can the government force anyone to testify against their will? Ya see, if you're moral/principled to begin with, you don't run into such problems.

[John]

Yes they can. You can only not be forced to testify if doing so incriminates you. If you have information relevent to a court case, the court has the power to order you to give it.

Why shouldn't they be able to do that? Where do you get the power to withhold the truth from a fact finder? Suppose you are charged with murder and I know that you were somewhere else at the time of the crime and can exonerate you. If you call me to testify in the case, should I be able to say "I really don't like the Fransisco guy, he said somethings that made me feel butt hurt on hit and run, so I am not going to testify"? I don't think so. I have an obligation to the parties before the court to come forward and truthfully tell what I know and the court should certainly be able to compel me to do that.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I know the current law says they can. I'm saying the current law is immoral.

I'll say one thing for you John. You are consistently unprincipled.

I suppose you believe the government should be able to force you to eat broccoli, as well?

Why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Um, cause I own my own body.

Where do you get the power to withhold the truth from a fact finder?

I don't have powers. I have rights. Government has powers.

Where do they get the power to force me to speak? I haven't initiated force. And the thing of it is, I'd gladly provide the information voluntarily as that's what I'd want in return. It is the presumption that government has the power to force me to that I object to. So IOW, the government, through its heavy handedness, is the cause of the conflict.

Why is the factfinder my superior? It's actually the other way round. I'm the government's superior.

If you call me to testify in the case, should I be able to say "I really don't like the Fransisco guy, he said somethings that made me feel butt hurt on hit and run, so I am not going to testify"?

Yes.

You'd be a shitbag for doing so, but yes, that is your right.

I have an obligation to the parties before the court to come forward and truthfully tell what I know

I have no such obligation as I haven't agreed to it.

[John]

I am very principled Fransisco. You just don't like my principles or don't understand them and thus pretend they are not there.

My being forced to testify is completely different than eating broccoli. Government power only extends or should only extend to fairly settling disputes amongst people. My testifying in court is a part of that. What I put in my body is not.

I don't have powers. I have rights. Government has powers.

Sure you have "rights". But those rights are not anything positive. Those rights are simply spheres of behavior where the government can't go. You don't have a positive right to anything you can't pay for or do yourself. Your "rights' such as they are are just places that the government can't go and things the government can't tell you not to do or protections it has to provide to you if it wants to go to those places. That is it. You don't have a right to "travel", the government has no power to tell you, you can't travel or control your travel absent due process.

You'd be a shitbag for doing so, but yes, that is your right.

No it wouldn't. I have no right to harm others by withholding information. My refusing to give truthful information is directly harming you and harming the other party to law suit. I have no right to harm others. Sure, I can withhold it if doing so harms me. I have a right to self preservation. But I have no right to harm you and when I do harm you, the government should have the power to step in and stop you.

[kbolino]

My refusing to give truthful information is directly harming you and harming the other party to law suit.

Conscientious objection cannot possibly cause harm unless you believe that I owe you something. In which case, you believe you have a positive right to something that is mine.

If I keep mum, the righteous hand of God does not come forth from the heavens to smite you. The harm that occurs is perpetuated at the hand of agents of the state.

[John]

Conscientious objection cannot possibly cause harm unless you believe that I owe you something. In which case, you believe you have a positive right to something that is mine.

You owe me the truth that you hold. So, yes you do owe me. The reason why you owe me the truth is that by living in society we all agree to tell the truth and to adjudicate our disputes fairly and by what is true and not by the power of the gun.

And if you have a "conscientious objection" as in "it will incriminate you" or "I don't want to rat out my spouse", you don't have to testify.

What you don't get here is that you and Fransisco think your testifying is the same thing as what you eat. It is not because your testifying involves other people. Each of us have the obligation to tell the truth if we have it and if it is relevant to settling a legal dispute between people. Why do we have that obligation? Because we have an obligation to treat each other fairly and you can't meet that obligation unless you agree to settle disputes fairly. And you can't settle disputes fairly if people are free to withhold the truth.

[kbolino]

And what you eat doesn't involve other people?

Even without the tortured logic of Wickard v. Filburn, it is not hard to conclude that "what you eat" can and often does involve lots of other people.

Or did the food spring magically grown, cultivated, and prepared on your table?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What you don't get here is that you and Fransisco think your testifying is the same thing as what you eat. It is not because your testifying involves other people.

You forcing me to eat broccoli involves other people too. Broccoli is healthy and other people are paying for my health insurance so they have the right to force me to eat healthy.

That there are other people involved is a progressive argument for force. It has no bearing on reality.

The only measure of my obligation to anyone, short of not violating their rights, is what I've agreed to.

You are unprincipled because you cannot accept that you are coming down on two different sides of the same argument.

You think it's all right to force someone to testify, but not to eat broccoli against their will. You make excuses for one and ignore the same excuse for the other.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Sure you have "rights". But those rights are not anything positive. Those rights are simply spheres of behavior where the government can't go. You don't have a positive right to anything you can't pay for or do yourself.

How in the name of Christ can remaining silent be construed as a positive right? No one is paying to provide my silence. No one else must take action to enable my silence.

No it wouldn't. I have no right to harm others by withholding information.

You cannot harm someone through inaction.

You remaining silent is not harming me. It is not helping me. You cannot be compelled to help me under a moral philosophy.

Requiring such simply leads to more problems as described at the top of this thread:

One problem with "contract based" arguments is that it doesn't answer questions like "can the courts force spouses to testify against each other?"

That problem wouldn't be a problem if the system was based upon libertarian principle.

Of course, these little conflicts are what keep lawyers, like yourself, in business, right John? 😉

[John]

You cannot harm someone through inaction.

That is ridiculous. Because of your inaction, the court doesn't know the full truth and renders a wrong verdict. That harms everyone.

That problem wouldn't be a problem if the system was based upon libertarian principle.

There is nothing unlibertarian about compelling people to reveal the truth to courts. Your rights end when your actions harm others.

You agree that properly adjudicated disputes is a legitimate function of government? Right? Courts can't fairly adjudicate disputes if people are free to lie to or not testify as to the truth in the dispute. You don't have the right to say no because you don't have a right to make a court hearing unfair.

If people could refuse to testify, you could never have fair courts. No one who is unpopular in the community could ever get a fair trial. Sure, the community knows the guy is innocent but none of them will come forward and say why and thanks to you, no one can make them.

You can't a libertarian society with courts that function that way.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You agree that properly adjudicated disputes is a legitimate function of government? Right?

Yes.

Courts can't fairly adjudicate disputes if people are free to lie to or not testify as to the truth in the dispute.

Nonsense. People lie to courts everyday, and they still get to the truth (usually).

If people could refuse to testify, you could never have fair courts.

Non sequitur. In fact, this is common amongst you statists. You honestly believe there is no way to do anything without government compulsion. As I said above, people will testify voluntarily simply because that's what they'd want others to do if the tables were reversed. The compulsion is unnecessary and counterproductive.

It's like progs saying we wouldn't have clean water without government regulation. It's simply nonsense.

[John]

I'll say one thing for you John. You are consistently unprincipled.

I don't care when people are pricks to me when I am pricks to them first. Such are the wages of being a prick. But I gave you a polite reasoned answer to your post and your response to make a prick comment like that.

You don't agree with me, fine. But fuck you with a hammer if you think that I have no principles. Are you just trying to be the biggest dick on here?

[kbolino]

I have an obligation to the parties before the court

As established by what contract?

This is a fundamental difference between libertarians and statists. There are no obligations except those voluntarily and explicitly entered into.

If you didn't agree to testify as to my whereabouts, disposition, or activities on a certain date and time, then you have no "obligation" to do so.

You will probably have an officer of the court threatening to jail you if you don't, but there is a difference between being obligated and being coerced.

[John]

Your concealing of information is harming me. You are not harmed by testifying unless it incriminates you. I and the other party are greatly harmed by your refusal to do so.

You cannot consistent with the nonagression principle allow you to harm me like that. No one says you must come forward. But if I know you have the information, your refusal to provide the truth is a direct harm to me. It is therefore perfectly okay for the government to step in and prevent you from doing that harm.

And don't use words like "statist" unless you know what they mean. Being committed to a fair judicial system makes you not an anarchist. Statist has nothing to do with it.

[kbolino]

I do not harm you by not speaking!

This is patently absurd and yet you double down on it.

If someone harms you because I did not speak up, they are the agent of harm, not me.

This is like saying that "incitement" is a crime because the guy standing at the podium is the only one with moral agency and the thugs who use his words as justification for violence are just automatons.

You do not have the right to compel me to give you what you want without an explicit and voluntarily established arrangement between you and me stipulating that obligation.

[John]

I do not harm you by not speaking!

Yes you do. I go to jail for a crime I didn't commit. And the entire community is harmed because the guilty person gets away and an innocent person goes to prison. You harm a lot of people.

If someone harms you because I did not speak up, they are the agent of harm, not me.

But in this case, they are doing their duty and trying to protect the society from a murderer. They wouldn't be harming me if I were guilty. They are only harming me because I am innocent. And they are only doing that because they don't know any better. Why do they not know any better? Because you are withholding the truth so they mistakenly think they are doing the right thing.

You are absolutely harming me and the government has every right to stop you from doing it.

[John]

You do not have the right to compel me to give you what you want without an explicit and voluntarily established arrangement between you and me stipulating that obligation.

What gives you the right to defraud the court and let an innocent person go to prison? What is the more compelling interest here, the interest in not putting innocent people in jail and fairly resolving disputes or your right to be an asshole and withhold the information necessary to do that?

[kbolino]

Necessity is not the same as morality.

The necessity of the state does not change the fact that taxation is theft. The necessity of the courts does not change the fact that compelled testimony violates the integrity of a man's conscience.

Divorcing the actions of the state from their morality leads predictably and unsurprisingly to ever greater abuse.

If you think I owe you the truth, what is to stop you from pursuing it at all costs? At what point does your "obligation" to the truth take a backseat to my right to be true to my conscience?

[TheZenomeProject]

I do wonder, though, if the libertarian support of gay marriage, especially during the last three-four years, is more about pragmatism and working within the current confines of the law than anything about civil unions somehow being inferior to government-backed marriage. Even if you or I find that civil unions are superior to marriage, many in the gay community probably disagree on the simple basis that it is DIFFERENT from the marriage that other, heterosexual couples are able to get. If the discussion was about how all marriages should be private partnerships/unions, many would feel a lot differently about the prospect of civil unions.

[John]

Most people don't find civil unions superior to marriage. A contract based marriage system would suck and would be very unappealing to anyone who is not a committed libertarian. Regardless of what you think of such a system, it is and has been the preferred Libertarian position on marriage for a very long time and continues to be so.

The fact that straight couples generally don't want civil unions didn't stop Libertarians from supporting them, so why should gays being against it stop them?

The bottom line is many Libertarians refused to support giving gays the very system they think should be available for everyone. It was just nuts.

[kbolino]

And it would "suck" for the millions who depend on welfare and disability payments if the checks stopped coming.

That doesn't make right the act of collecting unearned income off the backs of people who would go to jail if they refused to pay for it.

This is the exact same argument Tony makes when he claims taxation isn't theft. The fact that an institution is popular or beneficial to some does not absolve it of a fundamentally immoral nature.

[John]

You completely missed the point. I mean you fucking utterly missed the point. You couldn't have missed the point more if you tried.

My point has nothing to do with the relative desirability of contract based marriage. Nothing at all. Think about that and get back to me.

[kbolino]

A contract based marriage system would suck and would be very unappealing to anyone who is not a committed libertarian.

You said these words, and I addressed them.

Whatever your "point" was, it was predicated on the statement you made that no one wants contract marriage except a handful of unpopular and powerless people.

Not only do I not contest that premise, in fact I agree with it completely.

What YOU failed to understand is that stating a premise is not the same as justifying it.

No, most people don't want contract marriage. This may be a product of ignorance, but self interest amply explains it.

HOWEVER, your self-interest does not trump my rights.

I never took you for an Objectivist, but damn do you sound a lot like them.

[John]

You didn't adress it. You just said you didn't care if people would hate it, you would enforce it on them whether they liked it or not. Good for you. But that wasn't the larger point I was making.

The larger point was that if you like that system, you should have been happy to see gays get access to it. Whether you would like to stick your boot on the face of the rest of the country and force them to live under it or not is a different issue and not what I was saying.,

[kbolino]

You just said you didn't care if people would hate it, you would enforce it on them whether they liked it or not.

I said no such thing. I never talked about the remedy, only the disease. You can cure cancer by killing the patient, but that doesn't make it an appropriate remedy given the larger context.

Ultimately, what you are saying is that status quo and majority will should reign supreme. According to your line of reasoning, no accounting for moral principles should ever be made, lest it place an undue limitation on the majority or deviate from the status quo.

What you fail to provide, however, is any justification for this precept. Who gets to pick the lines that delineate the majority? Who gets to set the rules that established the status quo in the first place? Why is stasis the supreme virtue?

[chenoacorksduu]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I think I should mention that this debate isn't happening in a vacuum, but in the context of government *actively undermining* marriage - the encouragement of single motherhood is the key example of this, something even Bill Clinton tried to do something about (when he was forced). Then there's "family law" and "no fault divorce."

That's why I criticize these right-wing clerics - yes, I'm criticizing right-wingers here - for dropping out of the fight and making marriage less convenient for man/woman couples. In addition the usual unwillingness to marry, if these clerics had their way there would be the additional obstacle of having to have *two* ceremonies to get "fully married."

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The only way that government undermines marriage is by not supporting it in some areas.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

And encouraging and subsidizing family breakdown.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The commonly cited example is that welfare benefits are given to single parents but cut if they are married. This is so because governments recognize marriages, married people are treated as a economic unit of two people. They don't do that with cohabiting couples precisely because they don't want to recognize them in any way.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

This defines the problem, it doesn't solve it. Subsidizing nonmarital households, when the poverty rate among marital households is *much* less, strikes me as counterproductive.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I agree, but we also subsidize and incentivize marriage (you seem to recognize this, and approve, in some areas-formal recognition, spousal immunity, etc). I say our government should encourage neither.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"we also subsidize and incentivize marriage (you seem to recognize this, and approve, in some areas-formal recognition, spousal immunity, etc)"

So would you keep or discard spousal immunity, and who would be entitled to it?

[OldMexican]

Let's stop beating around the bush and see the issue for what it is: people who feel entitled to a religious ceremony.

Whereas most homosexuals want to be recognized as humans with the same rights as heterosexuals, there is that segment that wants religious institutions to PROVIDE to them, by force if necessary.

That group will not be content with the State recognizing civil marriages or providing the same benefits that married couples enjoy. Let's get that clear.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The problem is that one of the benefits married couples get is protection under certain non discrimination laws. That's the problem

[OldMexican]

Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

The problem is that one of the benefits married couples get is protection under certain non discrimination laws. That's the problem

Possibly, but a minor aspect when it comes to Church and State, which is the center issue being discussed at the Huff. The problem with the State appropriating the role of certifying marriages is that it increases the entitlement sentiment among certain groups, with the risk to personal freedom brought forth.

And that is the problem with these discussions, in that they revolve around the assumption that the State has the right to certify marriages.

[Zeb]

Yes, those people exist and fuck them.

Now if certain religious institutions would stop trying to mess with politics it might help their case with people who don't see an absolute right to free association.

[OldMexican]

Re: Zeb,

Now if certain religious institutions would stop trying to mess with politics it might help their case with people who don't see an absolute right to free association.

What other recourse would you suggest, Zeb?

[Zeb]

Besides what? I think they should have absolute right to free association. But lots of people don't. And if you want religious institutions to be left alone to do as they deem appropriate, you probably have to convince some of those people.

[userve32]

Hitem up jo jo I say agian, hittem up!

http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk