We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

It’s not fun to be in the Y-M-C-A

The annual London Gay Pride march took place earlier today.

Typically, I pay no heed to the occasion. This is partly due to the fact that I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other but also because it has now become just another piece in the cultural jigsaw of London life. A part of the social furniture really.

However, now into my 3rd year as a blogger, I find that I have a heightened sense of curiosity so I wandered over to have a look at the promotional website.

I rather regret bothering to do so as it makes excrutiating reading. Apparently as much devoted to disabled and asylum-seeker ‘rights’ as homosexual ones, every page drips with exquisitely pitched right-on-ness. In fact such is the extent of the dogmatically po-faced sincerity that some of it is unintentionally hilarious. For example, the line up of guest speakers includes:

Ida Barr, artificial hip hop from Music Hall Veteran and Rally Compere.

Now that means that Ms Barr plays hip hop music that is not genuine or does it mean that she merely hops around on an artificial hip? If the latter, then that is not what I call entertainment.

Julie Felix, singing against inequality, injustice and war for the last 40 years.

Clearly the number one choice when you really need to get the party swinging.

Wesley Gryk, Solicitor for the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group Gay Asylum seeker.

If I made up a group called ‘Gay Asylum seeker’ (and I consider myself somewhat remiss for not having done so) then not only would I not be believed but I would also be pilloried for exaggeration and hate speech.

There is no mention anywhere of any stop-the-war or anti-globo ranters but given their leech-like ability to latch themselves onto any passing warm-blooded creatures it would not surprise me in the least to find out that a whole sackload of them had tagged along for the ride as well.

There is nothing here about pride, much less freedom of association or individual sovereignty. This is all about group-think and the fostering of grievance cultures. What was once an understandable public protest against unjustifiable persecution has become a portmanteau of victimologies. It is as if the organisers are seeking to stitch together some coalition of alleged unfortunates with the thread of an earnestly cultivated sense of self-pity.

There was a time (and not all that long ago either) when homosexual men in this country were unfairly treated by the state so I fail to understand what is so attractive about revelling in an alleged pariah status that is demonstrably no longer the case. If homosexuals who are inclined to buy into this sophistry could learn to chuck it off and just live their lives, then that really would be a liberation.

66 comments to It’s not fun to be in the Y-M-C-A

  • Chris Josephson

    It’s much the same with many groups who formed to fight an injustice and have now gone way beyond what they were originally targeting. Many of the various Women’s and Minorities’ Rights Groups have branched off into all sorts of causes.

    Seems to me many of the groups were hijacked by people with other agendas. The hijackers are taking advantage of the existing structures to advocate for their own causes.

    My mother and aunts were active (late 50’s – 60’s) in a couple of Women’s Rights groups when these groups were focused on obtaining equal rights for women. They will occasionally read an article about one of the groups now and they do not recognize them as the same groups at all. The focus has changed. My mother doesn’t want anyone to know she was once active in any of these groups because the agenda is so radically left.

  • Julian Morrison

    There’s still one last holdout of pariah status in the UK: gays aren’t yet allowed to marry.

  • Guy Herbert

    “Gay Asylum Seeker” does make sense when you consider that it may not be an exercise in box-ticking PC, but a genuine cause: those who seek asylum because they are in real danger where they come from because they are gay.

    I suspect the PC may be diminishing now it the Pride Parade is more of a mainstream event than in the grip of rainbow-coalition activists. My big problem with Pride used to be those bloody whistles: do what you like but don’t hurt my eardrums. There weren’t any to be heard in the West End yesterday.

  • It’s much the same with many groups who formed to fight an injustice and have now gone way beyond what they were originally targeting.

    That’s a bit like the modern day trade unions organising demonstrations against the Iraq war, yet remaining unable to give their members sound investment or pensions advice.

  • Joe

    “There’s still one last holdout of pariah status in the UK: gays aren’t yet allowed to marry.”

    Julian, why should we sympathise with those who are trying to force us to accept that two dissimilar things are the same thing.

    If you want to have gay marriage then have “gay marriage” no-one is stopping you – if you want it get it legalised as “gay marriage” under the laws of state then lobby to do so.

    Lobbying to be recognised as a heterosexual couple when that is clearly not the case – makes who the victim – gays or the heterosexuals they are trying to coerce via state law?

  • Julian Morrison

    Joe : that was kind of incoherent, but basically, there is no more rational reason for the law to ban same-sex marriages than there is for it to ban different-race marriages. Both bans are nothing but bigotry written into law.

    BTW, to libertarian folks who say “law should involve itself with marriage at all”, that’s not quite the case – even under an anarchic system, customary law would have to touch on eg: child custody, power of attorney, and inheritance.

  • Julian,

    I think that is rather overwrought. Homosexuals do not need to get “married” in order to enjoy the virtually the same lifestyle as married couples and exactly the same lifestyle as heterosexual co-habitees.

    That hardly merits ‘pariah’ status.

  • Julian: sure, but that still does not address the issue “why should the state be involved in marriage at all?” I do not need the state to tell me I am married to someone. The issue of child custody, power of attorney, and inheritance and just that: child custody, power of attorney, and inheritance… not marriage. Marriage is a bilateral agreement and the state has no business being involved beyond the usual matter of conflict resolution via courts as with any contract.

  • Julian Morrison

    Perry de Havilland: hmm, well, I expect even anarchic law would give weight to “marriage” (perhaps pragmatically defined as “folks who act married”) in those matters I mentioned. I don’t think any legal system could be “marriage blind”. No legal system could get away with refusing to let a spouse inherit, or a step-parent make decisions for their kids.

    Certainly though, the present state-based legal sytem does treat marriage differently. The present system also adds other genuine areas of grievance eg: hospital visitation rights, adoption bias, the ability to visit your kids after a “divorce”, etc.

    I have no sympathy for the calls for tax-funded freebies and other such “rights”, but there are plenty of cases where there’s a genuine injustice being done.

  • Richard Garner

    There is no mention anywhere of any stop-the-war or anti-globo ranters but given their leech-like ability to latch themselves onto any passing warm-blooded creatures it would not surprise me in the least to find out that a whole sackload of them had tagged along for the ride as well.

    Were there any free-marketeers there? Were libertarians an social individualists in attendance, explaining why supporting the freedom to form loving relationships with members of one’s own sex and yet opposing “capitalist acts between consenting adults” is blatantly inconsistent? Did anybody think of printing out Perry’s Libertarian Alliance publication on the impossibility of libertarian socialism, so that they can make known the puzzle of why people who want to live lifestyles which are unlikely to ever be popular advocate ideologies that do not reserve rights to individuals before collectives?

    You only get libertarians at Gay Pride if libertarians are willing to take part. People will look on support of the right to be gay, and for gay people to be equal before the law as incompatible with capitalism until we take steps to convince them otherwise. These are people we should be marketing to, because they are people who value liberty, even if they don’t see the inconsistencies between socialism and liberty.

  • Joe

    Julian,Why do you wish to weight the law to force a pretence?

    I was wondering (in my “incoherence” 😉 if you realised that despite any such law, the fact will remain that Gays are not Heterosexuals – and forcing everyone to pretend they are one and the same is an act of tyranny.

    This has nothing to do with inter-race marriage or child custody or any other law, or custom ancient or modern… it has to do with simple fact.

    Two like things joined together create something very different to two different things joined together

    Adding Acid to Alkali is very different to adding Alkali to Alkali… if you create a law that forces us to pretend that the two different combinations produce the same result all you do is cause confusion and hurt.

    Differences do exist – To claim victimhood on the basis that there is, as yet, no law forcing us to pretend that {Man+Man}= {Man+Woman} just because you want it to be so would be laughable if it wasn’t weilded so regularly as a political bludgeon.

    If you create such a law where do you next draw the line, Man+sheep= marriage? Man+hand= marriage?
    In the end it is an attempt at dissolution of the meaning of the word marriage.

    The result of such a law will eventually be that a new word will be coined i.e “Truemarriage” to refer to only{man+woman}

    Has it ever occured to you that people to differentiate these differences, because these differences do really affect their day to day lives, whether you like it or not.

  • Joe

    Sorry – missed out the word need in that last sentence- It should read:

    “Has it ever occured to you that people need to differentiate these differences, because these differences do really affect their day to day lives, whether you like it or not.”

  • Julian Morrison

    Joe : your incoherence lies in “begging the question”. You focus on the differences, and ignore the real question which is, do they matter? IMO, no, they don’t matter. Hence your talk about pretense is a non-issue. There is no need to pretend. Gays, as gays, recognized as such, should be able to marry.

  • Bob Dacron

    Julia(n) I’d ask you to marry me – if I wasn’t already married TO A WOMAN!!!

    As a libertarian what goes on on someone else’s property is none of my business, but when these sodomites take to the streets it really hacks me off.

    I agree with Joe. After all they no longer face imprisonment for their habits. They are simply a political lobby now. Changing the law is just more government interference.

    It’s the same with black people – you don’t see burning crosses these days so why do governments have to get involved with the weight of the law passing race relations legislation?

  • Joe

    Julian, pointing out that two things have irresolute differences is not “begging the question”. It is a statement of fact.

    That you choose to ignore real differences is a wonderful and imaginitive (if dubious) thing, provided it is something that is applicable entirely to you…

    …Once you go further and lobby for a law to be created that forces everyone to enter into your pretense and ignore reality, despite the problems this will cause, it becomes tyranny in action.

    You are forcibly trying to make us ignore reality and pretend that your ideal is how the world operates, and that is a recipe for trouble.

    As the law stands there is nothing stopping a Gay person marrying someone of a different gender, because that is what marriage refers to (and more than a few do get married!). If you wish to create a union of two same sex genders then give it a different name- and lobby for legal recognition of that different union if you wish. Forcing everyone to accept unreality as reality is not a good thing.

    The only thing gays are a victim of in this case is of a personal desire that seeks to control everyone’s thoughts and actions.

  • Alan Massey

    What about polygamists? These people have just as much right to have their marriages recognised as gays. Rather than agitating for the limited objective of gay marriage, which is an putting themselves in direct confrontation with the common understanding of what a marriage is, the gay rights activists would be better off trying to initiate a public debate into the entire area of state interference in marriage. The libertarian stand point should be that marriage contracts are entirely private affairs between consenting adults.

  • Julian Morrison

    Alan Massey : the best approach to that is probably gay mariage right now, because it’s “on a roll”. The conservatives are quite right it’s the thin end of the wedge, and the wide end is the libertarian approach you mention.

    I’ve said above that I don’t think any legal system could be completely blind to marriage, but I suspect it will soon enough reach the point where any pair or group that chooses to act as a married household together, will be treated as such.

  • I choked on my tortilla chips halfway through the article. Hilarious.

  • Fabian Smith

    For people who are supposed to believe in personal freedom it’s incredible how your principles change on this one.

    In many financial and common law issues gay partners are denied basic rights which are granted by marriage. The law as it stands discriminates because it doesn’t allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.

    Funny you should bring up man+hand marriage Joe.

  • Joe

    Alan, “What about polygamists?

    Polygamous marriage is what it says- “Polygamy”… and is an extension of the marriage between male and female. It has a separate word and separate definition in law to define it.

    If someone contends that polygamy and monogamy are the same thing the either can’t count or they have double vision… which is why the word “polygamous” is added to show that there is a difference 😉

    If gay union isn’t “marriage” per se in that it is a single gender union…. Any law which doesn’t define it as a separate entity from “heterosexual marriage” debases the definition of marriage.

    If the law creates this pretense then what will happen is that a new wording by common usage will arise redefining the word marriage- just as polygamy is separately defined.

  • Alan Massey

    {…the best approach to that is probably gay mariage right now, because it’s “on a roll”.}

    I for one don’t look forward to years of interminable public campaigning by noisy special interest groups trying to get the state of grant them extra rights. Much better to concentrate of the real problem, and get the state to stop trying to engage in social engineering.

    {…gay union isn’t “marriage” per se…}

    While you are right about legal & common definitions, it isn’t the issue as I understand it. What the gay rights people want is the legal & tax advantages currently attached to marriage to be transfered to homosexual unions/marriages/whatever. They have a point. Why does the state interfere in any way on the basis of marriage?

  • SC

    Why not create a new legal category of relationship- call it a “free-union”, until a better name can be invented- in which people agree, as a legal and therefore legally enforceable contract, to share most of the rights we currently associate with marriage. Specifically people in a free union would be able to assign their partners rights of inheritance, joint liability for debts, (therefore joint mortgages) etc. Such an arrangement would be open to homosexual couples, current married couples, and other groups currently unrecognised by law, for example elderly siblings who have shared a home and property for years, but for whom there is no automatic right of inheritance if the other sibling dies.

    Such free-unions could be dissolved as quickly as any other legal contract (once outstanding debts, etc affecting 3rd parties had been resolved), thus avoiding messy “divorce” issues. This system should appeal to gays, as it offers a socially recognised and legal recognition of their commitment to each other should they wish it; it should also appeal to conservatives, as it offers the prospect of stability in gay relationships without using the emotive term marriage. It should appeal to people like Joe (and I’m with him on this point) in that the word marriage has a specific meaning, derived from religion, the bonding of man and woman- if that’s not what you’re doing then you aren’t getting married. (This misuse of the word was not started by gays, it was started by the term “common-law marriage”).

    If you aren’t willing to enter into a “free-union” then you shouldn’t be accorded legal rights of marriage, regardless of your gender, because if you aren’t prepared to make your commitment legally binding, why on Earth should anyone else treat it as so? At a stroke, the interference of the state in a huge swathe of the most personal aspects of our lives is removed.

    I said at the start “most of the rights of marriage” because I think there is a seperate issue regarding children. Children are human beings in their own right, which sounds obvious but the “right” to have children turns them into lifestyle choices instead. There is a seperate debate to be had on whether gay couples should be allowed, in any way, to acquire children. I think not, on the grounds that the children’s best interest automatically outweighs the interest of the parent, and I think there is a huge weight of empirical and common-sense evidence to suggest that children are best raised by mixed gender couples, all else being equal. The state should not be in the business of attempting to create perfect child-rearing (not least because it is so bad at it) but nor should it act or allow a situation manifestly against the childs own best interest, i.e. the guaranteed absence of at least one gender from a child’s immediate parents.

    Anyway- “free-union” as a free, socially recognised legal contract; and “marriage” back to it’s original meaning of a religiously sanctioned union between man and woman. And clarity returned to everyone’s understanding of where we all stand. Any thoughts?

  • Joe

    Alan, Heterosexual marriage is the basis of the family unit. The family unit is the basic building block and regeneration system of society. Society therefore benefits from the family unit being kept intact and so gives special status to Heterosexual marriage as marriage is the contract which gives the family unit legal definition.

    Although many heterosexuals choose not to officially marry they are still given full or partial marriage status in order to fulfil legal definitions and concepts in maintaining a functioning society.

    If we redefine marriage to mean something other than that specific Heterosexual unit which regenerates society then all the legal support changes and society ceases to have a specific unit basis. This makes society less stable- as is often seen after major wars when Heterosexual family life breaks down and gang structure becomes pre-eminent within society.

  • Chris Goodman

    One of the achievements of the charmless C20th has been the revocation in some countries of hate legislation against homosexuals. Joe wonders why “we” should “sympathise” with those who are “trying to force us” to have heterosexual legal rights extended to homosexual couples. On the grounds that “gays are not heterosexuals” he suggests that “two like things together create something very different to two different things joined together” and therefore any legal accommodation for homosexuality would be on the slippery slope towards giving a legal status to Man + Sheep or Man + Hand.

    Bob Dracon finds it amusing to call Julian Morrison “Julia” simply because he suggests that partnership rights ought to be extended to same sex couples. After informing us that he is already married, and so he is not available – information I suppose which he believes will prevent Julian from getting too excited – Bob informs us that homosexuals are “a political lobby” who like black people who failing to notice there are no “burning crosses these days” seek to have the law involved in race relations.

    It seems to me that if a homosexual couple feels that it is unjust that they do not have the same legal rights as childless heterosexual couples, it is not clear that these demands should be ignored simply because the relationship is homosexual. This is a matter I must confess which does not greatly exercise me, but even I find it easy to imagine sets of circumstances – e.g. taxation of inheritance, rights to the continued care of children of a deceased partner, and so forth – where such issues become pertinent.

    I appreciate that such scenarios require a leap of imagination, not one I suppose that Joe and Bob will find it easy to make, but the pursuit of justice often requires such leaps of imagination.

  • GCooper

    SC asks: “Any thoughts?”

    Well, yes. The first that springs to mind is that, sadly, your suggestion is so blindingly sensible that it hasn’t a hope in hell of being accepted.

    My feeling is that what really underpins the drive for recognition of ‘gay marriage’ isn’t the legal argument (though it is a perfectly valid one – it is unjust that lifelong partners should not be able to share pension rights) but a demand that their relationships must be accepted by society as fully the equal of those of heterosexuals.

    But clearly, while they may be equal, they are not identical.

    I like this idea of “free unions”. It gets very close to squaring the circle of keeping the State out of personal relationships as far as possible, leaving people to order their own lives as they feel fit and saving us from politically-driven “equality” (sic) claptrap.

  • Joe

    Chris Goodman, I don’t just suggest that ““two like things together create something very different to two different things joined together” by itself that statement provides a source of verifiable evidence of the difference between two unalike things.

    As for imagination: I’m more than happy for you to make as many leaps of imagination as you like- but I object to any attempt you make to create laws to forcibly subject me to your imaginings… Likewise, I am sure you wouldn’t be too happy to be legally forced into being the subject of my imaginative experiments….would you? I assure you I can be very imaginitive- I could have lots of fun with a legal slave!

  • Joe

    SC, the idea of a new lesser marriage contract of “Free-Union” makes a lot of sense in a lot of respects. It is already possible at the present time to draw up contracts that do just this… It just isn’t popular…(too much hassle methinks) It is easier just to shack up with someone … also – one of the biggest reasons people don’t get married is to avoid (legal/ritual) commitment… it just ain’t “cool”.

    Fashion is a bugger 😉

  • Julian Morrison

    GCooper, SC : I’m not so sure I like the free unions idea as much.

    Firstly, GCooper’s right this is about recognition as much as justice.

    Second, I agree with Jonathan Rauch (ISBN: 0805076336) that it’s a bad idea to start defining legal thingamajigs that aren’t called marriage, but behave somewhat similarly. This is because “marriage” isn’t just a contract, it’s a complex concept and custom with all sorts of important emotional, romantic, ethical, familial etc baggage attached. The risk would be that “free unions” or whatever would dump all that on the wayside.

  • Aurelia

    To suggest that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because marriage is, by definition, restricted to heterosexuals is like saying that women shouldn’t have been given the vote because part of the definition of the vote was that it was restricted to men. Having said that, I’m not that concerned about gays who want the privileges of marriage – I’d rather we worked on not allowing heterosexual couples these unjust privileges in the first place. (Even if we wanted to support couples who actually have children, this scattergun approach just isn’t appropriate, since it misses many cohabiting and/or gay parents and rewards married childless couples instead).

    It’s a bad idea to start defining legal thingamajigs that aren’t called marriage, but behave somewhat similarly. This is because “marriage” isn’t just a contract, it’s a complex concept and custom with all sorts of important emotional, romantic, ethical, familial etc baggage attached. The risk would be that “free unions” or whatever would dump all that on the wayside.

    Julain, as an unmarried cohabitant, I’m curious as to how the commitment I make to my partner does not entail any romantic, emotional, ethical, familial (and also financial) baggage, and how indeed it ever could not do. Does not being defined as a wife give me a magic wand to wave so that nothing I or my partner does is of any consequence to anyone, including ourselves and our children? (If so, surely that’s the best recommendation for cohabitation there is. Sadly, it’s not the case). Many people in commited relationships choose not to marry because marriage is not a lifetime commitment in itself, but the public expression and privileging of a lifetime commitment, and many cohabitants are unhappy with the terms upon which this takes place (I am personally not interested in being legally and socially rewarded for being in a mixed-gender relationship rather than a same-sex one. I wouldn’t mind stable commited relationships such as the one I am in being properly acknowledged and respected if, for instance, I or my partner were to fall ill, but that’s not what marriage is about).

    There is a lot of prejudice surrounding marriage, but we shouldn’t confuse the PR with what it actually is, or assume that since so many couples decide that marriage is whatever they want it to be – not just a legal contract, but love, family, commitment, whatever – cohabiting couples cannot determine what their own relationships are in what is in fact a more honest way. Commitment is commitment, experienced through a lifetime rather than just one day (although I am aware that if you cohabit, one year only counts as about a month of “married time” and people won’t believe in your lifetime commitment unless one of you has actually died. If that’s not enough, people just cook the books – my partner’s parents always lie about how long my partner and I have been together in case this impinges on the superior status of his sister’s recent marriage. I guess it’s just to make sure no one thinks we too are bound by real “romantic, ethical, familial” etc ties – all it means in practice is that I accumulate even more mother-in-law angst and resentment than any real live married person).

    I know statistically that marriages outlast cohabiting relationships, but I suspect this has something to do with the fact that most heterosexual couples who make a lifetime commitment to one another still feel they can only do so by getting married. If you assume that marriage creates deep ties, you are just confusing cause and effect. You may think prejudice towards marriage is needed to bind couples together, but I think there will always be a widely-held prejudice towards commitment itself because it is good for couples and families. Marriage just confuses things, because a) you don’t actually need to take on all the baggage to get married (witness marriages of convenience, Britney Spears, serial divorcees etc) and b) commitment itself is devalued, because a long-term cohabiting relationships are not viewed any differently to short-term ones, irrespective of anything people actually say or do (for too many people, commitment is a contract, rather than a genuine active responsibility – I thought this was what you were worried about).

    Anyhow, whilst you may deplore a trend amongst certain groups to disparage lifetime relationships (I would do the same myself), it strikes me as very odd that you would fear that those cohabiting couples who want equal pension, next-of-kin and inheritance tax rights as married couples are in “lesser” relationships. There’s not a lot to gain if you don’t plan on being around for the long term.

    It is easier just to shack up with someone … also – one of the biggest reasons people don’t get married is to avoid (legal/ritual) commitment… it just ain’t “cool”.

    Joe, I would say that the legal protection marriage offers often outweighs any hardships such a “commitment” may demand (this is certainly true if you’re the less wealthy partner or not the primary carer of your children). On the “ritual” aspect, you may be right. Many people don’t like it, and don’t think it should be a part of their personal commitment. On the other hand, some women just go for the “ritual” and get married because it’s still very fashionable indeed to shag around in your twenties and then crave a white dress as soon as you hit thirty, regardless of any real social/personal responsibilities you may be assumed to be taking on. Have you ever looked at chick lit/women’s magazines? Fashion is indeed a bugger, since marriage as party opportunity and status symbol is as cool as it comes (you won’t convince anyone that the anti-marriage stance of seventies feminists etc is trendy nowadays – amongst young people, those who dare to be offended by marriage itself are not generally heroes amongst their peers. What contemporary anti-marriage posturing there is is invariably anti-commitment posturing in disguise).

    Of course, some people don’t get married because they don’t want to make a long-term personal commitment (again, different thing to marriage, but seen as a necessary prerequisite for it, unless you’re one of the morons who get the respect many gay couples crave just because they got pissed in Las Vegas). The difference is that although commitment itself is unfashionable for some young people, amongst those who do make commitments, not marrying is even more uncool (however you behave as a couple, you’ll always be “shacked up” like a scummer).

  • “To suggest that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because marriage is, by definition, restricted to heterosexuals is like saying that women shouldn’t have been given the vote because part of the definition of the vote was that it was restricted to men.”

    Except that voting is a political construct, and marriage is a societal construct. The two are not comparable.

    Ditto homosexual marriage — I hear plenty of support for homosexual marriage because of legal and financial hurdles that homosexual couples must overcome, the poor dears, when in fact a simple legal / financial contract will perforce grant them identical “rights” as any heterosexuals.

    Marriage is about men, women and children. It is NOT about shared money, power of attorney and all the rest of the baggage that has been thrust upon the institution as time has gone by.

    The family unit is one of the most fundamental institutions of any society — and that family unit is composed of heterosexual partners.

    I refuse to accept that this long-standing institution should be changed to include a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and his favorite Thomas Hardy novel, simply because of (incorrectly) perceived “discrimination” or a childish “why not?” or “it’s only fair” rationale.

    You don’t change the nature of a basic societal institution because of the wishes of a small minority of its members.

    I note that people who would do so are fearful to put the matter to an actual referendum — because the majority of society — any society, not just Western ones — would tell them to get stuffed.

    As the tapestry of society is being pulled apart and frayed, bit by bit, by relativist thinking and post-modern philosophy, it behooves us to consider that maybe, just maybe, one of our most basic and cherished institutions should be left alone.

  • Fabian Smith

    Kim, Bob and Joe – thanks for your conservative and frankly bigoted thoughts.

    I believe you’re giving a classic rendition of the same arguments that those opposed to the abolition of slavery or women’s right to vote, would have given in the past.

    Kim says

    Marriage is about men, women and children. It is NOT about shared money, power of attorney and all the rest of the baggage that has been thrust upon the institution as time has gone by

    This concept of marriage is based on outdated thinking. It stems from a time when homosexuality was illegal. Now we are more enlightened and society is more liberated you are going to have to get your head around the fact that a new concept of marriage is required.

    Joe says

    Heterosexual marriage is the basis of the family unit. The family unit is the basic building block and regeneration system of society. Society therefore benefits from the family unit being kept intact and so gives special status to Heterosexual marriage as marriage is the contract which gives the family unit legal definition….(if homosexual marriage were allowed) this makes society less stable- as is often seen after major wars when Heterosexual family life breaks down and gang structure becomes pre-eminent within society.

    You’ve defeated your own ignorant argument here. If family units make society more stable and affluent – then why not allow family units to exist between two same sex married partners. There are enough children in need of adoption, so if they’re competent loving parents – why not?

    Your prejudices that’s why not.

    Bob you epitomise why right wing libertarianism is such a danger to a peaceful society. Thankfully you are part of a small lunatic fringe.

  • Anarcharsis

    What a bunchy of wusses, haggling over rights and responsibilities. Libertarians should have nothing to do with any institution which limits their absolute freedom to swcrew everything in sight, anywhere, all the time. Away with this outdated talk about society, loyalty, stability, etc. We are the apostles of supreme selfishness exalted into a political creed, and must never forget our glorious responsibility to preach freedom to the totally deaf, derisive and uncomprehending 99.9999% of humanity!!

  • Joe

    Fabian Smith, “If family units make society more stable and affluent – then why not allow family units to exist between two same sex married partners. There are enough children in need of adoption, so if they’re competent loving parents – why not?”

    Such units already are allowed and do exist- to ask why not when they already exist is to pretend victimhood. As for adoption…. you need to test for competence while ruling out abuse. That is difficult enough in heterosexual couples… in same sex couples there is a host of added problems and a missing gender set. You can as easily say – why not let single men adopt a child – exactly the same problems exist in that format.

  • Why should the state be involved in marriage at all? If you take the state out of the context then the issue becomes a moot point. I see nothing wrong with polygamy if it takes place between consenting adults.

    As Perry said marriage is a social issue. The state should have no role in it.

    Nice to see Fabian has not managed to get his head around the fact that to apply libertarianism to the out-dated left-right line paradigm is a nonsense. It doesn’t work intellectually because liberetarians do not appear anywhere on that line. Therefore there is an implication that we libertarians are in fact authoritarians in disguise (hence the “right-wing”). Of course, this is not, nor ever has been the case.

  • Fabian Smith

    There are right (and left) wing libertarians. I would consider the homophobic posts by Kim, Bob and Joe to be right wing conservative views. They purport to be libertarians – but they wish to opress the rights of others through the current legal arrangement.

    OK I can’t disagree with the theory of taking the state (and the church) out of marriage.

    But the reality of the situation is that at present there is legal discrimination against homosexuals who aren’t allowed the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to making a legally binding contract of marriage / union / call it what you will.

  • Fabian Smith

    Joe in your stupidity you appear to have confused homosexuals with paedophiles. Its hard to think that these attitudes still pervade in 2004.

    Homosexuals are no more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals.

    The screening process to prevent child abuse by homosexuals is no different to the process applied to heterosexuals.

    In short Joe homosexuals are just like any human beings. I know this may be a revelation to you.

  • Dave

    Hmmm… generally in agreement with Julian on this one, and, for a change, Perry.

    “Marriage” is a social contract between 2 parties which needs to define how they live together and the disposal of joint wealth (including off spring) in the event that they split or one dies. I don’t really see a state involvement myself, but if people want protection they should be able to get it through a contract which is legally recognised – especially when it comes to ensuring that gay partners and un-married co-habitees are covered.

    If people do not want to make a formal commitment to a relationship, I see that as something completely different. My wife and I got married even though we do not intend to have kids. The marriage was to formalise the arrangement we had had for several years. As it happens, we had a ceremony which was not a marriage in order for our families and friends to attend something where we made a public commitment which was quite separate from the actual act of “getting married” which we had to pay for another time.

    I’d have rather signed a contract with a lawyer and spent more on the ceremony.

  • Joe

    Dear Fabian, when faced with an argument containing verifiable facts which shake up your ideals – Always, ALWAYS remember to call those people “HOMOPHOBIC” Once they are safely labelled, you are then free to pretend that all “true libertarians” really do agree that your opinion alone is THE one true “REALITY”

    A sure way to personal liberty and the absolute mastery of intelligent thought…. (giggles)heeheeheeheeheeheehee! (and more giggles)

  • Joe

    Dear Fabian, My stupidity makes demands on me… it asks — what tests would you apply to single men before allowing them to adopt a child…as 1+1=2 … what happens when any two men get a house… there is nothing to stop them calling themselves a homosexual couple. …YOU are an adoption agency, and it is up to you to decide are they a couple who will love a child – or are they a pair who would “LOVE” to get their hands on a child… Come on now – quick quick… the child needs that loving! The decision is yours…what are they good or bad. HOW CAN YOU TELL?

    Do you have some magical PaedDAR (paedophile radar)?

  • A_t

    Joe, how do you tell with heterosexual couples? Why do you think it’s more difficult with gay men? I would suggest you believe gay men have a greater predisposition towards paedophilia.. classic ignorant rubbish, but if you don’t, then explain, explain.

    thanks.

  • Joe

    A_t, “how do you tell with heterosexual couples?

    My question exactly – how do you tell? It’s damn difficult… I cannot claim that gay men provide a greater risk of paedophilia – what is undeniable is that given any sample…the greater the number of men the greater the chance that one of them will be a paedophile…

    A single man is usually regarded in most circumstances as too great a risk… what is the difference between a single man and two single men calling themselves a couple?

    I cannot tell -can you? How can an adoption agency?

    Paedophiles are people – they don’t come with flashing warning lights. They can be gay or straight… how do you tell a paedophile from a normal person? You can’t- you can only make risk assessment.

    All that can be truthfully said is that two men is a greater risk than one man … and one man is usually perceived as too great a risk. How can anyone in their right mind say that doubling that risk somehow magically reduces it?

    It is pure politically correct fantasy to imagine that it does.

    This has nothing to do with homophobia – but it has everything to do with statistics and risk assessment.

  • Fabian Smith

    Joe, statistically speaking, you are full of shit. You now seem to think all paedophiles and child abusers are men.

    Adoption agencies produce dossiers on prospective adopters over a period of months. A social services panel then assess the merits of the application. The procedure is the same for heterosexuals or homosexuals. Every care is taken to see they are not placed with people who will become abusive – however there is no guarantee regardless of the sexuality of the adopters.

    Each risk assessment is made on the individuals merits. Single males whose seperated partners (or unmarried partners) have died often apply to adopt their own kids in order to get full parental rights. Would you deny them that legal right in case they started fiddling with their kids?

    Your stupidity doesn’t stop you deducing that 1+1=2, but applying this logic to every situation just makes you look more stupid.

    Ooops that wasn’t very PC was it?

  • Joe

    Dearest Fabian, You see what happens when you label someone as “stupid”… it stunts your thinking.

    Now if you had thought for a moment you might have realised that by choosing to use one example -I was saving you the hassle of trying to get your mind around all those other possible varieties which have little bearing on what we were talking about.

    Of course men aren’t the only offenders… but as we were taking about homophia it makes sense to choose the example of single men. So I did 🙂

    If you are tired of 1+1=2 … then maybe its time to seek out your own personal universe…but as you keep putting 2+2 together and coming up with HOMOPHOBIA my guess is that you are pretty much trapped in there already.

  • Fabian Smith

    So according to you, single men are the victims of homophobia – here’s me thinking it was homosexuals.

    Relax Joe – I said I’ve just given you a fisking.

    What is 2+2 by the way?

  • Joe

    Dear Fabian, its a sad form of fisking if you have to point out that you’ve done it!

    I really look forward to you using real intelligence and making an argument that shows you are thinking for yourself and not just calling me names…something that really makes me think would be nice…It gets a bit boring to talk with a Fabian who appears to believe that everyone should accept that what Fabian says is truth just because Fabian says so.

    I’m leaving the computer for now… if you come up with a useful well reasoned opinion based in objective fact- I’ll be more than pleased to read it later. Til then byebyeee

  • Joe : that was kind of incoherent, but basically, there is no more rational reason for the law to ban same-sex marriages than there is for it to ban different-race marriages. Both bans are nothing but bigotry written into law.

    Actually, there is a rational reason. Go read your Hayek, then your Burke.

    Here in the U.S., the legal and philosophical leaders of the gay marriage movement are quite clear about their goal: the overturning of the existing social order. The rank and file just want to share similar legal benefits; or perhaps simply want to rankle the “straights” as we deviant heterosexualists are called. But at its philosophical core, including gays in the marriage contract is simply a a bit of Marcusian / Gramscian dogma, an ad absurdum result naturally reached when your premise is that we can’t have a “socially just” society until right is wrong, left is right, straight white males are put down, felons are exalted as social heroes, and the poor are made rich, and vice versa. “Bad hair and bad manners to fight a bad system, man” was how the 60’s radicals explained it.

    Granted, there is a good socially conservative argument to be made for increasing the number of socially and legally stable relationships we have. Strong private communities obviate the need for state intervention.

    However, I find the countervailing radical argument – that we have to destroy bourgeois morality and customary habits – to be far more powerful in practice and effect.

    Simply put, state recognition of marriage is the strongest possible state sanction in favor of a stable, traditional nuclear family – a system that has worked better than the harem/surplus males combination of tribal societies. Even within the Western system, the value of nuclear families is self-proving. Need I point out the utter disaster our social welfare programs have created, by meddling with traditional marriage, devaluing it by treating bastardy as an equal (and in fact financially more rewarding) status?

    Hayek felt that we shouldn’t use the state to tamper – in this case to radically modify – long accreted social institutions. State sanctioned marriage is one such institution. Before we rejigger the central social organizing fact in our society, at a minimum, the people should have a voice in it. Otherwise, the top-down changes now being imposed by the courts will be like the attempted abolition of the death penalty, or the attemped legalization of abortion rights in the U.S. – a fiat rule that stamps out the natural convincing process that shifts the electorate’s feelings on a given point, truncating debate and changing mindsets, thereby crystalizing a permanent state of open political warfare on the point.

    I think some version of gay union – civil partnership, whatever – would probably be workable in time, providing the mass of citizens have a chance to warm up to it, in other words to allow social institutions to evolve to deal with it. But the marriage institution has to be understood as a developing, organic social structure. Come on, libertarians – you’ve read Hayek. You should know you can’t reorder society, especially against the will of a majority-supermajority opinion, based on a centralized plan. It is a recipe for revolutionary-caliber backlash, for massive civil disobedience, and for an equal-or-worse and opposite pendulum swing in the other direction.

    The legal argument is also a canard. Redefining marriage to include same sex marriage, based on the principle “everybody has a right to marry anybody they want” cannot be limited to monogamy – therefore our notion of the social institution of marriage will have to yet again be further watered down – as if community property and no-fault divorces, and higher welfare payments to bastard children than wedlock-born children wasn’t enough. If the right is “to marry anybody I want” then there is nothing preventing polygamy (see the above comments on the surplus male problems) and polyamory, or for that matter marrying your horse, who does have at least a few legal rights and is therefore cognizable as something like a person before the law.

    At a time when 60 – 70% of Americans are opposed to it, top down imposition of gay marriage can only result in one of two things – a revolutionary backlash, or a revolutionary destruction of our central organizing social institution. As a student of Hayek, I feel pretty likely we might get both.

  • Julian Morrison

    Al Maviva : so you will support polygyny, the shutdown of the divorce laws, chattel slavery of wives, the reinstatement of dowry and child bethrothal? That would return marriage to its historically most common state, the one which Hayekian caution would recommend.

    Alternatively you could accept that, having messed around with it as much as we already have, a little more messing is unlikely to hurt.

  • Fabian Smith

    More rubbish.

    Shifting the topic slightly. What the hell does bastardy have to do with homosexuals?

    Tell me – how my ‘bastard’ son (despite me and his mother, living together, loving each other only and caring for him just like any other loving parents, married or not – we did not feel the need to exercise our heterosexual right to marry) is going to lead to increased welfare payments? His mother and I are affluent professionals – we have no need to take money from the state.

    What evidence do you have that if we aren’t all in a nuclear family then western society will implode and we’ll all surrender to massive civil disobedience? These are the rantings of a person who confines himself to the political science library or the bedroom – and has not experienced encounters with people from different backgrounds or unorthodox family situations. Seems to me your saying “Hayek says so, therefore I believe it”

    To solve your so called legal canard how about “Everyone has the right to marry any one person they want.”

    Of course you don’t have to take up that right – you may choose to have ‘bastard’ children. Honestly I can’t believe people still use terms like that in the 21st century. It’s medieval language used by people with a similar mindset.

    Land of the free? What a joke.

    Land of the brainwashed bigot more like it.

  • Jacob

    I too am afraid that this gay marriage thing might have more negative, destructive consequences than positive ones. The small minority of gay people should have some civil union option that will grant then all practical and legal benefits they are understandably fighting for.

    As for Marriage – this is a notion and a construct that precedes the current State, a notion that originates in antiquity, and in religion. Let the religions keep it. Let the religions take their own route toward defining or redefining this institution of theirs. The attempts to redefine, and destroy this social-religious institution strikes religious people as an act of forceful oppresion and insult.

    So I’m with Al Maviva on this.
    One should not go about destroying long standing social structures by abrupt and drastical application of force, or coercive methods. It is your privilege to beleive that religious people are nuts when they beleive that homosexuality is sin. But it is not your privilege to make them beleive otherwise, by using State coertion.
    And, I also can’t help but feel, that this is done with malice, and the joy of destroying a hated thing, with the wish to spit on religious traditions which have made gays suffer so much in the past. It’s ok for gays to claim their rights, but it isn’t necessary to destroy Marriage (as religious people understand it).

    Libertarianism means, among other things, being liberal (in the old sense), i.e. tolerant and accomodating; letting different people live by their different views and customs. I thing gay marriage is intolerant, in that it insists, unnecessarily, on appropiating an institution that is not theirs (maybe wrongly) and is dear to many other people.

  • Jacob

    “Al Maviva : so you will support polygyny, the shutdown of the divorce laws, chattel slavery of wives, the reinstatement of dowry and child bethrothal?”

    Traditions and institutions are not static, they evolve over time. Sometimes fierce struggles and even bloody wars are involved.
    Maybe Marriage will evolve over time.
    But the current struggle of the gays seems too harsh, too pushy, and innecessarily so.

  • Chris Goodman

    Joe. I appreciate that you believe that allowing gay partners to have the same legal rights as heterosexual partners is to “forcibly subject” you, but with a little reflection I am sure you will realise that it is precisely the opposite. You seek to use the law to enforce your disapproval of such relationships – or at least withhold the legal privileges associated with heterosexual partnerships. This is not to say that it is a good idea for gay relationships to have equivalent legal privileges – although the hate filled prejudice of many of the remarks on this thread makes it hard to be unsympathetic to the argument – but I suggest that any answer to this question has to address three tricky issues

    1) What is Marriage?

    2) What is the role of law in Marriage?

    3) What are the consequences of treating gay relationships as marriages?

    I do not think any of the answers to these questions are straightforward (by which I mean of course intelligent answers – it is easy to dogmatically lay down a set of definitions) – and I withhold making a judgement on this issue until a case can be made one way or the other. I must admit I find the whole issue of gay marriages tedious beyond belief, but I do not regard my lack of interest as virtuous. It is evident that “relationships” are of very great importance to many people, and given the social changes that have taken place in the last 50 years, the status of marriage is an important issue.

  • “…you are going to have to get your head around the fact that a new concept of marriage is required.”

    This is the kind of relativism agaisnt which I am utterly opposed.

    Not all “progress” is positive, and not all “change” has benign consequences. In fact, history has proven that the more you tinker with (and change completely) the basic premises of society, the more malignant the outcome.

    Other than “it will make us feel better”, I’d like to see a little more proof that changing the institution of marriage will result in positive results for society as a whole, as opposed to positive results only for a tiny minority.

    And take your “bigotry” and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, Fabian.

    This has nothing repeat nothing to do with my like or dislike for homosexuals. This has everything to do with my opposition to social tinkering, for its own sake.

  • Patri Friedman

    I think there is a huge weight of empirical and common-sense evidence to suggest that children are best raised by mixed gender couples, all else being equal.

    If we’re going to talk about how children are best raised, I have strong doubts that adoptive het couples do a better job than gay couples, one of whom is the parent of the child. It may be that mixed gender couples make better parents, but I very much doubt that effect is larger than the “genetically related vs. unrelated” effect. If you are going to prohibit gay child-rearing on the grounds of efficacy, do you also prohibit het adoption?

    I am not sure whether mixed-gender parent/step-parent couples are better or worse than same-gender parent/step-parent couples, but it may be that the latter is better as well. The evidence is overwhelming that stepparents are much worse parents than genetic ones (for obvious evolutionary reasons). In the same-gender case you have one genetically related parent and one unrelated one, but since the unrelated one and the related one are not fertile together, there may not be the same issues. In which case do you prohibit divorce of parents? Prohibit remarriage?

    In general, I find this sort of interference “For the Children!” to be just the sort of creepy state control of personal lives that as a libertarians I abhor. A small difference between mixed-gender and same-gender parenting seems an awful thin support on which to base such extreme interference as preventing gay couples from being parents.

  • Fabian Smith

    First I’d like to apologise for my exasperation at ‘The land of the Free’ dig. Of course it’s a great country, you just have a few clowns like everywhere else.

    Kim – no one proposed changing marriage.

    The proposal is to allow a group of citizens (homosexuals) the same right (to marry each other) as other citizens (heterosexuals).

    Maybe it sounds familiar:

    The proposal is to allow a group of citizens (women) the same right (to vote) as other citizens (men).

    or

    The proposal is to allow a group of citizens (slave / black people) the same right (freedom) as other citizens (non slaves / white people).

    Of course prejudiced idiots opposed these measures too. They said things like:

    I refuse to accept that this long-standing institution should be changed to include women voting / an end to slavery simply because of (incorrectly) perceived “discrimination” or a childish “why not?” or “it’s only fair” rationale.

    You don’t change the nature of a basic societal institution because of the wishes of a small minority of its members.

    Sound familiar Kim? They’re your sentiments applied to historical rights violation.

    And Joe you still haven’t said what 2+2 is.

    Good night.

  • Jacob

    Fabian,
    Your analogy of gay rights with voting rights or slavery is very superficial. It’s a case of: “some rights were denied to some people” – in this there is similarity, but there it stops. You have to go deeper into the question of “what rights (if any)” and “to whom” – and when you consider these points the analogy fails.
    For example: is there such a thing as “a right to marry” ? No one denies gays the right to live as they like; we also favor the same privileges under law – all rights reserved for “next of kin”, etc. . Granted this – is there any additional “right to marry” ? I doubt it. You beleive there is but it’s a problematic point that isn’t trivial.

  • Julian Morrison

    Jacob : you misunderstand rights when you think in terms of “a right to X”, for any X. Rights are negative, that is, they are a right against something. A right to not be killed. A right to not be robbed. And so forth.

    This accords with the actual implementation of rights. To defend the right to life, one stops murderers. To defend the right to property, one stops thieves.

    So what you shouldn’t ask is “is there a right to marriage?”, but rather, “is there a right against being forcibly denied marriage?”. I argue there is, and moreover, the default position in cases of uncertainty always ought to be, that there is a protection against being forced into or out of anything, absent a compelling countercase.

    Aside: some people here think there is a “right to be protected from other people getting married together, if they don’t match your citeria”. That’s even more odd, in that it’s a “right” pertaining to consensual acts between third parties. It does not defend the “right holder”, but instead requires offensive action against some completely unrelated stranger.

  • James

    It seems to me that some people in this discussion are applying what I can only honestly describe as “The Precautionary Principle” to this issue, when these self-same people would normally (and quite rightly) reject this principle as the path to stasis.

    Speaking for myself, I see a disturbing similarity between saying “marriage is a social bedrock and must NOT be interferred with!” and “The environment/birds/bees/fungus is the ecological bedrock and must NOT be interferred with!”

    Things change. So-called “social cornerstones” change. Sometimes without anyone noticing. Marriage is a human construct, and as such, it evolves. And it will change, we can be sure of that. There may very well be far more radical developments in store for it in the future.

    But marriage is damn resilient. It will survive because it provides people with benefits, never mind how it benefits “society”. People will continue to want to get married, and when they no longer do, it’ll be because something else has come along and is fulfilling that role.

    I’d say the group with the most to lose are the conservatives. For if gay marriage “works out” (and I believe it will), conservatives may very well end up looking like the boy who cried wolf, with the accompanying loss of credibility.

    Come to think of it, what exactly is the nature of the “disaster” that will apparently follow the expansion of marriage? Chaos on the streets? A breakdown is the social order leading to anarchy? Baby-eating?

    As Pearl Jam would say, “It’s evolution, baby”. Only two outcomes possible under selection pressure: adapt or become extinct.

  • Fabian Smith

    Jacob – it’s the same thing. Your advocating denying some people the rights that other people are entitled to – that is called discrimination.

    As a heterosexual I have the right to marry the person I love. A homosexual person should have the same right.

    Stable same sex and conventional marriages will not pose a threat to society. Society is much more threatened by promiscuous behaviour outside of stable relationships – by both hetero and homo sexuals.

  • Jacob

    “Jacob : you misunderstand rights when you think in terms of “a right to X”, for any X. Rights are negative, that is, they are a right against something. A right to not be killed. A right to not be robbed.”

    I fully agree with this dictum that rights are negative.

    “”is there a right against being forcibly denied marriage?”. I argue there is…”

    That is a rather strange twist if phrase. It is a typical definition of a POSITIVE right, like in this: “is there a right against forcibly being denied welfare benefits? ”
    You have just taken a positive type of right (right to something) [of the type you disapprove of] – and by a twist of phrase tried to turn it into a negative right.

    Marriage is a piece of paper, or a status that is BESTOWED on you, or given to you by gvmnt, society, a church or so. It is not something that was your’s always and is taken from you. Now, you can claim you have a right to this – but this is a positive right, you want something that someone else has to give you. It’s not something that is your’s and you don’t want it to be taken away. If the distinction in this case is not clear cut – it follows that there is never a distinction between a positive and a negative right – contrary to your position.

    Nobody denies you the right to live as you wish, undisturbed. But you are not content with this. You want to be admitted to a club that has been created for other purposes. The members of that club have created some rules of admission that they think will preserve the character and purposes of that club. You disagree, but instead of convincing them to change the rules, you want to force your way in. Is this discrimination ? Maybe, but there are a lot of clubs that I’m not admitted to. That’s life. I try to live my life without forcing myself upon people who shun me for good or bad reasons.

    “Stable same sex and conventional marriages will not pose a threat to society.”
    How do you know this ? It’s a rather hard call. Frankly, I don’t know how society will be affected and I don’t think that somebody can know this for sure. Moreover -I don’t care too much. We don’t do things because it will or will not benefit society, according to the opinion of X or Y. We do things for personal, individual motives. We observe certain general rules of conduct (moral dictums) – and society is what emerges. Same sex marriage may cause a chasm, a deep rift between some groups in society, may cause polarization – so it can’t be portrayed as a net positive.

  • Matt Foster

    I should also point out that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is where I live, all contracts purporting to grant any rights or obligations between same-sex partners which could be construed as resembling heterosexual marriage are now declared null and void by State law. I, as a libertarian who also happens to be gay, would argue that this is a very important fight for all of us who believe in individual freedom.

  • Julian Morrison

    Jacob: That is a rather strange twist if phrase. It is a typical definition of a POSITIVE right, like in this: “is there a right against forcibly being denied welfare benefits? “

    Examine what your phrase says rather than what it seems to imply, and it’s even true. Nobody has a right to forcibly deny you welfare benefits – if they’re being offered to you as voluntary private charity. In term of what’s usually called a “welfare benefit” though, the breach of rights lies in the theft that funds them. Receiving them is merely a secondary crime, aiding and abetting, receiving stolen goods.

    In this, you’ve made a straw man counterargument. Nobody is being forced to provide marriages. There are clergy and public officials who believe in same-sex marriage and are happy to provide that service – some strongly enough, they’ll famously defy the law to do so. The only force, is in preventing them. Thus I have correctly formulated the negative right: “the right against being forcibly denied marriage”.

  • Cydonia

    Fabian:

    “OK I can’t disagree with the theory of taking the state (and the church) out of marriage.”

    Why would you want to take the church out of marriage? In so far as the church is a voluntary institution, surely that is precisely the sort of place where marriage belongs?

  • Cydonia

    Julian:

    “So what you shouldn’t ask is “is there a right to marriage?”, but rather, “is there a right against being forcibly denied marriage?”.”

    I agree, but there isn’t in relation to gay marriage. The issue is not forceable denial by the State, but simple non-recognition. The distinction is important. To say that gays are subject to forceful denial is to mis-characterise the notion of forceful interference by the State.

  • Cydonia

    Julian:

    “BTW, to libertarian folks who say “law should involve itself with marriage at all”, that’s not quite the case – even under an anarchic system, customary law would have to touch on eg: child custody, power of attorney, and inheritance.”

    I agree, but it nevertheless seems a questionable step for anarcho-libertarians to call for positive State involvement – which is what the call for the legal recognition of Gay marriage amounts to.

  • Cydonia

    I think we must distinguish between the legal and symbolic status of marriage.

    Plainly marriage has symbolic importance but that importance ought not to be derived from the fact that marriage (or certain kinds of marriage) are recognised by the State. We should not support Gay marriage on this ground. If Gay mariage is to have symbolic importance and value, that must come from voluntary Gay institutions and culture, not from the fact that Parliament passes a law. The same ought to be true of heterosexual marriage and it is shame that State recognition has become the touchstone for “real” marriage.

    The legal status of marriage is another matter altogether. I don’t think there are any simple answers here, because it all depends why married people are treated differently in law to single people. Some of those reasons may apply to Gay marriage, but others might not. For example, maintainence rights on divorce were historically a consequence of the different domestic roles of men and women. It would seem to make little sense to apply them to Gays. On the other hand, I can see no reason why Gays in a marriage-type relationship should not have the same inheritance rights as marriage heterosexuals.

  • corndogking

    “There is nothing here about pride, much less freedom of association or individual sovereignty. This is all about group-think and the fostering of grievance cultures. What was once an understandable public protest against unjustifiable persecution has become a portmanteau of victimologies. It is as if the organisers are seeking to stitch together some coalition of alleged unfortunates with the thread of an earnestly cultivated sense of self-pity.”

    That is exactly what it must be in order that it be of use to politicians, who seek to appeal to expediency. If you can convince enough people that they are victims and that they can use the power of the vote to enable you to elevate them and pummel their enemies for them, they will vote for you. They will not stop to consider the long term ills that will result from such stupidity.

    Corndog King