Posted on 06/16/2011 5:33:24 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
It’s interesting how the Left and adults-first libertarians have tried to shift our attention away from marriage responsibilities toward marriage rights. Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs is a perfect example. Today I’d like to revisit and cut down more of his made-for-Hollywood arguments.
Says Berg: “Yet there is a strong conservative argument for legalising gay marriage. Conservatives who decry the decline of marriage as an institution are right. Straight people have been undermining the sanctity of marriage for decades. This is a bad thing.”
Really? Perhaps adults-first libertarians, who decry the decline of free-markets, should adopt socialism because some government-friendly businesses have been undermining capitalism. No? Yes?
Essentially, Berg feels that conservatives should focus on how some heterosexuals have trashed their marriage vows, in order to trash the institution some more. Forgotten, however, is this hard-to-hide fact: Conservatives correctly warned us how our expressive divorce revolution would undermine the institution of marriage, while feminist lesbians screamed for its destruction.
Needless to say, conservatives don’t design and/or bless more fatherless families when fatherless boys are dominating our gangs and jail systems. I’m sorry but sociology and psychology can’t be erased from economic realities.
Alas, Berg pontificates: “In the past few years, a number of countries have adopted gender-neutral definitions of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage should reveal how they predict straight marriage will be harmed? Early indications suggest it has not been harmed.”
A “number” – meaning, of course, a handful of socialist states with a history of promoting Orwellian thought crimes and Newspeak.
But I digress. Opponents of gay marriage have revealed how gay marriage does harm society, but are ritually censored by the very papers and online sites Chris Berg writes for!
(Excerpt) Read more at weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com ...
Marriages and other private living arrangements among consenting adults should be left to whatever institutions, be they religious or whatever, that people choose for that purpose.
Government has about as much business knowing about your personal living arrangements as it does knowing how much money you earn.
“Government should get out of the relationship business altogether.” No they should protect positive pre-political intuitions just as they should protect borders. This argument is just a cop out to throw more children under the bus. Woodstock libertarians had their fun in the 1960s and damaged enough kids.
Coulter is right too: “Under Paul’s plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth — as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.”
It’s interesting how the communist party supports gay marriage in France. They’re not dumb. Create more fatherless families and get a bigger welfare state! Not protecting marriage is inviting more government in.
I don't know about Australia but civil marriage has been legal in the USA for quite some time. Even with civil marriage defined as it is, we still had the same familial and societal breakdowns that were caused in part by the government treating married and unmarried people differently.
Case in point, it is far easier for an unwed mother to get the taxpayer to subsidize her children than it is for a married mother. My question is, why is the government favoring an unmarried person in this situation, and of course that begs the question of why is the government helping at all?
Another example, gay couples and inheritance and income taxes. Why do married couples get a lower tax rate and the ability to transfer legally earned wealth between spouses? Why can't a gay couple which presumably earned their money legally be entitled to the same benefit? (For the record, I am against all forms of income taxation; I am not advocating that income taxes be raised on married couples, and if we have to tolerate an income tax, it should be an equal percentage for all people). Of course, this begs the question as to why is the government that intimately knowledgeable about the personal relationships of these people?
Don’t ever ask for rationality from a Libertarian. Your head might explode.
Yeah – there are some crazy libertarians out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.