"Its basically a libertarian argument unless there is harm or some tangible drawback to a given activity, then the government has no justifiable means of regulating it, Gordon said."
Wait a minute. Isn't marriage -itself- government regulation?
I would argue, using the exact same libertarian argument, that unless there is a tangible BENEFIT to government regulation, government shouldn't get involved. There is a tangible benefit to society for government providing a support structure for heterosexual marriage - the clear and documented benefit to their biological children. Biological children are not an issue in homosexual marriage, and they can and do adopt without it.
Therefore, using that same libertarian argument, government should NOT regulate homosexual marriage (by creating it) because there is no reason for government to get involved in it. If a gay couple wants to go to a gay church and call themselves married, fine, but setting up laws and structure to support it isn't supportable with a libertarian limited-government argument.
posted on 12/30/2003 2:58:32 PM PST
American legal marriage goes back through to English common law, which, on marriage, goes back to the middle ages, where 'legal' marriage was invented to define who was and was not eligible to inherit a noble's estate. If you remember Shakespeare and other authors, they were much more concerned with 'bastards' back then, particularly 'royal' ones, and who would inherit the throne, than we are now.
posted on 12/30/2003 4:04:20 PM PST
Qwinn said: " ... the clear and documented benefit to their biological children."
What? I thought that "it takes a village ..."
Who needs heterosexual marriage if you have Hillary to arrange everything.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson