Thomas Sowell - 'Gay Marriage' Confusions

Jewish World Review ^ | 3/9/04 | Thomas Sowell

[Right_Mom]

Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue.

There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes.

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval.

[FormerLib]

... why should marriage be a "legal relation" in the first place?

Because of jointly held property, children, etc. If the courts are going to be involved in enforcing the contract, or disolving it, then the people have a right to have a say in what sort of contracts their courts will and will not enforce.

If the courts are not going to be involved, then who gives a rodent's fuzzy butt what they call themselves, they aren't married.

[Mudboy Slim]

Thomas Sowell is brilliant...MUD

[FormerLib]

I seem to remember that long ago, Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier of Monaco in 1956, in two ceremonies that were a day apart.

This is still quite common in many places in Europe (and possibly Canada? - not sure).

The first is the legal ceremony that includes the court-enforcable contract (sign your name, say an oath) and the second is the religious ceremony.

[mvpel]

Jointly held property can be purchased through a trust, partnership, or as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, all well-established legal constructs fully enforceable by the courts.

As for children, biology provides the presumptions of guardianship for most parents with the help of a birth certificate issued by the government recognizing and recording the birth mother and presumed father.

As for one woman in a same-sex couple having a child via a sperm donor, there's legal procedures for establishing guardianships and powers of attorney with respect to the child for the other woman.

[FormerLib]

Of course, all of your reponses ignore the fact that a mother-and-father constitute a family necessary for the establishment and existence of any society. Any society which wishes to continue to exist will do what it can to support the establishment of such families.

Those that do not will perish.

Of course, feel free to go and establish your own society somewhere (instead of performing dangerous experiments on ours against our collective wills) and give your ideas a try. Perhaps you'll do just fine without us.

[FormerLib]

As for one woman in a same-sex couple having a child via a sperm donor...

Hey, I wasn't going to bring the "little basterds" into the discussion.

[mvpel]

Jacob, renamed "Israel" by God, had four wives and 12 children - so that would count as "mother-mother-mother-mother-father" I guess - and that family with five parents established what would later become the Jewish society.

I suspect that the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater in the passage of "no fault" divorce, and the government financial incentives towards unwed motherhood, have done far more damage to the institution of marriage over the past 30 years than Adam & Steve ever will.

[HitmanLV]

There other ways in which to weave the web of contractual obligations between a husband and a wife than having the government grant its permission to engage in a marriage, and the main thing that they get out of mediating the way in which they dole out that privelege is the ability to dangle the carrot and weild the stick through the unjust tax code.

That's a statement, but it doesnt really address your original point.

The fact that 'there other ways in which to weave the web of contractual obligations between a husband and a wife than having the government grant its permission to engage in a marriage,' is peripheral. The fact that 'other ways' exist - though you don't care to suggest any - isn't meaningful in this context. You asked why government was involved in the way that it is (not to wax on a collection of other ways to advance those ends), and I answered you honestly and truthfully.

Advocates for change can come up with other answers that lead to similar or different policies and conclusions. That those different policies and conclusions exist doesn't make the avowed one I outlined necessarily invalid.

Mentioning the fact that the tax code is unjust in your judgment is peripheral also - its unjust in many ways, many of us can agree on that. That is above and beyond any marriage rules and penalties. So what does that have to do with anything? Change some of the variables without changing the tax system itself will still likely lead to some unjust results - that is, results that some folks won't be happy with.

The basic issue remains - government is involved in marriage for the reasons I stated, because it serves a legitimate and important public purpose. Can we change the convention and still be consistent with those purposes? Sure. Do we wan't to? Most people seem to think 'no.'

[mvpel]

I think the main problem here is that the government essentially abdicated any claim on the legitimacy or importance of the marriage contract as furthering public purpose when they enacted sweeping no-fault divorce laws.

[FormerLib]

I suspect that the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater in the passage of "no fault" divorce, and the government financial incentives towards unwed motherhood, have done far more damage to the institution of marriage over the past 30 years than Adam & Steve ever will.

Seeing how the left has inflicted these upon out society, why take the risk and allow them to use our own government to do even more harm? If anything, we should be turning back this unholy tide, not "going with the flow" and ignoring the damage being done.

[Henrietta]

"I suspect that the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater in the passage of "no fault" divorce, and the government financial incentives towards unwed motherhood, have done far more damage to the institution of marriage over the past 30 years than Adam & Steve ever will."

Wholehearted agreement, here. If the govt thinks that marriage is so important, why do we have no fault divorce?

Dirty little secret: Married couples where both H & W work pay a lot more in tax. There are also a ton more disadvantanges tax-wise that most people don't know about, because they are never discussed. The government doesn't really want people to get married; it interferes with the effectiveness of the welfare state when people take care of each other and their families.

[k2blader]

Bump!

[FormerLib]

I think the main problem here is that the government essentially abdicated any claim on the legitimacy or importance of the marriage contract as furthering public purpose when they enacted sweeping no-fault divorce laws.

C. S. Lewis once reflected that when travelers have strayed from the right path, the most progressive among them will be the first to turn back. The only question is why mvpel wishes us to hurry further down the wrong path?

[mvpel]

I want to limit the role of government in our lives, and I'm weighing the possibility of getting government back out of the business granting or witholding permission for marriage.

[FormerLib]

If you want to limit the role of government in our lives, you cannot possibly support the nonsensical extension of "marriage" to homosexuals. This will result in increased gonvernment coercion upon those who are morally forbidden from recognizing "homosexual marriage."

Do you support marriage to other family members? This is one of those things were you are either for it or against it. Silence = complicity.

Marriage to more than 1 person? Same thing?

How low should the age of consent be set? Should marriage between a 12 and 50 year old be acceptable? For or against?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I want to limit the role of government in our lives, and I'm weighing the possibility of getting government back out of the business granting or witholding permission for marriage.

Back out? That is an interesting way of putting it as government has always been involved in marriage. There is no "back out".

And married couples get benefits from society because by their being married they produce something of benefit to society.

If you have any doubt of what that something is you should read up a bit on the differences between children raised by married couples and children raised by single parents.

[Mr.Atos]

Thank you both, Right_Mom and JohnHuang2 for posting this article. Sowell is one of the few commentators and sociologists who really does understand the dangers inherent with redefining the concept of marriage. And let us be very clear, that a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage is not a desirable alternative. But, when the nation stumbles upon a fundamental concept that is rendered vague with regard to judicial determination - or in this case, is lent to judicial tyranny by a lawless minority - then that concept MUST be defined beyond question within the codex of the founding document of this Constitutional Republic. I am not going to restate a point that has been made elsewhere, I will merely direct you, mvpel, to that point in the event that you care to know why so many thoughtful people see a danger with local authorities, acting independent of popular input, and in conmtradiction to local law, redefining (NOT ACKNOWLEDGING) the existing definition of marriage.

Multnomah County grants gay marriage licenses#57

This point, however, I will restate, as I think that it is important to understand the community that expresses their need for understanding and inclusion... by spitting in our faces...

By eviscerating the definition of marriage, the fringe Left is abandoning the concept to the perversion of relative perception. (What's new?) But, why not 'marry' your roommate when he loses his job and wants benefits? Why not pair up with a friend for a tax benefit?

The homosexual community abandoned a profound opportunity to demonstrate the legitimacy of their unions, and the quality of their character... both of which are in severe doubt at the moment. It was their responsibility to define themselves for the world, and to invent their own legitimate definition as citizens and families. But, what they chose to do was to behave like spoiled children, ignore civic responsibility and pilfer concepts to which they have no relevance or right.

Oregon Judge OKs Gay Marriage Licenses#21

As for Constitutional support for marriage... the primary function of the Constitution is to clarify the nature of fundamental philosophical concepts as they are to be understood by individuals that wish to live among one another in this civilization. Do not confuse clarification of manifestation with governmental intrusion. The definition of marriage belongs to Mankind as has been established. If it now requires clarification, then this is how it must be done.

[Cindy]

Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6

International Healing Foundation

[inquest]

As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.

The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order.

That's a false analogy, and a false description. Wallace was defying an unconstitutional court order while upholding the laws of his own state (as was his job), whereas the state officials in the news today are making up new law out of whole cloth.

[Kerberos]

"To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing."

Oh Please.

Other than that it's a great little socialist's article.