Pajamas Media

48 Comments

Allison:

OK, I just edited this piece for Pajamas, and I’ll start. I think that people whose politics are just one aspect of who they are can be with someone with opposing views if they are tolerant. However, I think people whose politics are at the center of their identity, personally or professionally, generally need to be with someone who is also a Believer. In the time I lived in Washington, DC, dating someone with whom I wasn’t sympatico politically was unthinkable because people WERE their politics. I have the scars from disasterous blind dates to prove it.

(Yeah, yeah, there’s Mary Matalin and James Carville, but I suppose they are the exception that proves the rule, if such a thing exists.)

Where I live now in Israel, there are a lot of families in which political views radically differ in couples — most prominently, the current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Interesting, because our political issues are very existential. It makes for interesting dinner table conversation.

Jul 16, 2007 - 5:08 am Anthony:

My wife and I have very different political views yet she and I are happily married.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:08 am ern:

I think it depends on how different the political views are, and how deeply they are held. Often political views reflect deeper commitments which, when in conflict with a loved one, can be very difficult to work through. I don’t think this is a problem for most people, though.

I also think that some distances shrink over time. Relationships can lead people to respect their partner’s opinions more, as respect for the person grows. Trust can open a lot of doors.

Still, for those who have strong political opinions, it is best to find someone who is at least somewhat on the same page. Marriage can be difficult enough without the added conflict.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:23 am Qwinn:

“As a right-leaning libertarian, I believe that people should be able to enter into whatever relationship they wish with other competent adults without state intervention.”

Here’s what I don’t get about this argument. Marriage isn’t -prevented- by state intervention. Marriage -is- state intervention. It is the State authorizing and giving tacit support to a relationship. The State does so because the State has an interest in providing a stable platform for the raising of children by their natural parents.

Gays can have whatever relationship they want with no state intervention at all. To demand same sex marriage for gays is to demand that the State intervene on their behalf in the same way it does for straight couples. And if you want to argue that, that’s fine, but demanding the State intervene to give same sex marriage it’s approval is not the more “libertarian” position.

Qwinn

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:24 am mr. apropos:

Of course different political views make for a more interesting relationship! It ensures that my Loving Wife‚Ñ¢ of 10 years and I see both sides of the debates before election time and it makes the arguments (too strong a term, I think) for and against [insert topic/person] more informed.

We also have good fun taking turns answering the door/phone around election time. Our rule is whoever answers the door has to speak honestly about their views–it confuses the poll takers who got pretty much the exact opposite view the last time they called.
We also have a rule: we’ll give to your cause/party with the understanding that other person is going to give exactly the same amount to the other side. We’ve been surprised at the number of times the person at the door/phone as passed on our donation offer.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:34 am Private Pigg:

I’m a right-leaning blogger who grew up in Iowa. While studying abroad I met a Middle Eastern-born, Sweden-raised Socialist. As you can imagine, our views are radically different on just about all things political. I’m 27 and she is 28.

We’ve been happily married for two years, now, and have lived together for the past four years (in both Sweden and America). If we can live together and make it work, anyone can. Now, my wife is no militant, and neither am I. I suppose some completely hardcore radical on either side of the “aisle” could be hard to live with for a mate of a different persuasion, so-to-speak, but for the most part, it can be done.

Stay civil. Agree to disagree. And those one or two passionate issues that will always cause a disagreement? Leave them off the table!

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:36 am Andrea:

Interesting choice of subjects.

I think it is very possible for a couple to have radically different viewpoints, as long as they are respectful and openminded with each other. It is possible to disagree with someone on many things, but still think that that person’s insights are worthy and valuable. Heck, I have had some interesting discussions with my husband on a number of hot-button topics, all because we aren’t afraid to air our differences and talk about things. (He is rather more left-wing than I.) Anyway. It’s all about the respect, and if a couple has that, they will probably have a good, healthy relationship in any case, regardless of their viewpoints.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:41 am A Berman:

Although I emphasize with the Libertarian quest for minimal State intervention, the fact is, the State does have a set of interests and, like it or not, States succeed or fail based on whether or not those interests are represented. One of them is self-defense: you might privatize large parts of the military, you might have a volunteer army, but in the end, the State decides to send people to war or not.
Well, the State also seems to have a compelling interest in getting men and women to get together and stay together and raise children together. Explicitly recognizing that by supporting marriage is how States–all of them–have perpetuated themselves. So I ask you, Dr. Helen, not to look at this as a libertarian, or a conservative, or liberal, but as a scientist. Where is the evidence that a State can be successful over a reasonable period of time, say, 100 years, with gay marriage? Don’t you think that some State, somewhere, would have tried it and maintained it in the last few thousand years? Why didn’t the ancient Greeks have gay marriage? Was it their silly Judeo-Christian homophobia? Why did Rome have it for a little while, starting with Nero (Nero!) and ending with, well, we know what happened to Rome.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:42 am Pat:

I don’t know what my wife’s political views are. We don’t really talk about politics. I regard political views as a private matter, and I respect her privacy — so I haven’t pressured her to tell me who she plans to vote for, or anything like that.

That’s not anything special about our marriage, by the way. I don’t talk politics with most of my friends, either. I’m not interested in trying to convert them to my point of view (it wouldn’t work, and it would probably end the friendship), and they’re not going to convert me to theirs, so what’s the point?

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:42 am Zoë:

Despite being raised by a family of bleeding-heart liberals and growing up in a town of the same (or perhaps because of it), I have always gravitated towards people with differing political views.

I studied political history in college and for my Master’s, both at fairly liberal-minded schools. In both programs, I quickly befriended the most staunch conservatives. They always seemed to be the ones who could best defend their views - perhaps because they wouldn’t even have considered attending a left-leaning school if they couldn’t do so. I respected that, even if I didn’t agree with them, so I stuck around.

In three months’ time, I am marrying someone who, in my family and the town we live in, would be considered quite conservative. Despite my friendships at school, I remain more or less true to my liberal roots - I guess old habits of thinking die hard.

In addition, my fiance is Jewish, while I have been raised more or less Episcopalian.

Now, my grandmother always warned against discussing either politics or religion at the dinner table. Given our differing backgrounds on both of these touch-button subjects, one might predict danger ahead.

I admit that we have had it out on both subjects a number of times. But in the end, we both learn something from each other, and coexistence is soon restored.

The bottom line is that I respect the man I’m marrying a great deal. He is one of the most well-read people I know, and his faith is active and rooted deeply in family tradition. So instead of closing up and defending my views without question, instead I try my best to listen to him, and I often end up learning something in the process.
It can be massively frustrating, but it works.

So yes, I could be and am in a relationship with someone of differing political views. And frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way. It has a way of keeping me on my toes, and ensures that I never maintain a belief without being able to defend it.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:48 am A Berman:

Oh, and as to the second part: My wife and I heavily disagree on politics. But really, so what– I didn’t look for a female version of me, I looked for a lifetime companion.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:48 am Richard Aubrey:

I suppose it depends on how it appears the other party’s political opinions were formed.
If, for example, the OP seems afflicted with BDS and, simultaneously wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, questions of strategy are unlikely to be fruitful.
If you tell the other party of the horrors which await the Iraqis dumb enough to trust the US and the response is, so what, or, too bad, or it’s Bush’s fault, it would be difficult to maintain a relationship with someone that morally vile.
If, on the other hand, the OP made a strong case and obviously believes things will be pretty good after a precipitous US withdrawal, the OP can be wrong and still a desireable partner.

Jul 16, 2007 - 8:04 am Joe Kristan:

I sure hope you can be happily married with differing political viewpoints, seeing that my wife of 19 years has always differed with me. It’s only awkward around the kids, but they’ve learned to ignore us.

Once when she saw a picture of a right-side politician, my wife explained to our oldest boy that Republicans are “heartless.” My rejoinder about the “brainless” party ended all conversation for the rest of the ride home. Now we have some boundaries we try to avoid in conversation.

Jul 16, 2007 - 8:16 am Nick (South Africa):

Different political views could in a relationship add an interesting frisson, and make for great sex!

Religious differences are similar to political differences. I had a relationship fail because a girlfriend who I was very keen on, would not stop trying to ram her Christianity down my throat. I am not at all superstitious, and thus have no credulity about any form of deity. She just couldn’t accept this, and wouldn’t let-up. Tolerance is a two-way street, for a relationship to work where there are such differences, both parties must be tolerant.

This is a general rule, and rather topical at that - tolerating intolerance is not tolerance, it’s submission.

As for gay marriages. My objection is purely semantic; I have no problem with gay civil partnerships, but do not care for the use of the word ‘marriage’ in relation to gay partnerships.

I’ve yet to be convinced that equal adoption rights for gays are in the public interest.

Jul 16, 2007 - 8:24 am moptop:

Polygamy is where the argument is going. This is one area where our culture intervenes in our choices. We have a deal together to share the opposite sex equally. According to Psychology Today anyway, polygamous societies are more violent, even if they are not Muslem. Unattached young males with nothing to lose are inherently violent. This really does boil down to “what kind of society do we want to live in?” There is no logical bar to stop at polygamy if gay marriage is won in the courts and not at the ballot box.

Jul 16, 2007 - 8:56 am Joe:

I disagree with the suggestion that the state sanctions marriage because it “has an interest in providing a stable platform for the raising of children by their natural parents.” (Qwinn)

This is an ex post facto argument that simply never existed when legalized marriage came into being. The legal recognition of marriage by the state was largely about formalizing the transfer of property rights (and in establishing legitimate title, though that is arguably still an extension of property rights.)

Jul 16, 2007 - 9:23 am Dr. Dave:

Is marriage about family or children? Somewhat. However, anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you that it is really about property law. It is reasonable to extend the property law provisions of marriage to any couple who wants that extension. There are some reasonable and desirable provisions there that any couple living together and sharing income and expenses would want.

Now that I’m feeling nice and tolerant about my views on gay and straight marriage, why am I unwilling to extend the principle beyond a couple to include a trio or a quartet? Darn it, I do have troglodyte tendencies. Or maybe it is an outbreak of wisdom. Unfortunately, both wisdom and narrow-mindedness look the same from the inside.

Jul 16, 2007 - 9:36 am Michael B. Babbitt:

I believe the pivotal point is the weight you give child bearing in the formula for promoting marriage. If you think it is important but not critical therein lies the rationale for same sex marriage. On the other hand, I think most people promoting male/female unions would state that children is the raison d’etre of marriage and why it is so crucial to the biblical perspective: “Be fruitful and multiply” (GENESIS 1:28) seem foundational to biblical sensibilities. The modern idea of personal commitment for the touchy feely ideas of personal satisfaction fall short of this key imperative. I know there has been a lot of re-interpretation trying to place this imperative into a temporal historicity. But when you see how Christian Europe is dying and giving way to Islam demographically, you begin the see the universal wisdom of this command. So I think the correct position is for society and governments to promote conditions that support child bearing and gay marriage is obviously not part of this direction. If anything, it tends to work against it by slowly weakenening the childbearing impulses and responsibility.

Jul 16, 2007 - 10:07 am moptop:

“This [legitimizing children] is an ex post facto argument that simply never existed when legalized marriage came into being.”

Makes one wonder why the term “bastard” was created in the first place and what it really means. There is an ex post facto argument being made here alright.

Jul 16, 2007 - 10:13 am Lewis:

I support gay marriage. Having said that, most arguments I read for gay marriage are either ill conceived or pernicious. An earlier poster was correct when he noted marriage IS state intervention, so your claim that as a libertarian you want no state intervention is not really an argument at all.

Other arguments for gay marriage are simply pernicious. For example, Andrew Sullivan believes equal opportunity clauses in constitutions and basic human rights mandate gay marriage.

I support gay marriage because it would do some good and no harm. I know committed gay couples, and their marrying would not harm my marriage or the institution of marriage. Numbers matter. There will never be enough gay marriages to warp the institution of marriage. Childless heterosexual marriages will always outnumber gay marriages. The idea that gay marriage is more of a threat to fatherhood than my childless heterosexual marriage, much less no fault divorce, is absurd.

There are forms of marriage that would harm society and directly follow from both your argument and Sullivan’s arguments for gay marriage. Polygamous marriage would undermine, among other things, gender equality and all pension rules relating to marriage. Consanguinous marriages, e.g. marrying first cousins, is directly related to clan based factionalism.

Consanguinous marriage is the bigger threat, even though polygamous marriages are more often inserted into the debate. There are more people in the world currently in consanguinous marriages than there are gay adults. Clan based behavior tied to legal consanguinous marriages is partly responsible for backwardness and clan power in many undeveloped nations and is currently affecting communities throughout western Europe. (For example, a recent Norwegian study found that the overwhelming majority of marriages of the GRANDCHILDREN of immigrants to Norway from nations like Morroco were within the clan.)

Consanguinous marriages are legal in most of the world, including most developed nations. They used to be legal in most, if not all, US states. The laws on marriage were changed here about 100 years ago, partly out of worries about clan based societies and partly from eugenics concerns. There is something to be learned from this by both sides. Not all marriage laws are eternal. Marriage laws can evolve in such a way as to help society. Changes allowing gay marriage do not necessarily harm marriage and can help it, as the law changes of 100 years ago have helped insulate the US from perpetuating bad habits from immigrants from clan based societies. The debate for and against gay marriage is legitimate, and the state has a legitimate interest in defining marriage.

I think that emotionally you support gay marriage for the same reason I do. You can see the gain, possibly among gay friends, and you see no harm. The “libertarian” argument you gave is a rationalization of, rather than a reason for, your position. Your argument, applied consistently, would lead to changes in marriage that can and would harm society.

Jul 16, 2007 - 10:18 am dw:

I, a Reynolds libertarian, was happily married for 34 years to a Kennedy liberal.

While she mostly recovered, one of the saddest aspects of life after her stroke was that we never again discussed politics.

It’s good to have opposing views in one’s life. Of course, it really helps if one’s partner agrees with that.

Jul 16, 2007 - 10:40 am Brown Line:

Interesting topic, about whether spouses who disagree politically can have a successful marriage.

My wife and I see pretty much eye to eye politically, so that’s not an issue. However, all spouses have different tastes in some area or other, some of which can be more problematic than politics. For example, I think it would harder for a husband who loves classical music to get along with a wife who’s into death metal, than for a Democrat to get along with a Republican. In my experience, what matters is not whether spouses agree or disagree, but whether they treat each other with respect and courtesy. If they do that, then they can overcome nearly any obstacle.

Jul 16, 2007 - 10:46 am Jay Currie:

I’m not convinced that the political differences are the issue in a marriage; rather it is the style with which they are held. My own partner readily understands the difference between an argument and a quarrel. If we disagree on something, from politics to parenting, we do so with a sense of humour, respect and the certain knowledge we are going to still like each other when we’re done.

Neither of has to be right all the time.

(And on gay marriage; we’ve had it up here in Canada for a couple of years and, so far, the world has not ended. In fact it has pretty much become a non-issue. It will certainly not be revoked or even reviewed as all of our political parties have been glad to see the back of the issue.)

Jul 16, 2007 - 12:03 pm gcotharn:

I agree with Brown Line: “what matters is […] whether they treat each other with respect and courtesy.”

I am reminded of Seraphic Secret’s story: he, a screenwriter, knew he could never marry a woman who didn’t appreciate his alltime favorite movie: The Seven Samurai. When the love of his life walked out of The Seven Samurai, out of boredom, only a half hour into the movie, he suddenly realized it just didn’t matter. They’ve been happily married for many years.

Some of the gay marriage commentary is thoughtful - a rarity for a discussion of that subject. I commend the commenters(so far).

I believe the state has a HUGE interest in promoting traditional marriage, and that any weakening of traditional marriage is a nontrivial weakening of the nation.

Further, legalizing gay marriage opens up the mother of all legal brouhahas - such as our nation has never seen before. Catholic Churches and Charities are suddenly in violation of the law, property rights lawsuits explode exponentially, et al times a million peripheral issues. I will immediately quit my job and go to law school, as the national shortage of lawyers will reach crisis level. TV’s longest running reality show will become “Jury Pool.”

That said, I wish gay persons every happiness in their relationships. If there is a way to support gay relationships w/o weakening traditional marriage, or our nation, I am all for it.

Jul 16, 2007 - 12:20 pm A Berman:

Joe:

“The legal recognition of marriage by the state was largely about formalizing the transfer of property right”

It certainly *involved* property rights, but your claim is a limited, cramped anger-studies version of the truth. See David Blankenhorn’s latest book. Marriage evolved to keep a man bound to the woman whom he impregnated. It’s because we care about children, not because we care about property.

Jul 16, 2007 - 12:42 pm Full Metal Cynic:

I find it very difficult to accept that people of especially radically different political and social views can be happy together. In fact, to illustrate the absurdity of it, take the “love connection” between a woman who expects a long term relationship and a suicide bomber.

Jul 16, 2007 - 1:05 pm Joe:

moptop, the term bastard is directly related to title and property. Legitimacy has nothing to do with quality of child rearing.

A Berman,

You are missing the point. Marriage itself evolved for a variety of reasons, however the concept of government making marriage legal was chiefly about the legal issues of a union, mostly property rights, legitimacy, title and so forth, and very little to do with providing children “a stable platform.” Again, I am not talking about how religions view marriage or even society, but solely of why the state got involved in creating a legal framework for marriage, especially to the degree to which it has in the last few centuries.

Jul 16, 2007 - 1:29 pm moptop:

“the term bastard is directly related to title and property”

I have to give you that one. Still, I think it is simpleminded to think that any cultural adapatation as deeply rooted as traditional Western marriage can be traced to a single rational cause. It is also irrational to throw out additional benefits of a system, such as improved child rearing which probably lowers crime, because it (unknowably) was not considered at the time of origin.

My real disagreement with you is on the idea that one can, by pure logic, arrive at the perfect society. I cannot imagine what the logic based argument is that allows gay marriage over the objection of the majority, but denies polygamy. I am sure you have one handy, but I am less sure that you can make it stick.

If your argument is that polygamy is a minor preference, there is biological evidence that polygamy, as well as violence, is a natural state for humans, a natural state to which we may not wish to return.

It is not as if polyandry will step in a pick up the slack.

Jul 16, 2007 - 2:38 pm moptop:

Another question. Does one find marriage in a society where the concept of property is limited by culture or circumscribed by the state? Why would communists, who had no hope of passing on inherited wealth, continue to marry? Because if fills a need deeper and more universal than that of the orderly disposition of property.

Jul 16, 2007 - 2:42 pm moptop:

Again, I am not talking about how religions view marriage or even society, but solely of why the state got involved in creating a legal framework for marriage

What difference does this make? The state codified a long pre-existing human condition. At the time the state codified marriage, the Church still held unquestioned authority over such issues, and those making the laws clearly accepted that. To suggest that because the state limited its regulation to the property aspects of marriage has some relevance is to pull an intellectual “bait and switch”.

Jul 16, 2007 - 2:48 pm A Berman:

Joe, you should know that even though I disagree strongly with your statements about gay marriage, that, by itself, would not keep me from marrying you.

Jul 16, 2007 - 7:38 pm Graham Strouse:

I can’t imagine how permitting a small percentage of consenting adults who happen to have the same set of chromosomes could be a bad thing.

Fact of the matter is that, if I recall correctly, co-habitating lesbians in particular (who aren’t, obviously, typically married) have a very high rate of domestic violence.

I can’t remember where gay male couples fell in this violence study.

By encouraging people who really love each other to make that final committment to stick it out for better or worse, I think we might just discourage the sort of experimental “trendy” relationships that often fail and fail spectacularly.

I think the next step is to go to town on no-fault divorce & judicial bias (all kinds) in divorce cases.

I’d like to see are fewer starter marriages, fewer kid’s (and that includes adult kids) lives wrecked by wicked step-parents–Both male and female step-parents also rank very high in domestic violence against children studies, far moreso then birth parents.

Maybe we should allow gay marriage but include a one-strike-and-you’re-done provision for anyone legally judged to be the perp in the divorce situation.

I extend my argument deliberately into the mildly absurd, but frankly, I think it makes more sense for people who are truly committed to each other to gain all the gains and suffer all the pains if they love each other to take this particular leap from the lion’s head.

But hey, you want to drop the hammer, drop it on no-fault & users of both sexes who are “marrying around”.

I come from Generation-D(ivorce) & I can tell you from experience that it can be very D(isruptive).

Two people love each other & it ain’t hurtin’ nobody, I say, great, get hitched. Not like it’s any of my business, anyway. Or anyone else’s.

Jul 17, 2007 - 1:08 am Zoe Brain:

I’m in a legal same-sex marriage, in a country where the contract of a same-sex marriage is illegal. Should we ever get divorced, I could only marry a man.

That’s what happens when one partner is physically intersexed in a rare way, or is transsexual and transitions. It’s arguable whether I’m just TS and hormonally weird, or Intersexed, and no-one in my medical team will commit one way or the other yet.

We have a son too. I was never quite normally male biologically, but close enough (just) to be a biological father. With technical help, syringes etc. Psychologically female though, always have been.

I’m very glad that natural change, aided by some surgery and hormone treatment, has made my mind and body more consistent. I’ll never be fully female (can’t change the chromosomes), but again, close enough. I attract no attention. For the first time in my life I look normal when unclothed.

Sometimes I think that my rare biological condition - I’m in contact with only 8 others in the same situation - is purely to confound those who conflate the issues of reproduction and marriage.

The most important thing to me though is the welfare of my son, who’s just turned 6. On purely selfish grounds, I’m in favour of same-sex marriage - and adoption/IVF availability for such couples - just so he won’t be isolated at school as he grows up. If other kids also have two mummies or two daddies, he won’t be quite so ostracised by society, just because his biological father had a congenital anomaly that made her look male for most of her life.

There are not many like me. But there are thousands of transitioned transsexuals (now thought to be a biological condition involving an Intersexed neurology) that are in a similar position. At best 1 in 5 marriages survive, the societal and often legal pressure to split is immense. Should same-sex marriage be legalised, more loving long-term relationships would survive, and more kids grow up with two parents, not one.

Jul 17, 2007 - 3:19 am John L.:

Re. Spousing with differing political views.

I have a blast debating politics with my generally liberal family. It’s fun.

… except with my wife. She gets mad when I don’t agree with her. I think there is a control/power issue going on there.

I don’t expect my liberal wife to agree with me but she expects me to agree with her!

We’ve side-stepped the problem by agreeing to not talk politics in front of each other and that’s working out very well.

P.S. At a recent “relationship” seminar the singles would get up and say what they were looking for in a mate. No one mentioned race. A few mentioned religion or lack thereof. But more than half (especially the women) said they didn’t want a mate who had differing (read: conservative) political views. I was shocked! One after another saying, in essence, that they wouldn’t marry a conservative.

I think those women were taking politics and themselves way too seriously. No wonder they were having trouble linking up.

Jul 17, 2007 - 10:34 pm Gary:

Dr. Helen states in part: “First, let me start by saying that I am for gay marriage. As a right-leaning
libertarian, I believe that people should be able to enter into whatever
relationship they wish with other competent adults without state
intervention. If men want to marry other men and women want to marry other
women, have at it.”

“Right leaning Libertarian” that just another label for just another Bed-wetting, bleeding-heart socialist with a difference you spending your tax dollars. What she is saying is “have at it”-a “competent” adult father could marry a competent adult daughter or daughter”s” or a competent adult mother could marry a competent adult son or son”s” or a woman could marry 10 men or 10 women, or you choose the senario. This woman is just another elitist from some Socialist Indoctrinated University. Take advise from this person at your own risk. Conservatives beware.

Jul 19, 2007 - 8:55 am michael:

I believe gays and lesbians should be entitled to experience the same legal tyrannies and dead-end optimism that the majority of heterosexual married people experience.

That is to say —

a failed notion of a “soul-mate,” divorce (or the dissolution of a gay-version of a marriage contract), maximum legal expenses, losing your custody of any children, forfeiting at minimum 1/2 of your assets, and ….

well, just the general satisfaction in understanding that DIVORCE IS EXPENSIVE ….

BECAUSE IT’S WORTH IT!

Gay marriage will not create much in the manner of gaiety….

Jul 19, 2007 - 3:26 pm Mjaybee:

Haven’t the gays suffered enough?

Jul 19, 2007 - 3:52 pm celebrim:

My views are almost exactly the same as Lewis, only I see no possibility of good and a significant risk of some harm. And actually, this is the first time I’ve read someone who applied the logic of the social harm of polygamous, cosanguinous, non-voluntary arranged marriages, and so forth and then exempted gay marriage from the same critique. Generally, if you assume society has a compelling interest in marriage law at all, you tend to place gay marriage in with the rest of the deprecated forms.

I’d be a little interested in hereing the argument developed by one as clearly rational and eloquent as Lewis on how amongst the alternatives to traditional marriage, one rates gay marriage as the least likely to cause social harm compared to all the other sorts given that the historical record shows that societies have existed for quite some time having polygamous or cosanguinous marriages while the social experiment with gay marriage seems either to never have been attempted or else abandoned almost immediately. Surely if the institution was as safe as you suppose, it would have survived?

Jul 19, 2007 - 9:20 pm JeanE:

Marriage is about property rights, but lots of laws and contracts involve property rights- the mortgage on the house, the title to the car, etc. Marriage is also about caring for children, but of course some couples never have children, and some children are adopted.

Marriage is specifically intended to deal with the biological reality that when a man and a woman engage in sexual intercourse, it is POSSIBLE for a child to be conceived, and the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that the biological parents take responsibilty for raising the child. “First comes love, then comes marriage, then Susie’s pushing a baby carriage” may be a silly rhyme, but it’s also a fairly common sequence of events. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think child-bearing is the purpose of marriage, the reality is that only heterosexual unions have the potential to conceive children without medical intervention, so the state has good reason to establish unique laws to govern a relationship with unique possibilities.
Property rights between any other pairs or groups of individuals can be handled through other contracts, but the marriage contract governs a unique relationship in a way that benefits the parties invovlved, including children, and society in general.

Jul 19, 2007 - 11:04 pm Elitist Bedwetter:

“Right leaning Libertarian” that just another label for just another Bed-wetting, bleeding-heart socialist with a difference you spending your tax dollars.

I’m not sure quite what this sentence means, but I guess its kind of a good illustration of the dangers of inbreeding. So maybe there should be some restrictions on marriage.

Jul 19, 2007 - 11:15 pm Ogre:

I’m not for or against gay marriage. It’s one of those things where I don’t really give a crap one way or the other. I doubt gay marriage will be generally accepted in this country for some time. However, this is causing a lot of legal and emotional problems. For example, a gay life-partner doesn’t have family rights in medical situations. Property transfer due to death becomes a mess. Visitation after divorce of children raised together is under a cloud.

The gay community should work for something that is remotely possible, not full marriage, but some kind of domestic partner contract that gives essentially the same rights and recognition as marriage. There’s simply too much fear in the religious community and they make up too large a portion of the population to have any chance of passing full-blown gay marriage laws in most states.

Jul 19, 2007 - 11:28 pm Gary:

Inbreed Great Unwashed: Sorry I didn’t proofread for the highbrow.

I feel good knowing I hit the bullseye. Try ‘Liberal’tarian-the swap wives and husbands highbrow society.

Jul 20, 2007 - 2:00 am Dan Collins:

Gary–

You know, it’s embarassing enough when you comment in the wrong post, but I can’t remember the last time I saw someone commenting on the wrong blog.

On the other hand, I might be wrong, in which case you’re exactly the kind of trogolodyte that the left likes to paint their opponents as being. It’s a bit like the concept of a “dork.” We all know what a dork is supposed to be, and we think it’s a funny, cartoony, convenient fiction until we meet a person who absolutely embodies a dork, and we realize in a flash that there is such a thing as a dork incarnate, and, lo! there it stands before us being dorky!

Asshole, on the other hand is an instance of what the rhetoricians called synecdoche, in which a part stands in for a whole. Only it is a special case, insofar as a hole stands in for a whole. Congratulations, Gary.

Jul 20, 2007 - 4:18 am Steph:

Gary, you wrote,

“Right leaning Libertarian” that just another label for just another Bed-wetting, bleeding-heart socialist with a difference you spending your tax dollars.

The fact is that the modern conservative movement is more than just you. There are at least 6 strains of that movement, Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives, Anti Communists, Burkian Conservatives, and Religious Conservatives. I take it from your tone that you are either a social conservative or and Religious conservative. If the later you might remember you are the johny come lately to the movement and act acordingly. In either event, you might show some respect for a fellow conservative and remember Reagans 11th Comandment.

Jul 20, 2007 - 10:04 am Nate:

I’m a conservative, and I wet the bed a little last night. Liberals have no corner on the bedwetting market, Gary.

I blame the Vox. Damn you, evil spirits.

Jul 20, 2007 - 10:20 am Gary:

Sorry Steph-Rush Limbaugh threw that one out the window. ‘Liberal’tarians are not Conservatives-ask Neal Boortz. What is Conservative about two men in a lip-lock. You are not a Conservative if you defend the Liberal side of ‘Liberal’tarians. You need to join the ‘Liberal’tarians. My rule-don’t pretend to be something you are not.

Jul 20, 2007 - 11:37 am Yu-ain Gonnano:

Yeah, I can’t see anything at all about the “Liberal-tarians” desire to have smaller gov’t, lower taxes, less regulation, stronger gun rights, elimination of Social Security, market based health-care, etc that could possibly be considered conservative. Straight off the Liberal Platform all.

Yep, libertarian is just a catchy way of saying Liberal, no doubt about it.

Jul 20, 2007 - 1:10 pm Kip Watson:

The original remark was uncouth with a needlessly abusive tone. That’s not acceptable.

Nevertheless, as a Conservative, I also feel that, while a degree of moderate libertarianism is a natural component of Conservatism (and not every self-described libertarian thinks the same), there’s a substantial faction of contemporary libertarians pursuing a destructive brand of this philosophy.

In particular, there’s nothing freedom-loving or conservative in many of this faction’s attitudes to drugs, sexual morality (especially prostitution and pornography). I am not made more free by a philosophy that precludes my exercising influence over the development of my community. I am not made more free by having whores, smut merchants and drug dealers on every street corner.

In fact, this brand of libertarianism is very much like Socialism, in that it is revolutionary and its aim is irrational utopia. And like socialism the end of that road is unimaginable misery.

Also like Socialism, we’ve seen it before, let’s not try it again.

Jul 20, 2007 - 8:20 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: