EQUALITY : RIGHT ON

Discussion
1

Starchild - That sounds a bit like neocon philosophy
to me. i.e. "You're either with us, or you're with
the terrorist".

I thought it was clear that I have been advocating for
the removal of these laws, not for promoting them -
whether they be of privilege or rights violation in
nature.

Additionally, I am opposed to vindicating the
existence of the state by attempting to level existing
laws and privileges.

To me this is basic libertarian philosophy and I find
it disturbing that we're even having to discuss this
internally. I must be going insane.

--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

David,

  Are we to take it then that you are supporting the
prosecution of
people for violating state licensing laws?

      <<< Starchild >>>

On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 12:41 AM, David
Rhodes wrote (in part):

> The legal attempts at criminalizing non-civil
marriage
> are actually done by criminalizing some of the
common
> ancillary aspects of marriage where they can -
> anti-sodomy laws, anti-cohabitation, etc. But the
> illegitimacy of these laws are not the discussion
in
> this thread. The fact that everyone _believes_
that
> same-sex 'non-civil' marriage is banned is a
powerful
> force but it does not indicate direct individual
> rights violations. And not giving something is not
the
> same as taking it away.
>
> To exemplify this point -
>

http://www.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/040316.html

2

Starchild wrote:

> Are we to take it then that you are supporting the prosecution of
> people for violating state licensing laws?

To which David Rhodes replied:

Starchild -- That sounds a bit like neocon philosophy to me. i.e.
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorist".

I thought it was clear that I have been advocating for the removal of
these laws, not for promoting them -- whether they be of privilege or
rights violation in nature.

Thanks for pushing the distinction between rights and privileges -- it's
pretty tricky on this topic. What I'm hearing is that (a) any rights
regarding marriage derive from rights of association and contract, and are
attacked by laws such as those regarding sodomy and cohabitation, which
therefore should rightly be repealed; whereas (b) the state recognition of
marriage and other things it leads to, such as tax breaks, insurance
deals, etc., are privileges, because they require others to actively
recognize the relationship rather than just staying out of the way. For
example, by this reasoning a private insurance company should be under no
particular obligation to extend its special spousal rates to gay couples
even if their marriage is recognized by the state. All of the special
deals I get by being married are privileges afforded by other individuals
who choose to recognize that status specially. Any exceptions -- such as
whether the state "allows" us to cohabitate -- are themselves specific
laws that should be repealed. And income tax should be eliminated entirely
anyway.

Additionally, I am opposed to vindicating the existence of the state by
attempting to level existing laws and privileges.

To me this is basic libertarian philosophy and I find it disturbing that
we're even having to discuss this internally. I must be going insane.

Well, the facts that you belong to a political party, vote in elections,
and have run for public office all vindicate the existence of the state
already. That's the basic cognitive dissonance inherent in the Libertarian
Party. And it's why I didn't enter a voting booth for several years after
I became eligible. Since I moved to San Francisco, got married, and bought
a house here a little over a year ago, I became accutely aware of local
politics and decided to give it a shot by voting for the first time and
joining the LP.

In case anyone's wondering, I heartily support extending state-licensed
marriage to gay couples, even though at the same time I do want to see the
state out of the marriage business altogether. As you said to me on
another topic, it may or may not be libertarian, but it surely is
Libertarian. :slight_smile:

Justin

3

David,

  It does sound a bit like that, I agree. And that is rather how I feel about the issue. Sometimes a good hard When it comes to equal marriage rights, there's not a hell of a lot of room in the mushy, ambiguous middle -- though that hasn't stopped a lot of politicians from desperately trying to find some!

  Let us be clear -- the cause of marriage equality does not require new laws. It simply requires either (a) that existing laws be reworded so that they do not discriminate on the basis of gender (or, I might add, on the number of partners or age of individuals to be married), or (b) that the state stop giving special privileges to opposite-gender couples.

  If one wishes to favor the latter but not the former, and wishes to be seen as tolerant towards people of differing sexual orientations and not simply rationalizing a reason to oppose marriage equality without appearing bigoted, then I think it behooves one to state repeatedly and in the clearest possible terms that conventional marriage constitutes discriminatory state welfare for straight couples, that married couples are the beneficiaries of an unfair privilege which ought to be abolished, and that the legal recognition granted to any existing marriage contracts by the state should be formally withdrawn.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - Unlike gay marriage, the matter of sanity is one that I see as a matter of degree... we're all a little bit crazy, some merely more than others, and at some times more than others. So you may technically be "going crazy," but not in any great hurry or in any great danger of arriving at the nuthouse before the trend is reversed. 8)

4

Oops -- the third sentence below should have read, "Sometimes a good hard black & white analysis does the most to boil an issue down to what fundamentally matters most."

      <<< Starchild >>>

5

David, I'm completely on your side with this issue. I find it really unbelievable that there is even a debate here with other Libertarians on this issue. We are talking about the government getting involved in telling us who we can and can't partner with here...

Jay