I disagree Steve....to me it seems the article is ONLY asking that the
state not discriminate.
Mike
It proposes: "civil unions for all!", which is effectively getting the state out of marriage as opposed to allowing gays to marry. Is it not?
Given that this doesn't address the issue of what to do with people who are currently married, it's difficult to take it as a serious proposal. Are we to take it that all current marriages would be abolished and those people given the option to sign civil union agreements?
This is an obvious political non-reality. Treating it as a serious alternative to the current discrimination problem is so ludicrous that I have to suspect either the author's intelligence or motives.
-- Steve
but to Steve's point - isn't that the general
Libertarian message? That has been my whole beef with
this government marriage issue all along. I always
thought the Libertarian viewpoint was that it was
_impossible_ for the government to grant true equality
to everyone - by it's very nature. Equality under law
maybe, but not in providing services.
I also liked the way founder David Nolan said it at
the convention -
"Libertarians are not pro-gun, we're anti-gun
legislation"
couldn't that apply to this as well?
David
--- Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
Yes. But you're confusing the long term ideal with the short term realities.
For example, would you be in favor of lower taxes?
If your answer is yes, then I could counter by applying your all-or-nothing logic that lower taxes are inconsistent with the LP stance of no taxes therefore we cannot endorse it and should seek to prevent it from happening. Right?
-- Steve
> but to Steve's point - isn't that the general
> Libertarian message?Yes. But you're confusing the long term ideal with
the short term
realities.For example, would you be in favor of lower taxes?
I don't think that's a fair comparison. As an
incrementalist, I do favor lowering taxes as a
compromise for where cutting all at once is not an
option. But throwing in the towel by saying things
like "since we'll never see government get out of 'X'
then we should instead fight for equality" ... I don't
see how that relates to libertarianism, incremental or
otherwise. I mean, since when were Libertarians
egalitarians? Aren't there numerous groups already
fighting that fight? I would propose we focus on
fighting for freedom not on equality.. d.
I would hope that you could see the connection between the two.
If the state didn't allow women to vote, would you say this is an "equality" issue, and therefore something that does not concern the Libertarian Party?
-- Steve
I would propose we focus on fighting for freedom
not on equality.I would hope that you could see the connection
between the two.If the state didn't allow women to vote, would you
say this is an
"equality" issue, and therefore something that does
not concern the
Libertarian Party?
So I assume you are suggesting that voting is right,
correct? Although I admit there is plenty of populist
rhetoric to suggest this, I don't see how this is
true. Just ask all the 'non-qualified, US citizens'
who were not allowed to vote in the 2000 election who
took away their rights. To me it is clearly a
privilege or some variant of a positive-right (as in
the right to free health care). The mere fact that
non-citizens must 'earn the right to vote' is solid
example that most individuals of the world are barred
from voting here in the U.S. - men and women.
So the answer to your question is - yes, I don't think
escalation of voting privileges or marriage privileges
are issues that should concern the LP. There are
plenty of other special interest groups to carry that
torch. Anyway, did 'giving' the right to vote to
women, blacks or others really make anyone more free?
Or did it just help share the blame for government's
ills?
Also, although I am running for public office, I don't
believe democracy is necessarily a good thing - for me
or anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a
convenience that allows the masses to plunder the
haves while at the same time force others to accept a
compromise on their way of life. I don't see any
reason for the LP to encourage this activity further.
By the way, isn't it democracy that has enabled this
socialist mess to fester, which we(libertarians) now
find ourselves fighting against?
d.
To me it[voting] is clearly a
privilege or some variant of a positive-right (as in
the right to free health care).
..
So the answer to your question is - yes, I don't think
escalation of voting privileges or marriage privileges
are issues that should concern the LP.
So if a law were proposed to prevent all currently registered Libertarians from voting, this would not be of interest as voting is a "positive-right"?
It seems to me that voting is an essential check on the power of the state and is not only related to, but essential to the maintenance of freedom.
By the way, isn't it democracy that has enabled this
socialist mess to fester, which we (libertarians) now
find ourselves fighting against?
The logic here seems to be:
X enabled Y.
Y is bad.
Therefore X should be ended to eliminate Y.
(where X = democracy and Y = socialism)
By this logic:
Human existence enabled socialism.
Socialism is bad.
Therefore human existence should be ended to eliminate socialism.
-- Steve
Steve,
Good points. Obviously you can have state socialism without democracy, and it tends to be even worse than state socialism with democracy. Even if I wanted to go all the way to anarchy, voting is just about the last vestige of government I would want to get rid of. Since I think the people as a whole are more to be trusted than the politicians (power corrupts, remember), at present I'd even like to expand voting, so that more things are decided directly by voter referendum, and fewer decisions made by those in power.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Me too. One place we might start is within LP itself. Allowing the local members to vote by physical mail or the web on local issues (instead of those with Saturdays to burn like us :-)) as well as allowing members to vote on national issues (instead of just the ones who can afford the time and expense of a trip to Atlanta - which tends to select for extremists...) would make for better decisions as well as increased membership and participation.
Cheers,
-- Steve
Steve,
We can't change how LP members vote at the national level without changing the national bylaws. I might be in favor of such a change, but I'd want to see a detailed workable plan (i.e. specific changes proposed to the existing bylaws). Obviously an extensive campaign to get other people behind this at the national level would also be required.
As far as local voting, here are my thoughts. There are two basic ways to contribute to the party: Time and money. As long as someone is either engaged as an activist, or supporting activism (i.e. donating to the local party above and beyond paying dues which are split with state and national and basically pay for their newsletters), I think we should try to enable that individual to vote on local party business if he or she has any interest in doing so.
If you're aware of anyone in this category who feels unable to make it to Round Table Pizza one Saturday a month, then I agree it's worth investing our time and energy to figure out a way so that they can participate in our decision-making. We might also publish an inquiry in our newsletter to find out whether any active or supporting members are interested in voting on party business but are unable to come to the monthly meetings.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
P.S. - Steve, I expect you'll propose that we should automatically have local members vote on party business whether they are activists or donors or not. Please consider that working out and administering a local voting system by mail or web will take additional labor by the local activists, reducing the amount of time and resources available for activism. I'm operating on the assumption that the top priority for most of our members is real-world change, not perfecting internal structure. If we dedicate too many of our resources towards internal structures when the members want us to be using our resources to promote liberty, then we would be acting undemocratically.
On the other hand, if most of the members who don't go to meetings *want* to be able to vote on party business, and feel that accommodating this desire *is* an important use of our resources, then I would agree we should make it so. However I haven't seen evidence that this is true. As Chris has said, most of the members seem mostly to want to be left alone.
<<< Starchild >>>
The logic here seems to be:
X enabled Y.
Y is bad.
Therefore X should be ended to eliminate Y.(where X = democracy and Y = socialism)
By this logic:
Human existence enabled socialism.
Socialism is bad.
Therefore human existence should be ended to
eliminate socialism.
Steve - With all due respects, that's some fairly
sketchy logic. I'm not going to allow myself to go
drawn down into that hole. For the record, I never
said human existence enabled anything - good or bad. I
also never said that democracy be ended, just not to
be promoted by the LP.
Here's a quote for you though -
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where
fifty-one percent of the people may take away the
rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson
The logic here seems to be:
X enabled Y.
Y is bad.
Therefore X should be ended to eliminate Y.(where X = democracy and Y = socialism)
By this logic:
Human existence enabled socialism.
Socialism is bad.
Therefore human existence should be ended to
eliminate socialism.Steve - With all due respects, that's some fairly
sketchy logic.
It is your logic, and that is my point.
I'm not going to allow myself to go
drawn down into that hole. For the record, I never
said human existence enabled anything - good or bad. I
also never said that democracy be ended, just not to
be promoted by the LP.
To quote you:
"I don't believe democracy is necessarily a good thing..."
and supported your opinion with:
"isn't it democracy that has enabled this
socialist mess to fester, which we (libertarians) now
find ourselves fighting against? "
I don't think it's a stretch to say that you are saying democracy is bad because it enabled socialism.
Your reasoning here employs the fallacy of Complex Cause:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/complex.php
For the record, I never said human existence enabled anything
And I did not claim you did. What I said was that your argument was invalid and did this by showing that the syllogism involved leads to an absurdity. The example I choose simply highlights this. The technique used is known as Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You can find information on how to construct valid arguments here:
Cheers,
-- Steve
Steve,
It looks like you are in heavy competition with Michael Edelstein for an MVLA! 8)
<<< Starchild >>>
I found Alexander Cockburn's article interesting. While I believe we need to win the fight for equal marriage if that's the fight on the table, I agree with him that it would be better for government to only recognize civil unions, and for those to be open to anyone. I'd even be willing to let government-issued marriage licenses in the hands of those already married continue to be valid. All those folks would be dead within a lifetime, and in the meantime they wouldn't be getting any concrete benefits not available to others.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I disagree Steve....to me it seems the article is ONLY asking that the
state not discriminate.Mike
From: Steve Dekorte [mailto:steve@dekorte.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:57 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Gay MarriageAt this juncture in history, wouldn't it make more sense for us to try
to figure out how to relieve heterosexuals of the outdated shackles of
matrimony?"
It seems to me that this is like telling Rosa Parks that she should be
lobbying the city to get out of the bus business instead of telling the
state it should not discriminate...-- Steve
Gay Marriage
Sidestep on Freedom's Path
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
I'm for anything that terrifies Democrats, outrages Republicans, upsets the applecart. But exultation about the gay marriages cemented inSan Francisco, counties inOregonandNew Mexicoand some cities inNew Yorkis misplaced.
Why rejoice when state and church extend their grip, which is what marriage is all about. Assimilation is not liberation, and the invocation of "equality" as the great attainment of these gay marriages should be challenged. Peter Tatchell, the British gay leader, put it well a couple of years ago: "Equality is a good start, but it is not sufficient. Equality for queers inevitably means equal rights on straight terms, since they are the ones who dominate and determine the existing legal framework. We conform -- albeit equally -- with their screwed up system. That is not liberation. It is capitulation."
So the good news, as that excellent paper, Ultra Violet (newsletter of LAGAI Queer Insurrection) recently put it, is not that 400 gay couples are now legally married in San Francisco but that 69,201 in the city (Ultra Violet's number) are still living in sin.
Marriage diverts us from the path of necessary reform. Civil union, today lawful only inVermont, is what makes sense as a national cause. Unmarried couples, straight or gay, need to be able to secure joint property, make safe wills, be able to have hassle-free hospital visits and so forth. But issues of hospitals visits or health care should have nothing to do with marriage, and marriage as a rite should have nothing to do with legal rights. Separate "marriage" from legal recognition of a bond, of a kinship.
There's a fork in the road for progressives. One path is sameness, expanding a troubled institution to same sexers. But that path detours the real problems of relationships today and their official recognition. As a generation of feminists and the divorce rate attest, marriage is in sore trouble, well beyond powers of recuperation offered in Bush's proposed constitutional amendment which would be a touching souvenir of a world long gone. Why are prenuptial agreements become common among people of moderate income? Prenups challenge the one-size-fits-all straitjacket of marriage, as do other important arrangements devised in recent years in response to changing anthropological and moral circumstance: coparent adoptions, adoptions by single people, many varieties of public and private domestic partnerships, civil unions. Expand and strengthen the options. Get religion out of the law.
Civil union across the country would help to level a playing field that's got increasingly uneven across the past generation. In some corporations gay couples have health benefits that unmarried straight couples don't. Contrary to endless rants about the "marriage penalty" in the federal tax code, a larger number of people enjoy a marriage bonus, as theHouse Waysand Means Committee determined in 1999.
Unmarried workers may lose hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year in employee benefits compensation. For example, as the Unmarried America website points out, "Most states will allow workers to collect unemployment compensation if they quit a job to move to a new area when their spouse is relocated by his or her company. But state laws usually will not give these benefits to a worker who quits to relocate with his or her domestic partner."
There are so many tricky questions, particularly now that morals and the surgeon's knife have deepened their own relationship. What happens, when someone who's had a sex change, who is already receiving domestic partner benefits at work for his male partner, goes through sex reassignment surgery and acquires the physical impedimenta of the opposite sex? Should the couple lose their bennies until they get legally hitched?
None of this should have anything to do with various rites of marriage such as a hippy New Age union cemented waist deep in a river with solemn invocation of the winds and other natural forces, or a white wedding in a high Episcopal church.
"The pursuit of marriage in the name of equality", says Bill Dobbs, radical gay organizer, "shows how the gay imagination is shrivelling." Judith Butler, professor at UC Berkeley, exhibited kindred disquiet in a quote she gave the New York Times last week. "It's very hard to speak freely right now, but many gay people are uncomfortable with all this, because they feel their sense of an alternative movement is dying. Sexual politics was supposed to be about finding alternatives to marriage."
As Jim Eigo, a writer and activist whose thinking was very influential in the early days of ACT UP put it a while back, what's the use of being queer if you can't be different? "Why are current mainstream gay organizations working to strike a bargain with straight society that will make some queers less equal than others? Under its terms, gays who are willing to mimic heterosexual relations and enter into a legally-enforced lifetime sexual bond with one other person will be granted special benefits and status to be withheld from those who refuse such domestication...Marriage has no more place in efforts to achieve equality than slavery or the divine right of kings. At this juncture in history, wouldn't it make more sense for us to try to figure out how to relieve heterosexuals of the outdated shackles of matrimony?"
And why marriage to just one person? Why this endless replication of the Noah'sArkprinciple?
For me the cheering political lesson is that Mayor Gavin Newsom ofSan Franciscofelt the hot breath of a challenge from his left (in the form of his Green opponentMatt Gonzalez) and felt impelled to radical action to consolidate his victory. That's good, because it shows the value of independent radical challenges, but that's where my cheers stops. Gay marriage is a step back in the march towards freedom. Civil unions for all!