Gay marriage advocate's hypocrisy.

[Anti Federalist]

Good point.



Government Marriage for Me, But Not for Thee

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on September 12, 2012 09:07 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120834.html#more-120834

This week, conservative pundit Matt Barber stated the oft-repeated Conservative talking point that government marriages for gay people will make government marriages "inevitable" for polygamists and practitioners of incest.

Last month, Catholic Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Scotland asked “[i]f we really want equality, why does that equality not extend to nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles?”

Both Gilbert and Barber meant their comments as criticisms of state marriages for gays, of course, and both favor state marriages for heterosexuals only. However, the argument, their intentions notwithstanding, is a good argument. Doesn't the doctrine of political equality require that states grant their writ of "marriage" to anyone who asks for one?

My own position is that the very concept of government marriage diminishes human freedom and is based on the assumption that governments should have the prerogative to meddle in every aspect of our lives. Government marriage, which is a recent invention of Western civilization, should be abolished altogether.

What is most interesting about these recent remarks, however, is the response of some pro-gay-marriage groups. In Scotland, the Equality Network denounced the bishop saying that his comments were "offensive and uncalled for," stating that "We are very disappointed the Bishop of Aberdeen should choose to com**pare same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest."

My question for the Equality Network: Why? The Equality Network's position, and the position of anyone who wants marriage for gays on equality grounds, but not for polygamists or incestuous couples or groups, is violating their own professed value of political equality. Those who support hetero-sexual marriage only — they don't claim to be in favor of inclusion or equality, so we know where they stand.

But the calls for gay marriage are based, from what I have seen, on calls for equality. So, what is the standard being used by the opponents of incestuous and polygamous unions for their preferred ban on such unions? From what I have seen, no standard has been proffered at all. There is nothing more than the assumption that political rights should extend to gays but not to polygamists or incestuous couples.

This is rank hypocrisy of course, but to point this out is apparently "offensive and uncalled for."

Unlike the Bishop or the right-wing pundits, I'm not bluffing. Since I put no value on government "marriage" and think it should be abolished, it has no effect on me — from a public policy standpoint — if people want 5 spouses or 10 spouses or if consenting adults of blood relations want to do whatever it is they do that I'd rather not think about. Government marriage, after all, unlike real religious marriage, has never been more than a legal contract, in spite of what the alleged defenders of traditional marriage say. The whole point of government marriage is to meddle in domestic arrangements of citizens. In America, it has its origins in racist policies to keep whites from marrying non-whites, and in Europe it is primarily connected to state desires to interfere in Church matters.

For whatever bizarre reason, some people think it's a privilege to have government sanction and meddle in their marriages, but apparently, for some promoters of marriage "equality" all their talk about equality extends only to their interest group and the political rights of polygamists and others be damned.

[opal]

yup yup.. another issue that is basically a privacy issue. If the government would mind it's own business - and do just what our constitution allows them to do.. problem solved. I won't be holding my breath

[jmdrake]

+rep! AF, why are you right so much?

[donnay]

Excellent article! Booyah! +rep

[Sola_Fide]

Agree. The arguments are so inconsistent.

[Anti Federalist]

+rep! AF, why are you right so much?

LOL - Thank you, but I am nothing but your humble re-poster.

The writer makes a great point though, doesn't he?

[The Free Hornet]

So, what is the standard being used by the opponents of incestuous and polygamous unions for their preferred ban on such unions? From what I have seen, no standard has been proffered at all. There is nothing more than the assumption that political rights should extend to gays but not to polygamists or incestuous couples.

First, I do not defend other people's freedom for their benefit. Here is some Yahoo advocating that even same-sexed straight people be allowed to have civil unions (e.g., two elderly spinsters that rely on each other - not family - for housing, medical decisions, et cetera - some other Yahoo who has the example of siblings, not incestuously):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081012014229AAfrWSv

This is an area where the 'get government out of marriage types' have a leg up, assuming that they know what that means:

- remove tax incentives that favor some forms of health care (employer provided versus friend provided or self provided)
- remove joint filing / simplify the tax code (or end the IRS!)
- eliminate the estate tax or make it equal for all (so Congressmen are incentivised to keep it lower as it will affect their spouses directly)
- on the state level: eliminate like a gazillion things

Second, Lee is cherrypicking here. Even though he is correct about "some" people:


For whatever bizarre reason, some people think it's a privilege to have government sanction and meddle in their marriages, but apparently, for some promoters of marriage "equality" all their talk about equality extends only to their interest group and the political rights of polygamists and others be damned.

The "bizarre reason" is based somewhat in truth. Government sanctions certain family structures so that a breadwinner can affordably buy healthcare for his spouse and children AND NOBODY ELSE (tax penalties, no market for that product, state-limited options). That same breadwinner could not do the same for a sibling with nephews/nieces or for a gay partner and that partner's biological children.

Also, his position in the article is to be IN FAVOR OF GAY / INCESTUOUS / PLURAL marriage:


Since I put no value on government "marriage" and think it should be abolished, it has no effect on me — from a public policy standpoint — if people want 5 spouses or 10 spouses or if consenting adults of blood relations want to do whatever it is they do that I'd rather not think about.

So his point is that he doesn't have a problem with gay/incestuous/plural marriage. He has a problem with some advocates of it - as he should.



The writer makes a great point though, doesn't he?

Yes it is a fair and good point. Hopefully they change tactics to focus on getting government out of mariage. Regretably, most people aren't libertarians.

[jmdrake]

Good points Free Hornet.

[awake]

This is all about the "Christians" who use government to attack homosexuality trying to defend from the blow back of their actions. Vengeance in the eyes of the homosexuals is to follow the cycle of violence and use governments to force the church to marry them, even when it is against their beliefs.

Both are following the same example.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Each special interest is doing unto each other and having it done to them.

[jmdrake]

Actually when marriage because a government institution, gay marriage wasn't even a possibility since sodomy itself was illegal in most states. The marriage license was first about race and then later got entangled up with the "new deal" and employee sponsored health benefits became away around FDR's wage cap. When sodomy laws were overturned there were no "vengeful Christians" seeking to criminalize gay marriage even though polygamy laws seemed to imply that's legally possible.


This is all about the "Christians" who use government to attack homosexuality trying to defend from the blow back of their actions. Vengeance in the eyes of the homosexuals is to follow the cycle of violence and use governments to force the church to marry them, even when it is against their beliefs.

Both are following the same example.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Each special interest is doing unto each other and having it done to them.

[VBRonPaulFan]

this whole thing was a non-issue until the IRS was created. before then the only real reason the government needed to know if you were married or not, was for next of kin type estate reasons. just another non-issue brought to the forefront by socialism - yay!

[phill4paul]

If government wasn't so up everyone's butt this wouldn't be an issue. I'm tired of the Gheyvernment.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This issue hardly justifies an amendment to the Constitution; passage or even a heated debate only serves to divide us and achieves nothing. It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose. With a lot more tolerance and a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem and emotionally charged debate could be easily avoided. The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. Though there may be a traditional definition of marriage, the First Amendment should include allowing people to use whatever definition they like as long as force and fraud are excluded.

When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing. In economics, licensing is designed by the special interests to suppress competition. Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person's desire to mold other people's behavior to their standard. Both depend on the use of illegitimate government force.

Pretty much says it all.

[Liberty74]

There is no doubt government should get out of marriage but to say pro gay marriage groups are hypocrites because they don't support incest is a crazy argument in and of itself. There is a medical reason against incest marriage besides it in most cases being due to force.

Regardless, as long as the marriage laws remain and the thousand benefits that comes with marriage, two consenting adults should be allowed to marry period or at least a "union" if the idea of same sex "marriage" offends anyone. Arguing pettiness doesn't change what should be.

[fisharmor]

There is no doubt government should get out of marriage but to say pro gay marriage groups are hypocrites because they don't support incest is a crazy argument in and of itself. There is a medical reason against incest marriage besides it in most cases being due to force.

I'll forgo asking you for your study showing that incestuous marriages are mostly forced, and focus on the "medical reason".
What medical reason is there?
Childbearing?
How can a homosexual couple possibly be the tiniest bit concerned with the medical aspects of childbearing in relation to marriage?
How could that possibly enter into the homosexual couple's analysis of whether an incestuous marriage ought to be "allowed"?
To consider that argument valid is to invalidate homosexual marriage.

[PaulConventionWV]

There is no doubt government should get out of marriage but to say pro gay marriage groups are hypocrites because they don't support incest is a crazy argument in and of itself. There is a medical reason against incest marriage besides it in most cases being due to force.

Regardless, as long as the marriage laws remain and the thousand benefits that comes with marriage, two consenting adults should be allowed to marry period or at least a "union" if the idea of same sex "marriage" offends anyone. Arguing pettiness doesn't change what should be.

So you're saying that the government should tell us how to live so we can be "healthy"? Also, who says there isn't a medical reason against homosexual marriage? It would be the same argument that you are making. There should be no laws to tell us who we can and can't marry. At the same time, the government shouldn't sanction anybody's marriage. The abolition of government licensure of marriage would solve this problem and "gay marriage" would become obsolete because the only reason gays want to participate in this religious union is for the government benefits. Get the government out of it and gays have no reason to want to get married for equality or whatever.

[erowe1]

First, I do not defend other people's freedom for their benefit.

If you advocate state licensing of gay marriage, then you're not defending other people's freedom at all.

[erowe1]

this whole thing was a non-issue until the IRS was created. before then the only real reason the government needed to know if you were married or not, was for next of kin type estate reasons. just another non-issue brought to the forefront by socialism - yay!

I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that it became an issue as a way to regulate interracial marriages.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that it became an issue as a way to regulate interracial marriages.

Your understanding is correct.

[aGameOfThrones]

So you're saying that the government should tell us how to live so we can be "healthy"? Also, who says there isn't a medical reason against homosexual marriage? It would be the same argument that you are making. There should be no laws to tell us who we can and can't marry. At the same time, the government shouldn't sanction anybody's marriage. The abolition of government licensure of marriage would solve this problem and "gay marriage" would become obsolete because the only reason gays want to participate in this religious union is for the government benefits. Get the government out of it and gays have no reason to want to get married for equality or whatever.

Hey, someone can use this one again-----> There is a medical reason against mixing races.

[Anti Federalist]

Hey, someone can use this one again-----> There is a medical reason against mixing races.

I recall reading some studies that indicated that even a monogamous homosexual relationship was not good for your long term health.

Not that it matters to me one bit, we all do things that might be or are bad for our health.

[erowe1]

Hey, someone can use this one again-----> There is a medical reason against mixing races.

There's not even a medical definition of "race," nor a medical way of distinguishing races, much less a medical reason against mixing them.

[jmdrake]

There is no doubt government should get out of marriage but to say pro gay marriage groups are hypocrites because they don't support incest is a crazy argument in and of itself. There is a medical reason against incest marriage besides it in most cases being due to force.

And the medical reason against gay incest marriage is........?

The medical reason against polygamy is........?



Regardless, as long as the marriage laws remain and the thousand benefits that comes with marriage, two consenting adults should be allowed to marry period or at least a "union" if the idea of same sex "marriage" offends anyone. Arguing pettiness doesn't change what should be.

Thousand benefits? Wow. The list grows every time we have this discussion. And of course nobody (on your side) ever talks about things like the marriage tax penalty (yes it still exists and it will hit gay couples especially hard since they are more likely to have similar incomes than heterosexual couples).

The answer (for me anyway) is to work on decoupling marriage from federal benefits altogether. State "benefits" (inheritance, medical decisions etc) can be handled by contract.

[The Free Hornet]

If you advocate state licensing of gay marriage, then you're not defending other people's freedom at all.

Why don't you repeat that point without the "gay" qualifier?

I made a list of things to help get government out of marriage issues. You can add to that. E.g., ending social security will end debates over who may inherit and collect benefits

[thehungarian]

First, I do not defend other people's freedom for their benefit. Here is some Yahoo advocating that even same-sexed straight people be allowed to have civil unions (e.g., two elderly spinsters that rely on each other - not family - for housing, medical decisions, et cetera - some other Yahoo who has the example of siblings, not incestuously):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081012014229AAfrWSv


Commence thread hi-jacking

There is an episode of Always Sunny in Philadelphia about exactly that. Charlie and Frank want benefits because they feel it's not fair that married people get them while single bros are out in the dust. So, they agree to get married as "two cool, straight dudes" and by the end of the episode they want a divorce. Funny stuff.

Ok, everyone resume activities.

[TomtheTinker]

in my experience many gays I know are very hypocritical and some of the most closed minded people I know. You would think it would bee the oppisite