Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Science And Technology Policy | Main | An Absence »

Gay Marriage unlibertarian.

I agree. I don't understand why gay couples want to invite the government into their lives to that degree.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gay Marriage.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Daveon wrote:

I've seen a few people now posit that the unintended consequence of a lot of the anti-gay marriage legislation will have the serious side effect of damaging the concept of marriage.

Speaking to gay friends it seems to come down to two things. There is, in my opinion, a slightly irrational desire to have the same thing as straight people have in name. Then there is the very rational desire to have the same protections under law as a straight couple especially rights to look after children, visit sick partners, get benefits etc...

Brock wrote:

The odd thing is how many anti-gay marriage advocates don't object to gays living together and raising families as much as they object to gays being "married", because that has religious connotations to them. It seems like a simple separation of Church & State manner then to convert everyone over to "civil union" status and let each church decide for itself whether to recognize gay marriages.

Leland wrote:

That's my thought too, Brock.

Bryan Lovely wrote:

Brock: Precisely.

George Skinner wrote:

I've always thought that the solution to this issue was straightforward: government gets out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Instead, they regulate civil partnerships that relate to the legal and financial issues, almost as a contractual level. Marriage is then treated as a religious institution - if a church wishes to perform gay marriages, so be it. Keep the legal issues under secular government, and leave the moral issues to religious organizations.

Steve wrote:

I'm just satisfied that the phrase, "... Adam and Steve..." has fallen out of the vernacular of this argument, for obvious reasons.

Personally, and even as a conservative Christian, I could care less who gets "married". From a believers stand point, I was taught that God blesses the union of a man and a woman. If two men, or two women, want to have a ceremony, and call themselves married, let 'em. It carries no more weight than if they shave their hair off, paint their head blue and declare, "I am NOW a Bic pen!!". IMHO anyway.

Carl Pham wrote:

You'd get my vote, Brock. Well said.

Dong Ngyuen wrote:

I believe it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. By having a legal contract sanctioned by the government, there are tax and health care benefits. Such a legal definition opens a whole body of legal precidence. For example, if you have a same sex roommate and you live together long enough, does that constitute a common law marriage? What about government pension benefits? Follow the money.

Leland wrote:


No doubt that's the motivation behind the gay marriage movement. The issue can still be resolved in the manner Brock described.

Carl Pham wrote:

It can only be resolved among men of sense and good will, Leland. In California it is legally impermissible to distinguish in any way whatsoever between a "registered domestic partnership," which is what you can get if gay, and a "marriage."

That did not stop the recent passionate fight over Prop 8. It was entirely and solely about the word "marriage," since everyone agrees every legal aspect of the married state is already available to gay pairings in California.

cthulhu wrote:

(speaking without researching first)

Isn't one of the benefits of "marriage" that other states will recognize it, so if you move, you are covered by the "marriage" laws of that state? Do "registered domestic partnerships" get the same benefits? That could be a powerful reason to want gay "marriage" instead of the California domestic partnerships . . . but like I said, I'm speaking off-the-tentacle without having done any research.

At least I can stop reflexively jerking my head around while driving when I hear horns honk going through an intersection, then realizing that it was just somebody honking at the (usually) pro-Prop-8 demonstrators on the corner . . .

Carl Pham wrote:

Sure, Dread One, but what's that worth? The important marriage laws, which, contra the somewhat disingenuous arguments of the gay marriage lobby, are not hospital visitation or inheritance without a will, but rather the custody and property division divorce laws, vary tremendously from state to state.

So, practically speaking, when you move from state to state the legal character of your marriage changes quite a bit. In fact, it used to be pretty commonplace for well-off married persons to jurisdiction shop when it came time to file for divorce, to find where the law was most congenial to them (and least congenial to their soon to be ex-partner). A Federal law (Uniform Child Custody something or other) put a stop to that as far as child custody goes, I believe.

This is all because "marriage" is a bizarre mixture of a private contract and public status. In general, it would be abhorrent to have a private contract the terms of which silently and substantially change when you move from state to state, and which the legislature feels free to change whenever they please, even retroactively, without consulting or even informing you. But that's family law at present. It's weird that we put up with it.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on November 7, 2008 6:14 AM.

Science And Technology Policy was the previous entry in this blog.

An Absence is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1