67 notes &
On nation-state marriage licensing monopolies and the history of law.
1) The troll posted the Wiki link, not me.
2) The attack on the source, Wiki, is a common red herring in Libertarian and right wing circles…
It’s interesting that you mention the ad hominem fallacy (“attacking the source”), yet are unaware of your repeated rejection of source material and opinion because it came from some nefarious libertarian. Also, it’s common for every group engaging in debate.
3) It remains, there is no monopoly on marriage. Utah is not a Nation-state. Further, the Federal government (according to your own sources) decided that the states individually may decide on the issue of polygamy. A monopoly is one, not 50.
There are two ways to look at it as a monopoly: 1) Within any state they have sole authority to define marriage for the purpose of license and automatic benefits; 2) Wherever you are in the country, the government has that authority. The Fed has given it to the states, but you can’t put together a group of concerned citizens, call two people married, and get a license. The government has control, and they aren’t sharing. That’s a monopoly.
4) You did not follow the original argument. Do you make the case that it is illegal for two men to co-habitate, to have a marriage ceremony, to wear rings and call themselves married? Do you make the case that it is illegal for a business to recognize such a partnership? Do you make the case that if a will is signed, then a partner cannot inherit by law?
It’s not illegal, but that’s not the point, is it? The problem is that the government is in the “marriage business” in the first place. The state shouldn’t be declaring anyone married, or licensing anything. Then there would be no debate over legalization.
Individuals in individual states are already allowed to recognize gay marriage as little or much as they want to. Institutions can discriminate as much or as little as they want to. The State makes no claim over these marriages one way or the other, therefore, no monopoly.
By calling licensing heterosexual unions as marriages they are making a positive claim; calling one thing marriage means that other things are not.
So Libertarians already have their ideal. Gay couples, however, WANT the recognition of the state, so that they will NOT be subject to the discrimination that comes with individual choice of libertarianism.
If I’m understanding, libertarians would rather heterosexuals lose the recognition from the state. Then every union is considered equal, and the state loses a teensy bit of power. And no more Prop 8 shenanigans.
They want to be able to take a seat and be served at the diner, if you will, not have to depend on the arbitrary prejudices of the diner owner.
Stop comparing this to racism. It’s untenable, and it’s insulting.
