We Need the Government Sanction of Marriage
By Jimmie on Nov 20, 2008 in The Good Old US of A, The Social Issues
Richard Epstein asks “Why License Marriage?” and demonstrates why libertarianism, all by itself, is not sufficient to run a country. Epstein’s argument rest entirely in principles of individual empowerment but forgets that an individual, at least here, lives in a civilized society with lots of other people. Those people have a great interest in making sure that the civilized society continues intact. To that end, we make rules developed in and enacted by the democratic process that advance our societal interest either by encouraging behavior that strengthens our society or discouraging behavior that doesn’t. We make the rules as fair and equitable as possible.
The reason that we license marriage is to continue the institution of the family as the cornerstone of our civilized society. We recognize that without it, society crumbles. Strong families build strong communities which build strong states and a strong nation.
Individual rights are fine, and our country should endeavor to give the individual the maximum amount of freedom possible, but we should not remember that individual rights mean nothing without a free and strong society in which to exercise them (and to defend them!). Don’t take me as saying that we need more government interference to build a stronger society. It’s pretty obvious that I find the level of government intrusion into our lives far too high already. But there are things that our society must have in order to continue to function. Strong families are at the very top of the list.
Epstein wrote his piece with an eye on California’s recent Proposition 8, which recently passed overwhelmingly. It’s currently being dragged into the courts by its opponents who, for the second time, couldn’t win at the ballot box. I suspect that Epstein’s column is a way of getting around the issue by taking any government involvement out of it. That won’t work, though, because marriage and society are intimately intertwined and so long as that remains true, government will have a meaningful role to play.
(via Instapundit)
Stumble it!
I agree that the “family is the cornerstone of our civilized society”. I would submit that if the government stopped issuing marriage licenses that men and women would still get married (in a church or on their own) and have families. The human race and civilization would continue.
Christian Miller | Nov 20, 2008 | Reply
Perhaps they would, but would it not more likely be seen as a societal shift away from marriage if the government suddenly decided to stop licensing it?
It’s important that we put the weight of the state behind certain activities that are unequivocally good for our society. It costs us very little to do it and the benefits we gain are nearly immeasurable.
Jimmie | Nov 20, 2008 | Reply
As I recall the Soviets did not sanction religion nor did the Nazis. This didn’t end religion. Should the government not marry people nothing would change except perhaps we’d hear less from the homosexual lobby.
Thomas Jackson | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply
I seriously doubt that…grievance groups don’t need instances of genuine discrimination in order to be perpetually p.o.’d. A fine example of that is the recent settlement in which gays have now forced the Christian owned match-making service, eHarmony, to offer services to gays. And not only have they forced the company to change its business model, they have also agreed to give the first 10,000 gay people a 6 month free membership.
Cheesestick | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply
@Cheesestick -
Eharmony promises all of their members the first 6 months free, it isn’t just for homosexual members.
The fact that it is a Christian owned company is irrelevant. This isn’t a non-profit church we’re talking about, it is a company. Are you saying that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want? I’m pretty sure that argument has been used before.
and when did a group that is having their rights taken away become a “grievance group”? You think they are just whining for the hell of it? Read the 14th Amendment.
David Stanton | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply
Yes. That’s what “free association” means. eHarmony is hardly a monopoly and the market provides plenty of other gay dating sites.
Jimmie | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply
Well hell yeah, I think they are whining for the hell of it!!! All they do is whine….whine, moan, complain, kick & scream about everything imaginable. So much, that it really is amazing how they came to use the word “gay” to describe such bitter, angry, hateful, childish people.
And thank you for asking…I guess I’ve needed to get that off my chest for a while.
I’m saying businesses should be able to go into any type of business they want to make and/or sell whatever they want. I don’t think companies who are in the business of drilling or refining oil should be forced to research & produce solar panels. I don’t think health food stores should be forced to sell potato chips & hamburgers, nor do I wish for fashion boutiques to be forced to carry clothes larger than a size 6. Got it? There are plenty of stores that provide goods & services that I don’t need or want, so I don’t go into them. In no way do I think the bike store near my house is discriminating against me because they don’t sell parts for my car & won’t change my oil. The idea that this company should be forced to provide a service that they never intended to provide is forcing your will onto that company and taking away the liberty of that company’s owners .
This company did not discriminate against anyone! They simply were not offering services this gay man was interested in. Having a web site available to you for the purposes of finding a mate is not a “right” protected by the constitution or any law. It is beyond ignorant to postulate that such a non-existent “right” has been taken away. That is how one becomes part of a “grievance group”. When you belong to a group who is actively seeking out opportunities to be aggrieved.
No, what is not relevant, apparently, is whether it is a business owned by Christians or a non-profit church of Christians; as your post seems to imply that the later would be considered “off-limits” or that these would be respected by gays….please. There are far too many lawsuits already of gays suing churches that refuse to perform their weddings; or suing Christian photographers for declining to be hired to photograph a gay wedding; or suing clergy that won’t counsel them in their gay relationship, or suing Christian groups that decline their adoption requests, etc. How about the one suing two book publishing companies for printing the Bible?? The onslaught has been relentless. Gays ARE attacking both Christian businesses & Christian churches with equal vigor & imposing their will on any entity that falls under that umbrella and then some.
Cheesestick | Nov 22, 2008 | Reply