Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Apr 16, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Lee Haslup wrote:

> My posting is here:
>    
> http://teleoscope.blogspot.com/2005/04/better-answer-somewhat-after- 
> fact.html
>
> And the piece that reminded me of the thread is here:
>   http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html

I like the layout on your blog.  The piece you quote from is  
interesting in that it is very long, and spends 95% of the time not  
talking about the issue, but then it must take very many words indeed  
for a libertarian to convince themselves that government should control  
personal and sexual relationships.

The only argument I can find in it that actually discusses the gay  
marriage issue is:

"Marriage is the socially preferred institution for sexual activity and  
childrearing in every known human society. The modern claim that there  
need not be and should not be any social or legal preference among  
sexual or childrearing contexts is, by definition, the abolition of  
marriage as an institution."

To me these two sentences betray the lack of a logical argument, and  
simply reinforce that the issue at hand is not one of libertarian  
principles, but rather an extension of the culture wars.  She is saying  
that marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what she  
believes, and not a single point in the rather lengthy essay that  
addresses how having the state stay out of people's personal  
relationships would abolish marriage.

And then later she rather belated throws all logic out of the window  
and betrays any libertarian principle I can think of:

"It is high time libertarians object when their rhetoric is hijacked by  
the advocates of big government."

Ah, now she's betrayed herself. The first sentence makes it clear that  
she believes gay marriage is somehow linked to "big government", which  
is a reference to the radical conservative movement's attempt to divide  
the entire country into two camps, further evidence that the author is  
trying to engage in an irrational culture war rather than talk about  
libertarian ideals.

 "Fairness and freedom do not demand sexual and parental license."

This thought more than any other shows how far she's betrayed those  
ideals.

___________________________________________________________________
michael at czeiszperger dot org  |  "Kindness knows no shame"
Chapel Hill, NC USA              |      -- S. Wonder