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

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

On 04/18/05 2:59 AM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:

A couple of quick comments--maybe more later if I get a chance.

> A subset of the infinite ways to hook up -- the union of one man and one
> woman  -- is recognized by the government (and society as a whole) as
> "marriage" and given special status and a certain degree of
> encouragement.  This special status can be justified by the tendency of
> married couples to impose less cost on the government and to make the
> least trouble for society.  Experience has shown that they generally
> take care of themselves and one another and they raise up their kids to
> be passable citizens with less help from the government than people
> selecting other lifestyles.

I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this.

> This, of course, is not true in all
> cases.  Many married people make huge messes of their lives that their
> community and the government spend generations trying to clean up, and
> some people living an 'alternate' lifestyle are pillars of their
> communities.  But, on balance, the incentives that society and the
> government offer to married people are a good investment.  This is, of
> course, unfair in many individual cases but, I don't see how a
> libertarian, operating on libertarian principles, is required to care.
> Its an equality issue, not an issue of liberty.  When people living a
> lifestyle outside of the idea of marriage demand to be free to marry
> they are demanding that everyone else in society change their idea of
> marriage to accommodate them.  If your overriding value is equality then
> this is a compelling argument.  If you seek to maximize liberty above
> all it is absurd.

Interesting. Can I assume by this that you would have supported misogyny
laws forty years ago? Weren't mixed-race marriages considered "lifestyle
outside of the [societal] idea of marriage" in many parts of the country,
including this?

> You know, I do care what people do in their homes.  It's not my
> business, of course, but I care.  I have kids and I worry about them.
> It's easy to get hurt and people don't always make good decisions.  I
> worry about my family -- I have nieces and nephews that I worry about.
> I'm happier not knowing the details but I worry and I care.  I care
> about my gay friends -- I only know two who have a strong enough
> relationship to support them as they grow old, I worry about the rest.

According to statistics, half of your married heterosexual couples also lack
a "a strong enough relationship to support them as they grow old," and whose
marriages will end in divorce. I guess you need to worry about them as well.

I find it interesting that the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in
the country:

    http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html

My opinion? Since objections to same-sex marriage seems to often be based on
religious/moral arguments, than the government should not be in the business
of marriage. Instead, the government could offer civil unions, and couple
could opt for a religious marriage, if they so choose.

David