Gay Marriage Essay

[SpoofyChop]

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Everybody should read this article regardless of political party etc. It doesn't choose sides but it does make some extremely important points.

[Peter Frazier]

For an article that doesn't choose sides, it spends a lot of time outlining the case for not allowing it. Libertarians are funny.

[antlers]

The essay makes one point (at least) which is quite misleading. What blew up black marriage was not allowing welfare benefits to unwed mothers; it was denying welfare benefits to families with married parents. Talk about perverse incentives.

She also doesn't make a convincing argument about what sort of marginal cases would be persuaded not to marry if gay marriage was legalized. One could make a stronger argument the other way, that gay marriage promotes the institution. Compare marriage and divorce statistics from Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legal) with, say, Texas.

[Mister Widget]

For an article that doesn't choose sides, it spends a lot of time outlining the case for not allowing it.

I have to agree. Given all the reasons the author lists against gay marriage, and since they can't think of any compelling reasons to support it, why on earth would anyone accept their claim to be undecided?

Now I'm not saying the author is deliberately misleading the reader about their beliefs. I don't have an opinion about that one way or another; I'm just considering both sides of the issue. :wink:

[Bub, Andrew]

Unlike most Q23 posters, I don't have an opinion on whether she actually has an opinion on gay marriage or not, and I'm not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I think she's pretty clearly disengenuous and anti-gay marriage.

[BrewersDroop]

Synopsis: <insert standard slippery slope argument against social change here>.

[Jason McCullough]

I have to agree. Given all the reasons the author lists against gay marriage, and since they can't think of any compelling reasons to support it, why on earth would anyone accept their claim to be undecided?

Because like most noisy internet libertarians, she spends a lot of time jumping through rhetorical hoops to keep from pissing off her political allies.

[Ben Sones]

As she says in her opening statement, her views do not match those of most libertarians. In fact, her whole "if x were legal, some otherwise unaffected people might choose to do y" argument is about as uncompelling an argument as you could possibly make, from a libertarian perspective. In fact, despite her constant claims of libertarianism, I'd peg her as a social conservative based on the views she expresses here. Most of her examples have little in common with the case (for or against) gay marriage, and the main thrust of her argument seems to be "sometimes changing big social programs turns out bad, so we shouldn't do it on general principles."

[Equis]

As she says in her opening statement, her views do not match those of most libertarians. In fact, her whole "if x were legal, some otherwise unaffected people might choose to do y" argument is about as uncompelling an argument as you could possibly make, from a libertarian perspective. In fact, despite her constant claims of libertarianism, I'd peg her as a social conservative based on the views she expresses here. Most of her examples have little in common with the case (for or against) gay marriage, and the main thrust of her argument seems to be "sometimes changing big social programs turns out bad, so we shouldn't do it on general principles."

I thought her main thrust was fully understanding the institutions in which you want to change rather than arrogantly assuming that reform is always better for all parties involved. Her folly then would be not citing examples of where social reform actually benefits in the long run for everyone, like trade unions and sufferage.

[Jason McCullough]

As she says in her opening statement, her views do not match those of most libertarians. In fact, her whole "if x were legal, some otherwise unaffected people might choose to do y" argument is about as uncompelling an argument as you could possibly make, from a libertarian perspective. In fact, despite her constant claims of libertarianism, I'd peg her as a social conservative based on the views she expresses here. Most of her examples have little in common with the case (for or against) gay marriage, and the main thrust of her argument seems to be "sometimes changing big social programs turns out bad, so we shouldn't do it on general principles."

She's more of "crazy like David Horowitz." Back when I'd regularly submit comments to her articles, she went on about how she used to be a green party loon. The political axis wraps around!

[Ben]

Nearly every part of the opening paragraph was a lie. She isn't a libertarian, she has an opinion on gay marriage. I bet she didn't have an interesting discussion last night, either.

The article completely skipped the very important step of proving gay marriage hurts the institution. None of her examples were analogous. Giving money for being an unwed mother clearly encourages being an unwed mother.

The only sort of people who think marriage is hurt by homos getting hitched are the far social conservative types. Those people were getting married anyway. Edge cases are far more likely to be a liberal or libertarians, and they don't care.

[shift6]

Nearly every part of the opening paragraph was a lie. She isn't a libertarian ...
Any blogger who calls themself a Libertarian speaks for the party. Ask McCullough!

[Qenan]

She's more of "crazy like David Horowitz." Back when I'd regularly submit comments to her articles, she went on about how she used to be a green party loon. The political axis wraps around!

When you're crazy there isn't a lot of difference.

[Rimbo]

I believe marijuana should be legalized, but I also know that if I'm to see this point of view spread, to convince others, to enact change, I cannot simply dismiss the "gateway drug" argument as being the silly whims of a power-hungry elite. This does nothing more than piss off the supporters of said power-hungry elite (while at the same time working under the pretense that those who share my point of view are neither power-hungry nor elitists, which is complete baloney).

I can demonstrate clearly in a 30-page post why there are good reasons to believe in the "gateway drug" stuff. But if I do so, I'm still not changing my mind: Marijuana should be legalized.

I think the point she's trying to make is that the "slippery slope" argument against Conservatives can't be dismissed offhand because the "real reason" they're doing it is homphobia.

The people who disagree with me believe that their opinions are justified. What's more, if I'm intellectually honest with myself, I have to recognize that there are good reasons for every point of view, even those I find distasteful.

Do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a loon?

[SpoofyChop]

I like the way you guys attempt to discredit even somebody who simply urges caution. Ding dongs.

[Rimbo]

I like the way you guys attempt to discredit even somebody who simply urges caution.

Liar. You don't really like it.

[Matthew Gallant]

I like the way you guys attempt to discredit even somebody who simply urges caution. Ding dongs.
Well there's urging caution and then there's not acknowledging that something needs to be done. She's got a whole pile of the latter and lip service to the former.

[Bub, Andrew]

In my case, I think it's absurd to think that civil rights issues need urgings of caution. But I'm sure there were plenty of "I'm not a bigot but..." bigots back in the 60's standing in the way of desegregation too.

[Rimbo]

In my case, I think it's absurd to think that civil rights issues need urgings of caution. But I'm sure there were plenty of "I'm not a bigot but..." bigots back in the 60's standing in the way of desegregation too.

That's the obvious flip-side to the examples she brings. So we've got examples where civil rights issues have had both positive and negative results. The question is: What's the difference between the two? Why does providing equal job, education and election opportunities to people regardless of race or gender have a positive outcome, while providing important social services to unwed mothers have a negative outcome? On which side does Gay Marriage fall?

[MikeSofaer]

None of that is the point. The point is that the libertarian point of view is that if the government wants to impose restrictions (like on divorce, gay marriage, whatever) they need to show a compelling interest. You can't argue nebulous caution against definite injustice and inequality and remain a libertarian. She makes these points about how making the institution of marriage more just caused problems, but the point of being a libertarian is that you give people equal freedoms even though it might cause problems.

[Equis]

None of that is the point. The point is that the libertarian point of view is that if the government wants to impose restrictions (like on divorce, gay marriage, whatever) they need to show a compelling interest. You can't argue nebulous caution against definite injustice and inequality and remain a libertarian. She makes these points about how making the institution of marriage more just caused problems, but the point of being a libertarian is that you give people equal freedoms even though it might cause problems.

Wow
I never knew claiming to be something, libertarian, republican, etc, etc means you can't argue a different point of view or have some beliefs that might go against the party line.

[MikeSofaer]

None of that is the point. The point is that the libertarian point of view is that if the government wants to impose restrictions (like on divorce, gay marriage, whatever) they need to show a compelling interest. You can't argue nebulous caution against definite injustice and inequality and remain a libertarian. She makes these points about how making the institution of marriage more just caused problems, but the point of being a libertarian is that you give people equal freedoms even though it might cause problems.

Wow
I never knew claiming to be something, libertarian, republican, etc, etc means you can't argue a different point of view or have some beliefs that might go against the party line.
Libertarian with a small l. Not a political party.

[Rimbo]

Remind me never to claim I am anything, then. Oh wait -- I never did. :)

[Ben]

Well, at some point you can call yourself something but you are lying. I can say I'm a communist till I'm blue in the face, but if I support a market economy I'm not a communist at all.

Mike Sofaer was pretty much right. Like the defining feature of a libertarian is his last sentence. "Let's not let gay people marry because it might cause some nebolously defined and vaguely bad things to occur" is not something a libertarian would say, anymore than "Let's not let people buy handguns because they might go on a shooting spree."

[Equis]

Well, at some point you can call yourself something but you are lying. I can say I'm a communist till I'm blue in the face, but if I support a market economy I'm not a communist at all.

Mike Sofaer was pretty much right. Like the defining feature of a libertarian is his last sentence. "Let's not let gay people marry because it might cause some nebolously defined and vaguely bad things to occur" is not something a libertarian would say, anymore than "Let's not let people buy handguns because they might go on a shooting spree."

Ok, we've established she's not really libertanian then. No matter what she says. So, does that makes the rest of her argument fallible?

[Nick Walter]

Ok, we've established she's not really libertanian then. No matter what she says. So, does that makes the rest of her argument fallible?

If she was just wrong about being a libertarian, it doesn't detract from her argument. But I suspect she was deliberately lying about being a libertarian and that makes the whole article deeply suspect.

[SpoofyChop]

If she was just wrong about being a libertarian, it doesn't detract from her argument. But I suspect she was deliberately lying about being a libertarian and that makes the whole article deeply suspect.

The only thing that's deeply suspect here is your brain Nick.

:wink:

Anyway, she's been a blogging as a libertarian for a while and in general she's a libertarian. For those of you who like to accuse people of being liars for no apparent reason though, she did recently post a rebuttal to the "you can't be a libertarian if you want to regulate marriage" crap.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005245.html

[Aleck]

Why does providing equal job, education and election opportunities to people regardless of race or gender have a positive outcome, while providing important social services to unwed mothers have a negative outcome? On which side does Gay Marriage fall?

Gay marriage really doesn't fall on either side, for better or for worse. Neither analogy is really all that relevant.

When you get down to it, gay marriage is really about rights like visitation, survivorship, tax incentives, etc. The gay marriage debate, on the other hand, is about accepting or not accepting homosexuals as part of mainstream society. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I don't know that the two go hand in hand.

With respect to the article, I think it's interesting that there's no data cited showing that welfare benefits have an encouraging effect on unwed motherhood. My wife works with low income minority populations as a social worker, and the one thing that has become incredibly apparent to me is that low income families in the inner city (or at least in inner city Washington DC) have an entirely different cultural and social structure. There aren't the same social stigmas attached to out of wedlock children. The article attempts to say that this cultural difference is because of welfare benefits, but there's no evidence to support that (at least, none cited). It could just as easily be attributed to the lack of opportunities, crappy schools, poor law enforcement, and other problems that are endemic to inner city neighborhoods.

That I think you can definite say is that wefare benefits enable a culture of poverty. The question is, what is the alternative? Could the adoption/foster system handle doubling in size as illegitimate children were given out for adoption? And would the rest of us like to pay for that?

[MikeSofaer]

That's a rebuttal to the argument that the state shouldn't define marriage at all, and no libertarian thinks it should. Like she says, that's academic and this issue (gay marriage) is immediate.

Again, I feel that the core libertarian ideal when dealing with an immediate problem is that you choose expanding and equalizing personal rights over maintaining the status quo unless there is a clear and compelling public interest. I agree that there may be changes to the institution of marriage as practiced in this nation if gay couples can marry, but "who knows what might happen" loses out to "this is clearly inequitable".

[Ben Sones]

Wow
I never knew claiming to be something, libertarian, republican, etc, etc means you can't argue a different point of view or have some beliefs that might go against the party line.

It's not a view that goes against the party line so much as it is a view that goes against the fundamental ideology. You can't eat chicken and claim to be a vegan; you can still call yourself a vegan if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't.

[MikeSofaer]

Wow
I never knew claiming to be something, libertarian, republican, etc, etc means you can't argue a different point of view or have some beliefs that might go against the party line.

It's not a view that goes against the party line so much as it is a view that goes against the fundamental ideology. You can't eat chicken and claim to be a vegan; you can still call yourself a vegan if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't.
Great, thanks. Make me look like a long-winded overcomplicating buffoon, please? Thanks.