Comments (7)

• Jeffrey

• Roback's book Love and Economics is a very interesting read--she is essentially giving an Austrian critique of Chicago-style methodology, though she never quite puts it that way. I don't know if Roback supports the Federal Marriage Amendment (at least I couldn't find a link that suggests she does), my experience with most of the existing "pro-family" movement is that they are fighting the battles of the 1990s against the cultural left while ignoring the clear and present danger of GOP policies that threaten nationalize marriage in the name of saving it from special interests at the state level. For once I would like to see some of these people come out clearly and plainly not just against leftists who would use the state to redefine marriage but also against rightist who want to use government to enforce and entrench their view of what constitutes good and bad forms of human association.

• Published: April 11, 2005 3:52 PM

• tz

• Few really want separation of church and state. Marriage is entirely church business.

  (the only exception I can think of is intestate estates where the spouse ought to inherit the property, or similar situations when a person cannot act for himself or express his will).

  But so is educating the ignorant, helping the poor, healing the sick, and the other corporal (and as applicable, spiritual) works of mercy.

  The state forces me to pay for poor people whether I believe in a christian idea of charity, that their poverty is the result of their bad karma from a past life, or in no god but personal responsibility. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

  I will however take exception to a priori rejection of counterbalancing legislation. We aren't going to get a libertarian paradise tomorrow. So it makes sense that some tyrannical legislation or precedent ought to be countered by something - like a double negative - if it cannot be overturned. And there is no reason to believe that the courts won't nationalize the issue just because the legislature doesn't do so first.

  The Constitution was considered better than the Articles of Confederation as there was much tyranny of the states. But even then there were three strong branches all fighting and limiting each others's power.

  At the moment, the greater threat comes from the judicial branch. Tyranny is here. Humpty Dumpty sat on the bench. Marriage ended up in the state sphere, and there is no proposal on the table to remove it back where it belongs. There will be some collateral damage of Federalization, but if words can be completely redefined to mean anything a judge's whim says on a given day there are no limits on power. No law. No justice. No liberty.

  It would be nice if they would do something similar such as denying federal highway or medicaid funds to any state whose judges can't understand the dictionary. I would hope someone proposes such before it comes to an amendment.

  If "marriage" has no meaning, does "2+2=4"? When filing your taxes, can a tax court humpty dumpty add a goose-egg to your liability in front of the decimal point?

  Also marriage is not merely "human association" like a golf club. I know there are very abstract ideas of liberty, but most lasting societies have families as their foundation and building block. A (nearly indissoluable) marriage where values can be passed down to the children from that marriage. The next generation is likely to be a group of barbarians. Each successive one has been a little less free.

  Liberty might mean that you are free to do things which are self-destructive and destructive of liberty itself and society. But that is not an argument for Liberty. I favor liberty because it allows for subsidarity so the most fundamental and important things to society can take place within the family.

  The state has very few legitimate functions, and is failing badly at those.
  

• Published: April 11, 2005 4:55 PM

• Dennis Sperduto

• "The drive toward a legalistic view of marriage is part of the relentless march toward politicizing every aspect of society." This is correct, did anyone believe that the state would not become intricately involved with marriage; it is involved in virtually every other aspect of human interaction. In addition, with the large majority of individuals viewing government as a method of obtaining benefits that they cannot obtain through voluntary exchange with others, "a redefinition of marriage as a bundle of legally defined benefits bestowed by the state" easily follows.

  Finally, Jeff hits the nail on the head when he states: "For once I would like to see some of these people come out clearly and plainly not just against leftists who would use the state to redefine marriage but also against rightist who want to use government to enforce and entrench their view of what constitutes good and bad forms of human association." I fully agree. I guess a consistent and principled defense of free human association is just asking too much.

• Published: April 11, 2005 7:07 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

• Morse has got one thing back to front. Marriage doesn't emerge from society, society emerges from people connecting in various ways - which includes marriage. The fact that viable societies usually endorse and promote marriage is a synergy, but it doesn't start with society. Society isn't there a priori, it emerges.
  

• Published: April 11, 2005 11:25 PM

• michael t

• It seems that everything has to be defined and parameterized explicitly. Are we forgetting that the greatest success of the Anglo-Saxon political structure is the common law informal system of evolving non-statutory law? It seems that this problem is created by some differential status that married people get on a internal revenue service form. Maybe the correct solution is to amend the IRS not add a constitutional amendment to make the tax system more fair.

• Published: April 12, 2005 2:05 AM

• Curt Howland

• The problem is that the State issues a "license" to get married at all. It's like the "license" to carry a weapon. If anyone not already prohibited can get one, why have the license at all?
  

  
  What Caesar gives, Caesar can take away. Isn't that why people keep trying to have "limited" governments in the first place?

• Published: April 12, 2005 10:48 AM

• Paul D

• "What Caesar gives, Caesar can take away. Isn't that why people keep trying to have "limited" governments in the first place?"

  Precisely. By trying to gain state favours for marriage and making homosexual unions a political issue, "conservatives" are completely undermining their own cause. It's particularly an issue in Canada at the moment.

  The reality is that the state can no more define marriage than it can determine the laws of gravity (or economics, for that matter).

  Excellent post, by the way, TZ.

• Published: April 13, 2005 4:00 AM