He says what I say. It just takes him a little longer.
He says it here.
Captain Obvious | June 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm
The gay marriage debate has always been frustrating because neither side addresses the fundamental underlying constitutional premises. The question is not “On what rational basis does NY State now deny polyamorous clusters the right to marry?” The question is “On what rational basis does ANY state officially recognize any religious covenant?” Legally sound or not, the answer is that the government provides itself legal insulation through a layer of abstraction: Licensing.
A right to any government recognized marriage does not exist in law, as to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. A prohibition against having an unrecognized marriage does not exist either. Any person can, according to their own beliefs, make any vows they choose to any other person, without government interference. Any religious institution can, at its discretion, choose to recognize those vows or not. Any person can, according to their own wishes, formalize such commitments in form of contract or by notary public to make them enforceable against fraud or perjury under law. The “Gay marriage” debate has never been about marriage… it’s been about the license. What any person can NOT do is demand a license for which they are unqualified. It is capricious to issue licenses without codified standards which further a compelling governmental interest. We do not issue drivers’ licenses to the blind. We do not issue dog licenses to cat owners who call their cat “Rex”.
What is at issue is whether or not there exists a compelling interest in changing the licensing standards to include same sex couples. To determine this, we need to understand what the rational interest is in licensing any couples to begin with, and what that license actually entails. A marriage license is essentially a one-size-fits-all package of contracts concerning community property, child custody, etc etc, again which ANYONE can subject themselves to manually and piecemeal, should they so choose. By applying for a marriage license, you are VOLUNTARILY agreeing to have your otherwise free relationship bound by rather strict laws governing your private behavior.
The government has only one legitimate interest for these legal bonds to exist: to safeguard the state’s perpetuity by encouraging (not dictating) family environments most inclined to produce well-adjusted future citizens. Just as a license to drive does not require driving, a license to procreate in the government-sanctioned-manner does not require procreation. Similarly, as it is not illegal to drive in-general without a license (only on publicly provided roads), it is not illegal to procreate in-general in the non-sanctioned-manner (only to attempt to claim publicly provided marriage benefits).
The only difference then, between those who contract their vows ad-hoc or privately, and those who do so through marriage, appears to be the conference of marriage benefits. The existence of those benefits is solely an incentive to enter into contractual marriage obligations otherwise against individual interests. The purpose of setting standards in the licensing process is to prevent the irrational dispensation of those licenses (and benefits) to those who do not further the ultimate purpose for which the license was created. Licensing drivers fosters a culture of safer, more responsible drivers, and licensing marriage fosters a culture of safer, more responsible child-rearing. No, the benefits are not explicitly for children (child tax credits are) but rather for providing for the general welfare of a child-friendly culture. Yes, exceptions exist based on circumstance that don’t make immediate sense (e.g. the infertile can marry), but the terms of licensing is broad and inclusive to begin with so as to AVOID cases of capricious discrimination by not attempting to list every possible individual circumstance, and thereby creating explicit ambiguity where circumstances are inevitably omitted from law. One could rationally argue that more traditional marriages, in abscence of children, still contributes to a culture of traditional marriages.
Regardless of how you feel about childless marriages receiving benefits, the rational governmental response to a legal loophole should be to close the loophole, not to expand it further. This propensity for expanding dependency on the nanny state, and the fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of marriage benefits as “for love” instead of incentive-for-obligation-to-the-state’s-goals-in-creating-additional-well-adjusted-citizens is quite the slippery slope. If we take the moral-relativist approach that all child-rearing environments are equal, then the extrapolated logical consequence is that we must provide marriage benefits to unmarried foster parents, divorcees, and single mothers. What, then, is the distinction?
The rational debate about illegal aliens, contrary to the nasty accusations of racism and xenophobia, isn’t about aliens, it’s about illegal. The rational debate about gay marriage licensing, contrary to the nasty accusations of bigotry and homophobia, isn’t about gay, it’s about marriage licensing.
It is incumbent upon same-sex couples to demonstrate they deserve the special incentives intended to encourage responsible procreation, whilst they are prima-facie incapable of procreation. Unless they can demonstrate this, then same-sex-marriage is just a euphemism for picking the taxpayer’s pocket.
None of this implies any hatred or even disdain for homosexuals. None of this should discourage those who choose to pledge their lives to eachother from doing so. This is only the rational acknowledgement that not everyone should automatically receive any handout they demand at the expense of others.
_______________________
Emphasis, mine.
/gun
No comments:
Post a Comment