United Liberty
The Government is Bound to Disappoint You
Thu, 11/20/2008 - 7:09am | posted by Martin Avila
With California Proposition 8’s passage, we have seen a huge surge of discontent with government and the supposed “democratic” system.
Prop. 8’s passage strikes to the core of the problem with “group rights”. It demonstrates the dangers of moving away from our Republic governance and calls into question the true role of our government altogether.
A marriage should be between consenting adults, performed and executed in whatever arrangement they deem appropriate.
We all have the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of our sexual orientation.
If you just lost your right to marry the person you love, why continue to recognize the government as a mandatory third party in your relationship?
Instead, reject the notion that the government can control marriage with laws, especially tax laws. Work toward a new tax system that has no regard for our personal choices.
Insist that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.
Otherwise, no matter how “progressive” the candidate may be, the “persuit of happiness” will become a political football - a tool to win votes.
Even President Elect Obama, the supposed “liberal”, believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman:
Regardless of the individual political position, there is a larger argument at stake. When power and decisions are entrusted to the government, individual liberty becomes an easy target for a multitude of special interests.
Take almost any issue and you have a special interest group who benefits from action by government. This is the inherent problem with government power and corruption.
If you are looking for comfort and happiness through government consent, you are bound to be disappointed.
Check out the arguments raised in the first US Congress about attaching a bill of rights (enumerated versus unenumerated rights and powers).
I have no real question that none of the members of that congress, or the framers themselves, would have ever imagined that they were delegating to the government any rights to control the rights and powers of individuals to associate with whomever they chose.
Although some folks did raise holy hell about group marriages, as I recall. And there are probably a few bigamy laws around, too (didn’t stop Charles Kurault, as I recall, and probably numerous other reasonably well-known figures).
My suggestion, of course, is “Don’t Marry; Incorporate!” (see http://domesticdomestic.blogspot.com, I think it is.)
Unfortunately this isn’t the sort of thing that they teach in school, which is probably intentional. Here in Santa Cruz, you have to get permission from the government to do almost anything. Btw, your link didn’t work.
The notion that people’s rights should be democratically decided upon is a dangerous one. We have a republican government and not mob rule for a reason. The average voter simply doesn’t have the constitutional or legal background to understand the rights laid out by the constitution that a judge or even a politician has.
Trust me. I’ve heard people in public areas call for euthanizing pitbulls because of a few blown up tabloid articles that make pitbulls seem like they are killing all of America’s children. The average person bases their opinions on irrelevant factors like emotion, religion and what they hear other people say. These people are registered to vote, and it would be better if they were voting in people who know what the hell they’re talking about instead of deciding the issues of the day they haven’t got a clue on.
It took outside intervention to stop laws that barred minorities from college admission and regulated them to awful segregated schools, barred them from voting and stripped them of the basic rights of American citizenship. We have a constitution that guarantees rights, and those rights should not be taken away through initiatives. We don’t have Supreme Courts throughout the country simply to sport the latest in fashionable robes. They are there to make sure the laws of the land are being followed properly.
Prop. 8 should be repealed.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
It has long been my opinion that this has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with social security benefits. Gays who are not allowed to marry or have a civil union give up all survivor benefits that their spouse or partner should be entitled to receive. It is shameful.
The problem with the concept of the marriage contract as legal tender remains its ongoing conflation of property rights with genuine affection. There is no other reason this traditionally patriarchal institution remains so ruthlessly misogynist in what many liberals consider to be the backward wallows of the Middle East and so hard to overcome, no matter what the founders intents, on our shores. Nowadays, when the pickings are slimmer for the transfer of power through family ties, those whose choose to selflessly share their love (and wealth) are hindered at every juncture by those who mourn the loss of power they once held exclusively. In reality the vote against marriage for all has nothing to do with love.
Follow the green. Look at who makes money with the passage of Prop 8. This is not a moral issue but a money one.
The USA is a mercantile nation: everything centers around someone making money. That means more and more workers for the factories (yeah, right, with jobs going to China) and more consumers for the goods produced. The money people see gay marriage as one step in the loss of money for baby goods, workers for factories, and consumers.
The religions worry about the same things. Fewer babies mean fewer members for the churches and less money. Someday women will get tired of being baby factories so someone can make more money.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
“Savvy Man,” you are thinking way too far into conspiracies. Gay people are actually one of the most well-to-do demographics in the country, as they tend to be two accomplished adults pooling their individual incomes together.
And guess what they do with those pooled incomes? They consume.
The dastardly mercantilists that you fear so much have been and continue to market goods toward them. Take a trip into the Castro District in San Francisco, one of the most expensive and well-kept areas of the city, and you’ll see what I mean. Despite having the name of a certain cigar-smoking communist despot, Castro has plenty of beer ads, bookstores, clothing stores, etc. Many gay couples also adopt children. The adopted children of these couples need kids’ toys as well, believe it or not.
Also, we do not live in Riyadh. We’re in the post-post-Women’s Liberation Era, when the Speaker of the House is a woman, one of the most influential media moguls in America is a black woman and two women have served as Secretary of State in a span of one decade with another one set to take the role of top diplomat. Most women aren’t “baby factories” unless they view themselves as such. I would recommend updating the tired Gloria Steinem rhetoric for 2008.
The anti-gay marriage movement is not motivated by devil-horned industrialists, as disorienting a thought as that may be to accept. It’s motivated by the extremely deep religious portion of the American population.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Post new comment