Monday, June 27, 2011
It strikes me that many people are espousing a "libertarian" view of marriage in light of the recent New York State legislation allowing same-sex couples to get marriage licenses. This view of which I speak is basically that the government should get out of the "marriage business" altogether, and leave marriage to the churches. How very "libertarian," right?
Not necessarily. Most of the people who recommend this as a solution to the gay marriage issue are either opponents of gay marriage willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, or else opponents of marriage in general (which, in my estimation, makes them libertines, not libertarians).
The thing is, there are many reasons why marriages should be recognized by government. For one thing, making private contracts--over a thousand private contracts, by the way--can not replace the panoply of rights and privileges that couples gain by marrying. Are these "libertarians" recommending that these rights and privileges no longer be extended to married couples? Rights and privileges such as... inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, joint ownership of property and tax status, etc? (These are just a few, and there are hundreds and hundreds more, some that I don't even know about.) Would they recommend that straight couples who want to jointly own property go through a contract lawyer to arrange it? Or that they specify in their wills that the other spouse gets to keep the house should the first spouse die? Or that they are legally next of kin and can make legal, medical, and funeral decisions for each other? (I can see one advantage to this approach... spouses could not be held legally responsible for each others' debt unless it were acquired jointly.)
I'm going to continue to think of reasons why government not only shouldn't, but CAN'T get out of the "marriage business," and then post them here. If you think of some, please feel free to e-mail them to me.
|
Not necessarily. Most of the people who recommend this as a solution to the gay marriage issue are either opponents of gay marriage willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, or else opponents of marriage in general (which, in my estimation, makes them libertines, not libertarians).
The thing is, there are many reasons why marriages should be recognized by government. For one thing, making private contracts--over a thousand private contracts, by the way--can not replace the panoply of rights and privileges that couples gain by marrying. Are these "libertarians" recommending that these rights and privileges no longer be extended to married couples? Rights and privileges such as... inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, joint ownership of property and tax status, etc? (These are just a few, and there are hundreds and hundreds more, some that I don't even know about.) Would they recommend that straight couples who want to jointly own property go through a contract lawyer to arrange it? Or that they specify in their wills that the other spouse gets to keep the house should the first spouse die? Or that they are legally next of kin and can make legal, medical, and funeral decisions for each other? (I can see one advantage to this approach... spouses could not be held legally responsible for each others' debt unless it were acquired jointly.)
I'm going to continue to think of reasons why government not only shouldn't, but CAN'T get out of the "marriage business," and then post them here. If you think of some, please feel free to e-mail them to me.
|
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Kids need to learn to write in cursive. Gas is too expensive. The weather is too hot/cold. THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!!
|
|
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Friday, October 12, 2007
I read on another website (sorry, don't have the link right now) that one of the commentors believed children have a "right" to a mother and father. I'm not completely sure what is meant by that, but I think I have a pretty good idea. The implication is that, if a child has two same-sex parents, then that is "depriving" them of their "right" to a mom or dad.
First of all, I don't think children have a "right" to a mom and a dad. Certainly, all children naturally have a male and female biological parent, and of course they should be allowed by inalienable right (and indeed encouraged) to live together as a family; but sometimes those parents die/leave/get divorced, leaving the child with only one parent. How will the government then secure this "right" for the child? Will it find a replacement for the missing parent? If so, how will it accomplish this--by persuasion? Bribery? Force? Of course, this thought exercise is leading down the path of plain silliness, but it's unfortunately a logical extension of a "right" to a mother and father.
I think rather that what is implied is that if a child has two moms or two dads, that this is somehow depriving the child of something he or she would have otherwise had. Au contraire! If the situation were different, and the child's gay parent had not found a partner, it's likely the child would simply have a single parent. And I think we can all agree that a single parent is less optimal than having two parents. If the child in question is adopted, then why not praise gay couples who want to love and raise a child who would otherwise have no parents at all? There are certainly more children to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt--there can be nothing gained by denying a child a loving, two-parent household simply because it is not viewed as "optimal".
Rant concluded.
|
First of all, I don't think children have a "right" to a mom and a dad. Certainly, all children naturally have a male and female biological parent, and of course they should be allowed by inalienable right (and indeed encouraged) to live together as a family; but sometimes those parents die/leave/get divorced, leaving the child with only one parent. How will the government then secure this "right" for the child? Will it find a replacement for the missing parent? If so, how will it accomplish this--by persuasion? Bribery? Force? Of course, this thought exercise is leading down the path of plain silliness, but it's unfortunately a logical extension of a "right" to a mother and father.
I think rather that what is implied is that if a child has two moms or two dads, that this is somehow depriving the child of something he or she would have otherwise had. Au contraire! If the situation were different, and the child's gay parent had not found a partner, it's likely the child would simply have a single parent. And I think we can all agree that a single parent is less optimal than having two parents. If the child in question is adopted, then why not praise gay couples who want to love and raise a child who would otherwise have no parents at all? There are certainly more children to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt--there can be nothing gained by denying a child a loving, two-parent household simply because it is not viewed as "optimal".
Rant concluded.
|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
I'm in the middle of re-reading "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" right now, and I have to say that as I read the series again, it seems much more of-a-piece than it did when I read "Deathly Hallows" for the first time. I'm picking up on more foreshadowing that I didn't catch before (which is how a good book should be), and it makes me even more eager to finish "Half-Blood Prince" and move on to Deathly Hallows.
Man, I love those books... and to think that I used to dismiss them as a mere fad.
|
Man, I love those books... and to think that I used to dismiss them as a mere fad.
|
I was just reading a blog post by a guy I know... he seems like a nice guy, and he's a Christian (in the modern Evangelical sense)... which makes me completely confused, as he exhibits the most leftist views. He believes in anthropomorphic global warming, and even wrote a big blog post about it. I can only chalk it up to the influence of other people he knows who hold similar views, because his political views don't match with his religious beliefs at all.
Just a thought.
|
Just a thought.
|
Thursday, September 20, 2007
New post!! New post!!
Well, I haven't written anything on this blog for quite some time (as you can tell by reading some of the more recent posts...). I'm actually not really sure why I returned to it, but I just wanted to do some writing, I guess. In the time since my last post, I've gotten a new job, which I will lose in about 6 weeks (don't ask... or, if you're curious, do ask). So, I have to look for a new job again, which probably spurred my urge to write.
I don't have anything that unusual to say right now... my brother should be returning from Qatar any time now, my sister-in-law is pregnant with their second child, my sister and brother-in-law have decided not to move to Michigan, I'm traveling to Missouri this weekend for my cousin's wedding, I'm debating whether or not to buy a cheap suit for the wedding since none of my other suits will fit me (I'm rather plump at the moment). Just the usual stuff.
Politics... well, I haven't had a huge interest in politics for a little while now... I was somewhat involved in the last election, but none of my candidates were elected. My interest is starting to stir somewhat, though, since the GOP has a crop of candidates that might actually be worth something. Not all of them, though... Ron Paul is right out, he would never be given the Republican party nod. My fear is that he'll run anyway as an independent and take away a portion of the "crazy Republican" vote... we NEED those crazy Republicans in this election, or we'll end up with Hillary Clinton! I'm not seriously worried about her national security credentials... when it comes down to it, I'm sure she'll be as trigger-happy as needs be. I'm more worried about her health-care plan. Now THAT scares me. It's fine to want everybody to have access to affordable health care, but if you're willing to take away health-care choice and freedom from other people, and make them pay for someone else's premium's, that's a bridge too far.
I kind of like Giuliani... he seems like a smaller-government type, and that' s what I think we really need right now. I'm not enthusiastic about his pro-choice views, and I'm irked that he's apparently so anti-gay-marriage right now, but I can make peace with that in the long run if he's strong on defense and on reducing the size and scope of government. He's also not opposed to legal immigration, and seems like he would try to work out a solution for the millions of illegal immigrants already here. I'm always shocked and disturbed about the vehemence some conservatives seem to have about solutions for our illegal immigrant problem. It's as if they think crossing the border illegally is a felony (it's not, it's a misdemeanor). Heck, if I lived in a crappy third-world country with no chance of making a better life for myself and my family, and only a few miles away was a huge, rich, country with plenty of work, much higher pay, educational opportunities for my kids, and far better living conditions, you can bet your bottom dollar I would be hustling myself across that border as fast as I could--and I would be willing to bet that most of the conservatives bellyaching about illegal immigration would do it, too, given the same circumstances.
Don't get me wrong.... crossing the border is illegal, and I don't want anybody doing it, especially with the (proven) possibility of terrorists crossing as well. However, there are a lot of people here who just want a chance at a better life, and think they can get it in America. Some of them even want to become Americans. Can you blame them? Who DOESN'T want to become an American? (OK, OK... I know there are lots of people. I meant, "who in their right mind".)
Another thing about the immigration fight that irks me is when some conservatives call the President's former plan (or any plan that doesn't promise immediate expulsion of any and all illegals) "amnesty". No, amnesty would be allowing illegal immigrants to stay without any consequences. The President's plan required many, if not most, illegals to briefly leave the country and return through official channels. It also levied heavy fines (to the tune of thousands of dollars... that's a HEAVY fine), which last time I checked, were a common and accepted penalty for a misdemeanor. So, they illegals have to leave and return legally, and pay a heavy fine... where's the "amnesty" in that?
Anyway, I think I'm done for the moment... I've spent enough time in front of the computer writing this (and getting used to my new keyboard). I'll try to post more regularly, if anybody is reading... and if not, who cares? It's for my own enjoyment, right?
|
Well, I haven't written anything on this blog for quite some time (as you can tell by reading some of the more recent posts...). I'm actually not really sure why I returned to it, but I just wanted to do some writing, I guess. In the time since my last post, I've gotten a new job, which I will lose in about 6 weeks (don't ask... or, if you're curious, do ask). So, I have to look for a new job again, which probably spurred my urge to write.
I don't have anything that unusual to say right now... my brother should be returning from Qatar any time now, my sister-in-law is pregnant with their second child, my sister and brother-in-law have decided not to move to Michigan, I'm traveling to Missouri this weekend for my cousin's wedding, I'm debating whether or not to buy a cheap suit for the wedding since none of my other suits will fit me (I'm rather plump at the moment). Just the usual stuff.
Politics... well, I haven't had a huge interest in politics for a little while now... I was somewhat involved in the last election, but none of my candidates were elected. My interest is starting to stir somewhat, though, since the GOP has a crop of candidates that might actually be worth something. Not all of them, though... Ron Paul is right out, he would never be given the Republican party nod. My fear is that he'll run anyway as an independent and take away a portion of the "crazy Republican" vote... we NEED those crazy Republicans in this election, or we'll end up with Hillary Clinton! I'm not seriously worried about her national security credentials... when it comes down to it, I'm sure she'll be as trigger-happy as needs be. I'm more worried about her health-care plan. Now THAT scares me. It's fine to want everybody to have access to affordable health care, but if you're willing to take away health-care choice and freedom from other people, and make them pay for someone else's premium's, that's a bridge too far.
I kind of like Giuliani... he seems like a smaller-government type, and that' s what I think we really need right now. I'm not enthusiastic about his pro-choice views, and I'm irked that he's apparently so anti-gay-marriage right now, but I can make peace with that in the long run if he's strong on defense and on reducing the size and scope of government. He's also not opposed to legal immigration, and seems like he would try to work out a solution for the millions of illegal immigrants already here. I'm always shocked and disturbed about the vehemence some conservatives seem to have about solutions for our illegal immigrant problem. It's as if they think crossing the border illegally is a felony (it's not, it's a misdemeanor). Heck, if I lived in a crappy third-world country with no chance of making a better life for myself and my family, and only a few miles away was a huge, rich, country with plenty of work, much higher pay, educational opportunities for my kids, and far better living conditions, you can bet your bottom dollar I would be hustling myself across that border as fast as I could--and I would be willing to bet that most of the conservatives bellyaching about illegal immigration would do it, too, given the same circumstances.
Don't get me wrong.... crossing the border is illegal, and I don't want anybody doing it, especially with the (proven) possibility of terrorists crossing as well. However, there are a lot of people here who just want a chance at a better life, and think they can get it in America. Some of them even want to become Americans. Can you blame them? Who DOESN'T want to become an American? (OK, OK... I know there are lots of people. I meant, "who in their right mind".)
Another thing about the immigration fight that irks me is when some conservatives call the President's former plan (or any plan that doesn't promise immediate expulsion of any and all illegals) "amnesty". No, amnesty would be allowing illegal immigrants to stay without any consequences. The President's plan required many, if not most, illegals to briefly leave the country and return through official channels. It also levied heavy fines (to the tune of thousands of dollars... that's a HEAVY fine), which last time I checked, were a common and accepted penalty for a misdemeanor. So, they illegals have to leave and return legally, and pay a heavy fine... where's the "amnesty" in that?
Anyway, I think I'm done for the moment... I've spent enough time in front of the computer writing this (and getting used to my new keyboard). I'll try to post more regularly, if anybody is reading... and if not, who cares? It's for my own enjoyment, right?
|
Friday, September 02, 2005
