Monthly Archives: March 2006

Gay Marriage, Polygamy, And Individual Liberty

Individual Rights

Homophobia is still a big issue in America. Many gay many don’t feel confident enough living openly about their sexuality and have to use sites like Discreet Gay Dating and those who are authentic about who they are often face abuse simply because they’re gay. And there are several pieces out today on the issue of whether the arguments being advanced in favor of gay marriage will, over time, be used by those who practice polygamy as support for the argument that their relationships should be legalized.

First, Charles Krauthammer writes on the issue and argues that the answer is emphatically yes.

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture “privileges” (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was “Jules et Jim” (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an “activity” or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

One of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage that I’ve encountered is the one that says that the government has no right to intrude into the personal relationships of consenting adults and forbid them from entering into a legal status, in this case marriage, that they wish to enter into freely. This doesn’t mean that government is endorsing the relationship, any more than it endorses a producer of pornographic films who forms a corporation to run his busines. It merely means that the government is allowing people to engage in consenual activities that affect nobody but themselves. The logic, if you accept it, seems to me to be unassailable and its hard for me to find an argument that says that polygamy is per se different.

Andrew Sullivan responds to Krauthammer on his blog:

I respect Charles Krauthammer too much not to offer a small rejoinder to his thoughtful column today. He fairly represents my side of a debate we already had a few years’ back. I stick with my position. I believe that someone’s sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with. Polygamy is a choice, in other words; homosexuality isn’t. The proof of this can be seen in the fact that straight people and gay people can equally choose polyandry or polygamy or polyamory, or whatever you want to call it. But no polygamist or heterosexual can choose to be gay. If you’re not, you’re not.

Exactly, and if people want to choose to live in a polygamous relatiohship, why should the government tell them they can’t ?

I think legalizing such arrangements is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.).

Aren’t these the same type of sociologically-based arguments that people use agianst gay marriage ? What about the argument that gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because it doesn’t promote procreation ?

Ann Althouse also writes about Krauthammer’s column and comes up with her own distinction between gay marriage and polygamy

Legal marriage isn’t just about love, it’s an economic arrangement. Having the state authorize your union is not the same thing as having your friends and neighbors approve of you and your religious leaders bless you. It affects taxes and employee benefits — huge amounts of money. A gay person with a pension and a health insurance plan is incapable of extending those benefits to his (or her) partner. He (or she) can’t file a joint tax return. That’s not fair. A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn’t appeal to our sense of fairness.

So now its a fairness argument ? Since when are individual rights subject to the consideration of whether or not their implementation is “fair”, and who decides exactly what fair is ?

Finally, Kathleen Kersten has a column in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune similar to Krauthammer’s:

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will open a Pandora’s box. As a New Jersey appellate court judge wrote recently, if “marriage [is] … couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous … unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?”

Kersten is obviously opposed to gay marriage and is using the polygamy argument as an argument against gay marriage itself, but her doomsday prediction of what marriage might turn into if society keeps going in the direction it has been doesn’t really sound that bad:

What’s the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships

In other words, people would live their private lives in the way that they wanted. What’s so wrong with that ?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Online Freedom of Speech Act — Delayed?

Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

I posted about how important of a vote this was on Wednesday, in anticipation of it happening yesterday. Looks like the vote didn’t happen, and the House isn’t in session today. According to the schedule, this should be the first order of business on Monday.

Now, there are two possible explanations. It looks as though they were following the schedule, and that they may have simply run out of time. On the other hand, they could be stalling for a chance to let the lobbyists come in, so they can do some backroom negotiating between HR 4900 and HR 1606. It’s unclear which is occurring, but the added time gives our Congress the option of doing the latter, even if that was not the cause of the delay.

What’s the difference between the two? HR 1606 says the internet will be free from regulation under BCRA. HR 4900 says that the government has the legitimate purpose of regulating the internet, but tries to set the limits of regulation such that it won’t affect most individuals. As I do not recognize their right to limit freedom of speech in this area, I choose HR 1606. As I know that regulations have a tendency to widen over time, I also choose HR 1606, because I know that narrow regulations today will be wide regulations in the future. It’s time to make sure our Congresspeople know where we stand.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

A Tale of Two Bills

Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

Using the near-impossibility that any bill entitled “ethics reform” will be rebuked, House members have proposed campaign finance restrictions be rolled into ethics reform:

House Republicans launched an election-year drive Wednesday to rein in political groups that operate with looser restraints than candidates and their parties, an attempt to blunt the activities of liberals such as billionaire George Soros.

Wealthy supporters, who make donations of $1 million or more to such groups, could contribute no more than $30,000 under the legislation, according to Republican officials. The organizations would be subject to more frequent disclosure requirements.

…

House Republicans indicated late last year that they wanted to limit the activities of loosely regulated political organizations, trying unsuccessfully to attach legislation to a must-pass bill setting overall policy for the military. They retreated under bipartisan fire.

At the time, the chairman of the House GOP campaign committee said the effort was designed to close “a loophole that is allowing big donor money into the process.”

How did freedom of speech become a “loophole”? Is that similar to how when they give us a tax cut, they count that as an “expenditure”? It used to be that individual rights were something inherent, and which were not to be infringed by the government. Now they’ve taken the stance that they’re the arbiters of all that exists, and they’ll parcel out to us those rights which they think we’re worthy of being granted.

The Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act of 2003 is designed for one thing, and one thing only: to keep the message in the hands of people that don’t want to rock the boat. But as with anything, when there is that much power at stake, people will find a way to be heard, and 527 organizations fit the bill. Yet from a government standpoint, it was at least an improvement. While they couldn’t silence everyone, they were able to make sure all except the very powerful remained quiet. The powerful have an incentive to keep the status quo, lest they lose their power.

But some voices are bucking the trend. George Soros* has an established fortune (i.e. little fear of losing it, being fired, etc), and an agenda. To our government, Soros is simply too unpredictable and uncontrollable to be allowed to continue operating. They are desperately trying to continue their ability to control the message, and will take down the “whales” of political donations if necessary.

When you see that, you wonder whether our Congressman really want any part of the Online Freedom of Speech Act, set to come up for a vote tomorrow:

Redstate: We’ve been working for a long time on HR 1606 – The Online Freedom of Speech Act. It will come up for a vote on the floor of the House TOMORROW but as you read this – the campaign regulation community is hard at work – working the halls of Congress, lying about not only our bill – but “their” bill as well. And as far as their intentions go – well, I think it’s fair to say that when it comes to THEM bragging about protecting free speech – they are not to be trusted.

Of all the work you’ve done on this issue – no day is more important that today. Start with this list. Call the Republicans that wobbled last time 1606 was on the floor. And don’t stop there.

Congress doesn’t want bloggers speaking freely. They accept us grudgingly, although I’ll bet some of the lesser known folks on the hard-right, hard-left, or libertarian ends of the spectrum giving them assistance (as I think the blogosphere tends to be populated by ends of the spectrum, rather than the middle). But the vast majority see us as a threat. They saw the Patterico Pledge, and they understand the power of the press, even if it is simply online self-publishing.

It’s a sad day when freedom of speech has become a battleground. But it’s a battle we cannot afford to lose. Liberty must constantly be guarded, as there are always forces ready to snatch it away. Let’s make sure that if it goes, it goes with a bang, not a whimper.

» Read more

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Libertarians For Tyranny

General, Politics, Theory and Ideas

I was reading Cato Institute fellow Tom Palmer’s blog yesterday and he had a roundup of posts from so-called “libertarian” bloggers who were mourning the death of Serbia’s former genocidial dictator Slobodan Milosevic. The first disgusting blog entry was from Lew Rockwell.com blogger Daniel McAdams who wrote:

Today’s apparent death of former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic bares the bloody fangs of the New World Order, a totalitarian construct of the United States and allies to fill in the post Cold War void:

“If we cannot convict you on our lies, we will at least make sure you don’t get out alive.”

Let us recall that Milosevic was captured — kidnapped — by the NWO shock troops in exchange for aid promised to a Serbia recently decimated by NATO bombs to halt a genocide that subsequent investigation proved a lie by the Clinton Administration and dutifully amplified in the lap-dog media.

Chiming in on this topic is “Antiwar”.com’s Nebojsa Malic:

However embarrassing a second death in six days might be, the Hague Inquisition probably breathed a sigh of relief when Slobodan Milosevic was found dead today.

From the very first day, their effort to stage a show trial providing quasi-legal cover for Empire’s nefarious deeds in the Balkans by blaming everything on Milosevic and Serbia (often not making a difference between the two) has been thwarted at every step. Milosevic refused to suicide. He refused to get a lawyer, or even recognize the ICTY’s legitimacy. His cross-examinations exposed dozens of perjured witnesses and demonstrated fully the vacuity of the prosecution’s case. Had he stayed alive, the Tribunal would have faced the embarrassing quandary of having to convict him (and they would have, otherwise their whole raison d’etre would have disappeared) without ever actually proving anything. Dead men tell no tales; they can’t defend themselves from accusations, insinuations, rumors and propaganda. Milosevic may have been beating them at their own game for years, but he finally lost at Last Man Standing.

One of the questions that will surely be asked in the coming days is to what extent is the ICTY responsible for Milosevic’s deteriorating health. As the “trial” went on, Milosevic was getting progressively worse – something his detractors tried to cover up by claims he was “faking” illness to prolong the trial(!). The Inquisition recently denied his request to be transferred to a Russian hospital for treatment, arguing that Dutch doctors were good enough. Obviously, they weren’t.

Another “Antiwar”.com contributor, Christopher Deliso plays the Balkan version of the race card:

In the aftermath of Milosevic’s death, CNN is wheeling out one arrogant imperial blowhard after another. Right now is Daniel Serwer, who was preceded by the always entertaining Richard Holbrooke.

As could be expected, they are pushing the “Milosevic was responsible for everything that ever went wrong” line to the hilt. And of course, Holbrooke gravely intoned that Milosevic was right up there with Hitler and Stalin.

All of this media bombast has little to do with Milosevic, and a lot to do with the Western media and power structures, whose reputations and careers are at stake. The coming week is going to see a long and drawn-out public orgy of hatred and slander against everything Serbian. Milosevic’s death is just the catalyst, and anyone who doubts that will have to ponder why has-been Holbrooke used his time on CNN to not just call for but to ORDER that Kosovo and Montenegro be made independent; he also said there are “two more” war criminals who must be apprehended (Karadzic and Mladic), conveniently ignoring another duo, Haradinaj and Ceku over in Kosovo. That’s because they are on the side of The Good, in other words, the West.

Lew Rockwell.com columnist Paul Craig Roberts decided to compare Milsosevic to Abraham Lincoln

Milosevic was caught up in the post-Soviet era break-up of Yugoslavia. Nationalist forces broke up the Yugoslav federation. During 1991–92, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina seceded from Yugoslavia. Large Serbian minorities in Croatia and in Bosnia objected and claimed the identical right of self-determination to remain in the federation as Croats and Muslims claimed to leave it. Croatian and Bosnian Serbs organized and a war against secession began.

Milosevic could hardly remain a Serbian leader and not support the Serbs. Abraham Lincoln was canonized for invading the South to prevent its secession, but Milosevic was damned for trying to protect Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity. In the end Milosevic accepted secession. In 1995 Milosevic negotiated the Dayton Agreement which ended the war in Bosnia. According to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia, “Milosevic was credited in the West with being one of the pillars of Balkan peace.”

In the following four pieces, we see so called “libertarians” come to the defence of the genocidal thug Milosevic because he was an enemy of the United States. Therefore, in their mind, the enemy of my enemy is a friend, no matter if they are mass murderers or tyrants. There are other examples of so-called libertarians acting as apologists for anti-American tyrants. It is time that we as libertarians, classical liberals, small government conservatives, etc. repudiate these people. These people have taken their opposition to American interventionism (some of which that I share) and taken to it to a point where they excuse tyranny and genocide, as long as the tyrant and mass murderer oppose American foreign policy.

We must, as libertarians, debate how we want US foreign policy and what kind of interventionism, if any, are we going to have. We must also be open to those who are both hawkish and dovism on the use of military force. However, we must not open our tent so big that we allow the apologists for tyranny to come on in. To criticize American interventionism is one thing, but to try and spin the enemies of America as good guys and portray them as innocent victims and praising the death of American soldiers are competely different things.

Lew Rockwell and his website’s contributors and “Antiwar”.com should be repudiated and taken out of the company of respectable libertarians for these and other reasons.

Kevin Boyd
I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.
https://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/
1 2 3 4 5 6