David Friedman On Gay Marriage
Dec 16, 05 | 8:55 pm by John T. KennedyDavid Friedman has a new blog and in a recent entry he takes on the issue of gay marriage. He loses me here:
“My colleague has the right to live with his partner on the same legal terms that I live with my wife, but he does not have the right to insist that other people regard their relationship as marriage. Making laws about symbolism is not the business of the U.S. government.”
No, the colleague doesn’t have any right to live on the same legal terms as Friedman if both will be granted privileges and benefits at the expense of others. And that’s precisely what will happen. Government has no legitimate business at all, but legislating symbolism has to be one of it’s most benign activities. I couldn’t care less if the state declares that I’m a lazy-good-for-nothing-so-and-so as long as it keeps its mitts off my person and property. Wouldn’t Friedman greatly prefer a government that produced only symbolic gestures to one that produced material benefits and privileges for some at the expense of others?
By seeking to solve a problem of symbolism through legislation Friedman is confirming both sides in nonsense. It is nonsense for either side to be concerned with symbolic state gestures. There is nothing legitimate that the state can contribute to any marriage.
December 16th, 2005 at Dec 16, 05 | 10:44 pm
“The only way out of this dilemma is the neutral option: Get the government out of the business of defining what is or is not marriage”
Seems to me that Friedman wants the Government to butt out. A much better proposition IMHO.
December 16th, 2005 at Dec 16, 05 | 11:42 pm
“its”, not “it’s.”
December 17th, 2005 at Dec 17, 05 | 12:07 am
Huh?
December 17th, 2005 at Dec 17, 05 | 2:17 am
I’m just correcting Kennedy’s grammar/spelling. It keeps me off the streets.
Spot it?
December 17th, 2005 at Dec 17, 05 | 2:29 am
Baker,
DDF, in context:
Bolding mine. Seems to me that Friedman wants the government to butt out of the symbolic part of marriage but has no problem with the government giving “special rights” as it sees fit.
Like Kennedy noted, this is bass-ackwards: a government that confined itself solely to symbolic acts would, in my book, be about the most benign sort of organization possible. I’ll gladly let the government call me married, not married or even late for supper, as long as it stops being a threat to me.
December 17th, 2005 at Dec 17, 05 | 3:05 am
Ah, that’s odd. The word “it’s” didn’t appear when I did a ctrl+F, because I think it searched the sidebar instead of the comments….
^_^;;
December 20th, 2005 at Dec 20, 05 | 9:07 pm
Who should make medical decisions in an emergency? How would you determine such a thing? It seems no big deal to me that the government recognises the spouse as the one with the proper authority.
December 20th, 2005 at Dec 20, 05 | 10:22 pm
How would you enforce contracts without a government?
December 21st, 2005 at Dec 21, 05 | 12:42 am
That’s not a response. I’m not asking a procedural question but a substantive question.
December 21st, 2005 at Dec 21, 05 | 1:04 am
I don’t intend to provide plans for who should make medical decisions for who any more than I intend to provide plans for contract enforcement.
December 21st, 2005 at Dec 21, 05 | 1:17 am
Josh,
The state is not a party with any legitimate interest in the matter. The parties with rights in this matter and authority to delegate are the patients and caregivers. When the state’s recognition happens to coincide with the purposes and rights of these interested parties the state may not do harm.
But one policy doesn’t fit all so the state is bound to violate rights when it imposes one. That’s what’s wrong with it.
December 23rd, 2005 at Dec 23, 05 | 4:11 pm
I like this subject. As a Catholic, I must be against gay marriage. As a Libertarian, I place no legitimacy on a piece of paper provided by the state. Whatever. It�s a big non-issue to me, unless some judge decide to issue court orders forcing priests to perform gay marriages (which, regardless of that, would be invalid anyway).
So much fight about pieces of paper provided by state bureaucrats…
It should be all voluntary contracts, just that.
BTW, shouldn’t it be as libertarian to defend ‘gay’ marriage as is to defend poligay? (not a retorical question)
December 23rd, 2005 at Dec 23, 05 | 4:46 pm
I don’t know about poligay, but you could certainly defend polygamy. Along with incest, drug use, suicide, etc.
December 23rd, 2005 at Dec 23, 05 | 11:33 pm
That was a fun unintentional neologism. But why not polygamy for gays? Or any number of people?
That would bring interesting questions. A marries B. B marries C. Are A and C married?
December 24th, 2005 at Dec 24, 05 | 3:38 am
Yeah, polygamy for all who want it. If you’re Catholic, you are free to not engage in polygamy.
No, A & C are not married (to each other).
December 24th, 2005 at Dec 24, 05 | 4:26 am
But A & C can still marry each other, correct?
December 24th, 2005 at Dec 24, 05 | 6:16 am
You guys seem to be thinking of marriage as something that requires public acknowledgment and/or acceptance. Mine doesn’t.
December 24th, 2005 at Dec 24, 05 | 1:36 pm
That makes for some interesting sitcom ideas in libertopia. You could have A married to B and C, D married to B, but A and D hate each other, while C and D secretly like each other, but C can’t tell the difference between A and D, who are identical twins.
December 29th, 2005 at Dec 29, 05 | 2:56 am
This dude is not happy with me.
He writes:
But apparently he doesn’t think his his right to make a fist ends at the tip of the nose of “some hetero-suprematist Nurse Ratchet” if she tells Greg Castillo to get lost…