Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

Religion may be their unifying feature, but I would suggest their motivation comes from years of exploitation by their Western-backed leaders, leaders who have gained great wealth by cooperating with their European and American backers and by enabling the exploitation of the vast majority of their people. The effort of the masses is fueled by a desire to overthrow these dictatorships. The Europeans and the Americans have backed the wrong horse, and they are now paying for it as the targets of terrorism. The armies of these dictators are equipped with arms furnished by Western nations, primarily the United States.

Conversely, the United States had nothing to do with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, nor with the sorry shape of Arab civilization thereafter.

These nations are not democracies. They remain in power to the extent their military can keep the masses at bay.

We've seen what Arab democracy looks like, and it's not pretty (e.g. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.). Democracy can produce some very evil results without the framework of liberal constitutionalism to restrain the tyranny of the majority. Fareed Zakaria's "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" gives many good examples.

As long as we continue to choose sides in these civil wars, we will remain a target for the opposition. The religious fanatics take advantage of the hate built up over many years and use our military actions to fuel recruitment and support. Terrorists have learned that their support will increase if they can provoke the opposition into some overly repressive actions. We have willingly taken the bait.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that our ham-fisted foreign policy in the Middle East has created a lot of avoidable blowback, which should be minimized going forward by reducing our regional footprint dramatically. That said, I'm not a foreign policy idealist. Consistently supporting democracy would not improve stability in the region, but would empower Islamists. Like it or not, as the global hegemon, we have to underwrite global stability via "off-shore balancing". Right now, that likely means supporting regional actors who are willing to oppose ISIS (such as Iran). It forces us to deal with unsavory regimes, but there's no alternative that produces a more favorable result for the people of the Middle East.

As an aside, the conversation in the Theology thread has some relevance to our debate here. Your political instincts--skepticism of the establishment and sympathy for the downtrodden--is itself an artifact of Christianity. You won't find it in any other religious tradition. So it's sadly ironic that you now turn that instinct on the Christian moral framework to which you owe your current outlook.

Jody Bottum's "The Spiritual Shape of Politics" is on point:

Early in the twentieth century, however, the main denominations of liberal American Protestantism gradually came to a new view of sin, understanding our innate failings as fundamentally social rather than personal. Crystallized by Walter Rauschenbusch’s influential Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907), the Social Gospel movement saw such sins as militarism and bigotry as the forces that Christ revealed in his preaching—the social forces that crucified him and the social forces against which he was resurrected. Not that Christ mattered all that much in the Social Gospel’s construal. Theological critics from John Gresham Machen in the 1920s to Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1950s pointed out that the Social Gospel left little for the Redeemer to do: Living after his revelation, what further use do have we of him? Jesus may be the ladder by which we climbed to a higher ledge of morality, but once there, we no longer need the ladder.

Millions of believing Christians still populate the United States, of course: evangelicals and Catholics and the remaining members of the mainline churches. Demographically, America is still an overwhelmingly Christian country. But the Social Gospel’s loss of a strong sense of Christ facilitated the drift of congregants—particularly the elite and college-educated classes—out of the mainline that had once defined the country. Out of the churches and into a generally secularized milieu.

They did not leave empty-handed. Born in the Christian churches, the civil rights movement had focused on bigotry as the most pressing of social sins in the 1950s and 1960s, and when the mainline Protestants began to leave their denominations, they carried with them the Christian shape of social and moral ideas, however much they imagined they had rejected Christian content. How else can we understand the religious fervor with which white privilege is preached these days—the spiritual urgency with which its proponents describe a universal inherited guilt they must seek out behind even its cleverest masks? Their very sense of themselves as good people, their confidence in their salvation from the original sin of American culture, requires all this.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Alabama woman arrested after trying to perform same-sex marriage | MSNBC

Moore and others in Alabama have been embarrassing themselves, and this is just another example.

 

[phgreek]

Conversely, the United States had nothing to do with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, nor with the sorry shape of Arab civilization thereafter.



We've seen what Arab democracy looks like, and it's not pretty (e.g. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.). Democracy can produce some very evil results without the framework of liberal constitutionalism to restrain the tyranny of the majority. Fareed Zakaria's "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" gives many good examples.



I'm sympathetic to the argument that our ham-fisted foreign policy in the Middle East has created a lot of avoidable blowback, which should be minimized going forward by reducing our regional footprint dramatically. That said, I'm not a foreign policy idealist. Consistently supporting democracy would not improve stability in the region, but would empower Islamists. Like it or not, as the global hegemon, we have to underwrite global stability via "off-shore balancing". Right now, that likely means supporting regional actors who are willing to oppose ISIS (such as Iran). It forces us to deal with unsavory regimes, but there's no alternative that produces a more favorable result for the people of the Middle East.

As an aside, the conversation in the Theology thread has some relevance to our debate here. Your political instincts--skepticism of the establishment and sympathy for the downtrodden--is itself an artifact of Christianity. You won't find it in any other religious tradition. So it's sadly ironic that you now turn that instinct on the Christian moral framework to which you owe your current outlook.

Jody Bottum's "The Spiritual Shape of Politics" is on point:

To the bolded...YES! The outlook is ironic...just not rare, unfortunately.

 

[MartyIrish]

Alabama woman arrested after trying to perform same-sex marriage | MSNBC

Moore and others in Alabama have been embarrassing themselves, and this is just another example.

Or they are just holding fast in their beliefs? To each his own.

Your right to support gay marriage, includes his right to not support it.

 

[IrishLion]

Or they are just holding fast in their beliefs? To each his own.

Your right to support gay marriage, includes his right to not support it.

Does that include his right to willingly break the law by defying a federal ruling?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't have a problem with people who oppose gay marriage. I do have a problem with people breaking the law.

 

[MartyIrish]

Does that include his right to willingly break the law by defying a federal ruling?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't have a problem with people who oppose gay marriage. I do have a problem with people breaking the law.

I was simply stating the "why" he's doing it.

If he is breaking law, then he will pay the price.

I don't think government has any place in marriage at all...another scam to extort money out of us

 

[Bluto]

How were Native Americans dispossessed "in the name of Christianity"? Early Americans undoubtedly believed themselves to be culturally superior to the indigenous tribes for a whole host of reasons, including some religious. But to indicate thattheir dispossession was primarily due to religious bigotryis completely indefensible.


Really? Do tell how we're spreading the Gospel via the sword in the Holy Lands. By toppling the government of Iraq and nearly doing the same in Syria, we've created a power vacuum in which Islamists have been free to virtually wipe out Christian communities who have existed in the region since Jesus walked the earth. I'm sure the Coptics and other persecuted Christians would prefer America to act as you've just described, but that isn't the case.



See Lax's post above. I'm very skeptical of American military adventurism, and I detest crony capitalism. But to imply that either of those things is motivated by Christianity is simply laughable.

Not necassarily true. Back in the good old days when I was in school we examined the idea of Manifest Destiny (and the entire idea of white suppremacy) and how it is directly connected to the Calvanist idea of preordination. It helped explain some of the reasons that the Catholic (conquer, convert and abosorb) and the Protestant (conquer, segregate and exterminate) interactions with the native populations in the Americas were radically different. The early Americans in what is now the United States not only saw themselves as culturally superior but racially superior due to God's will as well. Big difference.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Does that include his right to willingly break the law by defying a federal ruling?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't have a problem with people who oppose gay marriage. I do have a problem with people breaking the law.

Such respect for the federal judiciary! But I dont think its so black and white. Alabama, like CALIFORNIA, banned gay marriage. One federally district judge said that the ban is unconstituional, and overturned a democratic majority. While the momentum appears to clearly be moving in that direction, the issue has certainly not been settled.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined a stay, so that no marriage licenses would be granted before the issue is settled. The Alabama Supreme Court believes that the federal courts are overstepping their constitional authority. Judge Moore, who clearly likes a fight, is telling them to obey Alabama law.

The nation is built on balance of powers. Not everything is spelled out perfectly. There is supposed to be a little back and forht. Can the President wage a war without Congress's approval? It's not clear, and the Supreme Court does not always jump in the middle to settle those arguemnts.

But when it comes to social issues, some have become fine with the Supreme Court-- 9 people, 5 from Harvard, 3 from Yale, 1 from Columbia--all settling these matters in a closed room by declaring what the Constituion supposedly says. We all know it is not based on what the Constitution actually says, but what Supreme Court says it means based on their judicially-created concept of "substantive due process" (how can a procedural right be substantive?). However, others think that this is EXTREMELY undemocratic.

We all hated the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson because its BS. Not only was it racist, but it was wrong, and it ultimately resulted in a civil war. But it was the law! It was "what the Constitution" said according to the people with the sole power to interpret it (suposedly). To oppose Plessy was to oppose the rule of law! To oppose the federal judiciary!

But we all act like respect for the rule of law requires that the Supreme Court gets oracle treatment.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court should stay out of these issues and let them play out when the Constituion is, in reality, silent. Its nice when they short circuit the system for your team, but its not democratic.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not necassarily true. Back in the good old days when I was in school we examined the idea of Manifest Destiny (and the entire idea of white suppremacy) and how it is directly connected to the Calvanist idea of preordination. It helped explain some of the reasons that the Catholic (conquer, convert and abosorb) and the Protestant (conquer, segregate and exterminate) interactions with the native populations in the Americas were radically different. The ealry Americans in the what is now the United States not only saw themselves as culturally superior but racially superior due to Gods will as well. Big difference.

That's a good point. And this Calvinistic legacy lives on today through the Prosperity Gospel, which argues that worldly success is evidence of God's blessing; and, most relevant to your example, it allows one to infer the moral inferiority of the poor. Just as the advanced state of Western technology allowed early Americans to infer their Manifest Destiny to subdue the continent, etc.

As a Catholic, it's easy to reject that as an obvious corruption of Christ's message. Just another group of people looking to put a Christian gloss on their greed and ambition. But unlike some of the previous examples offered, that one seems to at least have been a sincere (though corrupted) Christian belief and motivation which lead to serious injustice.

 

[MartyIrish]

Such respect for the federal judiciary! But I dont think its so black and white. Alabama, like CALIFORNIA, banned gay marriage. One federally district judge said that the ban is unconstituional, and overturned a democratic majority. While the momentum appears to clearly be moving in that direction, the issue has certainly not been settled.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined a stay, so that no marriage licenses would be granted before the issue is settled. The Alabama Supreme Court believes that the federal courts are overstepping their constitional authority. Judge Moore, who clearly likes a fight, is telling them to obey Alabama law.

The nation is built on balance of powers. Not everything is spelled out perfectly. There is supposed to be a little back and forht. Can the President wage a war without Congress's approval? It's not clear, and the Supreme Court does not always jump in the middle to settle those arguemnts.

But when it comes to social issues, some have become fine with the Supreme Court-- 9 people, 5 from Harvard, 3 from Yale, 1 from Columbia--all settling these matters in a closed room by declaring what the Constituion supposedly says. We all know it is not based on what the Constitution actually says, but what Supreme Court says it means based on their judicially created concept of "substantive due process" (how can a procedural right be substantive?). However, others think that this is EXTREMELY undemocratic.

We all hated Plessy v. Ferguson because its BS. Not only was it racist, but it ultimately resulted in a civil war. But we all act like respect for the rule of law requires that the Supreme Court gets oracle treatment.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court should stay out of these issues and let them play out when the Constituion is, in reality, silent. Its nice when they short circuit the system for your team, but its not democratic.

Exactly.

States need to settle issues like this. Allow them to govern their own constituents.

 

[DonnieNarco]

We fought a war over nullification and the side of nullification lost in 1865.

 

[Domina Nostra]

We fought a war over nullification and the side of nullification lost in 1865.

That's one way to determine what the Constitution says, kill the people that disagree and then say the issue is settled!

 

[EddytoNow]

Such respect for the federal judiciary! But I dont think its so black and white. Alabama, like CALIFORNIA, banned gay marriage. One federally district judge said that the ban is unconstituional, and overturned a democratic majority. While the momentum appears to clearly be moving in that direction, the issue has certainly not been settled.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined a stay, so that no marriage licenses would be granted before the issue is settled. The Alabama Supreme Court believes that the federal courts are overstepping their constitional authority. Judge Moore, who clearly likes a fight, is telling them to obey Alabama law.

The nation is built on balance of powers. Not everything is spelled out perfectly. There is supposed to be a little back and forht. Can the President wage a war without Congress's approval? It's not clear, and the Supreme Court does not always jump in the middle to settle those arguemnts.

But when it comes to social issues, some have become fine with the Supreme Court-- 9 people, 5 from Harvard, 3 from Yale, 1 from Columbia--all settling these matters in a closed room by declaring what the Constituion supposedly says. We all know it is not based on what the Constitution actually says, but what Supreme Court says it means based on their judicially-created concept of "substantive due process" (how can a procedural right be substantive?). However, others think that this is EXTREMELY undemocratic.

We all hated the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson because its BS. Not only was it racist, but it was wrong, and it ultimately resulted in a civil war. But it was the law! It was "what the Constitution" said according to the people with the sole power to interpret it (suposedly). To oppose Plessy was to oppose the rule of law! To oppose the federal judiciary!

But we all act like respect for the rule of law requires that the Supreme Court gets oracle treatment.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court should stay out of these issues and let them play out when the Constituion is, in reality, silent. Its nice when they short circuit the system for your team, but its not democratic.

The constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority just as much as the rights of the majority. The reason for having two senators from each state, without regard to population, was a key component inserted to protect states with smaller populations from states with large populations. Without that compromise smaller states would have never given up their independence to join a union of states. The Bill of Rights, specifically, guarantees certain rights that can't be legislated away by majorities. The Supreme Court must interpret cases in which one of those rights has been violated. In light of the gay marriage issue, the Supreme Court has ruled and continues to rule that states cannot legislate away rights of minority groups when the majority continues to have those same rights. The states would have a stronger argument if they voted to deny everyone the right to get married. When they single-out a specific minority and attempt to deny them the same rights as everyone else, they have crossed a line that the Supreme Court thus far has decided to protect.

 

[DonnieNarco]

That's one way to determine what the Constitution says, kill the people that disagree and then say the issue is settled!

The South wanted slaves so bad they were willing to go to war to keep them, and they lost. Nullification lost.

 

[RDU Irish]

Can we just remove all marital rights and put hetero and homo on the same footing? It is mostly a property issue anyway in relation to government's involvement in marriage. Largely stems from the lack of women's rights historically. Government "marriage certificate" should really be a contract to take on eachother's liabilities and share in assets.

My marriage is a religious construct. Government can get bent.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority just as much as the rights of the majority. The reason for having two senators from each state, without regard to population, was a key component inserted to protect states with smaller populations from states with large populations. Without that compromise smaller states would have never given up their independence to join a union of states. The Bill of Rights, specifically, guarantees certain rights that can't be legislated away by majorities. The Supreme Court must interpret cases in which one of those rights has been violated. In light of the gay marriage issue, the Supreme Court has ruled and continues to rule that states cannot legislate away rights of minority groups when the majority continues to have those same rights. The states would have a stronger argument if they voted to deny everyone the right to get married. When they single-out a specific minority and attempt to deny them the same rights as everyone else, they have crossed a line that the Supreme Court thus far has decided to protect.

Remember, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States when the Constitution was ratified. It was supposedly incorporated through the 14th Amendment, although that Amendment actually talks in terms of procedural rights, not substantive rights.

As far as singling people out, that is just how you are construing the issue. Other people see it differently. Marriage laws gave benefits to a specific class of people--i.e., biologically compatible couples--in order to promote certain behavior for the benefit of offspring. Now that marriage has been reconcieved as an institution primarily for the benefit of adults, it arguably should include gay couples. But no one was discriminating against gay couples. The idea wasn't even around when the regime sprung up.

 

[RDU Irish]

The South wanted slaves so bad they were willing to go to war to keep them, and they lost. Nullification lost.

South picked a bad issue to rattle their state's rights sabre.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The South wanted slaves so bad they were willing to go to war to keep them, and they lost. Nullification lost.

Why should a war started by a bunch of crazy, slave-owning Southerners determine whether nullification was lost? It seems like when America demanded independence from England, it was saying, at least in part, that imaginary social contracts entered into by our anscestors cannot perpetually bind us.

Anyway, the story was a lot more complicated than that. Go read how Virgnia got into the war. Or what the Emancipation Proclamation did for slaves in Northern territories.

South picked a bad issue to rattle their state's rights sabre.

And I guess the North picked the perfect issue for rattling their perpetual union sabre!

 

[DonnieNarco]

The same arguments were made in the 50s to try to stop integration, and history repeats itself.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Such respect for the federal judiciary! But I dont think its so black and white. Alabama, like CALIFORNIA, banned gay marriage. One federally district judge said that the ban is unconstituional, and overturned a democratic majority. While the momentum appears to clearly be moving in that direction, the issue has certainly not been settled.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined a stay, so that no marriage licenses would be granted before the issue is settled. The Alabama Supreme Court believes that the federal courts are overstepping their constitional authority. Judge Moore, who clearly likes a fight, is telling them to obey Alabama law.

The nation is built on balance of powers. Not everything is spelled out perfectly. There is supposed to be a little back and forht. Can the President wage a war without Congress's approval? It's not clear, and the Supreme Court does not always jump in the middle to settle those arguemnts.

But when it comes to social issues, some have become fine with the Supreme Court-- 9 people, 5 from Harvard, 3 from Yale, 1 from Columbia--all settling these matters in a closed room by declaring what the Constituion supposedly says. We all know it is not based on what the Constitution actually says, but what Supreme Court says it means based on their judicially-created concept of "substantive due process" (how can a procedural right be substantive?). However, others think that this is EXTREMELY undemocratic.

We all hated the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson because its BS. Not only was it racist, but it was wrong, and it ultimately resulted in a civil war. But it was the law! It was "what the Constitution" said according to the people with the sole power to interpret it (suposedly). To oppose Plessy was to oppose the rule of law! To oppose the federal judiciary!

But we all act like respect for the rule of law requires that the Supreme Court gets oracle treatment.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court should stay out of these issues and let them play out when the Constituion is, in reality, silent. Its nice when they short circuit the system for your team, but its not democratic.

Wasn't Plessy vs Ferguson after the Civil War?

As far as it being democratic, couldn't I argue that the founders didn't care for complete democracy (hence the lack of a popular vote for Senators and Presidents, a judiciary that can override the legislative branch, etc) and that they loathed the "tyranny of the majority" too?

 

[DonnieNarco]

South picked a bad issue to rattle their state's rights sabre.

That happens a lot apparently.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The same arguments were made in the 50s to try to stop integration, and history repeats itself.

Thank goodness we are perpetually advnacing towards a better future behind the forces for good!

 

[Domina Nostra]

Wasn't Plessy vs Ferguson after the Civil War?

As far as it being democratic, couldn't I argue that the founders didn't care for complete democracy (hence the lack of a popular vote for Senators and Presidents, a judiciary that can override the legislative branch, etc) and that they loathed the "tyranny of the majority" too?

Yes. I meant Dred Scott. Good catch.

You absolutely could argue that. Its all pretty complicated. Sometime the majority is good sometimes its bad. Sometimes the minority needs portecting. Sometimes minorities are dangerous. Who gets to chose? That's not an easy question.

With gay marriage people switch between "its the right thing to do," to "most people want it," to "we need to respect the courts," to "we need to protect minorities," whenever the particular argument is convenient. Whenever that argument goes against them, they move on to the next.

The fact is that these issues are complicated, they are moral, and they are important. Just bad-mouthing the other side is not the way forward.

 

[DonnieNarco]

All of those arguments are still applicable except for the 2nd, which should never matter in civil rights. If it weren't for federal intervention there would still be segregation and no voting rights in the Deep South.

 

[MartyIrish]

Can we just remove all marital rights and put hetero and homo on the same footing? It is mostly a property issue anyway in relation to government's involvement in marriage. Largely stems from the lack of women's rights historically. Government "marriage certificate" should really be a contract to take on eachother's liabilities and share in assets.

My marriage is a religious construct. Government can get bent.

Exactly. This also goes back to the tax code.

Treat everyone as individuals and this isn't an issue.


While I don't care about gay marriage (I'm not gay).... It's not enough for gay marriage...now they are forcing churches to perform ceremonies, business owners to give up their personal beliefs...etc.

This is why gay marriage is popular among Americans....but most Americans still do not support the gay lifestyle.



Americans May Support Gay Marriage, But Not Demands for Cake, Flowers | Libertarian

 

[MartyIrish]

All of those arguments are still applicable except for the 2nd, which should never matter in civil rights. If it weren't for federal intervention there would still be segregation and no voting rights in the Deep South.

Oh yeah....and you know this because.......



(I love this argument from the left)

 

[Domina Nostra]

All of those arguments are still applicable except for the 2nd, which should never matter in civil rights. If it weren't for federal intervention there would still be segregation and no voting rights in the Deep South.

If it weren't for American intervention in Europe, they'd all be speaking either German or Russian, but that doesn't mean every subdequent American intervention is good (see Iraq), that everyone who supports it is FDR/Churchhill, and everyone who opposes it is Chamberlin/Hitler. Not all federal intervention is good just because it was very good at one point in the past.

There is no doubt in my mind that the federal goverenemnt was morally correct in that case. But my thinking is religious. I am not sure the federal gov't was legally correct. The country allowed slavery in the original constituion. That was the legal reality. That legal reality ultimately came head to head with deeper moral issues that were also ingrained in the American people, and that caused a huge explosion.

A lot of civil rights talk is just moral assertions in the end of the day. They can get dressed up in different language, but it often boils down to what we think is good, and what we think is bad. My belief is that a lot of people who constantly berate others for imposing their morals on everyone else, are guilty of exactly that, when they insist that society must mirror their beliefs about what an open-society has to look like.

Oh yeah....and you know this because.......

(I love this argument from the left)

No need to be argumentative , but its just like the civl war. England ended slavery peacefully, right? Christians abolisionists made the much stronger moral case--slavery can be dressed up in Christain rhetoric sort of, but its easy as pie to expose (see also MLK Jr.), and cotton prices were undermining the main financial justification for it at the same time. Especailly considering the Civil War wasn't even explicitly about freeing slaves (there was no declaration"This has to end. We will not live another day with an African American enslaved." ), maybe hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared if cooler heads prevailed, instead of demanding everything right now.

 

[RDU Irish]

Exactly. This also goes back to the tax code.

Treat everyone as individuals and this isn't an issue.


While I don't care about gay marriage (I'm not gay).... It's not enough for gay marriage...now they are forcing churches to perform ceremonies, business owners to give up their personal beliefs...etc.

This is why gay marriage is popular among Americans....but most Americans still do not support the gay lifestyle.



Americans May Support Gay Marriage, But Not Demands for Cake, Flowers | Libertarian

Rather than extend a misdirected "right", why not revoke it from married folks. Make it a contractual relationship, part of getting married would be a pre-nup signed by both parties and filed with the state. In most cases, it would be a 100% sharing of assets and liabilities with a legal framework already in place to deal with death, disability and divorce.

I don't much care if you are cousins, two males or a Mormon with 12 wives. In the eyes of government you are making property decisions and the lifestyle you take to your bedroom (or not) is none of their damn business.

 

[MartyIrish]

If it weren't for American intervention in Europe, they'd all be speaking either German or Russian, but that doesn't mean every subdequent American intervention is good (see Iraq), that everyone who supports it is FDR/Churchhill, and everyone who opposes it is Chamberlin/Hitler. Not all federal intervention is good just because it was very good at one point in the past.

There is no doubt in my mind that the federal goverenemnt was morally correct in that case. But my thinking is religious. I am not sure the federal gov't was legally correct. The country allowed slavery in the original constituion. That was the legal reality. That legal reality ultimately came head to head with deeper moral issues that were also ingrained in the American people, and that caused a huge explosion.

A lot of civil rights talk is just moral assertions in the end of the day. They can get dressed up in different language, but it often boils down to what we think is good, and what we think is bad. My belief is that a lot of people who constantly berate others for imposing their morals on everyone else, are guilty of exactly that, when they insist that society must mirror their beliefs about what an open-society has to look like.



No need to be argumentative , but its just like the civl war. England ended slavery peacefully, right? Christians abolisionists made the much stronger moral case--slavery can be dressed up in Christain rhetoric sort of, but its easy as pie to expose (see also MLK Jr.), and cotton prices were undermining the main financial justification for it at the same time. Especailly considering the Civil War wasn't even explicitly about freeing slaves (there was no declaration"This has to end. We will not live another day with an African American enslaved." ), maybe hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared if cooler heads prevailed, instead of demanding everything right now.

And people forget...the North had slaves.


My point is that atrocities are as likely to end, regardless of government intervention.

And most government intervention is brought on by the people.... one could argue those movements would continue with or without government

 

[Domina Nostra]

Rather than extend a misdirected "right", why not revoke it from married folks. Make it a contractual relationship, part of getting married would be a pre-nup signed by both parties and filed with the state. In most cases, it would be a 100% sharing of assets and liabilities with a legal framework already in place to deal with death, disability and divorce.

I don't much care if you are cousins, two males or a Mormon with 12 wives. In the eyes of government you are making property decisions and the lifestyle you take to your bedroom (or not) is none of their damn business.

We give certain scholarships to some kids and not others, because we make deicsions that its in the best interest of society in the long term to foster competitive workers, encourage certain professions, strengthen certain communities, etc.

While I agree that the goverenemtn should be largely indifferent to most private behavior, marraige benefits and protections are perfectly reasonable when they are intended to make life easier and more stable for parents who are raising the next generation of our country.

The thing that makes this issue interesting is that our concept of marriage has been so fundamentally latered that a lot of the benefits seem arbitrary, if it is just favoring one adult relationship over another. But that was not the purpose of encouraging and protecting marriage historically.