Last night, Instapundit had a post about Gay Marriage. (emphasis added in bold)
I think that acceptance of gay marriage is only a matter of time, and not a while lot of time at that, and that changes via litigation are less likely to be seen as legitimate than changes via legislation. Of course, with an anti-gay-marriage President in the White House, I guess it’s hard to put a lot of faith in electoral politics right now . . . .
Ouch.
At least one of your Founding Bloggers emailed Glenn to share our unsolicited .02 on the subject, and he was kind enough to link to this post of ours, advocating for separation of marriage and state.
Everyone seems to get caught up in the question of should the government allow gay marriage or not. Nobody stops to ask themselves why the government (state or federal) should be in the business of regulating personal relationships to begin with. [More...]
The gist of our point; What’s “small government conservative” about state regulated relationships?
[...] the original post here: Gay Marriage Flashback : Founding Bloggers AKPC_IDS += "5304,";Popularity: unranked [...]
Founding Bloggers obviously has some kind of personal, emotional interest in this subject that is not truly small gov’t related.
Separation of School and State would shrink gov’t.
Separation of Marriage and State would GROW gov’t as the gov’t then has to involve itself more and more in the raising and care (poor raising and bad care it will be) of children. More schooling (AKA childcare), more health programs and social programs.
Destroying marriage and stay at home parents has a price. A high price.
Man + Woman = Child
This is the ONLY RELATIONSHIP that the gov’t has any interest in supporting in any way. It is not a value judgement just a biological FACT. Period.
So your point is that is okay to have the nanny state, so long as it’s in line with your moral belief?
And no, our interest is in getting the government off of everyone’s back, not just groups you morally approve of.
We actually have a similar position on the drug war. Regardless of the morality or immorality of drug use, a government conducting a war against it’s own people is counter productive.
Tea Time, is marriage between a man and women such a weak concept that it will crumble and fail if the Nanny state doesn’t regulate it?
Pathetic.
Founding Blogger. Oh pleeeese… is that your argument? I thought as much. I never said *anything* about MORAL – I said the opposite. It isn’t a moral issue, it is a scientific issue. A biological issue. An economic issue. People pushing morality are the ones claiming this is a *right* or a value judgment. It isn’t. It is math and science! That ruse is just to shake us down for gov’t goodies.
Sadly, my point was that most people do in fact support the points of gov’t that serve their needs – they want the NANNY that supports THEM but are happy to take away YOUR NANNY (for example the benefits the military pays to all the spouses). And public school is the very definition of NANNY, but you must be okay with that nanny, eh? See, it is all a matter of personal taste and POWER, isn’t it? Cause if it was freedom, then I would definitely get back my $25k for public education paid in the last 10 years that I did not use. See how that works?
You have consistently failed to coherently argue any way around my logic with regard to the state’s interest in supporting the male/female relationship because of its SINGULAR ability to PROCREATE OFFSPRING. You just keep repeating, like a liberal, the mantra that the state has no interest in marriage (a bald faced lie) which I have pointed out at every turn.
You can’t argue with the fact that stay at home parents are the biggest defense against BIG GOVERNEMENT because it is politically difficult terrain to defend in a population increasingly selfish and greedy. (That is a moral observation, BTW.)
I care not what adults do with relationships. They can self-indulge to their hearts content, but *parents* raising *children* deserve to be supported and encouraged by the civilization (including the gov’t) in which they live. It will always limit gov’t to have strong, healthy families.
Let’s not get nasty over this. I apologize if my comments about your personal interest in this issue went in that direction, but your retort kind of confirms that. I LIKE your site and frequently tell others about it – that it is consistently on top of very many issues. But this issue is a blind spot for you. I just have to point that out. Perhaps I should comment more on the positive. You do good work here, so have a good day.
Tea- You make keep making assumptions about me. I appreciate your dedication in reading and commenting here, but I have no personal axe to grind on this issue.
For the record, I do not support public schools (unless a state or locality decides they want one)
I am also against the drug war.
I also think the government should get the hell out of the abortion issue, and that has zero bearing on my own personal beliefs of abortion.
My position that the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating personal relationships is pretty consistent with these views.
Thanks very much for the kind words regarding the work we are doing here. I hope that our little disagreement here doesn’t get in the way of your enjoyment of Founding Bloggers.
I have a profound appreciation for our readers, and especially those who are passionate enough to comment.
Your desire to be perfectly consistent is admirable, but it is not as consistent as you think if making gov’t remain small is your ultimate goal. Reality is what it is. Words have fundamental meanings and ideas put into action have fundamental consequences (intended and otherwise). Dissolving the small amount of support for families that is left would be a tragic mistake.
Calling a person with two males or two females a “dog breeding business” is stretching reality (simply a biological fact) and the gov’t should not financially support that “business” in any way, although that doesn’t mean that the person involved doesn’t love dogs or should not have them. Gay relationships are simply not the business of the state while heterosexual ones are. That is not just a consistent view for me, but a consistent view of reality. And while some people base moral ideas upon this physical reality (used to be called the natural law), that does not mean that you have to have a moral belief about it to understand the reality of it.
I very much appreciate your allowing me to respond, and I am sure we agree far more than we disagree. It is a bit of a fantasy that we are both indulging in to think gov’t will get out of any of this anyway, isn’t it? We can keep hoping though!
And a bit of spicy disagreement will only make me enjoy your site more. I will continue to recommend it to others. Cheers!
Thanks Tea. I think our only real point of disagreement here is the degree to which the traditional family depends on state sanction/support. I think it would survive just fine because religious institutions will still perform the ceremony, and a legal contract can still be filed.
There will be no fewer heterosexuals desiring to start families in any case. In other words, there won’t be a heterosexual couple that will suddenly decide not to marry simply because the state is not involved.
The problem, and this is about to play out in DC regarding abortion and the catholic church, is that by inviting the state in to regulate, you run the risk that one day the state will say it is illegal for a church NOT to perform a gay ceremony. The ACLU will have a field day filing civil rights suits, and many a church treasury will be evaporated in the process.
Get the state out of the relationship sanctioning business, and that potential threat is removed.