Skip to main content

Non-sequiteur of the day

"This is the beginning of
a unique institution. Get in
the cave, b----h!"
David Anderson:
Marriage . . . is a unique institution in human history that has shaped civilization before written history.
 Other than that unquestionable Source of Sources (the Hebrew Bible), exactly how do we know that marriage was shaping civilization before people started writing?

The archaeological find of the millenium?  Eve's wedding ring?

As for the incredibly ethnocentric statement that marriage is a "unique institution," somebody really needs to do some research (even throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition) to discover that the history of marriage includes some rather wide variations, and has almost always existed for economic rather than "spiritual" purposes.

In fact, the Western definition of marriage is among the most restrictive in history.

But, hey, don't let actual history get in the way of a good diatribe on history as evangelical Christians would like it to have been.

So this primary season think about the candidates who see marriage equality as a constitutional right, and don't think that a particular view of the King James Bible should rule a secular society.

Comments

kavips said…
I dug this out of my archives. It was also a response to the idea that heterosexual marriage is natural law and therefore sanctioned by the Constitution, a claim once made by the same person who is the subject of your post today.....

http://kavips.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-rescue-hot-sex-and-natural-law/

September 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Eric Dondero said…
So then, why don't we just abolish marriage altogether Steve? Have the courage of your convictions. If you believe what you say in this piece, than one must assume that you're just anti-marriage altogether.

Oopsie, that's probably not a winning position for the Libertarian Party of Delaware, so you're probably not willing to say that out loud.
September 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said…
@ Eric

Marriage is not a function of government; it neither has the right to sanction, condone, restrict, endorse or regulate. It certainly cannot abolish (to use your words).

Marriage is a Sacrament in my religion. It’s meaning and requirements begins and ends with the church. My marriage is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, I could give a rat’s ass what the State of Delaware thinks.

Most (all) Libertarians believe that what consenting adults do in their bedroom does not need the sanctioning (license) of the State. Libertarians are not pro or anti marriage. Your entire point is pointless.

John Galt
September 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM
LaoTze said…
I would love to have government out of marriage. If we decide it is helpful to have a public registry of civil union to allow for such things as end of life decisions, I'm fine with that. But my marriage and Mr. Galts marriage are vastly different things. That's good.
September 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM
kavips said…
Abolish marriage altogether???? Just because same sex couples want the same rights as opposite sex couples? So you are going to abolish marriage altogether... Ok.. Let's do it..

However, the same results could be achieved by simply letting those people who wanted to get married do so, and letting those people who didn't want to get married, also do so....

That makes more sense than abolishing all marriage, and thereby pissing off EVEN MORE people... duh....
September 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Dana Garrett said…
Personally, I'm for the idea of getting the state out of the marriage recognition business altogether. Let the state recognize civil unions only, something that can be done by filling out a form. Leave marriage to religions or other groups to regulate as they wish. But if the state doesn't quit the marriage-recognition business, then it should recognize homosexual marriages. Otherwise the dictum "equality under the law" has no meaning.
September 4, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more