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

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?
1 comment
Read more

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici
Post a Comment
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