Writes Chantal Saucier: “I’ve been reading all the posts and articles about the state’s involvement with the institution of marriage with interest and, like others, I think that this is much more than a ‘gay’ issue.

“It’s no secret, for example, that marriage is included in the tax code and that some couples tie the knot (earlier than they probably should) in order to enjoy a lesser tax burden. Other times, or I should say in other places where tax laws are different, people choose not to marry (or divorce!) for the very same reason.

“Another example are people pretending not to be married anymore (claiming two addresses) so they can enjoy welfare checks and free lunches, while they live together like a happy family.

“Immigration is yet another area where we find the institution of marriage misplaced. I’m sure you have all heard of ‘green-card marriages’ and how hard it is the government to control who gets married for real and who gets married for the prized card (which is actually white). But if marriage was taken out of immigration laws, there would no incentive for people to fake marriages whatsoever (and no need for IRS marriage cops visiting people in their home to verify that one knows the color of the other one’s toothbrush!).

All the state’s regulations that include marriage in them contribute to the demise of the institution of marriage itself; this affects many more people than we realize. Couples used to marry because they loved one another, not because they could save taxes or it allowed them to live where they wanted to live.

“I think there needs to be a divorce between the state and the institution of marriage, on all levels. Of course, the state being the abusive partner in this relationship, it will likely put up a fight and make it a nasty divorce. Oh well, what else is new?”

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Writes Adam Young: “As a subject of the only jurisdiction in North America where the State has granted legal use of the word ‘marriage’ to homosexuals, I’d like to add my thoughts on the Epstein-Hardman-DeCoster discussion. It was only a few years ago when over 80% of the members of the Canadian federal parliament passed a resolution declaring that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Yet, this has now recently been overturned by a single court in Ontario and in response the federal government is now crafting a bill to legitimize homosexual marriage.

“The experience of Canada has illustrated Karen’s point, I think, as the hostility of the modern state to ‘inequality’ is absolute. From the modern State’s basis in equality, it is inevitable that many will claim the existing State privileges for traditional norms to legitimize what was only recently abnormal. Homosexual marriage is just one such example. So long as the State monopolizes social institutions, the pressures to equalize access to them will grow as these movements for widescale legitimacy grow, such as homosexual marriage.”

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Marcus, I don’t “see State involvement in marriage as inevitably leading to social corruption of the institution,” I see State involvement in anything as corrupting. The State corrupts everything that it involves itself in, and surely, nothing is more flawed than the State inserting itself (pardon the pun) into family and personal lives.

What “problems would exist” in spite of an anarchy-based order? Homosexuality? What’s your solution? Banning homos, drug addicts, S &M types – and anybody else with creepy habits – to the Gulag? You are advocating the use of State force to keep gays unmarried, when in fact that is statist nonsense. As to the “Marriage Amendment being a minor affront to the principles of state sovereignty,” no one is more tired of the gay agenda than I am, however, Congress was not granted the power to prevent the sovereign states, like Vermont, from allowing gay marriage. Stephan Kinsella discusses this at length on this very website. And no, the State did not force Disney and the Council of Churches to jump on the pro-gay bandwagon, but guess what? These are private interests making private decisions, and like these decisions or not, the right to discriminate in favor of one class of people, or against another class, is essential to a truly private property rights-based, libertarian society. The best we can do is criticize such decisions, and hope to turn the tide of opinion against such a thing. After all, isn’t that what the gays have been working toward, and have accomplished, in order to further their agenda?

300618

The Best of Karen De Coster

I think Bill Barnwell was looking for the opinion of some other religious types, so I’ll chime in. Even as a traditionalist Catholic, I strongly disagree with my fellow religionists on many matters, especially those concerning the State. That being said, I vehemently disagree with Marcus Epstein, and I agree with Charley Hardman completely.

I think as far as two people being a “couple,” that is decided by their internal and spoken commitment to each other. Any two people can be a couple, whether they are gay, “shacking up,” etc. So what? Who cares about the lousy piece of paper from the State? However, I can’t believe folks are missing the most obvious fact in this whole gay marriage thing: marriage, by definition, is the union between a man and a woman. So what’s the problem here? Gays can’t be married! The problem is that gays are trying to finangle the State to help make them that which they can never be: a married couple. They can be a couple, but why aren’t they content with going off and making the internal commitment to one another that they are, indeed, a couple? Because they, like every other special interest or minority group, want to use the State to squash society’s traditions with their notion of lifestyle, and they want it accepted as “normal” (oh how the PC Peoples hate that word). But that kind of thing is just as “normal” to society as the relationship/union between a 70-year-old man and 12-year-old girl. Look at immigration; it is the largest of State programs (next to war), but many libertarians who support it do so because they have hatred for traditional institutions and the idea of voluntary association/integration. Just read some of these “forums” out there that constantly assault the anti- immigration views of LRC.

300591

The Best of Karen De Coster