Government Plays Social Conservatives Like a Fiddle

Bob Vander Plaats, a leader among social conservatives in Iowa, is unimpressed by Ron Paul’s views on marriage. Why, he should support federal government involvement in marriage if he has any kind of moral compass, says Vander Plaats.

Here is precisely what I meant when I said on the Steve Deace Show, an Iowa-based radio program with a large evangelical audience, that conservatives seem to be in the habit of waiting for the Left to do something, and then, when it’s gone on long enough, treating the Left’s innovation as the “conservative” position. Throughout the history of Christendom marriage was removed from the purview of government. This was a matter for churches and civil society.

It was only during the French Revolution, which was not undertaken by people sympathetic to Bob Vander Plaats, that the state began to insist on being involved in marriage. This was an outrageous intrusion. Now that it’s gone on for 200 years, conservatives are actually defending it, and implying only a leftist hippie would disagree.

Richard Simpson

So… you’re actually worried about that? Or just trying to better understand Nancy’s concerns?
Richard Simpson

Correct me if I’m wrong, but gays don’t need a license to sin, only to call it marriage. But you’re worried about the contract, not the sin? WTF?

Why not just call gay marriage a ‘corporation’? Too accurate?
Richard Simpson

Because in their evil hearts they think it will harm their enemies more than themselves.
Richard Simpson

“This arrangement makes sense theoretically, as those most likely to care about the child are those that
created it. ”
So, tell me again why govt is necessary, if the 2 parties most responsible are already motivated?
restoresoundmoney

Thank you, Bernardo. Excellent reminder of the “basics” around this whole question–marriage as religious institution involving no contracts obviating any State intervention at all.
Tony

The government will force gay people to marry?
I’d never heard of that.
That’s outrageous.
Brad_Smith

As usual Mr. Woods is spot on. The government has no business being involved in marriage. They have no business being involved with our bodies in any way provided we don’t use them to harm others. Governmental authority should be limited to the protection of property. (of course our bodies are also our property and not to be protected in a way that allows use of them by anyone but ourselves as we see fit.)

Someday in the future we might manage to stop damaging others property and then we would have no need for government at all. Accidents could be managed through mediation (same with breach of contract). vonluntary co-ops could be put in place to handle emergencies, zoning, roads etc.
Brad_Smith

I also find it interesting to note that like the marriage license the minimum wage was also a racist policy.

In the case of marriage it stated that blacks could not marry whites. The minimum wage was put in place to stop blacks who were emigrating from the South from taking jobs from whites in the North.

We really have not come all that far. We allow blacks and whites to marry but not gays and the minimum wage laws are still crushing minorities.
Anonymous

Yet another point that ought to be made is that government-approved marriage makes no practical difference anyway. Divorces are pretty easy to obtain most places, and millions of people in this country cohabit in defiance of the existing marriage laws, so the authorities can’t possibly see marriage in itself as being all that valuable.

For example: I can get married, then cheat on my wife and the state will do nothing except grant a divorce if one one of us wants it. The state in effect approves my action by letting me off the hook. If my wife or mistress should become pregnant, she can have an abortion and that’s all fine and dandy, too. If I want to marry my mistress, or simply move in with her, that’s still OK — the state will do nothing. What’s more, I can repeat the process. If I happen to be gay, I can likewise cohabit with a partner and the state will do nothing about it.

Marriage laws seem to exist for the following purposes: First, the provide the state with a source of revenue, because every state requires the prospective bride and groom to buy a “license.” Oftentimes the “fee” goes to support the local public school system, which never seems to have enough money despite enjoying a near-monopoly thanks to the state.
Second, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 mandates that the prospective bride and groom supply their Social Security numbers so the state can further control their lives by taking away their livelihoods if they fail to obey court orders.
Third, they serve as a means of enforcing the society’s conventional morality (not necessarily godly or righteous morality) by punishing anyone whose lifestyles find themselves at odds with those of the majority.
Tolerance, for example, seems not to include polygamy. If I have one or more wives (no more than one of whom can be legal due to state marriage laws), I can be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison (presumably for violating bigamy prohibitions, although technically I wouldn’t be as I would be legally married to only one). This is true even if all my wives are of legal age, all of them want to be married to me, there are children in the household and they are all being raised according to the Bible or whatever holy book we might happen to follow. However, if I had affairs with all of them at different addresses, the process described above in the second paragraph above would kick in and nothing bad would likely happen.

Government-monitored marriage arrangements of any kind can have nefarious purposes. I remember the scene from Braveheart where William Wallace married his bride at night in a forest because the didn’t want to share her with an English lord (the disgusting medieval legal doctrine of prima noctis, which was enforced upon any couple who married publicly).

Some states, such as Texas, do allow for common-law marriage; and I’m thinking of advising my son when he is ready to marry that he and his fiancee consider moving to one of those and marrying that way.
Anonymous

Guys like Vander Plaats would do many Tyrannical Regimes proud.
Brad_Smith

Another problem which should be self evident is that so many people are tyring to solve the problems created by government with more government. In the case of marriage most people think that the government needs to step in to allow marriage because without the liscence you don’t have the same benifits.

For instance in the military you must be married to recieve extra pay for food and housing as well as dependent care, insurance and the notification of deployments and many other benefits.

You get tax benefits and SSI and other things only if you are “married” Get rid of that and there is no need for a license, Right?

The answer isn’t more government it’s less. Simply allow contract law to work properly. All a marriage is is a contract. If two people or more choose to form a contract let them. If your business only allows for benefits for one spouce then decide who gets that!
Brandon

Because they aren’t always motivated. Of all people the biological parents are the “most likely” to be motivated, but it isn’t guaranteed. After the child has been created, it seems that it should have some claim on care from its parents and that the state may have an interest in enforcing that obligation. Otherwise, when parents got tired of their children they could just abandon them.

Libertarianism is attractive to me because it tends to give very clean answers to what is right or wrong when it comes to contracting independent individuals. But with children where there is dependency, where the individuals are not fully developed and independent, the answers aren’t as clear to me. I’m seeking for the missing pieces here. Perhaps someone here has some pointers to some good writing on the subject.
Brandon

I believe that the govt.’s interest is not in the two people being married, but in protecting the interests of the potential product of the marriage – the children. How does taking children into account change your analysis, if at all? (Please read my earlier post on this thread if you haven’t already)
ND52′, Oklahoma City

I’ll raise my children as I see fit @288acdb8e91b0672744c79bc35ce42ec:disqus . Everyone else can mind their own business.
ND52′, Oklahoma City

@6b8838d8cfe36333788d1565c358b962:disqus Please stop now. You just compered Ron Paul to Newt Gingrich for crying out loud..
Brandon

I sympathize with that feeling. I don’t want the govt. to dictate how I raise my children either. But I have a hard time with the idea that they are my property. If they are my property and I can do what I want with them, then if I ever get tired of them can I just put them in a bag and drown them in a river with impunity?
ND52′, Oklahoma City

Wow………………………..just wow. I think you need counseling.
Brandon

Apparently I didn’t make myself clear. Let me try again.

What I am trying to understand is if there are limits to what people can do with their children. If there are, then this is where the state’s interest might be found, if it is to be found at all. The question at the end of my previous comment is rhetorical. It seems obvious (to me anyway) that parents can’t go so far as to just dump their children. Why? Because children are people too. And if they are people with inherent rights that deserve protection, then would not this be a legitimate use of state power?

Then by extension if the state has an interest in protecting the rights of children, then could they have an interest in at least encouraging men and women to form a lasting commitment so that children will be more likely to be taken care of?

These are sincere questions. I’m putting this line of thinking out there to discover if there are good arguments against it. So if you don’t agree, please explain.
Brad_Smith

I don’t see how a marriage license has any effect on “protecting the interests of the potential product of the marriage – the children”. I can have as many children as I would like out of wedlock and they would still have the same rights and protections as any child born to a married couple.
nofiatmoney

Brandon,

Simply put, they are your “property” in the sense that you have been entrusted with them and their well-being for a time. Otherwise, the concept is a “reductio ad absurdum”, as you note.
nofiatmoney

Brandon,

Simply put, they are your “property” in the sense that you have been entrusted with them and their well-being for a time. Otherwise, the concept is a “reductio ad absurdum”, as you note.
Brad_Smith

Every individual is born with rights. I would even go so far as to say that this extends to the unborn.
ND52′, Oklahoma City

I think Barry Goldwater said it best when he said, “you can’t legislate morality”.

Brandon, while you seem like a sincere person who wishes to better society you also seem very naive’. Your belief that govt should encourage marriage and that marriage somehow makes for happy children is really great when viewed inside a vacuum but it’s totally unrealistic in today’s crazy society.

Children are people too. Children deserve protection. The sun always rises in the east.

How does one respond to the glaringly obvious? ”Good observation”?
Brandon

Look. I am not asking you to talk down to me. That’s not going to help anything. I am asking you to answer my questions.

People here are contending that the state has NO interest in marriage. If marriage were nothing more than a contract between two individuals, I would heartily agree. But it is more than that. The interests of the children come into play. What I am trying to understand if you take children into account, does it still hold that state has absolutely no interest in marriage.

Note that I’m not arguing for the status quo. Historically in American jurisprudence it has been argued that the state’s interest is in the children. Even if the state’s current approach to marriage (marriage licenses) may be wrong, it may be still be true that the state has a legitimate interest. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
ND52′, Oklahoma City

The state looks after children through numerous laws already on the books. Some would say too many but that’s another topic of debate.

Some people just have no business getting married and/or having kids. But it’s THEIR decision.

Do you really wanna see the govt getting even MORE involved?
http://profiles.google.com/mkaney Matthew Kaney

I get what you’re saying Brandon, I don’t know how much more clearly you have to word it for people to respond in a linear, on topic fashion. I believe you are giving an argument similar to helmet laws… if the government is tasked with cleaning up/regulating the mess, does it not give them some right to try and prevent the mess to begin with (e.g. promoting marriage in order to fulfill its mandate of defending the rights of a child proactively). I would argue, however callous it may sound, that it is not up to the state to actually have such an interest in the children. That sounds bad, but the reality today is actually no worse. For example, the state makes abusing a child illegal, but on the other hand is willing to feed children oodles of drugs to make them “normal.” It is highly subjective which form of abuse is worse (in the context of the long term effects, not the immediate result). So tradition though it may be, there is not a clear case that it is the correct function of the state to begin with.
http://profiles.google.com/mkaney Matthew Kaney

I think you’re missing the point Nancy. It’s the “you can’t have it both ways issue.” If, in fact, the state is to be the custodian of marriage, then it MUST provide equal protection under the law. In other words, in this scenario (state controlling marriage) you cannot and should not stop the supreme court. That’s the point here.. the only way to ensure that the rules of your community reflect your values is to challenge the right of the state to control marriage.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that accepting the role of the state in controlling marriage while fighting against the supreme court forcing gay marriage across the nation, is the position of the bigot and the authoritarian. What you must fight is the core problem, the power of the central government over social institutions like marriage.
http://profiles.google.com/mkaney Matthew Kaney

The problem with your argument is that an abortion is a singular event. Once it’s done, it’s done. It can’t be undone by moving to or doing business in a state which doesn’t allow abortions, because recognizing the abortion is not what makes it a reality. So again, this violates equal protection under the law (federal law).
http://profiles.google.com/mkaney Matthew Kaney

Nancy why should we desire convince them of something by showing them how a corrupted system will create an environment in which they will be happy. The goal should be consistency of ideology, what you’re describing is business as usual politics.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1478243313 Dwight Johnson

Some states have a death penalty; others do not. A person executed in a death-penalty state is dead; a singular event. If he had lived in a non-death-penalty state, he would not be dead. Is this too a violation of equal protection? Or is it a matter of states rights, subsidiarity, and an act of humility in the face of difficult moral questions?
Republic Reminder

A lot of words but fails under the basic premise. All legitimate “rights” are endowed by our Creator. “Civil” rights are an invention of a government usurping the authority of our Creator. We fail to honor our Creator by submitting ourselves to the licensing process of a civil government. Instead of having a marriage being a covenant between a man, a woman and God it becomes a contract between a person, another person and the government. God is the one who sanctifies a marriage. The question is if a man marries another man with a license and a different man marries a woman before God without a license, who is really married? God fearing people would answer the man and the woman. Licentious people would answer the two men. God doesn’t sanctify an abomination so it is impossible for two men to ever be married before him.
nofiatmoney

Brandon,

I would have to say the answer is to your question is “No”. I do not believe the state has a legitimate interest in this matter for society’s sake; only its own.

If one grants that the state is nothing more than a tool of violence, force and coercion, I don’t see how it’s logically possible.

The state may act under the pretense of legitimacy and the “good” of society (“good” is a moral category), but I believe this to be true only on a theoretical level.
fairandbalanced

I’ve recently begun studying economics and in the process discovered this site and am reading a couple of books by Dr. Woods.

I converted to Catholicism as an adult 17 years ago, and it was an agonizing process, because I had to reject things I held to be true, leave behind certain behaviors, accept ideas I previously rejected, and accept new challenges and responsibilities. I mention this because reading about some of the libertarian views about certain social issues, I’m feeling the same kind of conflict, and am wondering if I will be going through another painful “conversion experience.”

But at the moment, I’m on the fence (which is a very recent movement from supporting “Defense of Marriage) regarding the gay marriage or gay civil union issue.

My main concern is that even though I now see that the idea of the state being involved in the marriage process is an intrusion, it is what we have come to know and is now a part of our culture. Many people don’t go to church but still hold to some belief in Jesus or some for of god, and might see the civil union as somewhat “religious” or some kind of bond before god and man, and when it is redefined to include same-sex couples, it offends the majority to whom it means the union of a man and a woman, bearing children, etc.

So the federal government has no business being involved in marriage? I get that now, but do we make things better or worse by getting it involved in marriage with a new and more inclusive definition.

And I remember reading something from the pope and some US bishops opposing gay civil unions and stressing that the state should not sanction such unions, so as a practicing Catholic, I have to give their words a lot of weight. But I also remember that when I became a Catholic my wife and I had to get a real sacramental marriage, since she was a lapsed Catholic

Anyway, I’m confused and I’m trying to sort this all out, and to understand how this should be regarding the state, the federal government, and religious institutions.
fairandbalanced

edit

The last sentence in the second to last paragraph should be:

But I also remember that when I became a Catholic my wife and I had to married in the Church, since she was a lapsed Catholic, and the Church did not recognize our “marriage” and considered it to be only a “civil union”…
fairandbalanced

My apologies for the sloppy posts. I’m used to posting on boards where I can go back over the posts and clean them up.
Anonymous

Of course religious marriage is not a legal contract. However, we all assume here that the state shall have no influence on (non-aggressive) religious rites. Civil marriage is not a religious rite at all. It is a legal agreement between parties. These are two separate institutions that have been unfortunately merged together.