[extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change

[David Lubkin]

This reply is a little muddled, but it's not likely to get better without 
more sleep.

Harvey wrote:

>I agree totally.  This is totally about government interference focussed 
>at creating different classes of citizens of people with different levels 
>of recognition by the state.

Every society and every state divides beings into classes with differing 
rights, benefits, and obligations.

In our own, we distinguish human / non-human, military / civilian, adult / 
child, citizen / non-citizen, felon / non-felon, competent / incompetent, 
resident / non-resident, male / female, voter / non-voter, taxpayer / 
non-taxpayer, legal / illegal, approved minority / unapproved minority, 
married / single, law enforcement / civilian, profession with privilege / 
other profession, senior / non-senior, physician / non-physician, lawyer / 
non-lawyer, judge / non-judge, eligible to marry / not eligible to marry, 
press / non-press, etc.

Some of these distinctions have justifications that are acceptable to a 
libertarian. Some we would accept now but want to ultimately abolish. 
Others are acceptable to rational, thought-ful non-libertarians, whose 
premises or priorities differ from ours.

With the issue of gay marriage, as with most other issues, there are points 
of common ground between opposing positions. Exploring the "needs and 
wants" of different camps -- and distinguishing between needs and wants -- 
could lead to workable partial or complete solutions that would be widely 
acceptable. But, as with abortion or guns, a partisan can't acknowledge any 
legitimacy to opposing arguments or partial solutions for fear of losing 
political ground.

In the arena of marriage, consider the prohibition on incestuous marriage. 
Where, amusingly, all societies have bans on some marriages, while 
permitting others, without direct connection to genetic hazard.

When you step beyond religious arguments, the rationale for prohibiting 
consenting adult close-relatives from marrying is a concern over creating 
deformed babies. A libertarian may reasonably argue that it is only the 
business of those involved. But one may counter that someone must speak on 
behalf of those future babies to prevent short, hard lives.

A workable compromise might be that an incestuous adult couple may marry 
after receiving mandatory genetic counseling. The counseling is waived if 
the couple is not biologically capable of reproduction.

No one would be happy with this, but it would address the key legitimate 
concerns of each group.

Similarly, with regard to gay marriage, there are non-religious, legitimate 
arguments in opposition. Not necessarily ones that a libertarian would 
agree with, but I don't presume that all decent and rational people are 
libertarian.

As long as we are mortal, for any society to continue, there must be 
replacement members. It is reasonable for someone to be concerned that new 
members are created, and that they are protected until adulthood.  It is 
reasonable to want a social mechanism that encourages this. It is 
reasonable to not want that member production to be dependent on the 
presence of an enabling technology, so that the society can survive in the 
face of a profound technological collapse.

One place a compromise may lie on gay marriage is a variant of Mike's 
approach. Retain marriage as a legal construct, but refocus the benefits, 
and remove them from government as much as is practicable.

This is done in Israel, albeit imperfectly. Jews and Arabs are largely 
treated indistinguishably under law. A non-governmental entity, the Jewish 
Agency, wants to ensure that the country remains majority Jewish. To this 
end, they have a program of giving a substantial cash payment to any Jewish 
Israeli mother each time she gives birth.

In the US, if one believed that an existing benefit of marriage served a 
useful goal, say social stability or providing a nurturing home to raise 
children, one would be free to privately subsidize and support that goal.

We should not confuse "I don't want X done" with "I don't want X done as a 
state function."


-- David.