Orange County Register columnist Tibor R. Machan writes today on gay "marriage" from a libertarian's perspective. Libertarians believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to do nearly anything they want unless their behavior adversely affects someone else's right to the same freedom. It's not a bad philosophy except for its practical limitations.
Machan argues that there are a great many matters about which people should not get to vote. The First Amendment, for example, "rules out voting on religious practices." "Voting on whether one may elect to die with the aid of a willing assistant" is like "voting on whether some of us should be enslaved." Such voting shouldn't be allowed, Machan argues.
Likewise, voting a ban on same-sex "marriage" shouldn't be allowed because "It is no one's business, apart from the couple's, whether they should get married.""So long as gays marrying each other forces no one to do anything ... it is no one's proper authority to prohibit it. All the gay bashers need to accept this, however their twisted reasoning tries to escape it." Machan admits that it's not that simple -- that marriage conveys certain legal privileges that others must provide -- but he believes that should be dealt with separately.
Machan fails to mention a key fact: In California, partners in same-sex partnerships have exactly the same rights as married heterosexuals have. After Proposition 8, they simply can't get a marriage license. They can say they're married. They can call themselves Mr. and Mrs. or mommy and daddy or husband and wife or Joe and John or whatever they wish. They can even have a minister or priest or rabbi or imam "marry" them if they wish. They can say they're the same as married. The only thing they can't properly do is claim they're legally married.
Now, if there is no difference in the civil rights of a partner in a same-sex partnership and a married heterosexual, what basic rights are being withheld from the former? Answer: There are none. The debate is about whether the word "marriage" can legally be associated with a same-sex union. Those in favor of the ban say it can't, properly, because a same-sex union doesn't meet the definition of a marriage as that term has been understood historically. To change the definition to include a same-sex union is to corrupt the meaning of the word. Gays insist that failure to include same-sex union within the definition deprives them of respect and acceptance for which they desperately pine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You write, "Machan fails to mention a key fact: In California, partners in same-sex partnerships have exactly the same rights as married heterosexuals have." Actually Machan discusses just this fact in his column. You need to read more carefully.
Post a Comment