The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-10-19 05:50

"Legalising" gay "marriage" is not the solution to the problem of "marriage inequality".

The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing "marriage licences" to opposite-sex couples, not for it to get into the business of issuing "marriage licences" to same-sex couples.

Why should anyone require a licence from the government to get married, anyway? Libertarians should be concerned with abolishing such governmental intrusions, not clamouring for "intrusion equality", or insisting that the State "should recognise everybody’s right to be equally miserable."

The solution has a precedent in the abolition of titular Knighthood and Damehood honours by Helen Clark. (They were restored by John Key in 2009.) Wikipedia says

In April 2000 the new Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that knighthoods and damehoods were abolished, and the order's statutes were amended accordingly. Between 2000 and 2009, the two highest awards were called Principal Companion (PCNZM) and Distinguished Companion (DCNZM), and recipients did not receive the title "Sir" or "Dame". Their award was recognised solely by the use of post-nominal letters, as for the lower levels of the order.

The government simply needs to set a date after which marriage licences will no longer be issued. Civil unions will be the only option available for gay and non-gay couples wanting governmental endorsement of their love lives and living arrangements. Existing marriage licences issued by the government, and those issued by other governments, would continue to be recognised, but the government would cease to issue new marriage licences after the set date.

After much time spent considering my co-bloggers' excellent arguments both for (Tim) and against (Reed) Louisa Wall's "marriage equality" bill, I'm off the fence now and picking the splinters out of my scrotum. I'm for marriage equality and against Wall's bill.

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

Oh yes, Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Reed wrote:

"I don't think you could accept more (or even what I've said already) and I don't think being more honest would be in your best interest."

Well, when your brand of honesty includes self-admitted evasion, I do find it unseemly to deal with. And we should all take note that you have behaved the exact same way on this thread when providing non-answers, no doubt because you are embarrassed by your own views.

I find it rather hilarious that a self-admitted evader promotes himself as honest and interested in "discussion". You apparently fall in Richard's ethical category of "delusion".

Michael

Michael

reed's picture

Are there no other definitions of the noun?
I don't know. Those are the only definitions of the noun "muse" in my computer's dictionary.

You shouldn't take Rosie's light hearted jab so seriously.

I know this is hard for you Reed, but why don't you try a little more honesty.
I don't think you could accept more (or even what I've said already) and I don't think being more honest would be in your best interest.

Hi Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

I like dictionaries. But just because the dictionary says so does not make it so.

Btw, where can I buy your "book"?

Michael

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Dictionary definitions of muse

You forget that Michael has debunked the "dictionary says it is so" argument numerous times already.

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Are you being daft, Reed?

Are there no other definitions of the noun?

I know this is hard for you Reed, but why don't you try a little more honesty.

Michael

Dictionary definitions of muse

reed's picture

muse 1 |mjuːz|
noun
1 (Muse) (in Greek and Roman mythology) each of nine goddesses, the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, who preside over the arts and sciences.
The Muses are generally listed as Calliope (epic poetry), Clio (history), Euterpe (flute playing and lyric poetry), Terpsichore (choral dancing and song), Erato (lyre playing and lyric poetry), Melpomene (tragedy), Thalia (comedy and light verse), Polyhymnia (hymns, and later mime), and Urania (astronomy).
2 a woman, or a force personified as a woman, who is the source of inspiration for a creative artist.

Rosie...

Michael Moeller's picture

You apparently only consult your dictionary for the definition of 'marriage'. If you had bothered to look up the definition of 'muse', you would note that 'muse' refers to anything that inspires an artist, and is not even confined to humans.

It is rather funny, this episode. I lightly poke fun at Rosie's poetry, and she turns ugly quite quickly and calls me a "transsexual". For all the protestations of NT Christians to "love thy neighbor" and "feed and quench the thirst of your enemy", they readily do an about-face and turn rather nasty when their beliefs are challenged and exposed.

Shall I be expecting more than poetry, Rosie? Perhaps a care package to feed and quench my thirst? I do hope it is better than the poetry, at least.

Michael

Richard Authored a Book!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Oh no, wait, Richard's PhD thesis somehow ended up on "Google Books". Maybe Richard can tell us who his publisher is? Maybe he can tell us what books stores his thesis sold in?

Oh, but it gets better.

First, let me quote Dr. Simon Pritchett:

"My dear madam, the duty of thinkers is not to explain, but to demonstrate that nothing can be explained."
[...]
"The only purpose of philosophy is not to seek knowledge, but to prove that knowledge is impossible."

Now, we all heard some of Richard's wonderful odes to Dr. Simon Pritchett, like "Ethics has no rational basis", but the small snippet from his, ahem, "book" is just priceless:

"Argues for an epistemic variant of moral anti-realism, which he calls "moral eliminativism, the claim that it is reasonable to believe that there are no moral facts"--Chapter 1, p. 1.

Did Rand have these frauds pegged or what? I can only imagine what else appears in that, ahem, "book".

And this gives us a glimpse into the vicious attacks on Rand from "philosophers" like Goode. Rand sells millions upon millions copies of her philosophy -- embodied in fiction and nonfiction -- while these dolts, who have swallowed whole every fallacy of the last two millenia and simply regurgitated them, have to pretend like their doctoral theses are "books" that anybody would actually want to read.

Envy-driven losers.

Michael

Yes, Richard, Debunked

Michael Moeller's picture

Richard,

If I was to charitably call your arguments on the matter "epistemology", I did not just debunk them, I demolished them. As a response, all I heard from you was crickets.

But by all means, rise to the challenge and demonstrate Rand's epistemology is wrong using examples. I think this will also be quite illuminating.

Michael

Good One Marcus

Doug Bandler's picture

Michael loves Rosie who loves Richard who loves Reed who hates Michael who marries Linz who loves Doug who loves Michael who loves Jules...

Hah! Good one. But for the record, I love you too Marcus. I just think you're on the wrong side in this debate. Your conception of marriage is too "libertariany". I think Michael is making the Objectivist argument for what the state's role in marriage is.

Jules

Rosie's picture

Thank you for your apology. All is well. Smiling

Test

Richard Goode's picture

Test.

Rotfl Rosie

Jules Troy's picture

Lol..fugure it out..

Anywayyyss sorry I was "snippy".

Yesss I actually mean it, I am sorry.

This is turning into a Wagnerian Opera...

Marcus's picture

Michael loves Rosie who loves Richard who loves Reed who hates Michael who marries Linz who loves Doug who loves Michael who loves Jules...

Jules

Rosie's picture

Jules: I like Michael He is razor sharp, if you are using spurious non sequiters you will be debunked. Always a good read! (Note the spelling is 'sequiturs' btw.)

Michael Newberry: I like Michael Moeller. His posts are intelligent and set the standard.

Michael Moeller: I think Rosie has a secret crush on me. She writes poetry in my honor.

(A few days later) So - no more poetry?

(A few days later)Now to the important stuff -- it true that I am your muse?

Thus, the opinion of Michael Moeller, who is described as "razor sharp" by you, "intelligent", and one who "sets the standard", is to consider my poetry and whether he is my muse, "important stuff".

Yet you say, "you resort to stupid rhymes instead of dealing with the thread in a meaningful way".

Oh well. At least razor sharp Muse Moeller doesn't think so and he sets the standard. Eye

PS How could you possibly know that about Christian girls if you haven't dated any? Rhetorical question only, Jules, thanks. After all, first, your comment and, second, any answer could not be said to be dealing with the thread in a "meaningful way" could it, really, and I wouldn't wish you to be accused of hypocrisy...just saying. Smiling

Hahaahaha

Jules Troy's picture

You expect class from an Alberta oilpatch worker?

Even though I have it do not expect it from me when you resort to stupid rhymes instead of dealing with the thread in a meaningful way..just saying.

Ps I did not touch or place said coal up your ass, as much as you might have liked me to...

Never did date "christian" girls, they don't know how to fuck.

Jules

Rosie's picture

This carbon you place up my ass
Displays a distinct want of class!
From my behind
(I think you will find)
Flow pearls only - aka KASS!

Cool

Rosie

Jules Troy's picture

We find rose's prose rather droll

So insert in ass lump of coal

She sqiggled and squirmed, blew big fart that burned

"oh look! Out popped a diamond!!

 

Jules

Rosie's picture

A stern rebuke coming from Jules
(Whose humour don't wander from rules).
He suggests that my charge
Is not very large.
Oh, sorrow! My tears flow in pools.

Tired

So..

Jules Troy's picture

That is rather low... Ran out of batteries Rosie?

Caption to the below "marriage"

Rosie's picture

"LINDSAY LOOKS FORWARD TO IMMINENT DEBUNKING"

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'marriage' as

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

There is no such thing as gay marriage.

Another poem for you

Rosie's picture

So no more poetry?

"Your muse? Am I truly, pray tell?"
Asks the transsexual person, Michelle.
I reply to you, "Truly,
The prospect's unruly
And might signpost a path straight to Hell!"

Arrow HELL THIS WAY

Michael

Rosie's picture

Now to the important stuff -- it true that I am your muse?

I thought a muse was a woman?! (Doesn't the word derive from goddesses of classical mythology who were associated with the arts?!)

To ask me this question on a thread looking at "gay marriage", are you trying to tell me something, Michelle?! Jawdropping!

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Is it true that you have debunked the "dictionary says it is so" argument numerous times already?

Google Books

Richard Goode's picture

Pritchett at least wrote a book, and the only thing Richard seems capable of is posting other people's cartoons.

http://books.google.co.nz/book...

Rosie -- Honesty

Michael Moeller's picture

You obviously haven't read Atlas, but Richard is actually much worse than Dr. Pritchett. Pritchett at least wrote a book, and the only thing Richard seems capable of is posting other people's cartoons.

Now to the important stuff -- it true that I am your muse?

Michael

Michael - Honesty Test 2

Rosie's picture

I consider Richard the offspring of Dr. Simon Pritchett, and I still do not think that quite captures his essence.

From your link:
"Dr. Pritchett is a nihilist. Nihilism is a philosophy that believes in nothing. It says values don't exist, but rather are invented. Life is without meaning, purpose, or value."

You are absolutely right that Dr Pritchett does not quite capture his (Richard's) essence. The description certainly doesn't sound at all like the essence of a staunch Christian and libertarian (Richard) to me either. Puzzled

Honesty test

reed's picture

Michael
Is it possible for two friends to live together without them being co-tenants or one of them being a squatter?

Michael You wanted to know

reed's picture

Michael
You wanted to know why I framed my questions "by commercial industry" as follows...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1) Lending should have its own legal framework.
2) Building should have its own legal framework.
3) Food production should have its own legal framework.
4) Insurance should have its own legal framework.
5) Medicine should have its own legal framework.
6) Renting houses should have its own legal framework.
7) Retail should have its own legal framework.
8 ) Employment should have its own legal framework.

The reason I framed it this way is because this is the way the legislation is structured here i.e. we have the Credit Contracts Act, Consumer Finance Act, Building Act, Food Act, Life Insurance Act, Medicines Act, Residential Tenancies Act, Consumer Guarantees Act, Employment Relations Act, etc.

I wanted to know if you could oppose the existence of any act.

Michael

reed's picture

If I trade my watch for $200, those are the terms. Right? Yes, Reed.

Now, I trade my fake rolex for $200 that I represent as a real rolex. Those are the terms, but the state says I cannot set terms in which I make a misrepresentation of fact.

And when the other party uses the state to come after me and have his money returned, I tell them to buzz off with the following: "From my perspective the state is an uninvited third party to my contracts."

Indeed, we did set the terms of the trade, I just falsely represented one of the terms (i.e. that it was a real Rolex). Now, I tell the state to bud out, they are an "uninvited guest". Sound good?

In your example the terms of the contract are $200 for a Rolex.
One party failed to live up to the terms of the contract.
The Court can justly enforce the terms of the contract.
The Court's authority is justified by each party's agreement to be bound by the terms of the contract.

If the misrepresentation was deliberate that would also justify a punishment on the fraudster.

Your Rolex example is not government dictating contract terms.

Michael and fans

reed's picture

As I understand it the following is Michael's argument about contracts in general...

It is necessary for the government to "lay the ground rules" for every type of interaction that might involve property or children because some people are incapable of specifying the terms of their own contracts.
If the government didn't "lay the ground rules" then, in many situations, the courts would lack a basis to settle property and custody disputes.

Is this correct?

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

Intellectual property is just one of the manifestations of his nihilism, and calling his assertions "arguments" is an affront to the concept of logic. I think there is plenty of evidence for people to make their own judgments (eg. "Ethics has no rational basis", playing word games, listening to death metal, arguing contradictions, denying free-will, rampant evasions...it would take me a week to list them all) that Richard is an anti-life creep.

I consider Richard the offspring of Dr. Simon Pritchett, and I still do not think that quite captures his essence.

So no more poetry?

Michael

Oh, Michael!

Rosie's picture

I could perhaps have a secret crush on you if your razor sharp intelligence had not allowed you to mislead or pretend things in your post below headed De Facto Anarchism and would apologise for so doing.

Please allow me to explain what I mean (but not in poetry!). I refer to your post below, beginning:

It is mantras, in the hands of fools, that are a problem. "Get that state out" sounds nice, until you realize that people like Richard also argue getting the state out of its legitimate functions, such as protecting property rights....
...But it is more of a paradox. Anarchists are, at bottom, nihilists, and will support just about any means that results in the destruction of civil society.

Richard is neither an anarchist nor a nihilist. He does not wish to destroy civil society!
Neither is he a fool with a mantra as you imply, nor does he think he should be able to do whatever he wants! That is, at least, not without the caveat that what ever he wants to do does not involve infringing the rights of others! I have not heard him cry "Statist" when reminded of this caveat - for he never forgets this caveat!

Has your razor sharp intelligence not discerned after all this time that he is a true blue libertarian?! And as such, he has never argued for getting the state out of legitimate functions, such as protecting property rights! And if you are referring to IP, by your comment, his argument there, I believe, is that he does not consider that what is described as Intellectual Property is property at all.

Michael, how could I have a crush on someone who could write such unfair, untrue and misleading statements about another? I do hope it wasn't purposely misleading or (gasp) posturing?! Eye

And please do not reply, "I only said "people like Richard - not Richard" because your comment moves from the plural "they" to the singular "he" in the same sentence thus showing precisely that you were talking directly about Richard and not people like Richard. And what you wrote was untrue.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

I think Rosie has a secret crush on me. She writes poetry in my honor.

Michael

Michael & Jules

Michael Moeller's picture

Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate it.

Best,
Michael

I like Michael

Jules Troy's picture

He is razor sharp, if you are using spurious non sequiters you will be debunked. Always a good read!

I like Michael Moeller. His

Newberry's picture

I like Michael Moeller. His posts are intelligent and set the standard.

Michael
www.MichaelNewberry.com

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

people like Richard

People don't like you.

Michael

Rosie's picture

Here is the post I said I would make to address my revised legal opinion, that even under the status quo, after more thought on the matter, I can not see any need for Louisa Wall's Bill or a definition of marriage to allow gay people to marry.

The Marriage Act 1955 sets out what is required for a marriage to be solemnised, and thus treated as a valid marriage, in NZ. Section 44 includes service marriages as valid. In effect this Act is how a marriage is solemnised and considered valid for the purposes of the law.

It does not set out who can be married. Instead, it lists who may not marry in Schedule 2 to the Act.

Since this Schedule does not include a man when listing who a man may not marry or a woman when listing who a woman may not marry, I see no need for Louisa Wall's Bill.

I have found a dictionary definition, too, that includes same sex unions under 1.b. of this definition of marriage (for the purposes of the Golden Rule of interpretation of the word "marriage"). Perhaps therefore, the definition of the word "marriage" is actually evolving already.

Michael

Rosie's picture

I hate to tell you this, but if your ideal society is involves the implementation of non-objective law, your ideal is already dead in the water. If you extrapolate that, it looks more like modern day Somalia than America's founding -- the closest human's have come to the ideal, at least what I would consider the ideal.

No, I am not suggesting for one minute that non-objective law is implemented.
A Constitution such as is already in place in either the US, or the Commonwealth countries for that matter, is an excellent starting point for a free society. It is the legislation under that Constitution that I am suggesting needs curtailing.

What this thread shows

Doug Bandler's picture

Is that libertarianism is in fact intellectually flawed and incapable of sustaining a free society. In one sense when the Conservatives (of all stripes) criticize and lambaste libertarianism as "childish" and "ridiculous", they are right. The problem is when they include Objectivism in their definition of libertarianism.

If Rand is right in her core philosophy, and I hope she is, then libertarianism has been rescued. But, I still don't know if the term "libertarianism" should be retained. Its an open question. But this threat shows that "get the state out" is a dangerous formulation. The state MUST be involved in contracts, marriage, wills and trusts, real property, etc.. The state makes OBJECTIVE LAW possible. What the liberty lovers must do is make the state only involved in its legitimate function which as we see is not an easy task and involves serious philosophical thought to get at exactly what is entailed in protecting individual rights.

I think Michael's arguments have been sound. The state should set the requirements of entering into a romantic union; ie legal age, consent, non-duress, etc. There is no reason why sex should be a factor. Therefore "marriage" is something open to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Whether the culture at large would have different terms for both is an interesting question. But that, I think, is not a question for the state.

De Facto Anarchism

Michael Moeller's picture

Richard wrote:

"Well, some of us are talking about a free society. Sadly, most of us are demanding an extrapolation of the "State"-us quo."

All I can say is IF ONLY the "status quo" was dedicated to the protection of individual rights and the means of implementing that protection, i.e. objective law.

It is mantras, in the hands of fools, that are a problem. "Get that state out" sounds nice, until you realize that people like Richard also argue getting the state out of its legitimate functions, such as protecting property rights. Hence, the net result is de facto anarchism and the destruction of the constitutional republic.

No doubt, it stems from people like Richard who proclaim, in effect: "I should be able to do whatever I want!", then fail to take note that whatever he wants does not -- and should not -- involve infringing the rights of others. When reminded of this caveat, all people like Richard do is scream "Statist!" in response, as if that is an argument.

It may seem like a contradiction when Richard writes things like this:

"If this bill is passed, it will redefine marriage as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." This will constitute a huge affront to a large sector of the Christian community, to whom marriage is ordained, by God, as being between one man and one woman.

But it is more of a paradox. Anarchists are, at bottom, nihilists, and will support just about any means that results in the destruction of civil society.

Michael

The last thing we need is extrapolaticians

Richard Goode's picture

In a free society—and remember, that's what we're talking about, not a mere extrapolation of the status quo—

Well, some of us are talking about a free society. Sadly, most of us are demanding an extrapolation of the "State"-us quo.

The professional gays are dishonest. They say they want to "legalise" gay marriage. Gay marriage is an impossibility, not a crime. They say they want equal adoption rights. We have Jacinda Ardern's Care of Children Law Reform Bill to promote that, without corrupting either morality or the English language.

The professional theocrats are dishonest. They say that "legalising" gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society. They say it will open the floodgates to legalising bigamy, polygamy, incest and bestiality. But it won't. And this brings me to the point of this comment.

The slow passage of Louisa Wall's bill through the political colon presents a golden opportunity for freedom-lovers to argue that the State should butt out of the marriage business. It is our last such opportunity to do so before it gets dumped on us. Now is the hour!

At the recent Liberty Conference 2012 it was acknowledged that, as activists in a new party of principled pragmatism, we had to settle for what we can get, and forego what we want - in the short-term. A moratorium on the issuing of marriage certificates by the State is certainly not a vote-winning, "top 5" policy. But the new party has yet to be formed. Until such time as it is, why settle for anything less than

The best thing that can happen for relationships, gay or straight[? ... which] is for the state to butt out of them.

The last thing we need is extrapolaticians. Straight or gay, let's seize the day!

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I do not deem you worth the effort of raising the flyswatter.

I deem you worth the effort of raising a mallet.

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

I hate to tell you this, but if your ideal society is involves the implementation of non-objective law, your ideal is already dead in the water. If you extrapolate that, it looks more like modern day Somalia than America's founding -- the closest human's have come to the ideal, at least what I would consider the ideal.

Michael

Michael -

Rosie's picture

I did the exercise, saw the truth of Linz'z words and wrote my post. I have read your reply and I understand what you mean by these words in your response:

Being unable to distinguish what is correct about the current system, as you are, will not help establishing what the legitimate role of the state should be.

The exercise is not to assist in distinguishing what is correct about the current system.

If your glasses had only a slight hint of rose in their tint and your mind a similar hint of imagination and flexibility, so that you could have performed the exercise, you would understand Linz's words below and agree with them. Linz is moving towards his vision of a free society and not attempting to cripple it with still more unnecessary State intervention.

My next post will be written specifically for those, like you Michael, who do not share his vision and can only see to encourage further State intervention, and therefore still more legislation, in an effort to "protect" (read "nanny") citizens from actions that the State has not already foreseen in its previous legislation.

Even now, under the status quo, there is no need to define "marriage" as you have posited.

Please try the exercise I suggested, then please reread Linz's words below (and particularly the words in boldface) immediately afterwards:

Marriage is a custom born of human nature....

...In the real world, marriage is between and among consenting individuals and, in most cases, private institutions these individuals voluntarily associate with. Individuals and private institutions are perfectly capable of reaching an agreement as to what it is they're agreeing to, and naming it ... and moreover, they have a perfect right to do so. The state's only role is to ratify such an agreement (with the usual provisos about age of consent, etc., on which we're all agreed). It is not for the state to dictate in advance what marriage is. First, that would be an unwarranted intrusion. Second, as Marcus and others have pointed out, people managed to marry for millennia without the state telling them what marriage was, and the world didn't plunge into conjugal chaos because of it.

It's perfectly acceptable to me that some institutions wouldn't recognise marriages performed by other institutions. That's the way of it in a free society. The state's job is to register all of them as marriage contracts, not to define "marriage" or take sides, say, between Catholics and Mormons.
....
In a free society—and remember, that's what we're talking about, not a mere extrapolation of the status quo— the state would treat marriage as a contract. Qua contract, the state's only role would be to register it—render it recognised in law—as long as it met standard requirements that it, the state, is duty-bound to stipulate, consistent with its function of protecting individual rights. The state's role is not to question whether it's a marriage, or forbid it, or bestow its blessing upon it. As far as the state is concerned, as long as it's a valid contract, and the contract says it's a marriage, then a marriage it is. If thou, Michael, take me, Linz, to be thy lawfully wedded spouse, and I so take thee, Michael, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part (or whatever vows we might compose), and we want this commitment to be recognised and formalised in law ... then the state's only job is to supply the certificate: for that and anything we choose to add to it about babies, yachts, Mario Lanza CDs, fashionably awful shades worn on SOLO avatars, etc.

Michael, you seem to think this is a recipe for a subjectivist cesspool, a morass of marital mayhem. Why? It simply recognises that marriage is man-made, not metaphysical (contrary to the Goblians, as you have so ably pointed out), and the concept allows many variations. The state's job is to register and recognise all of them, not define the concept. The state of affairs I posit here is called "freedom."

Your case seems to rest on implausible scenarios about ditzes who end up arguing about whether they're married or not. Unless the state is standing by with its definition, you ask me repeatedly, how would the ditzes' argument ever be resolved? Yet you at least partially answer yourself when you assure me this type of dispute has actually happened. Well, if it has, it's happened under the status quo, so clearly the fact that the state is standing by with its definition hasn't preempted such bizarre outcomes. As to solving them: curiosities such as these (and that's all they are: curiosities, not catastrophes on whose prevention we should base our laws) are less likely in the free society of my envisioning, I would have thought ... it's that pesky thing called responsibility: the onus really will be on folk to spell out just what they're agreeing to, and they'll know it, in a libertarian ethos. Folk, as in individuals. Where it all begins. [my emphasis

Your opening salvo in this debate, Michael, was that it's "inadequate and incomplete" to advocate the separation of state and marriage—it's necessary, you said, to spell out the state's right to intervene when rights are violated or threatened. I observed that if this were the case, we'd have to make that qualification every time we advocated the separation of the state from anything: church, economy, education, medicine, publishing, etc., etc. ... and that this repetition is unnecessary, at least among Objectivists and small 'l' libertarians, since the qualification is understood in all cases. In advocating to gentiles, of course, it's no doubt desirable to state it explicitly. As I for one have done for years.

But when you think about it, it's not a qualification; it's a corollary. The state must be able to intervene to protect the very rights on which its separation from all other things is based. Our understood corollary prescribes proper intervention and proscribes (please note the correct use of those terms, Michael) improper intervention, such as defining "marriage"!

Michael also writes to Rosie:

But your post is an excellent example, ... that when you try to apply the general principle to reality, you fully imbibe yourself in anarchism. This is the default position for many libertarians.

But you do not need your imagination to see where this leads. Again, just turn your eyes out towards reality and take a good look at Somalia or a primitive tribal society. Not quite the Elysian Fields you imagine, I am sure, but that's where your heading.

You must have failed on Step 3. of the exercise, Michael. You obviously find it too difficult to create something new and better than the status quo. But I did say that Step 3. would be very difficult for most lawyers! Eye

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

No, I actually enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. This is what -- the third time you've posted this in attempt to score a point? Too bad you didn't bother to actually read the Wikipedia entry. The part you quote about the concept of common law marriage not being recognized is talking about in England. It appears in the UK section.

Now, go look at the "History" section and do you see anything? Here, I'll help you out:

"In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries. There were several more or less formal ceremonies to choose from (partly interchangeable, but sometimes with different legal ramifications) as well as informal arrangements. It was relatively common for couples to cohabit with no ceremony; cohabiting for a moderate period of time was sufficient to make it a marriage. Cohabiting for the purpose of marriage carried with it no social stigma."

That is what is now known as "common law marriage", you numbskull; hence the reason Wikipedia lists it under the "History" of an analysis on "common law marriage".

Richard, take this advice: if I don't respond to your inanities, it is probably because I do not deem you worth the effort of raising the flyswatter.

Michael

Michael arrives at a contradiction

Richard Goode's picture

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 05:45.

Actual facts: ... before the Marriage Act 1753 ... neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 04:20.

But this is false. "Common law marriage" goes back at least to the Romans, if not the Greeks.

'Fess up, Michael.

Marcus

Michael Moeller's picture

You are not seriously comprehending what I am saying, and are totally grasping at straw.

The state defining marriage applies to (1) and (2). Either of the parties can specify upfront their property interests. Or, as is the case with most people, they do not specify their property interests in advance, so they have to go with the default rules when they get a divorce to settle any property disputes. Those are the resolution options when two people decide to get divorced after they decide to get married. What is so difficult to understand here?

As to (3), I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I state anything about a "de-facto marriage" -- whatever that means? You are making this up. If you are referring to "common law marriage", I already stated that it should be replaced by statutory marriage.

As to your friends, their agreement is not to share property. It would have the same effect as a pre-nuptial contract, except that it is made during marriage. There would be no dispute until they get divorced, if, say, one of the spouses contested the arrangement made during the marriage. By itself the arrangement does not dissolve the marriage. At least one of the party's wanting a divorce dissolves the marriage. THEN they settle according to their arrangement, and if there is no property arrangement, then they go with the state's default rules. Pure and simple.

Look, Marcus, between this set of inane questions and your co-tenant debacle yesterday, I am afraid I cannot help you. If you cannot grasp that property issues will arise between two people either buying or leasing the same property -- and that it is perfectly valid for the state to have standards to mediate disputes over their respective property rights -- then there is not much more I can say.

If you cannot recognize that, then you certainly are not going to grasp what I am saying about marriage. I've got to leave it at that. Sorry.

Michael

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Below is an exercise which I did today and now "see". It is for those, like me, who couldn't see that Richard, Linz, Marcus and Reed (and others perhaps) are right. These four have mentally left the present system and have the vision of the State's exit and the envisioned new society already in their imaginations ."

Yes, Rosie, I agree with you, it is all in your imagination. Being unable to distinguish what is correct about the current system, as you are, will not help establishing what the legitimate role of the state should be.

But your post is an excellent example, along with the examples of Reed and Richard, that when you try to apply the general principle to reality, you fully imbibe yourself in anarchism. This is the default position for many libertarians.

But you do not need your imagination to see where this leads. Again, just turn your eyes out towards reality and take a good look at Somalia or a primitive tribal society. Not quite the Elysian Fields you imagine, I am sure, but that's where your heading.

Michael

No Truer Words...

Michael Moeller's picture

Have been spoken by Richard:

"Not something I have given much thought."

Hook, line and sinker

Richard Goode's picture

Valid or not a license is not a contract it is a consent from an authority.

Excellent point, Reed.

My dictionary says "licence" for both verb and noun. Oh well, never mind.

License.

Rosie I have said it before

Jules Troy's picture

All special interest rights groups become obsolete if the state truly upholds the individual.

Gay rights,black rights,native(north american indian,maori or what ever "--ian") womans rights etc etc ad infinatum

All these groups are looking for special consideration at the expense of another's "rights" group.

All are unecessary.

If individual rights are protected in all areas of the rule of law the other "rights" groups are obsolete. 

This also means the leaders of such groups would be out of a job!

Trick question

reed's picture

Is a marriage license a valid contract...
No.

Valid or not a license is not a contract it is a consent from an authority.

(P.S. License - verb. Licence - noun. Unless you're American Airhead, of course.)
Not my writing. That was Michael's first question to you.
My dictionary says "licence" for both verb and noun. Oh well, never mind.

Michael let's substitute friendship for marriage...

Marcus's picture

Marriage is a social relationship, there is no rights dispute until, say, property enters the picture. There is nothing for the state to settle until that point. Once they exchange books or decide to live on the same property, then the law may intercede to settle any property claims. The state has no involvement in their social relationship until that point.

There are examples I know of where people have married and had no children nor shared property. According to your definition are they are no longer really married? Now if everyone suddenly thought it was cool to behave that way, would your need for a state definition of marriage become obsolete?

One more question: you have three states of wedlock in your scheme.

1) Marriage with pre-nuptial contract. The state does not define this marriage.

2) Marriage without pre-nuptial contract. The state defines this.

3) A de-facto Marriage. The state does not define this.

Why does the state need to define 2, but not 1 or 3?

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Is a marriage license a valid contract in your view?

A government-issued marriage licence? I suppose so. Not something I have given much thought.

Notwithstanding the fact that I signed a pre-nuptial agreement, when my (first) wife and I divorced it never crossed my mind to claim half of her house(s).

(P.S. License - verb. Licence - noun. Unless you're American Airhead, of course.)

Imagination and Vision Required to See the State's Exit

Rosie's picture

the libertarian "get the state out of things" mantra is very imprecise and very dangerous.

No. It is completely correct.

Below is an exercise which I did today and now "see". It is for those, like me, who couldn't see that Richard, Linz, Marcus and Reed (and others perhaps) are right. These four have mentally left the present system and have the vision of the State's exit and the envisioned new society already in their imaginations .

1. You have to shake off "what the position is now" completely from your mind.
2. Imagine for twenty minutes a Society where the State is out of everything.

3. Only then, start to put the State back in where, and only where, it is truly required.

DO NOT ALLOW any "what is the position now" thoughts to interfere with your imagination when you begin to reintroduce the State's minimal role only in what is necessary.

This is actually quite a difficult exercise for lawyers to do - especially Step 3. - because we are so entrenched in the current system and trained to think inside it but it is still possible if you just completely let go of your existing worldview and imagine. Linz, Richard, Reed, Marcus must be already "in" this vision I think and so they can't go back to this current worldview - the new is too clear for them - and can't understand why we find it so difficult! Hence the conflict.

Do this exercise and I think you will see entirely what Linz and Richard and Reed mean.

P.S. If you can't do it, won't do it or don't have the imagination to do the above exercise, in doing it myself, not only did I understand fully and now agree with the legal opponents, I believe I also even saw a way round the current position (in NZ anyway) that does not require a legal definition of marriage (not the circular or any sort) that might persuade any lawyer OR Statist and still allow gay marriage! It may not prevent the current discrimination laws however. .

Do we need discrimination laws if people respect other people's individual right to disagree and say "NO!"? After the exercise you will see, in the libertarian society, we don't need them! Smiling

Richard

reed's picture

Is a marriage license a valid contract in your view?

Oops.

reed's picture

Oops.

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

Michael everything you say is a subtly incorrect

LOL. Do you have a euphemism for 'scumbag'?

Michael

reed's picture

So, how did this example help your argument?

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

What did you think I meant? That they were squatting on the property?!? You really are a buffoon.

Are you still chuckling at your own ignorance of NZ law? I wonder. Yes, go back to your assertions that were debunked and showed you don't even know what terms of a contract are. It is a safe place for you.

Michael

Michael everything you say is

reed's picture

Michael everything you say is a subtly incorrect - it's bound to lead to misunderstandings.

Two friends may decide to live together. They are no longer just friends, but also "co-tenants" in the eyes of the law because there could now be a dispute over how the property is used, etc.

Living together doesn't make people co-tenants.
Co-signing a tenancy contract makes people co-tenants.

However, this doesn't justify government dictating the terms of tenancy contracts.

Doug

Richard Goode's picture

the libertarian "get the state out of things" mantra is very imprecise and very dangerous.

Don't be sucked down the Moeller hole.

Wow, now that I think about it, the government does play a big role in many things.

You're starting to sound like a Statist. Shocked

Michael has evicted himself from the realm of reality

Richard Goode's picture

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 05:45.

Actual facts: ... before the Marriage Act 1753 ... neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 04:20.

But this is false. "Common law marriage" goes back at least to the Romans, if not the Greeks.

Contradiction, much?

Doug

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, it can be imprecise, especially when considering the complex set of property relationships between individuals. We've been witnessing a nice demonstration of primitive mentalities like Reed and Richard who are totally unable to progress beyond the mantra, and instead float along on the floating abstraction oblivious to the destruction that would be wrought if their ideas were implemented. Thankfully, nobody takes such clowns seriously.

Michael

default rules - important

Doug Bandler's picture

They are also liable to each other for any agreements that make with respect to how much each pays in rent, who has what bedroom, etc.

Wow, now that I think about it, the government does play a big role in many things. I still don't know how to conceptually define this. But the libertarian "get the state out of things" mantra is very imprecise and very dangerous.

You're Welcome, Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, Reed, I am sure when you wrote:

"There's no co-tenant legislation in New Zealand."

What you really meant is that there IS legislation, but my statements did not address the finer points of the co-tenancy of renters.

Well, Reed, take a look here:

"All tenants named on a tenancy agreement are jointly and severally liable for the tenancy agreement. This means, if any damage, rent arrears, cleaning or other debt arising from the tenancy is caused by one tenant, that tenant and all of the other tenants who are party to the tenancy agreement can be held accountable. The landlord could recover compensation for any money owed to them by that tenant or from all or any of the other tenants."

This is pretty standard, Reed. The law is setting them up as co-tenants whereby each is responsible for the whole of obligations to the landlord ("joint and severally liable"), such as paying the full rent if one tenant does not pay. You can read all of the obligations in the link you provided, which applies to each co-tenant -- just like I told you before. They are also liable to each other for any agreements that make with respect to how much each pays in rent, who has what bedroom, etc.

And if you actually read the long NZ document, you will see all kinds of default rules for eviction, what happens to property left over, the rules on fixtures, etc etc that may not be covered in the four corners of the rental agreement.

The lesson is free of charge today. Just stop being a nuisance.

Michael

Correction accepted

reed's picture

NZ has a Residential Tenancy Act.

I don't think there is anything in it about co-tenancy but I accept that what you describe would apply to NZ commercial leases.

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Uh, co-tenancy refers to occupation by more than one person -- whether or not the property is bought or leased. Look it up. That means whatever obligations the "lessee" has under NZ law (and if you look at that site NZ does have rules about leases), it applies to all co-tenants/co-lessee's.

Nice try, though. And nice attempt at a backpedal because I am sure you are so up on co-tenancy. Haha.

Michael

Two friends may decide to

reed's picture

Two friends may decide to live together. They are no longer just friends, but also "co-tenants" in the eyes of the law because there could now be a dispute over how the property is used, etc.

In this context there is no co-tenant legislation in NZ.

Yes, Reed, Seriously

Michael Moeller's picture

Reed wrote:

"There's no co-tenant legislation in New Zealand."

Check this out:

"Co-Ownership (tenants in common & joint tenancies)
There are two main forms of co-ownership being (i) joint tenancies and (ii) tenancies in common. In neither case does the tenant have an exclusive claim to any specific part of the land owned in common, although this has been somewhat modified in practice in cross lease developments where the land used exclusively by one owner is delineated on the flats plan with the lease stating the occupation rights."

Joint tenancy and tenants in common are the two types of co-tenancy pervasive throughout the Western world. Instead of trying to be a smartass, maybe you should read up on them and educate yourself a bit. It helps.

Michael

Seriously?

Richard Goode's picture

You have Marmite?!

Marriage

Richard Goode's picture

Marriage - betting someone half your shit that you'll love them forever

Seriously!

reed's picture

There's no co-tenant legislation in New Zealand.

Should Marmite be kept in the fridge or in the cupboard?
There's no legal way of knowing.

Dispute Resolution

Doug Bandler's picture

The state has no involvement in their social relationship until that point.

See. This is the crux of it. Dispute resolution. In some way I can't articulate, the fact that the state must provide a forum and rules for dispute resolution is included in the state's central role of preventing the non-initiation of force. The anarchists think DROs can do this. We know better.

The law needs to define many things in order for disputes to be resolved properly. Marriage involves property (personal and real), children (potentially), etc.. The state needs to set defaults and specify formalities. Regarding gay marriage, the state's only legitimate role is to say that romantic unions need to have been formed by adults, free of duress, etc, etc. The gender of the participants is not a relevant concern of the state but that both parties are over 18 (or something like that) and were not drunk or coerced is.

There are some interesting questions associated with this topic, especially on whether different terminology should be used for gay and heterosexual marriage, but I think that Michael's reasoning is sound.

Seriously?

Michael Moeller's picture

Marcus, you have a problem with the state defining "co-tenants" and the nature of their rights when sharing the same property?!? Um, ok. Not much more I can do to help you on that count.

Friendship is a social relationship, there is no rights dispute until, say, property enters the picture. There is nothing for the state to settle until that point. Once they exchange books or decide to live on the same property, then the law may intercede to settle any property claims. The state has no involvement in their social relationship until that point.

Seriously, Marcus, if you cannot see the need to have rules in a co-tenant situation, I am not sure what to say to you. For instance, can one party sell the property without the other party's permission? Can one party exclude the other party from part of the property? Can one party sell his interest in the property without permission from the other party? What about bequeathing his interest?

Marcus, have you at least signed a lease contract where the state defines you as a "lessee", and all the rules that go along with it?!? Jeez Louise.

Michael

Interesting discussion

Doug Bandler's picture

Marcus, do you want a separate contract each time there is a co-mingling of property in a marriage?!? Do you want them to keep a running tally, Marcus?

This is getting to the heart of the matter. Marriage is one complicated form of contract. It needs the government and a body of law to administer it properly. I don't see how any Objectivist can argue this.

All the state recognition does is provide a simplified way via default rules of settling the property/custody disputes that will naturally arise, and this happens all the time with marriage, as opposed to a friendship.

I think this is right and it doesn't invite gummint intervention that Lindsay fears. To me the interesting philosophical question is how to formulate the central role of government. It looks like the government does more than prevent the initiation of force and uphold individual rights. It has to set the legal context for that system to work. So the government *is* involved in contract and marriage at some level.

This gets into advanced epistemology though. Perhaps that is why there is this dispute.

Yes I do...

Marcus's picture

"Do you have a problem with the law defining "co-tenants" and setting default rules to alleviate a property dispute that may arise between them by nature of the fact they now share the same property?"

Yes I do.

I don't see why you have a problem with the state defining a "friendship" when it so often involves a co-mingling of property.

Marcus

Michael Moeller's picture

You are missing the point. It is not the number of times a thing occurs, but the nature of the relationship. Once the friends exchange books, they are no longer just friends, but also "property owners" for the purposes of the law.

Let me give you another example to make it clearer.

Two friends may decide to live together. They are no longer just friends, but also "co-tenants" in the eyes of the law because there could now be a dispute over how the property is used, etc.

Do you have a problem with the law defining "co-tenants" and setting default rules to alleviate a property dispute that may arise between them by nature of the fact they now share the same property?

Please answer. Then substitute "married couple" for "co-tenants" and tack on custody to the property disputes.

Michael

I do not agree...

Marcus's picture

"All the state recognition does is provide a simplified way via default rules of settling the property/custody disputes that will naturally arise, and this happens all the time with marriage, as opposed to a friendship."

Why does it matter how often it happens?

Marcus

Michael Moeller's picture

I already answered this, and if I am not mistaken, in response to you.

First, nothing is stopping two people from not getting married. They can maintain regular property rules, as the friends would in your example. Hell, they can even marry and not have it recognized by the state.

What you are missing is the particular circumstances that arise from a marriage. There is a recognized mutual sharing of property/custody that is not recognized in a friendship.

Children may result from the marriage. The co-mingling of property may manifest itself in all kinds of ways virtually every day. I already gave you the example of where wife stays at home and agrees to take care of the children, thus giving up her job on the expectation they will share in the husband's income. Or one spouse may work to pay for the other to go to college with the expectation that they will both benefit from the spouse's improved job. Or one spouse may inherit money, and use it to buy goods that they both use. Those are big instances, not even counting all the simple ways spouses co-mingle property, such as who bought the milk today.

Marcus, do you want a separate contract each time there is a co-mingling of property in a marriage?!? Do you want them to keep a running tally, Marcus?

All the state recognition does is provide a simplified way via default rules of settling the property/custody disputes that will naturally arise, and this happens all the time with marriage, as opposed to a friendship. And nobody has to enter a marriage. They can set their own terms in advance, or they can write a contract every time there is a co-mingling of property. As to the latter, does that sound like a good idea to you, Marcus?

Michael

Friends Michael?

Marcus's picture

Maybe your answer will clarify your argument.

Why does not your state's definition of Marriage mean there is needed a state defintion of "Friendship" too?

For example,

Two friends A+B have a contract to share their books with another because they are "friends".

Now, let's say, friend B stops returning books to friend A.

Friend B wants them back, but friend A won't return them.

In court friend A says under the terms of contract he may have them as long as he wants.

Friend B says that friends don't do that and he considers A no longer a friend and the contract void.

Doesn't this situation in Michael's eyes demand the state define what "friendship" is?

In the absence of the state defining what friendship is before contracts are entered into - what else, but anarchy?

Linz...

Michael Moeller's picture

A few more things:

"What would happen under your arrangement, Michael, when the Catholic Church refused to marry a gay quartet and that quartet sued? The state, under your arrangement, has defined marriage as a union between two or more people of either gender (good definition—but it's not the state's place to supply, let alone enforce, it). What, do you suppose, would the state then decide in response to this lawsuit?"

The solution is obvious: the state should dismiss the suit.

Just as the right to free speech does not include the right to use somebody else's property to promote that speech, so, too, the right to marry does not mean you have the right to force somebody to marry you. The gay couple simply has to find somebody to marry them. What's the problem?

Linz, you wrote:

"Not even close, as you young 'uns say. I don't think your arguments here have been up to your usual stellar standard. Certainly, attacking my sincerity, to paraphrase Mitt Romney, is not an argument at all."

But this was exactly my problem. You didn't answer my arguments, and simply reappeared to declare I am advocate of "Gummit" (whatever that was supposed to mean) and "to my astonishment, people right here seem to be itching to have The Gummint involved in their relationships up to its frilly nickers..." (whatever that is supposed to mean).

I admit, the "pretending" and "purposely" language was too harsh, and I retract it. It might have been simple carelessness. From my perspective, however, you were misleading on my position any way you slice it. You didn't actually answer my arguments at the time, so I was annoyed that you were claiming things about my position that were simply not true.

My position was not one of personal animosity, it was one of debate. If you wanted to argue the point, then should have argued it. If you didn't, then you should not have. But I think you can grasp why I was annoyed when you didn't answer my questions, but were asserting falsehoods about my position without actually arguing the point.

Michael

Michael has abdicated his mind

Richard Goode's picture

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 05:45.

Actual facts: ... before the Marriage Act 1753 ... neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-10-31 04:20.

But this is false. "Common law marriage" goes back at least to the Romans, if not the Greeks.

This is the funniest yet...

Michael Moeller's picture

By Richard.

"If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true."

He resorted to the "dictionary says it is so" argument, which I have debunked numerous times already. To paraphrase Rand, do not bother to examine a folly, instead ask what it seeks to accomplish:

""If this bill is passed, it will redefine marriage as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." This will constitute a huge affront to a large sector of the Christian community, to whom marriage is ordained, by God, as being between one man and one woman."

Precisely, the mergence of the state and religion. Indeed, Reed buttressed this claim:

"I’m opposed to Civil Union legislation because it is a government endorsement of immoral acts. I’m indifferent about Marriage legislation because it is a government endorsement of moral acts."

Make no mistake, the recognition of rights comes at the price of complying with Christianity. When junxtaposed next to the proclamations of Islamists, we can see exactly where this path leads. Scary stuff.

Michael

And I Thought...

Michael Moeller's picture

You might rise above playing games, Richard. That was short-lived.

Richard wrote:

"No, I made no mention of common law marriage."

Richard before:

"The early states based their laws on English common law, according to which..."

And then Richard goes on to ramble about specific states.

Actual facts:

""It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that before the Marriage Act 1753 cohabiting couples would enjoy the protection of a "common law marriage". In fact, neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known at this time. Far from being treated as if they were married, couples known to be cohabiting risked prosecution by the church courts for fornication.
[...]
To this limited extent, English law does recognize what has become known as a "common law marriage". English legal texts initially used the term to refer exclusively to American common law marriages."

In fact, Richard has it exactly backwards. To the limited extent England recognized "common law marriage", it came from America, not the other way around.

Dope.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Your claim was that American "common law marriage" came from England.

No, I made no mention of common law marriage.

You've shot yourself in the foot twice now. Who do you think you are, St. Peter?

Nice Dodge

Michael Moeller's picture

Unfamiliar with the facts, as usual. Richard wrote:

"Common law marriage is not a "legitimate basis" for legal marriage, it *is* legal marriage."

Your claim was that American "common law marriage" came from England. It did not. England did not recognize it as a marriage.

In contrast, the American concept was not unlike the Roman concept, and that was my only point.

Yet, you felt the need to bluster into the thread with ignorance once again, demonstrating not only do you not know the history, but you are clueless about the Constitution in general. Here's a good example:

""Marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution."

Let me educate you again:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."--9th Amendment

Before you wade into topics and declare who knows what, why not try educating yourself first? You'll look less foolish.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.