Reality-based conservatism
Jun. 30th, 2011 04:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
David Frum concludes that same sex marriage doesn't damage heterosexual marriage.
Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.
Link thanks to
nwhyte.
Is there anything else in American politics which is dependent on as weak an argument as opposition to same sex marriage? The war on drugs is based on a wild over-estimation of government power, but it doesn't quite have that weird "I'll make up a definition and insist that it's realer than what can be observed" quality.
Link thanks to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 01:28 pm (UTC)There is a good reason why defense of marriage is the argument. If marriage is a voluntary contract between equals who choose each other, then same-sex marriage makes sense. If marriage is a holy mandate in which the female wife is subordinate to the male head of household to whom she is beholden for financial support, then same-sex marriage does not make sense. Allowing same-sex marriage puts a civil stamp on companionate marriage as a concept. Women in traditional marriages have a lot to gain from the legalization of same-sex marriage. People who think of this as defense of marriage may or may not realize what kind of marriage they're defending.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 01:44 pm (UTC)I go further than most people in thinking that polygamy should also be legal; or rather, that the government's role in marriage should be only to make sure that the contract is recognized, the rights of all concerned upheld, and the children not abused or neglected.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 02:19 pm (UTC)Adding a third person breaks a TON of assumptions built in to marriage laws. I've got nothing against it - in fact, I think multiple marriage seems a perfectly reasonable thing to let people who want to do it do. The catch is, it *will* require a complete rewrite from the ground up of a metric ton of law, to eliminate all of the situations where the inherent assumption of two-and-only-two breaks something.
As such, polygamy and polyandry are MUCH harder to work than jsut letting any two adults be the two adults in question.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 04:48 pm (UTC)