• Robert Arvanitis

    State-out-of-marriage is a defensible position.
    But then we must follow the inexorable logic.
    FIRST, progressive tax rates are indefensible. Imagine two individuals, each making $50k a year. How much tax should they pay in total? Now imagine the state does not recognize marriage.  Suppose they “join forces.” Do we expect the two to pay MORE just because they are together?  Suppose further that one cares for the home and the other is thus able to earn $100k.  Do we ask MORE of that arrangement, that we ask of teo separate $50k’s or two “joined forces” $50k’s ?
    The very idea of progressive rates becomes incoherent.
    SECOND, the state must not borrow except for long-lived assets. Say a bridge will last for 40 years.  Then it is appropriate to issue a 40-year bond to finance it.  But when we borrow for current consumption, then it is not  true borrowing.  It is merely deferred taxation. We burden the next generation.
    In that case, we may have two individuals enjoying the current benefits of the deferred tax. But suppose one is bearing the burden of raising children while the second is not.  The second individual is a free rider, a cheater. With borrowing for current consumption, childlessness is the new tragedy of the commons.
    So which shall it be?  The state cannot eschew all participation in marriage and procreation, AND impose progressive taxes AND borrow to spend.  EITHER the state has a responsibility to encourage the next generation OR the state must live within current means, and fairly.
    Since that latter is implausible given the base and fallen nature of man, and especially true of politicians, we must admit a continuing responsibility to allocate costs fairly, this generation and the next.
    Of course there is no floor to the shamelessness of the left. In all likelihood we will suffer irresponsible behavior and unfair allocations. That in turn will set irrational incentives and drive destructive responses.

  • erisguy

    I couldn’t agree more: no government compulsion in marriage.
    Who really cares if one or more people is in a bisexual-necrophilliac, homosexual-bestial, or polyamorous marriage if no one can be compelled to accept it? If no church, no adoption agency, no baker, no photographer, no hotel, no insurance company can be compelled by government to accept it? Without government compulsion, everyone will be free to accept or reject any genders’ marriages.
    Won’t happen. Leftists are interested only in compelling obedience to their own morality, and when that doesn’t happen, will open the re-education camps and death camps, as they always have.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    Gay marriage was one of the things that put me onto the fact that a lot of libertarians are true frauds.  I could support civil unions  which was the original libertarian position because if people wanted to make financial commitments to each other for their well-being then I think the government should recognize that as a fact.  With that said there was no compulsion against religious belief.  You would have been free to believe it to be a sin, to not see it as a holy marriage (of which it still is not no matter what our gov’t may say) but gay marriage is something else entirely and so many people call it a victory including libertarians.  Under this version of gay marriage the government has entirely created an institution which was formally religious in nature and to uphold its version must attack the religious version with the resources of the state.
    You posted Alito’s definition of marriage and if this was debate was honest than under Alito’s definition civil unions would have been fine.  The fact that it had to be “marriage” says that the state has vested itself in recreating the institution.  Somehow libertarians were fine with the gay rights part but don’t seem so worried about the state increase in power in this case.