wenglund wrote:So, if adults are entitled to drive cars, you don't see the negative result of giving toddlers that same benefit?
We're talking about adults having the same rights as other adults. Toddlers, really?
We may not be able to establish all the benefits to an absolute certainty, but as with economic forecasts and environmental impact statements, we can offer useful, educated guesstimates.
In other words, let's restrict human rights because of "guesstimates." I think it was James Madison who said that, right?
As explained previously, in this case the government isn't dispensing freedom, per se. Rather, it is dispensing government sanctions--i.e. the states seal of approval and incentives (benefits).
If the government is going to discriminate based on guesses, maybe it's best not to grant approval or incentives to anyone. Heaven knows the costs of heterosexual marriage are astronomical and these days the benefits are negligible.
And, presumably, the government doesn't dispense its sanctions for no reason. Typically, as with other regulatory and licensing acts (like with doctors and lawyers and businesses and teachers and auto drivers), there is a rational basis (cost-benefit) for the dispensing.
Oddly enough, however, marriage has never been legally defined as between a single man and a single woman until recently, when religious conservatives wanted to make sure gays could not "redefine" marriage.
For example, regarding state sanctions for driving cars, there is good reason that the government sanctions people who have lived beyond a certain age and who have demonstrated adequate driving competency. On balance, the benefits to society exceeds the costs. However, the government doesn't dispense this sanction to toddlers because the financial and health and safety costs would far exceed the benefit to society.
So, gay people can't demonstrate adequate relationship competency such that they would qualify for marriage. Wow, that's just wrong on so many levels.
The same, in principle, holds true for the state sanctioning of marriage. Governments got into the business of sanctioning traditional marriage, in part, because they rationally surmised that the social cost of illicit heterosexual relationships would be higher than the benefits of promoting licit heterosexual relationships, and so it was in the state's interest to incentivize and regulate traditional marriage.
Governments got into the business of sanctioning marriage to protect property rights. Show me a single reference to a government that gave legal status to marriage because they thought it would promote societal stability and good.
Furthermore, because of the sexual component and the serious responsibilities associated with marriage and parenting, societies, through their governments, have considered it more than unwise to permit minors to marry. In their minds, the cost to individuals and society would far exceed any benefit (assuming there is any). So, on that rational basis, not only have they not sanctioned minor marriages, but they have even fashioned laws preventing them.
Most countries allow minors to marry with parental consent. It beggars belief that anyone would think comparing gay people with toddlers and underage drivers strengthens their case.
The point being, governmental licensing and regulations don't occur in a vacuum. Presumably there is a rational basis behind them.
Laws against miscegenation probably had a rational basis behind them, at least according to the people who wrote those laws. This idea that, because something is codified into law, it is rational and morally right is beyond bizarre. Dear God, what a mess our country would be if everyone thought like that.
Furthermore, such licensing and regulations may, over time, become conferred "civil rights" because of the rational basis, and not in spite of the rational basis.
A marriage license and certificate provide legal protections and responsibilities to the parties involved. Denying access to those rights and protections is discriminatory and unconstitutional as long as the reasons for the denial are "guesstimates" or, as is really the case, religious or social disapproval of gay relationships.
As such, I worry about people who may dispense government sanctions without a rational basis (a cost-benefit analysis). In fact, irrational legislation may have caused various Leftist LUNCS--as my blog amply explicates. I explore this point indirectly in relation to SSM in my blog post on,
Same-Sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Color me unimpressed with your laundry list of maybe-possibly unintended consequences.
Do you apply your cost-benefit analysis to the right to bear arms? The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, so that is an inviolate constitutional right. Do you favor restricting access to firearms? Handgun violence has enormous social and economic costs (with proven data, not guesstimates), so by your logic, handguns should be banned, period. Allowing people to have handguns is akin to giving a toddler the keys to the Buick.
How about abortion? Children born to unwed teen mothers are far more likely to live in poverty and engage in criminal, antisocial behavior. By your logic, those children should be aborted if we're just going on cost versus benefit.