1. Divorce. She mentioned that divorce should be harder, and she's absolutely correct. But, I would have liked to her elaborate as to WHY.
Just for reference: 30-40 years ago, divorce used to be fault based. In other words, the husband or the wife had to have done something really awful in order for a divorce to be granted. Not so any more. Now we have "no fault divorce," which really means unilateral divorce. Unilateral divorce means one person can terminate the marriage for any reason, or no reason. There is no other area of contract law where one party can terminate without cause. (Not that marriage is strictly a contract, because it is not. But you get the idea.)
Given this, the reason divorce should be harder is to increase the incentive to marry. Easy divorce reduces the marriage incentive. One of the reason's men cite for not wanting to marry is that they don't want to get screwed over in a divorce. People want to marry FOR LIFE, and the policy should reflect this desire. No fault divorce is a way for the government to micro manage the affairs of divorced people, their children, and their finances. Libertarians should be against this. We do not need easier exit options, we need more love and forgiveness.
Think about it. How much of an incentive do people have to marry, knowing their partner can terminate at any time without any reason at all? Libertarians should be all over this, since no fault divorce forces the state to side with the least committed partner against the partner who wants to stay married. Divorce is NOT a limited government option. Divorce expands government.
2. Gay marriage. She opposed gay marriage, citing marriage as being a civilizing influence. This was a fair answer but again I would have liked to see her explore the ideas surrounding children's rights and parent's rights, and how these are undercut by gay marriage (which really means genderless marriage as a policy). There are extremely strong arguments to be made along these fronts, arguments that would appeal to libertarians. Chief among them is this: traditional marriage, due to it's inherent procreative capacity, is a self replenishing institution. It needs very little from the state, and serves as a buffer against state power. I elaborate more in the articles linked below.
3. Get the Government Out of Marriage. She addressed the "get the government out of marriage" claim very well. She said that it's not realistic, and I agree. There are other reasons too, and I address them here:
"Get the Government Out of Marriage" is a Red Herring
Libertarians and some conservatives need to understand that traditional marriage is a limited government issue--because it's a self replenishing, self sustaining, pre political and pre church institution with its own natural rights, it serves to limit government power. Other family forms do not. Other family forms need help and coddling from the state to exist, and this includes same sex marriage and same sex parenting.
The marriage issue, as it relates to limited government, is my strong suit, and I've written a lot about it. You can read a few of my more popular pieces here:
Freedom to Marry: a Liberal Value Conservatives Should Shun (this was a rebuttal piece I wrote in response to a so-called conservative group supporting gay marriage at the DailyCaller.com)
Is There a Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage? (I debunk the idea that there can be ANY claim for conservatives to support gay marriage.)
Frustrating Ignorance from Christians RE: Gay Marriage (this piece addresses my frustration with most Christians' refusal to learn the non religious reason to support traditional marriage.)
No comments:
Post a Comment