Comments on: Marriage Against the State http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:56:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Positive Liberty » Marraige Against the State, Revisited http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-601009 Positive Liberty » Marraige Against the State, Revisited Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:50:56 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-601009 [...] Mark Olson has some very interesting comments on my post “Marriage Against the State.” His first point is as follows: Marriage has been, historically and socially perhaps even “humanly”, been regarded as more than a contractual matter. A sacramental, liturgical, and eternal significance has almost universally been attached to this event. The phrase, of “pledging our troth before man and God”, is common because it is …, well, common. Marriage (first marriages at least) makes sense as celebration and virtually all cultures that aspect is there in abundance. There is also universally a religious aspect. At the very least, shared liturgical praxis is a to touch the sacred. Charles Taylor in A Secular Age begins by looking at the word “secular”. “Secular” comes from the Latin, saeculum, meaning a period of time. A liturgical rite, in a primal fashion, is a denial of time. It is meant to forge a connection with all the other rites that are the same. The Eucharist for example is a forging of a connection with the first Eucharist during that passover night almost 2000 years ago and every other Eucharist performed everywhere else since then. Marriage ceremonies are the same, a denial of time. This connection between the lover’s bound in marriage and eternity is almost as universal. [...] [...] Mark Olson has some very interesting comments on my post “Marriage Against the State.” His first point is as follows: Marriage has been, historically and socially perhaps even “humanly”, been regarded as more than a contractual matter. A sacramental, liturgical, and eternal significance has almost universally been attached to this event. The phrase, of “pledging our troth before man and God”, is common because it is …, well, common. Marriage (first marriages at least) makes sense as celebration and virtually all cultures that aspect is there in abundance. There is also universally a religious aspect. At the very least, shared liturgical praxis is a to touch the sacred. Charles Taylor in A Secular Age begins by looking at the word “secular”. “Secular” comes from the Latin, saeculum, meaning a period of time. A liturgical rite, in a primal fashion, is a denial of time. It is meant to forge a connection with all the other rites that are the same. The Eucharist for example is a forging of a connection with the first Eucharist during that passover night almost 2000 years ago and every other Eucharist performed everywhere else since then. Marriage ceremonies are the same, a denial of time. This connection between the lover’s bound in marriage and eternity is almost as universal. [...]

]]> By: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Confusion and a Divorce http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-596212 Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Confusion and a Divorce Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:37:08 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-596212 [...] Confusion and a Divorce By Mark O. Jason Kuznicki writes on marriage here. He notes: The thesis: Marriage is in many ways a defense against the state. Marriage is many different things, but in a whole set of ways, it is an approach toward a more limited and more tractable form of government. Marriage — “state-sanctioned” marriage — is a defense of the home against the bureaucracy. [...] [...] Confusion and a Divorce By Mark O. Jason Kuznicki writes on marriage here. He notes: The thesis: Marriage is in many ways a defense against the state. Marriage is many different things, but in a whole set of ways, it is an approach toward a more limited and more tractable form of government. Marriage — “state-sanctioned” marriage — is a defense of the home against the bureaucracy. [...]

]]> By: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Confusion and a Divorce http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-596213 Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Confusion and a Divorce Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:37:08 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-596213 [...] Jason Kuznicki writes on marriage here. He notes: The thesis: Marriage is in many ways a defense against the state. Marriage is many different things, but in a whole set of ways, it is an approach toward a more limited and more tractable form of government. Marriage — “state-sanctioned” marriage — is a defense of the home against the bureaucracy. [...] [...] Jason Kuznicki writes on marriage here. He notes: The thesis: Marriage is in many ways a defense against the state. Marriage is many different things, but in a whole set of ways, it is an approach toward a more limited and more tractable form of government. Marriage — “state-sanctioned” marriage — is a defense of the home against the bureaucracy. [...]

]]> By: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Late Night http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589218 Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Late Night Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:40:36 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589218 [...] I worked late tonight, but I’d like, in part, to make a note or placeholder if you will, that I want to pen a response to this essay, by Jason Kuznicki, on marriage and the state. Because I think while he touches on some of the reasons why citizens want state/marriage/family entanglements he misses others which lead to both parties, state and citizens in favor the current arraignment. In part, I plan to draw on Charles Taylor’s analysis of societal trends over the last 500 years as put down in A Secular Age. Jim Babka comments on that post that he’d like, in part, to “end the culture wars.” This particular culture war has been ongoing for 500 years and my guess is that we are all very thankful for the results, i.e., that the side which is (or was) winning did so. [...] [...] I worked late tonight, but I’d like, in part, to make a note or placeholder if you will, that I want to pen a response to this essay, by Jason Kuznicki, on marriage and the state. Because I think while he touches on some of the reasons why citizens want state/marriage/family entanglements he misses others which lead to both parties, state and citizens in favor the current arraignment. In part, I plan to draw on Charles Taylor’s analysis of societal trends over the last 500 years as put down in A Secular Age. Jim Babka comments on that post that he’d like, in part, to “end the culture wars.” This particular culture war has been ongoing for 500 years and my guess is that we are all very thankful for the results, i.e., that the side which is (or was) winning did so. [...]

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589089 Jason Kuznicki Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:32:21 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589089 I agree entirely that it's galling to think of marriage as permission to enter into intimate relations. I think though that for the younger generation, it simply isn't thought of that way anymore. And yes, divorce does involve courts, lawyers, and claims. But it beats the sorry spectacles one sometimes encounters in the gay world, with locks changed overnight or possessions strewn on front lawns. Maybe the grass does look greener, and maybe there is a lot I could do without in the current marriage law. But these advantages aren't to be taken lightly. I agree entirely that it’s galling to think of marriage as permission to enter into intimate relations. I think though that for the younger generation, it simply isn’t thought of that way anymore.

And yes, divorce does involve courts, lawyers, and claims. But it beats the sorry spectacles one sometimes encounters in the gay world, with locks changed overnight or possessions strewn on front lawns.

Maybe the grass does look greener, and maybe there is a lot I could do without in the current marriage law. But these advantages aren’t to be taken lightly.

]]> By: Jim Babka http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589001 Jim Babka Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:26:25 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state.html#comment-589001 Jason, I think you're right about wanting to live your life, as a gay man, without government intrusion. And given how bad the situation is for you, the grass certainly looks greener for those of us in "state approved" marriages. But the state of marriage (no pun intended) is not approaching Nirvana. It can only be said that traditional marriage is green in comparison. Divorce still involves courts and claims and few who go through a divorce that includes any contest find that they are able to "get on with their lives" because the courts are so convenient. And on a philosophical level, the idea that the state can grant me a "license" to permit me to enter into a contract or relationship is, offensive. No one, be they gay, straight, or polygamous, should have the government telling them they can or cannot enter into a given relationship. My desire here is multifaceted: To end the culture war; To provide equal rights; To restore social institutions and diminish the State. I have learned a lot from the dialogue we had in my previous post on the subject. Jason, I think you’re right about wanting to live your life, as a gay man, without government intrusion. And given how bad the situation is for you, the grass certainly looks greener for those of us in “state approved” marriages.

But the state of marriage (no pun intended) is not approaching Nirvana. It can only be said that traditional marriage is green in comparison. Divorce still involves courts and claims and few who go through a divorce that includes any contest find that they are able to “get on with their lives” because the courts are so convenient.

And on a philosophical level, the idea that the state can grant me a “license” to permit me to enter into a contract or relationship is, offensive. No one, be they gay, straight, or polygamous, should have the government telling them they can or cannot enter into a given relationship.

My desire here is multifaceted: To end the culture war; To provide equal rights; To restore social institutions and diminish the State. I have learned a lot from the dialogue we had in my previous post on the subject.

]]>