An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Paranoia From The Right
An all-star cast of liberal academics and scholars releases a call to greatly expand the types of relationships that should get societal assistance. Who would have guessed that the Washington Times would totally misinterpret it?
7 Responses to “Paranoia From The Right”
Family has done a pretty good job at redefining itself.
David, don’t get me wrong, I fully recognize the importance of supporting non-traditional family groups of all types, but I have a strong suspicion that many Christianists wouldn’t get far past the first line of the petition:
We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers…
I’m just sayin’.
CaliBlogger.com
I am not gay. For me gay rights could have easily been a non-issue. After examining the issue for some time, speaking with people, and generally investigating for my own knowledge, I side with those whom demand liberty.
I don’t care how somebody became gay, natural selection or not, they have an inalienable right to marry regardless of gender, the full rights of such marriage recognized, and to be damn well left alone to live and pursue their happiness as they see fit.
It does amaze me however, that after years of fence sitting over the issue, how little fact gathering it took to sway me to an absolute belief in gay people’s right to marry and be called married in Law and discourse.
Furthermore, I am appalled at those whom think otherwise.
David Schraub
The thrust of the proposal is that there are many forms of relationships which wouldn’t fall under the rubric of “marriage” that still deserve some societal support. For example, an adult child caring for his ailing parents. Or a grandmother looking after her grandkids. Or an elderly widow and widower living together to look after each other, but not married.
 That’s a great frame but the reality is far from the benign proposal you present. It amounts to a giant expansion of the scope of government.
People have been caring for their elderly parents for ages. I currently subsidize my mother-in law and did the same for her husband in his golden years. Eventually she will probably move in with us. But we don’t need the government to recognize this relationship as a family. You could think of any number of equations where people live together and form an unconventional family
The reality is those making these proposals really want to expand the role of government and limit the private sector. When any group of people can become a family the family leave act becomes one incredibly intrusive restriction on the rights of business. It is designed to be completely unwieldy so that business would then look to government for relief further expanding the scope of government.
This is a struggle to make sure that any type of family has access to the resources they need to care for one another, regardless of what title we attach to it.
Again, you are disguising the actual purpose of the proposal. Why should ANY FAMILY get such resources while individuals do not? In essence you are advocating for a giant list of additional entitlements and government intervention into the economy. Comparing the issue of “gay marriage ” is a straw man for both sides. The real answer is actually quite simple.
Government should not be expanding what constitutes a family. Rather it should completely STEP OUT OF THE ISSUE ENTIRELY. Have whatever family you want. You just won’t get society to subsidize your choice. Single folks should not be required to pay tribute to those who form families.
The same would be true for marriage. Take it out of the governments hands entirely. different churches wish to apply marriages differently they would be free to do so. Government could give anyone the right to form civil unions which would protect people on many levels. Problem solved.
Salmenio said :
I don’t care how somebody became gay, natural selection or not, they have an inalienable right to marry regardless of gender, the full rights of such marriage recognized, and to be damn well left alone to live and pursue their happiness as they see fit.
Regardless of gender? Sal? What the hell are you talking about? Did someone advocate that Lesbians should be allowed to marry but not homosexual men? Or vice versa?
MichaelF
We will “expand” government as we wish, according to popular opinion. The constitution is a “living” document. Not a dead and bigoted ideology like your “should” and “should not” high school rhetoric.
Over a course of national time, people change and so they are compelled to change their laws and documents to reflect that change. It is the hallmark of a Democracy to be duty bound for the will of the people.
Salmenio,
The only part of the constitution that is “living” is our ability to amend it. Interpretation which takes place inside the bounds of its language is another matter.
It may be a “hallmark” of Democracy to be “duty bound for the will of the people.” Fortunately for all of us, we don’t live in a true democracy and there are significant limits and hurdles that must be overcome before the “tyranny of the masses” can have their way. That is THE reason that amending the constitution is so difficult. That’s why Rhode Island gets the same number of senators as California. That’s why amendments are so difficult to pass; that’s why your statements about popular opinion are completely wrong.
So no, government doesn’t expand (expand is such a bad word – intrude is better) as “we” wish according to popular opinion. The safeguards in the constitution prevent that, or at least are supposed to. They protect us from ourselves.
To the question at hand, though – do you really want the government to decide what is and what is not a familial relationship? People can decide that for themselves. I have to agree with Michael that government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. Marriage, by the traditional definition, is a religious bond and therefore something the government should not be involved in. Government, however, certain can and should provide civil unions and other categorizations that allow people the freedom to make and build “contracts” similar to what we have now with marriage.
So I agree that Gay people or whoever should have the opportunity to get the legal benefits that come with marriage today. We just disagree on the method – you want the government to define and decide who qualifies while I want that power to rest with the individual.