Thursday, May 28, 2009

Hey, Ed: You're wrong

You shouldn't agree with Doug Kmeic, ever, about anything, because he is a lying liberal scumbag.

There is no such thing as "equality." Never has been, never will be. U.S. laws on marriage are part of an Anglo-American legal tradition that far pre-dates the Constitution. To complain that these ancient laws impose an unjust "inequality" is to urge the abandonment of that tradition -- which is exactly what you could expect from a lying liberal scumbag like Kmeic .

Please read "Feminism, 'Equality' and Gay Rights."

UPDATE: Pundette is right. Generally speaking, what liberals propose, conservatives oppose. Let's try to keep that in mind, people. We're never going to get any gold stars for "plays well with others," and we shouldn't pretend to try.

UPDATE II: Gabiel Malor at AOSHQ:
Kmiec . . . is echoing a growing refrain from the more libertarian-minded: get government out of the marriage business. . . .
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either marriage is important enough for soceity--most clearly represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States.
Well, first off, what Kmiec advocates is not a libertarian (or "libertarian-minded") approach. Rather, the entirety of the gay rights agenda is egalitarian, demanding that two very different behaviors be treated as if they were the same.

The gay Left has seized upon an analogy to the civil rights agenda (particularly Loving v. Virginia) and have convinced many that homosexuals -- as a class, or as a sort of behaviorally defined pseudo-ethnicity -- are victims of prejudicial discrimination, as indeed they are, if you adopt the worldview of philosophical egalitarianism.

How many times have I urged readers to take a look at Friedrich Hayek's book, The Mirage of Social Justice? The real problem with egalitarianism is not the means (which are often horrid enough) but rather the end, i.e., the impossible objective of "equality." It can never be obtained, but even if it were possible, is it really desirable?

There are many egalitarians who like to think of themselves as "deep," philosophical and sophisticated, and yet they have obviously never thought very deep about what "equality" would mean. Hayek did that, and did it in such a way that if you read what he wrote -- and if you're really a very thoughtful, pragmatic person -- you immediately become very skeptical when people rail against inequality, or propose some "reform" they say will remedy social injustice.

All egalitarian policies ever do is to (a) replace one set of problems with another, and (b) empower those who enforce the coercive regime necessary to the egalitarian project.

If, in the matter of (a) you suppose that the existing ills you would eradicate is greater than the new ills you would create, then you may still favor the egalitarian project. Yet it is the problem of (b) that looms large here, since the swelling of the regulatory bureaucracy, and the inherent moral problem of coercion, are evils entirely distinct from whatever new evils you have created by the egalitarian reform.

Most people never think that deep. Their argument for any policy -- whether gay marriage or the regulation of greenhouse gases or bailing out General Motors -- is always simplistic: Look, here's something bad, let's fix it.

Yet public policy doesn't work that way. There are always unintended consequences, many of which are unforeseen. Even long after the enactment of new reforms, it is often a matter of fierce debate what are the effects of these policies -- to this day, for example, we're still debating the legacy of the New Deal.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of being treated as if I were an ignoramus by people like Doug Kmiec who imagine themselves fit to lecture me, but who obviously haven't thought about the gay-rights agenda (or any other "progressive" agenda) in any critical way.

20 comments:

  1. Ah yes, liberalism.

    Fueling the downfall of Western society one building block at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for this...

    Thought some had lost sight of reality for a moment there.

    This, just after Kmeic repeatedly distorted Obama's positions on Abortion to defend the honorary degree provided at ND.

    It grows more bizarre everyday, as we now have a Supreme Court Nominee who openly advocated a truly racist conception.

    Change is a flop, as the Carter malaise grows.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Generally speaking, what liberals propose, conservatives oppose. Let's try to keep that in mind, people. We're never going to get any gold stars for "plays well with others," and we shouldn't pretend to try."

    And that might be the biggest problem on the right in the present day - too many think that getting those gold stars is the objective, rather than standing for and defending certain principles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stacy, I updated the post at both locations with links to you and Ed. But I won't be able to be around today to follow-up or comment. So feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I won't defend Kmiec's past record, but the idea is being bruited about because it would limit the state's ability to redefine that important concept, or, better, some activist court's ability to redefine the concept. Is the ideal solution? Well, no, but it may be best fireblock available.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Equality *before the law* is an ancient and great Anglo-American tradition if ever there was one.

    Currently, the law wildly disadvantages same-sex couples, denying rights, privileges,and benefits enjoyed by mixed-sex couples who're joined by civil marriage.

    Obviously, for the sake of equality, equality BEFORE THE LAW (not some abstract Jacobin egalitarian nonsense), there's need for a contractual relationship into which gays and lesbians can enter so as to acquire visitation, inheritance, and attorney rights, tax breaks, and so on.

    I see no reason why "marriage" shouldn't be reserved solely for churches, with civil unions granted by the government with a rightfully blind eye toward the specifics of the arrangement -- be it SSM or MSM.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  7. Plus, the history of the state's involvement with marriage licensing has is pretty dark and troubling.

    How long did prejudiced civil authorities prevent loving mixed-race couples from marrying because of stupid health or safety concerns (cover, of course, for bigotry, plain and simple)?

    Marriage is far too important an institution for an immoral and ineffectual entity like the gov't to control it.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought that 'gay marriage' was not an attack on marriage as an institution. That didn't take long.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Polichinello:

    If marriage is left to contract law, then the state's ability to redefine marriage becomes even greater, not less. Marriage contains many social expectations and beliefs beyond what the state does now. Placing marriage solely into contract law places it totally into state control, because it is law that defines what a contract is, and contract law can be amended at any time by a legislature as it is the sole body that can do this. Contracts do not come with all of the social and civic and religious baggage that marriage has now.

    Mr. Kmiec just advocated surrender with high-flown phrases.

    yrs,
    Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...and contract law can be amended at any time by a legislature as it is the sole body that can do this.And this is different from marriage law...how?

    Contracts do not come with all of the social and civic and religious baggage that marriage has now.Yes, I understand that. The point is by removing the state from that social sphere, you reduce its power to meddle there. As Robert George pointed out in his rebuttal to Kmiec, marriage is a pre-state institution. It'll continue as it's intrinsic to humanity.

    Let me put this idea out there. Under a contract situation, the Catholic Church, for example, could issue its version of a marriage contract, with all sorts of penalties and prohibitions. If both parties sign onto it, now divorce becomes an entirely different matter. It's not going to be the no-fault zone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Phuck you, Fil.

    I don't have to play your bad faith games and pretend that this is about two old ladies with a passel of cats who want to visit one another in the hospital. This is Gramscian cultural Marxism brought to us by the RedFem and other elements who have sought - and written about - destroying the institutions of marriage and the natural family for decades. Do some reading and get an informed opinion, asshole.

    A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161And Kmiec better settle up and get his head right post haste. I think he really ought to consider a sabbatical from public life heavily laced with some retreat time. I know a good Capuchin Franciscan what could straighten him out. That kind of dissonance and insolence isn't healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Phuck you, Fil.

    I don't have to play your bad faith games and pretend that this is about two old ladies with a passel of cats who want to visit one another in the hospital. This is Gramscian cultural Marxism brought to us by the RedFem and other elements who have sought - and written about - destroying the institutions of marriage and the natural family for decades. Do some reading and get an informed opinion, asshole."

    Oh, that's absurd. The gays and lesbians I know are normal folks, mild-mannered bourgeois professionals who walk their dogs and hold Memorial Day BBQs. They want nothing more than to have their joint stake, their shared life secured by law. Enough with the bulging eyes, chief. Yawn yawn goddamn damn.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  13. Doug Kmiec is a dishonest asshole. He isn't even really advocating getting the state out of the marriage business. If the state were just to say - that's it, no licenses, no enforcement, no more family court - that would be the state getting out of the marriage business. But of course, that's not what he wants. He wants the state to enforce "civil license" that anyone can get that is equivalent to marriage under the law. That's not the state getting out of marriage.

    As for Ed - how is having everyone enter into a privately-defined marriage contract (like a prenup) going to do anyone a damn bit of good? So gays will be able to enter into contracts with each other? Guess what, they can do that already. So lets accommodate a few thousand gays in the U.S. so that we can completely fuck over the vast majority of people who can't afford a lawyer when they want to get married, who will no longer be able to rely on the LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF YEARS of legal tradition defining and PROTECTING the participants in the marriage relationship (particularly the weaker ones). Because THAT'S a fanfuckingtastic use of the human capital in this country - let's have a the multi-multi-billion dollar legal industry fight to redefine what the hell a marriage is every time two people get married. Then every time you have a fight, it's a breach of a contract provision you can litigate! If you're lucky, the family court can appoint a special discovery master (kinky!) at the low low price of $100 per hour, payable by the parties before they receive their property settlements.

    At least now the state just mucks around in the dissolution of marriage. The more you contract and lawyer something up, the more you fuck it up, the more you make it into the province of the wealthy and a tool of the wealthy to exploit the less wealthy.

    Brilliant idea.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Former Feminist, your "logic" is painful. Like, needles in the eyes painful.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  15. Polichinello, I think your quoting of me answered your own questions. The state can change contract law and the state can change marriage law.

    Changing which one of those two kicks up the greater fuss? (Rhetorical question - we wouldn't be in this comment section if marriage didn't raise the greater fuss.)

    So how is changing everything over to being purely contract not surrender? And churches will be forced to comply (see Catholic hospitals and the campaign to force them to provide abortions) if the advocates of changing marriage get their way along with surrenderists like Mr. Kmiec.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Oh, that's absurd. The gays and lesbians I know are normal folks, mild-mannered bourgeois professionals who walk their dogs and hold Memorial Day BBQs. They want nothing more than to have their joint stake, their shared life secured by law. Enough with the bulging eyes, chief. Yawn yawn goddamn damn. - PhilWhat is absurd is that you're enough of a douche to argue that because the gays that you know might be fine folks, the world has to set itself on its ear.

    I know plenty of blacks who are jolly good fellows, but that doesn't mean that everything that they might propose as a socio-political expression of their black-ness is good policy. Read a fucking book and come back when you have something better than "teh Gheys barbeque, ergo homosexual marriage" to add to the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Breathe, Alec, breathe. Count to ten: 1, 2, 3 . . .

    Now then, let's bow here to common sense, compassion, and good faith.

    The vast majority of gays and lesbians are normal, well-adjusted, law-abiding, tax-paying, productive members of society.

    They are begging to be "just like 'us.'" They want the house with the picket fence, the dog and couple kids, the vacations to Disney and PTA meetings.

    Let them have all that! Nothing could be healthier for the homosexual community and society at large than for gays and lesbians to be brought in from the cold and dark underworld of cultural radicalism and normalized into the mainstream.

    Me, I believe in marriage. It's a social cornerstone, no doubt. That's exactly why I insist it be an institution of inclusion, not exclusion.

    . . . 8, 9, 10. Oh, good, you've finished. Feeling better, right? Great! Well, scurry off and let the non-lunatics among us talk in peace.

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  18. . . 8, 9, 10. Oh, good, you've finished. Feeling better, right? Great! Well, scurry off and let the non-lunatics among us talk in peace.Wow, Phil, how can anyone here have ever thought you're anything but a complete douchebag. And from your rough and tumble defense of marriage, obviously those who thought your were a Moby were completely proven to way off. Great comment.

    BTW, Phil, you don't have to post as anonymous all the time. See that name/url thingy? Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, Phil, the vast majority of gays want to have kids so they can go to PTA meeting, but it's a lack of compassion that prevents them from doing so? You're right about the lack of ommon sense here, but that ain't exactly the reason they're not reproducing.

    The reason marriage is a social cornerstone is because it is the means through which society self-propogates. Defining a love relationship between two dudes as a "marriage" has nothing to do with the reason that marriage is a social cornerstone. It doesn't serve the institution to define it out of existence. And all the touchy-feely compassion you want won't change that. Facts is facts. The fact is lady+lady=no baby.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Currently, the law wildly disadvantages same-sex couples"

    You should see what it does to three-way couples... they actually throw them in jail.

    ReplyDelete