The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?

“Legalising” gay “marriage” is not the solution to the problem of “marriage inequality”.

The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing “marriage licences” to opposite-sex couples, not for it to get into the business of issuing “marriage licences” to same-sex couples.

Why should anyone require a licence from the government to get married, anyway? Libertarians should be concerned with abolishing such governmental intrusions, not clamouring for “intrusion equality”, or insisting that the State “should recognise everybody’s right to be equally miserable.”

The solution has a precedent in the abolition of titular Knighthood and Damehood honours by Helen Clark. (They were restored by John Key in 2009.) Wikipedia says

In April 2000 the new Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that knighthoods and damehoods were abolished, and the order’s statutes were amended accordingly. Between 2000 and 2009, the two highest awards were called Principal Companion (PCNZM) and Distinguished Companion (DCNZM), and recipients did not receive the title “Sir” or “Dame”. Their award was recognised solely by the use of post-nominal letters, as for the lower levels of the order.

The government simply needs to set a date after which marriage licences will no longer be issued. Civil unions will be the only option available for gay and non-gay couples wanting governmental endorsement of their love lives and living arrangements. Existing marriage licences issued by the government, and those issued by other governments, would continue to be recognised, but the government would cease to issue new marriage licences after the set date.

After much time spent considering my co-bloggers’ excellent arguments both for (Tim) and against (Reed) Louisa Wall’s “marriage equality” bill, I’m off the fence now and picking the splinters out of my scrotum. I’m for marriage equality and against Wall’s bill.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

13 thoughts on “The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?”

  1. I’m opposed to Civil Union legislation because it is a government endorsement of immoral acts. I’m indifferent about Marriage legislation because it is a government endorsement of moral acts.

    Why do you support Civil Unions legislation and oppose Marriage legislation?

    “Legalising” gay “marriage” is not the solution to the problem of “marriage inequality”.

    It is the “problem” of marriage equality.
    There is no problem – except perhaps wanting to be accepted and jealousy.

  2. Reed, I came across this while reading the Wikipedia article on Civil union in New Zealand.

    During consideration of the bill, various amendments were proposed. These included making the issue subject to a binding referendum … Another was to replace it with a “civil relationships” bill that would allow any two people to register any personal relationship and to gain joint property rights (moved by National MP Richard Worth, a consistent opponent of the bill). These proposals were dismissed by supporters of the bill as delaying tactics rather than serious proposals and were defeated in Parliament by a block vote of Labour, the Greens, and the Progressives.

    I think Worth’s is a “Worth”while proposal. Ask yourself, why is the government involved in the marriage business, anyway? Its legitimate involvement (mainly) concerns the contractual aspects of marriage. Civil unions (or “civil relationships,” if you prefer) are adequate for this purpose. Gays should enjoy the same rights and bear the same responsibilities as anyone else in this regard.

    I disagree that civil union legislation constitutes government endorsement of immoral acts.

    There is no problem – except perhaps wanting to be accepted and jealousy.

    Indeed, that’s exactly the problem. And it’s why mine is exactly the solution. 🙂

  3. Calling them ‘Buggers’ is very unPC! 🙂
    In the Debate comments I made this exact point and so I agree with your sentiments…

    “I would be very happy if Marrage was completely dropped out of legislation and that to take care of the contractual/ legal aspects of ‘commitment’ everyone entered into ‘Civil unions’. This would leave Marrage completely outside the business of the state. And thereby allow everyone to define Marrage, however they please. There is nothing unchristian about such a reform.
    Christian Marrage is between the participants and God.
    This is central to this debate, yet never raised.”

    Having said this I think you are wrong to reject the Bill… because, though not perfect, it will tend towards greater justice by removing an inequality with favours a particular religious belief… and that is something to be careful not to fortify.
    Should the abollishment of ‘Marrage’ as a Legal matter be presented as a Bill, then it would be appropriate to support that, yet today that is not on the cards.
    We therefore have to ask if the Gay Marrage bill tends towards greater justice or less. I think it is an important improvement on the status quo… further separating the church from the state…

  4. You are arguing over labels? If you support Civil Unions for same or opposite sex couples, why not marriage? I don’t get it. And what’s the gain from henceforth stopping ANYONE getting ‘married’ (through abolition of marriage licences) if they want to? Some traditions I like. They emerge and evolve for good reasons. As ‘solutions’ go this is a bit whacky:-)

  5. Lindsay, the abolition of marriage licences does NOT stop anyone from getting married. I don’t support “legalising” gay marriage because gay marriage is not illegal. It’s simply not currently *recognised* by the NZ government. (Perhaps for a good reason, viz., that “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms.)

    I support civil union legislation because I support relationship property rights. (Also, I have no general objection to gay couples adopting children.)

    You’re a libertarian. How do you justify governmental involvement in the marriage business in the first place?

  6. We therefore have to ask if the Gay Marrage bill tends towards greater justice or less. I think it is an important improvement on the status quo… further separating the church from the state…

    I think it’s a retrograde step. If now is not the time to question the government’s involvement in the marriage business (with a view to getting the government out of the marriage business), when is?

  7. ” How do you justify governmental involvement in the marriage business in the first place?”

    I don’t know but I imagine that the state got involved to give protection to rights that the church couldn’t. And to give an alternative to people who were not religious. I got married at home with a JP doing the service. Not possible under your proposal. Yes I have a sentimental attachment to the concept of marriage. Because of traditionalism I am not alone.

    Am I a libertarian? Don’t know. Don’t like boxes.

  8. I get your point. Richard.
    Gays can already hold a marrage cerimony.
    They can call themselves ‘Married’
    And they can enter into a civil union contract to take care of the Legalities of a partnership.
    And so can Heterosexuals, do the same thing.
    You are right to say separating ‘Marrage’ from the state is the best solution … yet still it will be almost an impossiblity to get Marrage abollished under the current system, thus it ought to be broadened to be more inclusive, and divested of its narrow religious definition… and that is what the proposed bill does…

  9. it will be almost an impossiblity to get Marrage abollished under the current system, thus it ought to be broadened to be more inclusive, and divested of its narrow religious definition… and that is what the proposed bill does…

    I get your point, too, Tim. And you almost had me convinced … but the real issue here is government involvement in what is essentially a private matter … and I see the real issue getting swept under the rug.

  10. I have a sentimental attachment to the concept of marriage.

    Lindsay, what is your concept of marriage? Is it something that’s between one man and one (and only one) not-too-closely-related woman?

Leave a Reply to Richard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *