US to force gay diplomats to marry

[pat34lee]

The court had a conservative majority. It's not a liberal/conservative thing; it's a libertarian/authoritarian thing. If you prize freedom, you let people free to choose. If you prize government control, you impose your rules on everyone else.

The government should never have been in the
marriage business. That is a role for the churches
and the local judiciary. The main problem was due
to the IRS being used to promote social values for
whichever side controlled them.

 

[Paidiske]

The rest of the world is not civilized.

What are the qualifying marks of civilisation, in your view?

Because dismissing every other country in the world as "not civilised" comes across as pretty parochial and narrow, to me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If I was a baker, I'd sell "celebration cakes",and sell accessories to let people decorate them as they wished. Problem solved.

That is not what they argued for in court.

 

[The Barbarian]

The government should never have been in the
marriage business.

True. Government has no business whatever in deciding who should or should not marry.

That is a role for the churches

Right. But only for their members.

and the local judiciary.

Absolutely not. If you can get only one thing about government, you should realize that local tyrants, given power, are almost always worse than national tyrants. This is why peasants always tended to side with kings against the barons; kings tended to be less abusive.

No one should be regulating who gets married, other than churches for those who voluntarily accept such guidance.

 

[The Barbarian]

The rest of the world is not civilized.

Every uncivilized society believes that.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is not what they argued for in court.

Too bad for them, then. I'm just pointing out a way to follow one's beliefs in a way that makes legal objections impossible.

Of course, it preserves one's freedom without abusing anyone else.

Which might not satisfy some people. I'm just saying it would satisfy me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Too bad for them, then. I'm just pointing out a way to follow one's beliefs in a way that makes legal objections impossible.

Of course, it preserves one's freedom without abusing anyone else.

Which might not satisfy some people. I'm just saying it would satisfy me.

Your still forcing someone to support something they do not want to support. You are taking their freedom away from them. Sinners are in bondage and they want others to be in bondage with them. As Christians it is not so much what we do or do not do. It is the example we set for others. We are not to be a stumbling block for others.

It is a sin for us to give hearty approval. You solution is to remove the word hearty and just require them to approve. But gay people are seeking whole hearted approval. Not just allow them to do what they want. They already have that. No one really cares what they do in their closet. It is none of our business.

Romans 1:32 V-PIA-3P
GRK: ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν
NAS: but also give hearty approval to those

 

[Paidiske]

No one should be regulating who gets married, other than churches for those who voluntarily accept such guidance.

I think I see where you're coming from, but do you think government regulation helps, for example, to prevent people from being coerced into marriage, or in preventing child brides and the like?

If government regulation gives us nothing else, at least it tries to ensure that both parties do actually freely consent to the marriage, by making that a legal requirement.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think I see where you're coming from, but do you think government regulation helps, for example, to prevent people from being coerced into marriage, or in preventing child brides and the like?

Of course. But there are laws requiring consent, which are the proper purpose of government, to keep people from abusing others.

No need to impose rules on who gives consent. Government should only be concerned that both parties are capable of consent and have given it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

preventing child brides

I think if you are going to force a women into marriage then you should not be surprised if she straps a
bomb on her son and sends himnout to blow himself up before he gets old enough to go out and do to another women what happened to her.

Yet sometimes the kidnapped war brides get along with their husband and actually fall in love with him. So you never know what is going to happen. Some women adjust and adapt and find happiness and others do not. The Stockholm syndrome becomes a subject of conversation.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course. But there are laws requiring consent, which are the proper purpose of government, to keep people from abusing others.

No need to impose rules on who gives consent. Government should only be concerned that both parties are capable of consent and have given it.

My point is, there might be good reasons to involve governments in overseeing marriage. Once you've conceded that point, the question only becomes what good marriage law looks like, not whether we should have it.

 

[The Barbarian]

My point is, there might be good reasons to involve governments in overseeing marriage.

Only insofar as needed to assure that it's voluntary. Pretty much the standard for everything else. Anything beyond that is tyranny.

Once you've conceded that point, the question only becomes what good marriage law looks like, not whether we should have it.

No. That would be like saying that having banned slavery, we could tell an employer who could or could not voluntarily work for him, or tell a worker what jobs he could have.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. What about laws to do with not being able to marry close blood relatives? Reasonable or not?

But my point is, the minute you've put any requirement in place - like free consent - then you're governing it, because someone has to authorise the marriage and so forth (check that both parties are, in fact, freely consenting, of age, etc).

Government has a role. We're only arguing about how large that role should be.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm. What about laws to do with not being able to marry close blood relatives? Reasonable or not?

Since sibling marriages or parent/child marriages involve a much greater risk of harm to offspring, there is a reasonable point in banning such unions

In the case of cousins, it's harder to make such a case.

But my point is, the minute you've put any requirement in place - like free consent - then you're governing it, because someone has to authorise the marriage and so forth (check that both parties are, in fact, freely consenting, of age, etc).

If that was true, then it would be less evil to permit incestious marriages than to let government make arbitrary rules about marriage. Fortunately, it's not true. The courts have held that such rules must have compelling reasons.

Government has a role.

Of course. If we banned government, someone would impose one on us. But we have far too much government. It's supposed to keep the strong from abusing the weak and to be sure no one wrecks the commons for his own purposes.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't really understand your approach. On the one hand, you agree with me that we need to protect the vulnerable and society in how we govern marriage, then you seem to say that allowing the government to do that is the greater evil.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't really understand your approach. On the one hand, you agree with me that we need to protect the vulnerable and society in how we govern marriage, then you seem to say that allowing the government to do that is the greater evil.

Compelling public interest. Prohibits forced marriages or sibling marriages for rational reasons. That does not permit government to forbid other marriages.

 

[Paidiske]

Compelling public interest. Prohibits forced marriages or sibling marriages for rational reasons. That does not permit government to forbid other marriages.

I didn't suggest that it did. But I was responding to the suggestion that governments should have no oversight of marriages at all, and pointing out that there were good reasons for it.

 

[The Barbarian]

It would have resulted in less evil if government ha no role at all in marriage.

For both legal and religious reasons. Madison was correct; government involvement in religion is intrinsically evil.

 

[Paidiske]

I think my view is that it is more important that the vulnerable be protected; so I am grateful that the government shoulders the burden of protecting the vulnerable in this way.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your still forcing someone to support something they do not want to support.

Nope. I'm just saying what I would do. I believe homosexual behavior is a sin. I believe I have no right to tell anyone to whom they cannot be married. So my solution works for me, because it follows my religious and ethical standards.

You are taking their freedom away from them.

No, I'm not imposing on them at all. I'm just not taking part in whatever they are doing.

Sinners are in bondage and they want others to be in bondage with them.

As Christians, we should avoid sinning by trying to impose on others that way. Nor should we refuse to deal with sinners at all. The Pharisees castigated Jesus for eating and drinking among sinners.

As Christians it is not so much what we do or do not do. It is the example we set for others. We are not to be a stumbling block for others.

Which is why my solution works.

It is a sin for us to give hearty approval. You solution is to remove the word hearty and just require them to approve.

Nope. For one, it's what I would do. For another, it gives no appproval at all. The guy buying the cake might be planning a gay marriage, or he could be a conservative planning a KKK function. None of my business; I'm just selling cakes.

And yeah, it might annoy some militant homosexual looking to get approval. Tough on him as well; it's legally defensible.