Neo Kervoskia
21-10-2005, 21:52
Well, here's my alternative view of gay marriage. It draws from Hayekian liberalism. It's flawed, but I'm working on it. (I posted this on my blog originally, so that explain's the format.)
There is much debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. The bulk of this culture war is being fought by two extremes; those in favor of preserving the institution in its current state and those in favor of alterating the definition of marriage. Proponents of these goals require legislation and that most effective of instruments, the Supreme Court. No matter which view is taken, the state is used to define the definition of a cultural institution. The effects of either decision are rarely taken into account. I do not hold either view on the issue. Instead I hold an alternative view that is usually never considered.
Tradition is created by human interaction. They evolve, as we do, with the times. They are not centrally planned, but are the result of human experimentation in society. The governing body did not simply decree that religion must become a tradition. It evolved and soon became widespread amongst the people of the ancient world. Art was not centrally planned by the state, it is a construct that was the result of free human interaction. To attempt to centrally plan tradition is the same as trying to centrally plan the economy. Institutions have certain advantages that it would not normally have if not for the state's intervention.
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state is altering the definition of it. In effect they are attempting to create a new tradition. This is a slight cultural revolution, not the evolution that occurs when social institutions are left to the free human interaction. This also had darker implications. By allowing the state to change a tradition, one is signally to the state that it has the authority over social life.
However, this does not mean that a tradition should be preserved. The other view on the issue is that the institution of marriage is so sacred and vital to society that it could not bare being changed. The consequences would have an adverse effect on society. Majoritism also plays a part in this stance, but it shall not be discussed. By using the state to preserve a tradition, it creates resentment towards it, which is counter-productive and can prove to be quite problematic. The state is, in effect, stalling social evolution. If changes to the definition of marriage are made outside of the state and become accepted, but the state refuses to recognize it, it will cause anger towards the governing body and could possibly to lead to revolt.
Instead of using the state to centrally plan or preserve tradition, it should be left to what created it; free human interaction. Same-sex marriage, and marriage in general, should neither be restricted nor changed by the state. Social evolution will do so. Resentment against tradition will not be as rampant and the process will occur more naturally and smoothly. Benefits for married couples provide an incentive for both preservation and change and should thus be eliminated. If one wishes to have certain insurance benefits because of marital status, then one can discuss it with ones insurance agency. Since marriage is such a widespread tradition, it it mat induce insurance agencies to include marriage clauses or benefits to their policies in order to increase profits and to fill the void left by the state.
There is much debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. The bulk of this culture war is being fought by two extremes; those in favor of preserving the institution in its current state and those in favor of alterating the definition of marriage. Proponents of these goals require legislation and that most effective of instruments, the Supreme Court. No matter which view is taken, the state is used to define the definition of a cultural institution. The effects of either decision are rarely taken into account. I do not hold either view on the issue. Instead I hold an alternative view that is usually never considered.
Tradition is created by human interaction. They evolve, as we do, with the times. They are not centrally planned, but are the result of human experimentation in society. The governing body did not simply decree that religion must become a tradition. It evolved and soon became widespread amongst the people of the ancient world. Art was not centrally planned by the state, it is a construct that was the result of free human interaction. To attempt to centrally plan tradition is the same as trying to centrally plan the economy. Institutions have certain advantages that it would not normally have if not for the state's intervention.
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state is altering the definition of it. In effect they are attempting to create a new tradition. This is a slight cultural revolution, not the evolution that occurs when social institutions are left to the free human interaction. This also had darker implications. By allowing the state to change a tradition, one is signally to the state that it has the authority over social life.
However, this does not mean that a tradition should be preserved. The other view on the issue is that the institution of marriage is so sacred and vital to society that it could not bare being changed. The consequences would have an adverse effect on society. Majoritism also plays a part in this stance, but it shall not be discussed. By using the state to preserve a tradition, it creates resentment towards it, which is counter-productive and can prove to be quite problematic. The state is, in effect, stalling social evolution. If changes to the definition of marriage are made outside of the state and become accepted, but the state refuses to recognize it, it will cause anger towards the governing body and could possibly to lead to revolt.
Instead of using the state to centrally plan or preserve tradition, it should be left to what created it; free human interaction. Same-sex marriage, and marriage in general, should neither be restricted nor changed by the state. Social evolution will do so. Resentment against tradition will not be as rampant and the process will occur more naturally and smoothly. Benefits for married couples provide an incentive for both preservation and change and should thus be eliminated. If one wishes to have certain insurance benefits because of marital status, then one can discuss it with ones insurance agency. Since marriage is such a widespread tradition, it it mat induce insurance agencies to include marriage clauses or benefits to their policies in order to increase profits and to fill the void left by the state.