As a person who lives in California I hear a lot of discussion of prop 8. Prop 8 was a ballot proposition that attempted to add the definition of marriage as a man and women in the state constitution. I personally voted no on prop 8 but did so for very different reasons than most people. I wanted to give a brief description of my position and why I think both sides are in many ways wrong.


People ask if I’m in favor of “gay marriage” – I’m not.
People ask if I’m in favor of “straight/traditional” marriage – I’m not.

I’m against the state.

In other words, I’m against the government being involved with marriage as an institution. I don’t believe it’s the role of the government to get involved in regulating what should be a private social institution.

This may seem like an odd position but all of us feel this way about other social or traditional rituals/institutions. Here is a list of things that many of us would be against the state being involved in, and this is what it would look like if they were involved in them.

Friendship licenses
A baptism license/permit
Birthday party permit
Sex contract/license

Imagine if the state were to require its people get a “baptism” license before they baptize their child. Certainly you can argue for the “sanctity” of baptism, the very definition of sanctity is holiness, saintliness, or godliness – which is the very reason we should oppose the state being involved. Is the purpose of the state to give us phony and meaningless documents “allowing” us to engage in activities like marriage or baptism? Is the idea of getting “permission” from a government to go fishing or have a birthday party consistent with a free society, or is it more consistent with a totalitarian one?

The proper function of the state I think most would agree is to protect our liberties, provide courts to handle disputes, and other basic functions – not to define and regulate rituals or traditions.

Now many will point out that the logic behind a marriage “license” is also a legal one. Many will point out that being married is a contract between two people that addresses issues like property inheritance, hospital visits, and other issues.

Of course these are all benefits that still could exist under secular civil unions. As of now you can get a civil union with anyone to resolve issues like this – even two roommates who were just friends could get a civil union. Marriage would still exist if we were to abolish state sponsored marriage, in the same way baptisms & birthday parties exist without the state. The difference would be a couple would get married in a church or whatever they wanted, it would be equally meaningful and “holy” in their eyes, but if they also wanted to resolve the legal issues they could get a civil union.

This may be an odd analogy but consider the way it is with driver’s license. As of now you can buy whatever vehicle you want – you can buy a motorcycle, a pink van, a tiny blue car whatever you like. The choice of color, type, size and location of purchase is something you decide. Of course if you want to use the state sponsored roads you must get a drivers license and registration. The registration process is secular and has nothing to do with the type or color of your car; it just is there to say “Hey California, I’m going to be driving around all right?”

The state is there to provide the legal stuff; you pick the car you want. Under our current system of marriage, it would be analogous to the state defining what color car you can drive and letting the people vote on “Prop 64 – to define a vehicle as a yellow Honda civic” – It’s a bazaar analogy but it makes the point.

How would abolishing the state’s involvement in marriage solve anything?

The reason that I believe this is the best way to resolve the ‘gay marriage’ debate is that it takes marriage out of the hands of the state and into the hands of the people – which will satisfy everyone involved. Here’s how:

Religious and traditional people personally do not recognize same-sex marriages and so naturally they’d be opposed to the state changing the definition of marriage. The underlying problem that defenders of traditional marriage have is with what definition they personally feel is right & moral being changed – this problem would disappear under privatized marriage. The Catholic Church defines its own doctrines, and the Democratic Party defines its values, and the state can’t dictate either values or doctrine to either of these organizations – why – because the state is not involved.

Under privatized marriage free men will define their own rituals and institutions according to their religious or personal beliefs, and would not have to bow down to some government that attempts to regulate their life.

Gay marriage supporters could get married or have whatever ritual they see fit and could get a secular civil union without any question. Of course the traditional marriage people may still not recognize their marriage as legitimate, and may even deny them access to their church for ceremonies – so what? That’s a product of a free society.

I do not recognize the Christian church as legitimate in the sense that its existence stands for truth since I believe Christianity is false. Mormons do not consider satanic rituals as legitimate, and many atheists do not see the Jewish tradition of chopping up a young boy’s penis up as legitimate. It’s a better world where people are free to decide on what they recognize as legitimate and not to have the state try to define things it has no business defining.

In short the problem isn’t with whether to define marriage this way or another, the problem is accepting that something as meaningful can even be up for a vote at all. Thomas Paine was quoted saying “That government is best which governs least” and I tend to agree with him.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” – Obama (video link http://tinyurl.com/cuxwr9 )

“The largest cigarette tax in history will take effect Wednesday, April 1, 2009, and many penny pinching smokers are considering kicking the habit. President Obama signed legislation earlier this month that raises the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents a pack.” - http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10105485

Oops.

Is anyone surprised though? An interesting fact about the tax hike is that most smokers are low income.

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only one in five Americans smokes, so the excise targets a minority -- and over half of all smokers are low income, and one of four are officially classified as poor.” – Wall street journal

This is not even counting all the other ways the poor will be hurt under Obama offsetting his pathetic “tax credits” that amount to $10 a week for an individual (two happy meals at McDonalds!), such as printing money (inflation tax), or cap and trade. Setting this aside, one of the said benefits of the tax hike is that it will give high incentive or just force people to quit. Here are few quotes:

“This legislation also wisely increases taxes on other tobacco products to encourage smokers to quit tobacco use and not simply switch to other less expensive products.” – Medical News Today

“If the past is any guide, the sizable tax boost should have an immediate impact in getting many smokers to quit, and anti-smoking advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post

One of the “benefits” of a tax hike on cigarettes is that it will reduce smoking. Remember that voodoo concept supply and demand? When price goes up, demand goes down, right? If the price of cigarettes goes up, demand for them goes down.

The interesting thing about admitting this is the implications. If politically liberal people are happy to admit one of the effects of taxing something is we’ll see less of it, to remain consistent they must admit that this applies to all the things they want to tax. Statists want to tax productivity, investment, employers, trade, and work. So to say “We should raise capital gains made on investment and savings” is equal to saying “We should reduce capital gains made on investment and savings.” Simply change the words.

“This legislation also wisely increases taxes on employers to encourage employers to quit providing employment” – Medical News Today (parody)

“If the past is any guide, the sizable tax boost should have an immediate impact in getting many investors to quit investing, and anti-investment advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post (parody)

For those of us who are consistent in advocating free market principles, it’s not hard to come out of the closet and admit you accept controversial ideas like supply & demand. In the same way that ‘if price goes up, demand goes down’ applies to cigarettes, the same reasoning explains why minimum wage increases (and minimum wage in general) hurts the poor. When you use state force, backed by prison and death threats, to raise the price of labor by artificially setting price controls, you’d expect less ‘labor.’

“If the past is any guide, the sizable minimum wage boost should have an immediate impact in getting many employers to quit hiring, and anti-job advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post (parody)

Can you imagine how upset people would be in liberals advocated tax increases, or minimum wage hikes like this? Of course when do gooders advocate ideas like wage hikes this is exactly the consequences are. There’s no difference in the reasoning, just a difference in the rhetoric.

In short, by Obama legislating higher taxes for poor smokers, supporters of the tax have revealed an inconvenient truth – that an increase in price means we see less of it.