I see that people in our part of the tradosphere / manosphere have been talking about gay marriage again (occasioned by President Obama’s coming out in favour of gay marriage) – see Elspeth’s post here and Ulysses’ post here – same as has been discussed before in the manosphere and tradosphere, e.g. twice by Ferd himself (see here and here) and once at Ferd’s by Johann Happolati, here, and also over by Alte at TC a while back, here.
As anyone will see who reads my previous comments on Ferd’s and Alte’s posts, I do care about the issue (it affects how I vote, or rather, how I don’t vote), and am opposed to institutionalizing gay marriage, for the reasons I gave there. (BTW, like Ulysses and Chris, I, too, have known a number of gay people, both IRL and online, and get along fine with them; doesn’t mean I endorse their lifestyle, though; as a Christian, I cannot. Simple as that.)
Chris asks if the State should even be involved in marriage, in the first place, and gives his opinion that it shouldn’t.
This is the libertarian perspective, of course; I recall, back in the days when I used to read paleolibertarian sites like Lew Rockwell regularly, similar arguments put forth there; in fact, a quick search reveals several hundred articles on the subject there.
If the state is not involved in families, and I consider this is the correct place for the state and the more sustainable position to take, then the state will not pay when things go wrong. Instead, people will have to rely on their extended family and charity.
This need to rely on those you love puts a brake on things. It means that there would be some very hard conversations about adoption — as some families would not be able to keep and feed the next child — and clear consequences to playing the field. For as a male, you cannot assume it is ever safe to have sex: If you do have intercourse with a woman you are leaving yourself open to having to provide for any child of that act.
And biology will win out. No contraception is foolproof. And rewarding irresponsibility… which is what the state at times does to gain control over more of our lives, increases the rate of such behaviour.
Which, in the end, is a road that leads to the state defaulting, the people struggling to survive, and those dependent on the state having to find another source of support. In the end, a man, though imperfect, is more secure.
I see Chris’ point, and see much wisdom in it; forcing people to rely on their extended families / charities / the Church, rather than the State, would disincentivize both gay marriage and frivolous divorce, certainly. Plus, I have never liked the State declaring people who live together in sin to be considered as married according to “common law”, as is the case in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, thus giving them the privileges on the one hand, and responsibilities on the other, that those who have consciously chosen to join together in the act of marriage, have; it has always struck me as unfair in both directions.
At the same time, however, I am hesitant to embrace such a stance, of getting the State completely out of the marriage business, because, as a traditionalist conservative / reactionary, I would prefer to see the State actively support and stand for the good, rather than being morally neutral, on moral matters.
That said, though, I certainly would prefer the State be neutral rather than be actively encouraging ill, as I believe it is doing now, whether unwittingly or deliberately.
The thing is, though, even if the State were to no longer officially recognize either the married or single state of its citizens, it would still be involved in the enforcement of contracts, if the parties in question appealed to the State to resolve any disputes they might have. So I can’t see that the State would ever be fully removed from involvement, regardless…
So… I have much sympathy for Chris’ POV, without being able to fully embrace it, myself, at this time. My views may evolve, though. We’ll see.