wenglund wrote:
That is the long and subtle way of describing state interest--i.e. the benefits of an anarchic state outweigh the cost of legislating and adjudicating familial disputes.
It's not really state interest. It's the interest of
the people that drive the formation and relevant interest of the state. You're looking at this in an oddly authoritarian way.
While the right to enter into contractual agreements (like marriage) isn't the government's to hand out, the right to have the state sanction a particular contract is.
Well, the government is either morally obligated to recognize certain contracts and deal with them or not depending on the factors at play.You have to be careful not to imply that it is a matter of the whim of the government or what serve's the governments' interests. What matters is whether the rights of the people are secured and whether the welfare of the people are advanced by this or not. But this is already what Gad was getting at. The first step is understanding the arrangements are the people's right. The second step is reading why it's a good idea for the state to mediate these arrangements to the extent it is.
As it happens, your attempt at an absurd example could be structured in a way that would be handled by the courts. It's pointless to go through that though as it is true that not every agreement people make is going to be enforced by the government. That's part of what the government does: provide a framework for what kinds of force can be applied to settle disagreement. The government would deal with your example by saying that nothing is going to be done and forbidding them from taking matters into their own hands beyond a certain point.
It depends. It isn't in the governments interest to legally recognized or santion delitarious relationships (incest for example) or disbeneficial contractual agreements (contracts between bankrobbers).
That goes back to the point of the government having a good basis for discrimination or not. Providing examples of where it does doesn't advance the instances in which it does not.
The bank robbers point is odd, as the government can and should mediate their contracts just the same. Robbing a bank doesn't make a person a lawless island unto themself.
It's not about what benefits the government. The government exists to secure the well-being of the people, not the other way around. It's as if the enlightenment and basic liberal, western political philosophy passed you by, in which case there is a much deeper conversation you need to have.
It's about what benefits the well-being of the people. In advancing that cause, it is quite important to make sure that there is just equality before the law, which is the fundamental value at play here. I'm not sure if I need to explain why adopting that principle provides an important benefit to the general welfare of a society, but I'll assume I don't for the time being. Of course, if the procreation/rearing argument you endorse wasn't garbage, then that would be a reason to discriminate. But first you have to be able to make that case. But you're going further and arguing that the government can and ought to deny classes of people rights and privileges given to others on based on whether it advances the interests of the government. Wow. You know, the existence of Mormonism doesn't really advance the interest of government, nor does allowing the LDS Church to buy land that could instead by bought by taxpayers.
The question is not what does gay (or interracial) marriage give the government, but rather what reason does the government have to mediate opposite-sex marriage and but not gay marriage? Baseless discrimination against classes of people, if allowed in one instance, sets behavioral precedents for the government that potentially threaten the well-being of everyone. Hence the right of people to equal treatment.