Marriage

[NIJamesHughes]

Suprisingly enough, I came across this article while researching the new right. I think it is by the same Thomas Sowell that is published at capmag.com

This is probably the best article I have ever read about marriage. Before this I really didn't have an opinion. The part that I don't like about the article, is at the end where he seems to endorse the anti-homosexual mentality. I think what he says is true, but it is written with sympathy to the right. Where he is attacking public schools, it is written to be taken as an attack on the homosexual lifestyle, esp. in the last four paragraphs.

The article was here: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2063

Edited January 22, 2005 by NIJamesHughes

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Sowell makes a good argument against gay marriage, but it is, in fact, an argument against all marriage, at least insofar as it is a political institution. His justification for applying the restrictions of marriage to heterosexual couples consists of, "Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options." Yet, what "society's stake" is, I do not know, nor does he explain. Looks like a hidden collectivist premise to me.

I think he's right on the money when he says that what the gay activists really want is not some kind of rights, hitherto allegedly denied them, but a stamp of social approval. More collectivist premises. Since approval is an evaluation, and therefore an individual act of choice, it is not the government's to hand out.

[NIJamesHughes]

Sowell makes a good argument against gay marriage, but it is, in fact, an argument against all marriage, at least insofar as it is a political institution.  His justification for applying the restrictions of marriage to heterosexual couples consists of, "Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options."  Yet, what "society's stake" is, I do not know, nor does he explain.  Looks like a hidden collectivist premise to me. 

I think he's right on the money when he says that what the gay activists really want is not some kind of rights, hitherto allegedly denied them, but a stamp of social approval.  More collectivist premises.  Since approval is an evaluation, and therefore an individual act of choice, it is not the government's to hand out.

The part that I like is the arguement against all marriage as a legal institution, but i think he misses the point. He says that "hetero-marriage" should be regulated, because of whatever. I think this is wrong, and that marriage should not be legally recognized. We have conventional contractual agreements to settle partnership concerns.

[punk]

I am not totally familiar with the law in this regard, but I was under the impression the issue at hand was certain rights that accrued to the married partner:

1. The ability to make medical decision for the spouse when the spouse is unable to make those decisions

2. The ability to gain custody of a child when the spouse dies (if the child was in the custody of that spouse, I dont believe the law allows joint custody to homosexual couples)

3. The ability to inherit the spouse's property when the spouse dies

It is my understanding that without marriage the rights above tend to fall back onto the sick or dead partner's family, and the other partner has no legal rights to these things. The third shouldn't be an issue, but families have been able to challenge wills in court that leave belongs to a homosexual partner.

The issue then is the ability of the famility of one of the partners to exclude the other one from all decisions when that partner is no longer legally able to make decisions for him or herself.

[Bryan]

I am not totally familiar with the law in this regard, but I was under the impression the issue at hand was certain rights that accrued to the married partner:

1.  The ability to make medical decision for the spouse when the spouse is unable to make those decisions

2.  The ability to gain custody of a child when the spouse dies (if the child was in the custody of that spouse, I dont believe the law allows joint custody to homosexual couples)

3.  The ability to inherit the spouse's property when the spouse dies

It is my understanding that without marriage the rights above tend to fall back onto the sick or dead partner's family, and the other partner has no legal rights to these things.  The third shouldn't be an issue, but families have been able to challenge wills in court that leave belongs to a homosexual partner.

The issue then is the ability of the famility of one of the partners to exclude the other one from all decisions when that partner is no longer legally able to make decisions for him or herself.

1. This issue could be handled by a legal contract between the two gay partners when they choose to spend their lives together.

2. If there is a gay couple, and one of the adults is the biological parent of the child the other partner could legally adopt the child. This is no different from a married straight couple where one partner adopts the biological child of the other.

3. With a will you can legally leave your property to whoever or whatever you want. I've heard of people leaving their entire estates to their pets.

The only major issues I see with gay "marriage" that can't be solved through a contract are those that involve a third party. An example is where one person is the "bread-winner" and gets health insurance for their spouse though their employer from an insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't recognize gay spouses, these people cannot get the same benefits from their employers as their heterosexual counterparts.

[JMeganSnow]

I've found this entire issue to be extremely bizarre, and the more I think about it the more bizarre it gets.

My reasoning:

Marriage is a legal contract, but it's not a simple legal contract. It contains a complex exchange of values, rights, and legal protections. Here's my list:

1. Spouses become legal next-of-kin. This is a 1-for-1 exchange.

2. Spouses commit to cease outside sexual activities (1:1)

3. Spouses share property in common (at the very least, property acquired during the marriage). In theory this would be an even exchange. If you go to Dumblaws.com I believe that in Alabama at least all property of the man becomes common property, but the woman is entitled to retain as private any property she owned prior to the marriage. Odd.

4. Some provision is made for children. In a "traditional" marriage this means that the man agrees to provide for the woman and offspring. In return he gains rights to his offspring that are equivalent to the rights the woman already possesses. I'm aware that these "traditional" marriages are becoming less and less common as the reasons for them disintegrate. The basis for this is the simple requirements of biology: providing for children requires quite a bit of effort and men, despite their many virtues, can't breast-feed a baby. Of course now there's substitutes, but that's the "base condition" that created the institution.

The odd part about #4 is that now, due to the malicious welfare-state child support program, men lose the benefits they receive from marriage. Women are entitled to support for a child regardless of any contractual agreement being in place. The response of men to this was to demand that they should have rights to their offspring regardless of the contractual agreement as well. This is a side issue, but I just thought I'd mention it in passing.

Marriage is a collective title given when all four of the above legal contracts are enacted at once. There may be more provisions, but if you take out one of the above provisions it's not marriage any more.

So, looking at this, why shouldn't homosexuals be able to engage in this particular legal contract? Is there any condition that they are fundamentally unsuited to fulfill? Given, they may not be able to produce a child between them without assistance, but many hetero couples can't do that either.

If anyone can come up with a reason why, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned the issue is pretty much moot.

[ex_banana-eater]

Why do contracts have to include any or all of the things listed above (especially #2)? A couple sets and makes a civil contract between eachother under a free society. The terms can be as restrictive or relaxed as they wish.

I don't see how this is such a large issue, it's relatively simple. The government should pull itself out of marriage and not restrict anyone who wants to make a contract. That includes a nephew living and looking after his sick aunt, a gay couple, a heterosexual couple, or a group of six monks.

Right now there are three options that come up on ballot initiatives. Option one is to ban gay marriage and civil unions, option two is to allow civil unions only, and option three is to allow gay marriage. Right now option two is the correct choice, since it does not allow further descrimination and entitlements against single people or anyone else who is not gay or heterosexual like option three does. Option one restricts a minority of the population from entering contractual agreements.

[JMeganSnow]

There's no reason that any contract has to include the list I mentioned, but if it doesn't I really can't see you getting away with calling it a marriage. Maybe a next-of-kin agreement, or a civil union, or a child protection agreement. Marriage is a name for a very specific group of agreements.

I may be off base but I don't think you can take any old agreement and slap any name you like on it, just like I don't think you can take any old thing and slap any name you like on it. A keyboard is not a mouse is not a telephone.

[MisterSwig]

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have ...

The issue is not individual rights. What the [pro-homosexual marriage] activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

How does restricting one's rights entail social approval? Is Sowell trying to say that whatever the government allows to happen is therefore granted social acceptance?

I think Sowell has a dangerous view of rights and government.

A proper government recognizes rights. It doesn't "extend" or grant rights or give social approval to people's actions. A good government says, "We recognize your right to act in pursuit of your own life, liberty, property and happiness. But if you initiate force upon another person, then we will retaliate against you." Our government today still recognizes our right to advocate the virtue of selfishness. Does that mean that we egoists now have social approval? We have a right to smoke tobacco. Does that mean society approves of such behavior? We have the right to "restrict" our rights in countless ways through contractual agreements. Does this mean that society approves of things like prenuptial agreements? No. It doesn't. "Society" is only a name for a collection of individuals. Society is not a real entity. It does not have values of its own. It does not approve or disapprove of anything. It is not a person.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The only way someone could have a "right" to your approval is if "your approval" means that the government (or society) hands out approval slips on your behalf.

This kind of dishonest argumentation is a cover for Sowell's deep-seated opposition to individual rights and freedom. He's trying desperately to find a way to equate individual rights with social approval. In other words, he is operating on the premise that the "approved" list of rights comes from the will of the democratic majority. Society, or the public, is ultimately the dictator of right and wrong. Thus, marriage between man and woman is okay, because the majority has approved of it, but homosexual marriage is wrong, because society votes against it.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

Notice Sowell's explicit appeal to the society as a whole. He pits "special interest groups" (i.e., minorities) versus "society as a whole" (i.e., the collective, the majority). This is the kind of rhetoric that pushes people into the direction of Democracy (rule by the majority).

In Sowell's world, individual rights violate society's "right" to approve or disapprove of personal actions through government legislation.

[Bryan]

How does restricting one's rights entail social approval? Is Sowell trying to say that whatever the government allows to happen is therefore granted social acceptance?

I think Sowell has a dangerous view of rights and government.

I think you are misinterpreting Sowell's position on this issue. The basic argument of his column is that the advocates for gay marriage are looking for government approval for gay marriage because they (not him) believe that this will grant them a social sancation on their lifestyle.

The only way someone could have a "right" to your approval is if "your approval" means that the government (or society) hands out approval slips on your behalf.

This kind of dishonest argumentation is a cover for Sowell's deep-seated opposition to individual rights and freedom. He's trying desperately to find a way to equate individual rights with social approval.

You are arguing the exact same point that Sowell is. He is pointing out that there can be no such thing as a "right to approval". He is saying that gay activists are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They say that people have no right to tell them what they can and can't do, and then they demand that everyone must tell them what they can and can't do.

I agree that this particular column is somewhat ambiguous, and I have no idea what its doing on this "traditional values" website. The column doesn't really support their position either. Capmag.com posts most of the columns that Thomas Sowell writes; I recommend that you check some of them out. There are very few things that he writes about in the sphere of politics and economics that I (and I assume most Objectivists) can disagree with.

[Betsy]

This kind of dishonest argumentation is a cover for Sowell's deep-seated opposition to individual rights and freedom.  [...]

In Sowell's world, individual rights violate society's "right" to approve or disapprove of personal actions through government legislation.

I have read about a dozen of Sowell's books and I read his column regularly. Based on what I know of Sowell and his views, I regard this as a gross mischaracterization of his actual ideas and an unjust condemnation of him as a person.

I may not agree with everything Sowell writes, but I respect him as a honest, knowledgeable, and conscientious scholar who not only preaches individualism, but genuinely values it and has personally achieved his place in the world against many obstacles with courage, integrity, and hard work.

[Zeus]

I have read about a dozen of Sowell's books and I read his column regularly.  Based on what I know of Sowell and his views, I regard this as a gross mischaracterization of his actual ideas and an unjust condemnation of him as a person.

I may not agree with everything Sowell writes, but I respect him as a honest, knowledgeable, and conscientious scholar who not only preaches individualism, but genuinely values it and has personally achieved his place in the world against many obstacles with courage, integrity, and hard work.

I am a fan of Sowell's too. I also disagree with Mr. Swig on this one. Sowell's life (My Odyssey) is a study in modern heroism.

But, Dr. Sowell is not an individualist. He does not preach it, even though his work is pro-capitalism and among the very best in his field in modern times. He's a neo-classical economist whose work would fall under the same banner as Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises.

He uses terms like "blacks" and "whites" a lot, many times without qualification, and although I don't think he's the bad type of racist, I do think that he has a racist streak. I am using the word "racist" here in the strictest sense, i.e., as Ayn Rand used it in her essay, Racism.

Which is why individualism is so demanding: you either believe that reason is an individual faculty or you don't.

Economics is still waiting for that genius who will begin his extended study of the subject not from the observation of groups but from the observation of the individual. After all, to be is to be individual. To find out anything about chairs, you have to study this chair. To know about messageboards, you have to study this messageboard. Ayn Rand says as much at the beginning of What is Capitalism?

[Betsy]

[sowell] uses terms like "blacks" and "whites" a lot, many times without qualification, and although I don't think he's the bad type of racist, I do think that he has a racist streak.  I am using the word "racist" here in the strictest sense, i.e., as Ayn Rand used it in her essay, Racism.

I don't think so and, as evidence, I'll cite Sowell's book, Ethnic America. It is a study of the various ethnic and racial groups in American and solidly based on historical fact. His thesis is that the success of various indigenous and immigrant groups and the speed of their progress is a function of "cultural capital" -- i.e., the IDEAS prevalent in their culture.

Sowell holds that certain ideas (valuing education, willingness to work) lead to success while others (irresponsibility, dependence on government handouts, tradition-worship) lead to failure. One example he cites is the difference between welfare-dependent American blacks and recent black immigrants from the Caribbean who hustle to make a living and push their children to get a good education. The latter have an average standard of living higher than that of American whites.

[Tryptonique]

Another example I have happened to read about (a long time ago) regards how sucessful the Cherokee tribe has been in comparison to others due to the wise investment and acknowledging that their reality had changed with the coming of the white man and thus their approach and attitudes had to change as well.

[Zeus]

I don't think so and, as evidence, I'll cite Sowell's book, Ethnic America.  It is a study of the various ethnic and racial groups in American and solidly based on historical fact.  His thesis is that the success of various indigenous and immigrant groups and the speed of their progress is a function of "cultural capital" -- i.e., the IDEAS prevalent in their culture. 

Sowell holds that certain ideas (valuing education, willingness to work) lead to success while others (irresponsibility, dependence on government handouts, tradition-worship) lead to failure.  One example he cites is the difference between welfare-dependent American blacks and recent black immigrants from the Caribbean who hustle to make a living and push their children to get a good education.  The latter have an average standard of living higher than that of American whites.

I had written a fantastic response to your post only to have to reboot my PC because of a broken link I had tried to copy and paste from Google.

But, let me try to reproduce it...

------------------------------

As your quotes from Ethnic America demonstrate, Sowell is pro-capitalism. (I am aware of the thread running through his books - I have read a few of them myself.)

But this does not translate to individualism.

I do not believe concepts such as "cultural capital" are valid. Why? Because they do not pertain to fundamentals. I mean, did Aristotle's "fellow" whites in Ancient Greece help him discover Logic and the innumerable facts of Biology he unearthed? Or did he do it all by himself?

Virtually all the "white" creators in Western Civilization faced rejection, ridicule, and/or martyrdom from their fellow "white" men. Where was "cultural capital" then?

My point: Is achievement individual- or group-based? These "ideas prevalent in [the] culture," are they produced by racial committee or are they the products of an unacknowledged individual working hard and swimming furiously against the cultural mainstream?

Would the Greeks simply "valuing education" and being "willing to work" have resulted in Western Civilization? Education in what? Work for whom?

Besides, the "group-achievement" theories only serve to sacrifice the best among the "low-achieving" groups. The creator in these groups is beholden to "helping his brothers out." This means that whatever grand achievement he does have, or plans to fulfill, is sacrificed to the "society's need to see group X do Y." His strengths are sacrificed to the weaknesses of others, simply because they possess the same skin color as he does. Plato and Kant would have been proud.

If one focuses on black trash, what about the white trash? Why do they get off easy? Why do they get out of the brow-beating and the tongue-lashing? This is racism: Newton's intellectual stature is conferred on some undeserving moron, simply because he shared Newton's skin color. Where is justice?

Sowell often, inadvertently, confesses the effect of the societal strain on him - the creator - when he calls those leftist group-worshippers who claim to want to see blacks succeed, "bean-counters."

But, even if he doesn't realize it, so is he.

He too wants to see "blacks succeed." So, he uses some of the language of the group-worshippers. He gives undeserved air-time to cretins like Pat Buchanan and nobodies like Charles Murray.

If I were him, I wouldn't even adopt that presumptuous tone which sometimes comes across as 'speaking for' blacks or 'leading' blacks. Why would he do what [Edit]some[Edit] white people don't want to do? This type of white person would argue that "if Sowell says it, it wouldn't be considered racist." But, why should Sowell sacrifice himself to the sentiments he will and does face? Simply because he's black?

As Ayn Rand noted, reason is an individual faculty; and this absolute cannot be circumvented: one either preaches this or one doesn't. Objectivists cannot allow those whom Miss Rand characterized as the "alleged defenders of liberty" to claim holy ground. Objectivists must stand firm on this point or all else is lost.

Sowell gives his enemies some fuel: he feeds the idea that a man must live for certain others, which in his case is those who share his skin color. This is incalculable damage to his cause, although he probably isn't aware of it.

Just to make sure that you see the banality of preaching "responsibility" and "valuing education, " I ask you to observe the Carribean-immigrant family Farley (the MIT mathematician Jonathan, the TIME music critic Christopher, their parents and siblings) and check out the disastrous views that Jonathan holds and spreads. And they "value education" and are "willing to work," so what gives?

If one wishes to oppose welfare, the proper attitude is: "Destroy welfare; you have no right to take my money without my consent." An improper attitude is: "There are too many blacks on welfare." The latter involves a package deal.

No-one should lose any sleep if some people don't do their best. Just fight for your rights and all will be well.

I hope I've made my case. Please let me know if there are any questions I haven't answered.

[Betsy]

As your quotes from Ethnic America demonstrate, Sowell is pro-capitalism.  (I am aware of the thread running through his books - I have read a few of them myself.)

But this does not translate to individualism.

I do not believe concepts such as "cultural capital" are valid.  Why? Because they do not pertain to fundamentals. 

"Culture" is a valid concept and Sowell uses it in the same way that Ayn Rand did.

A nation's culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation's way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a "culture" is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.

Sowell wrote of the dominant ideas in various ethnic cultures showing how traditional, primitive dominant ideas were eventually replaced, in almost all groups, by a typically American individualism spearheaded by "dissenters and exceptions" within those groups. He wrote about those heroic children of Italian laborers and Irish drunkards who struggled to get an education despite the scorn of their anti-intellectual families and thus brought the generations that followed out of poverty into the middle class.

But some ethnic groups had more "cultural capital" -- i.e., better dominant ideas -- when they arrived on our shores, like the Russian Jews and the more recent Asian immigrants, and they progressed much faster. Comparing large-scale cultural trends and the ideas that caused them IS to deal in fundamentals.

In fact, when Leonard Peikoff wrote The Ominous Paralells his goal was to compare and contrast pre-WWII German culture with American culture in terms of the dominant ideas underlying each of them. Sowell wrote about economic advancement and Peikoff of intellectual and moral decline, but they took the same fundamental approach to their subjects.

[Zeus]

"Culture" is a valid concept and Sowell uses it in the same way that Ayn Rand did.

Sowell wrote of the dominant ideas in various ethnic cultures showing how traditional, primitive dominant ideas were eventually replaced, in almost all groups, by a typically American individualism spearheaded by "dissenters and exceptions" within those groups.  He wrote about those heroic children of Italian laborers and Irish drunkards who struggled to get an education despite the scorn of their anti-intellectual families and thus brought the generations that followed out of poverty into the middle class.

I have nowhere said that "culture" is not a valid concept. In fact, I refer to it all the time. I said I consider "cultural capital" invalid.

cap·i·tal1  Audio pronunciation of "capital" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kp-tl) n.

  1.

        1. A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.

        2. A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.

  2.

        1. Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.

        2. Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.

        3. Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: “ [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital” (George F. Will).

  3. Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.

  4. Capital stock.

  5. Capitalists considered as a group or class.

  6. An asset or advantage: “profited from political capital accumulated by others” (Michael Mandelbaum).

  7. A capital letter.

Capital, as can be gleaned from the above, and as is present in rational literature, presupposes a creator who produced the wealth. Thus, "cultural capital" means 'wealth produced by some people in a culture,' which boils down to the individuals. Thus "cultural capital" obliterates the fact of some individual's creativity, which is injustice.

"Cultures" cannot produce wealth; only individuals can. A is A.

But some ethnic groups had more "cultural capital" -- i.e., better dominant ideas -- when they arrived on our shores, like the Russian Jews and the more recent Asian immigrants, and they progressed much faster.  Comparing large-scale cultural trends and the ideas that caused them IS to deal in fundamentals.

Please see above.

Furthermore, one can see in "Ominous Parallels" that it was the raising of "culture" to a primary that, in part, caused the Third Reich. The Nazis appealed to the "blood" because they sought to claim the achievements of Aristotle for themselves.

In fact, when Leonard Peikoff wrote The Ominous Paralells his goal was to compare and contrast pre-WWII German culture with American culture in terms of the dominant ideas underlying each of them.  Sowell wrote about economic advancement and Peikoff of intellectual and moral decline, but they took the same fundamental approach to their subjects.

To be is to be individual.

Please see above.

[MisterSwig]

I think you are misinterpreting Sowell's position on this issue.  The basic argument of his column is that the advocates for gay marriage are looking for government approval for gay marriage because they (not him) believe that this will grant them a social sancation on their lifestyle.

I've read the article again. I fail to see where Sowell says that government approval doesn't grant a social sanction. If that is his position, then I would appreciate a reference or quote indicating that.

It still seems to me that Sowell is accepting the idea that "society" is an entity with certain rights and powers over individuals. Consider this quote from the article:

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

I find this paragraph to be mostly confusing. However, what does Sowell mean by the bolded portion, if not that "society" functions as a kind of entitled ruler over married couples? Why does "society" have a "stake" in the decisions of married folk? Because some married folk produce offspring??? And by "society" does he mean "government"?

You are arguing the exact same point that Sowell is.  He is pointing out that there can be no such thing as a "right to approval".

I'm not arguing the same point as Sowell. Of course nobody has a right to your approval of their lifestyle. This is a ridiculous concept. So why is this a big concern for Sowell? Why does he ascribe this idea to gays, without one single quote from a gay leader to back up the assertion?

I think it's because he operates on the premise that rights are approved of by society. Thus, if gays are allowed to marry, then society has effectively approved of the gay lifestyle. And if society approves of it, that means gays have a right to your personal approval, because you are part of society. I find this to be malicious nonsense.

As Objectivists know, real rights are not approved, they are recognized and protected. Even if gays want "social approval" through new legislation, that is not a reason to be against their alleged right to marry. It is a ridiculous fantasy on their part--that society will approve of gays simply because they can marry. But, again, it does not prove or disprove the existence of gay marriage rights.

Sowell, I think, is trying to guilt people into being anti-gay marriage by telling them that voting for gays' right to marry is, in essence, helping to grant society's approval of homosexuality. Apparently, to Sowell, you can't recognize someone's right and at the same time disapprove of them exercising that right.

[CriticalRealist]

It seems that Sowell's individualism (if it can be called that) is ultimately incompatible with Objectivism. Thanks for making that clear, MisterSwig and Zeus.