Don't know if any of your follow Steve Horwitz on Facebook, but he has had his panties in a bunch for the past two days about an article he says is/was on mises.org about the history of marriage and that it completely misrepresents the truth. He has not actually said which article it is, nor has he produced a source link. Does anybody know which article he's talking about?
He's recently fixed it but... Horwitz's hair always terrified me... just sayin'
Clayton -
Ooh, is he mad?
http://mises.org/daily/2209
?
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
I saw it too. I was wondering what it was about. He mentioned something about interractial marriage being in it.
That doesn't look like the one, Meistro. Horwitz said the article was something about marriage licenses specifically being instituted in the U.S. during the early 1900s as a racist (eugenic) act. I have never seen such an article at mises.org that I can recall.
Sounds like Horwitz likes to stir up libertarians against eachother.
Why don't you ask him for the link?
http://archive.mises.org/17493/equality-under-the-laws/
It's not in the article, but in nate-m's comment, and Lysander's.
If I remember correctly marriage licensing was originally designed to prevent racially mixed marriages.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I've heard three views regarding granting homosexuals "right" to marry:
1. This right will give them a privilege to sick leaves, etc.: i.e., it will create positive rights for them, which means more violation of others' negative rights. As such, it should be opposed.
2. This right will protect their negative rights to some extent from the state, by the state's own inner code. For instance, it will allow spouses to represent each other in a court of law, to immigrate freely, and to get some of the tax money back.
3. Support of such a right actually shows one's support for the state (like voting).
In my opinion, the third argument is silly. If you can convince a cannibal to stop eating someone because it will give him indigestion, should you do it? Oh, maybe it will sound like you're legitimizing the institute of cannibalism? That's ridiculous. You're protecting someone's life. And you don't need to respect the cannibal, or a street mugger, or a politician to the extent that your endorsement of some of their policy should count as your legitimization of it. There is no honor among thieves.
First view seems strong. But on reflection, you're not actually forcing gay couples to demand sick leaves. You're providing them with a mechanism for doing so. On the other hand, you are forcing the state to give some of the robbed money back, to allow immigrant gay spouses to enter the country, etc.