But it is just another Utopia
I don't see how getting the state out of the way of individuals making what they want of their own lives is a planned Utopia. Quite the opposite. It's entirely unplanned and it may end up as Utopia or it may end up as Hell. But that's what freedom is about. You, not Steven, should know better.
If only we overturn the institutions that evolved over tens of thousands of years, we could have Perfection on Earth.
Now, that is another matter. I agree that evolved institutions are the default and that they should be overturned only with the greatest caution and thoughtfulness. I also agree that they should not be overturned by "smart men with grand Rationalist ideas that we could create a perfect, rational, planned human society." "Overturn" is such a brutal and arrogant act. Institutions should evolve based on the individual choices of free peoples.
Marriage and family are evolving, have been evolving, will continue to evolve. Their evolution has, until now, not been startling because the evolution has occurred within legal boundaries and largely behind closed doors. The evolution has wiped out longstanding social boundaries, but it has done so relatively unnoticed because it hasn't run headlong into any brick legal walls until now.
I think that the gay advocates for marriage are making a huge mistake by forcing the issue. The country is not ready for gay marriage. They should wait until domestic partnerships are more established and accepted, perhaps one more generation. But to suggest that the institution of marriage being defended is still the white-picket-fence model is just silly. Those "defenders," who allowed that model to be corrupted right up until the point when "queers" want to participate, are either not seeing clearly what is all around them or their line in the sand is based on plain old bigotry. It is absurd that I should be able to perpetuate my pension by marrying in name only some young man but not by marrying some young woman. If the defenders of marriage aren't prepared to defend against that sort of corruption of the institution, they no longer have an institution worth defending. |
