Not in recognizing marriage. Florida has not reconized common law marriages since 1967.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Except that Full Faith and Credit would REQUIRE that ALL States > 'recognize' the public acts, records, etc. of OTHER States. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well." -- > Emerson > > > > > At 11:59 AM 6/18/2012, you wrote: > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment... > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic > issue. > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012 > > byChris Bassil > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage, > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by voters. > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the former > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of this > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else. > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather that we > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of > collective decision making in the first place. > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that the > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of business, > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common denominator > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's opinions, > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory though > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties to > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to lead > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit. > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of freedom > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has been > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous group > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows this to > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical beliefs, > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence, > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also implies our > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions to > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for the > vote.) > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however, > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them better > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the smaller, > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide. > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic process. > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact that > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view and > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the > existing states constitute." > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision making > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now seem > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state and > their fellow citizens. > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that voted > against the amendment are all home to major universities: > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of their > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist interpretation > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the graphics > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns -- and > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational, and > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek, as > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy as a > process of collective decision making. > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual testament > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to the > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and belief > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case, > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of, it > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is clearly > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and not > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than those who > live in more rural areas. > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be enough to > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore, > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward > different programs than those who are not, and will often be incentivized > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a variable > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city > voter attempts to impose his personal standards, goals, and solutions on > each voter from the outskirts, and vice versa. Each voter holds the entire > population of North Carolina to his own subjective, personal values scale, > with the result that 9.7 million of them end up unable to fulfill each > other's aims. > > This is one of the fundamental problems that Hoppe addresses > inDemocracy: The God That Failed. In relation to the question of > immigration, Hoppe makes a point that is well-taken here as well:Secession > solves this problem, by letting smaller territories each have their own > admission standards and determine independently with whom they will > associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate > from a distance.Hoppe's assumption is, of course, that large states bound > by democratic processes are unable, by virtue of the heterogeneity of their > populations, to reach uniform conclusions that please everyone. The > populations, then, would actually be better served by splitting themselves > into a series of smaller populations, in order that any methodology of > collective decision making might better approach the true will of the > citizens. > > As units of decision making get smaller and smaller, the variability > between these increasingly small states is likely to rise, and the varied > interests of a collection of diverse populations are increasingly better > served. "Secession," Hoppe elaborates, "increases ethnic, linguistic, > religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have > stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures." And, so long as citizens are > able to "vote with their feet," these increases in diversity actually put > pressure on communities to fashion themselves (and their policies, marriage > related or otherwise) in as appealing a manner as possible. > > There is a caveat that must be recognized here, and that is that, under > such systems of decentralized decision making, policies such as Amendment 1 > would undoubtedly come to pass in many communities. It is true that, > without the constant threat of forceful intervention by state and federal > governments, certain communities might choose not to observe civil rights, > gender equality, or any other desirable ethic with which they might, for > whatever reason, disagree. (Of course, one has to wonder if this is also > not the case within many state governments today.) > > To this, though, there are two responses. The first is that such > communities will harm only themselves, because they will deprive themselves > of potentially valuable members of their own society and will likely be met > with distaste by neighboring communities with which they trade, while those > they spurn will find their residence elsewhere and remain unaffected by the > discriminatory policies. The second is that it will never suffice for us to > defend freedom only when it is exercised in ways that we find palatable. > For if we are content to revoke a man's right to discrimination -- again, > no matter how much we might oppose it in the first place -- then we are > equally content to undo all of our work toward establishing a freer society. > > To those unfamiliar with anarchist, libertarian, or otherwise > antiauthoritarian and antistate philosophies, Hoppe's point may seem like > an extreme one. It does not take any secession, though, to return to what > many of us have known since were young: that each of us should be allowed > to decide what is best for ourselves, so long as we allow others to do the > same. This is, after all, the logical end of Hoppe's argument, which, when > taken to the extreme, eventually arrives at the individual as the ideal > unit of decision making. By placing our personal decisions -- from > lifestyle to marriage to the fates of the wealth and estates of others -- > on state- and nationwide ballots, we violate these basic principles, and > the progressive population of North Carolina, at least, finally seems to be > frustrated by it. > > Chris Bassil writes from Boston, Massachusetts, where he operates the > Austro-libertarian blogHamsterdam Economics. He is a recent graduate of > Duke University and continues to contribute weekly opinion pieces with > Austrian takes on policy, economics, and health care to the school's > student-run daily independent newspaper, the > Chronicle.https://mises.org/daily/6072/The-Secession-Solution > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/%A0> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
