3 ms·

>I can only conclude that some people have a radically different idea of "freedom" and "smaller government" than I do. Smaller government would be a government

>I can only conclude that some people have a radically different idea of "freedom" and "smaller government" than I do. Smaller government would be a government that does less stuff, grants status to fewer people, etc. Marriage is a legal construct that allows a couple to receive special status from the state. Same-sex marriage advocates are in favor of the government extending the benefits of that special status to an additional class of relationships. It's consistent with small government platforms to be suspicious of such expansions, regardless of one's feelings about the independent merits of the arrangement. Hypothetically, one could be the largest advocate of permanent same-sex coupling while simultaneously believing that the government doesn't need to expand the definition of marriage to include them under its umbrella. Not trying to drag this out, but no one has really said this yet. Opposing the expansion of marriage is consistent because expanding government is always met with suspicion by small government advocates.

mikeash 10y ago
Sure, one could be opposed to extending the legal definition of marriage based on small-government principles, but then consistency would also demand that one be opposed to legal recognition of marriage at all. That is manifestly not the case for this site or many others.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >Sure, one could be opposed to extending the legal definition of marriage based on small-government principles, but then consistency would also demand that one be opposed to legal recognition of marriage at all. No, consistency wouldn't demand that. Small government people are not automatically "no government" people. I'm saying it's natural for them to be skeptical of the expansion of services to cover new arrangements. That's government growth; small government people are likely to take a default dubious position for almost all forms of government growth/expansion, but that doesn't mean they have to oppose every function the government currently performs. That'd make them anarchists, not conservatives. So when someone says "I want to expand a government-granted status to a new thing", the natural small government reaction is "You better have a very compelling case, because we hate the words 'expand a government-granted status'". Going beyond this, we get into an argument on the details of same-sex marriage, and this is neither the time nor the place for that, but the point is that it is conventional for a small government proponent to view proposals to expand a longstanding legal tradition with suspicion, without necessarily requiring them to be hostile to that legal tradition as it stands. Pretending like this doesn't make sense is creating a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between "same-sex marriage" or "no marriage" to be internally consistent.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm not saying they must be opposed to every government function. I'm just saying that there is no logical "small government" reason to be opposed to growing the legal definition of marriage but in favor of having a legal definition of marriage. Your argument is basically that people tend to be more skeptical of change than of the status quo. Which is absolutely true, but it's not reason, it's just inertia. "Small government" people are as prone to this mental shortcut as anyone, but that doesn't make it consistent or reasonable, it just makes it human.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      >Your argument is basically that people tend to be more skeptical of change than of the status quo. Which is absolutely true, but it's not reason, it's just inertia. We can't get into the details without this turning into a debate on same-sex marriage in general, but my point is that small government people are extra skeptical of changes that expand the government. More skeptical than the average person, because beyond simple inertia, there is an ideology that says the government should be limited and that growth should be opposed unless a compelling interest can be shown. That ideology must be satisfied to get small government people on board.

mikeash 10y ago

Sure, one could be opposed to extending the legal definition of marriage based on small-government principles, but then consistency would also demand that one be opposed to legal recognition of marriage at all. That is manifestly not the case for this site or many others.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Sure, one could be opposed to extending the legal definition of marriage based on small-government principles, but then consistency would also demand that one be opposed to legal recognition of marriage at all. No, consistency wouldn't demand that. Small government people are not automatically "no government" people. I'm saying it's natural for them to be skeptical of the expansion of services to cover new arrangements. That's government growth; small government people are likely to take a default dubious position for almost all forms of government growth/expansion, but that doesn't mean they have to oppose every function the government currently performs. That'd make them anarchists, not conservatives. So when someone says "I want to expand a government-granted status to a new thing", the natural small government reaction is "You better have a very compelling case, because we hate the words 'expand a government-granted status'". Going beyond this, we get into an argument on the details of same-sex marriage, and this is neither the time nor the place for that, but the point is that it is conventional for a small government proponent to view proposals to expand a longstanding legal tradition with suspicion, without necessarily requiring them to be hostile to that legal tradition as it stands. Pretending like this doesn't make sense is creating a false dichotomy. The choice doesn't have to be between "same-sex marriage" or "no marriage" to be internally consistent.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'm not saying they must be opposed to every government function. I'm just saying that there is no logical "small government" reason to be opposed to growing the legal definition of marriage but in favor of having a legal definition of marriage. Your argument is basically that people tend to be more skeptical of change than of the status quo. Which is absolutely true, but it's not reason, it's just inertia. "Small government" people are as prone to this mental shortcut as anyone, but that doesn't make it consistent or reasonable, it just makes it human.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >Your argument is basically that people tend to be more skeptical of change than of the status quo. Which is absolutely true, but it's not reason, it's just inertia. We can't get into the details without this turning into a debate on same-sex marriage in general, but my point is that small government people are extra skeptical of changes that expand the government. More skeptical than the average person, because beyond simple inertia, there is an ideology that says the government should be limited and that growth should be opposed unless a compelling interest can be shown. That ideology must be satisfied to get small government people on board.