On the website of the free-market Ludwig von Mises Institute, Gardner Goldsmith argues Don't Let Government Define Marriage (Or Optimal Child-Rearing Environments). Favorite part: even accepting debatable assertions about the most-advantageous family arrangement for kids, the amendment ought to frighten anyone concerned about liberty:
Proponents of legally or constitutionally codified heterosexual marriage ... claim that by legalizing only "one man - one woman" marriages, they promote the optimal conditions for the upbringing of a child.
But that begs the question: by only legalizing the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a continuum from the worst (say, being raised by coyotes in the forest) to the possible optimal (being raised by loving, talented, brilliant millionaires) would those who could run government determine that anything below the millionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would one have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? The standard is arbitrary, and dangerous to a free society.
"Conservatives," Goldsmith writes, "used to have a reputation for being skeptical of government." Indeed.
26 Comments for “Meet the Coyotes.”
posted by kittynboi on
Thats an angle that I had never thought of before. No one has yet to really question the perils of the government trying to define what the “ideal” environment to raise a child is.
Stopping child abuse and so forth is one thing, but this stuff goes WAAAAAY beyond that, and seems more concerned with making sure children will be raised in an environment that those in power, or those seeking power, think will ensure that those children grow in to adults that will support the status quo.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Remember the whole outcry over Hillary’s “It Takes A Village To Raise A Child” schtick?
Well, the conservatives have, in their blind homo-hatred, given Mrs. Clinton all the power she needs to raise their own children for them. I don’t want to hear a peep of complaint from them, either.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I used a similar argument in response to the right-wing furor over the return of Elian Gonzalez to his father. They were outraged because Elian’s father was communist, and would be returning him to Cuba. My response was, excuse me, but since when do we in this country have a policy of taking away people’s children because we don’t approve of the parent’s politics? If we were prepared to refuse to return a child to his only surviving parent because that parent was a Communist, what was next? Taking children away from poor people? Of course, the Gonzalez case was more about political posturing than policy. But the child involved was a real child, and lots of so-called conservatives were demanding that he not be returned to his father. And Al Gore, who knew that Florida was a key state, pandered to the Cuban ex-pats as well. Shameful all around. This is America, and we damn well don’t take people’s children from them because we disapprove of their politics.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
But Richard, government is evil and fascist except when my party is in power — then it’s responsive, flexible, pragmatic and compassionate! 😉
posted by John on
In a similar vein, The Stranger printed an idea in their current ‘annual Queer issue’ on stopping the gay adoption ban movement by arguing that if the Government needs to ban gays from adopting because of potential harm to children, what does this imply should be done to children currently in gay families? Should those children be removed from their homes and thrown into the nightmare that is foster care? Outside of direct abuse, who gets to draw the line for optimal or not? Read it here:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=37673
posted by Bobby on
Anyone who doesn’t live in South Florida knows nothing about the Elian mess. First of all, Elian’s father had divorced his mother, and was alledgedly an abusive husband. It’s very likely that Castro threatened his family if he didn’t claim Elian back.
Secondly, she died trying to bring him to a free country. Thirdly, he was claimed by his family in Miami. Fourthly, Janet Reno acted like the gestapo, instead of respecting the courts and letting the legal process run through. She kidnapped the boy, shipped him to DC, and put him on a Cuban Lear Jet back to the island.
So this isn’t just a case about sending a kid back to a communist country, with no free speech, no free elections, kangaroo courts and persecution of all. It’s a case of obstruction of justice and government coercion.
The difference between Bush and Janet Reno, is that Bush does it against terrorists, not against little boys.
posted by mikeinaustin on
Wow, Bobby, wow. Some questions. (1) What does residency in greater Miami have to do with qualification to ponder the Elian Gonzalez situation? (2) Why should divorce terminate parental rights? (3) Why should extended relatives be able to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\”claim\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” a child and terminate parental rights? (4) Given that the US Supreme Court allowed the court order keeping Elian Gonzalez in the country to expire, precisely what courts didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t the AG respect, and what legal processes did she not let \\\\\\\\\\\\\\”run through\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
This is exactly why I say that our country and government hasn’t and can’t make laws that prevent marriage and parental failures.
But for the first time, with regard ONLY to gay people, have now made law to make it ILLEGAL to enable those same obligations.
How can it possibly be right, let alone Constitutional that no person can make a family for themselves with the established marriage law?
That is, two non related consenting adults?
That is all that is required to marry and gay couples do not profoundly change this definition.
They only change what KIND of non related consenting couple gets married.
And since this also establishes presumed sexual interaction, the government is ESPECIALLY not interested in the quality of sex life a married couple has.
As for Elian Gonzales….we know that Cuba is just one big paradise bound prison.
But the fact remains that no government of another country can justify the kidnapping of someone’s child…as long as his return to Cuba wasn’t to face conditions that lead to fatal disease or execution.
And if our government is so hot on parental rights, especially that of a father for his own child…something they are willing to neglect that GAY MEN have, then they BETTER give Elian Gonzales back to his father.
Otherwise, it just proves this country’s ideals on parenthood seriously hypocritical.
posted by Hershel on
(1) What does residency in greater Miami have to do with qualification to ponder the Elian Gonzalez situation?
—Because in Miami the newspapers can’t get away with the anti-cuban-american bias most newspapers seem to have. In Miami, you wouldn’t call the Cubans “rightwingers” just because they don’t like one of the most evil men the world has ever known. Fidel Castro. In Miami we know the horrors of Castro and his regime. Even Cuban liberals don’t agree with what Janet Reno did.
(2) Why should divorce terminate parental rights?
—Ever heard of “best interests of the child.” Would you send a child to live with a drug using biker that throws parties all the time? When gays don’t want to get deported back to Iran, they argue that life in Iran would be a death sentence to them. Elian had one shot at freedom, her mother died for his freedom. And now he’s been returned to hell.
(3) Why should extended relatives be able to \\”claim\\” a child and terminate parental rights?
—Because it was the wishes of the mother, for her son to live in America with her relatives. Because Castro got involved. In fact, the Miami relatives invited Elian’s father to come to Miami, and see his son there. But the father rejected the offer, he was obviously intimidated by Castro. Or he never gave a crap about his child.
(4) Given that the US Supreme Court allowed the court order keeping Elian Gonzalez in the country to expire,
—You’re wrong, the issue was being appealed. This is just like the death penalty. Until all appeals are exhausted, you cannot execute. Janet Reno didn’t even have a warrant for the kidnapping of Elian. She violated state’s jurisdiction, her goons pointed a gun to a child, they destroyed private property… Oh, and she did it all on Eastern sunday!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
One can only wonder what would have happened had a southern Floridian woman divorced her supposedly abusive husband and tried to kidnap their son and take him illegally to Cuba. Would the conservative talking heads be so pro-mum then? Doubtful.
Big-government conservatives are just like their big-government liberal counterparts — they’re more than willing to fall all over themselves to use power for unprincipled ends. The efforts to try and defend the “right” of the state government of Florida to kidnap a foreign citizen and hold him against the wishes of his surviving parent is illustration of that. If Cuba had tried a similar gambit, using the conservatives’ own logic, the conservatives would be demanding airstrikes on Havana.
posted by Randy R. on
And let us not forget about the ‘sanctity of marriage.’ Oh boy, it’s just so sancrosant. Except if your last name is Schiavo, that is, and your are trying to fulfill the wishes of your wife with a terminal condition. At that point, then, the government — all filled with conservatives — can step in and force feed your wife with a tube, thereby destroying the sanctity of that marriage contract.
If marriage is such a wonderful institution, why don’t conservatives honor it? Or do they honor only those marriages that they like?
posted by Randy R. on
By the way, the “best interests of the child” is the gold standard in awarding custody of children. It’s a good one. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other considerations in family law. Either parent is presumed to be a better place for a child rather than anywhere else, because there is an assumption that only a parent can really adequately take care of it’s own. That presumption can dissolve or be rebutted if the surviving parent is unfit to raise the child, but that’s a pretty high bar.
I’ve never heard a case where the parents political philosophy rendered them unfit to raise a child. The courts have never, to my knowledge, considered the political jurisdiction in which the parent lives to have any influence at all.
posted by Bobby on
Randy, what about Castro? If Elian father wanted him, why did Castro get involved?
Would you place a child in a home where the parent is being pressured by an outside source into taking a child he doesn’t want? Don’t you get it? Elian’s father knows that by doing what Castro wants, him and his family will always have enough food rations. Did you know that Elian calls Castro “abuelo?” That’s spanish for grandfather. That’s because the kid and his family are living the good life with Castro, the kid is so used to seeing him, that he confuses him with his grandfather!
You know, I got to hand it to Fidel. He always wins. He won during the Bay of Pigs, where big man JFK got scared at the last minute. What a pussy, he had no problems with soldiers dying in Vietnam, but freeing an island with a third rate military is too much for him. Moving on, he got Janet Reno to act like his own secret police, with very nice assault weapons. Civilians aren’t allowed to own them, but government thugs? Go right ahead and point them in the head of an unarmed 6 year old. Good thing they learned from Waco.
And to add insult to injury, now Castro wants to drill for oil in international waters less than 90 miles within Florida. Oil American companies could have been drilling if it wasn’t for liberals in Florida that are terrified of oil spills.
America is the greatest country in the world and yet we can’t stand up to Cuba. We can wage war in Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Germany, Vietnam, Korea, but Cuba? Hell, Castro wants his trophy returned, and we got to follow the comrade’s orders. Who knows, maybe Janet Reno should retire there.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Would you place a child in a home where the parent is being pressured by an outside source into taking a child he doesn’t want?
I guess it comes down to where you stand. I believe parents should make custody decisions about their children. You evidently believe that children are property of the state.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
America is the greatest country in the world and yet we can’t stand up to Cuba
What hilariously irrelevant and inaccurate claptrap.
Cuba’s power, influence and importance is a rounding error. If the right wing didn’t have Fidel Castro, they’d have to invent him — they always need their bogeyman du jour after all.
posted by Randy R. on
Bobby: So what about Castro? Castro no doubt tried to turn the event into a political event. Sorta like people on this side of the waters did.
So what if Castro was involved? The issue isn’t whether the head of state of a country will make life better for a child. The issue is that a living parent is presumed to know best how to raise the child.
If Elian and his father lived in Berkely CA, arguably more leftist that Cuba, and the mother kidnapped Elian to move him to Texas, that heartland of proper values, and died on the way, what would you do? I know what I would like to have done: Follow the law, which would return Elian to his father in Berkely, absent any evidence that the father is unfit. Whether Arnold injects himself in the debate would be immaterial.
posted by kittynboi on
The keep castro around to get the Cuban vote.
posted by mikeinaustin on
(4) Given that the US Supreme Court allowed the court order keeping Elian Gonzalez in the country to expire,
—You’re wrong, the issue was being appealed. This is just like the death penalty. Until all appeals are exhausted, you cannot execute.
Bobby, I’m curious precisely what issue was being appealed, and in what court?
posted by Bobby on
Elian’s case was being appealed, SCOTUS refussed to hear the case so it was sent to another court.
“You evidently believe that children are property of the state.”
—Of course not. Children are property of the parents, although not all liberals see it like that (some want to ban home schooling and get away with parental notification for controversial leftwing speeches).
I see it this way. Say you got divorced a few years ago, and you gave your wife costudy. Then one day, a very rich man tells you “I’ll make you rich if you take back your son.” I think a parent like that should not get custody. Besides, Elian’s father was more than welcome to come to Miami and pick his son there. However, Castro couldn’t allow that because he didn’t want the man to defect.
Castro can’t even keep his best ball players in the Island. Inspite of all the special priviledges they get, they would rather live in a free country.
Too bad Elian was so young, there was a case of a 19 year old jordanian lesbian with a girlfriend. Her parents came to America, kidnapped her, beat the crap out of her in a hotel room, and they almost got her back to Jordan, except that the girlfriend called the police and got her horrible parents arrested. Had she been taken to Jordan, she would have been the victim of an “honor killing.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Children are property of the parents
Uh, no. Children aren’t property. They’re humans with specific rights which increase and change over time as they become more capable of contracting.
Elian’s father was more than welcome to come to Miami and pick his son there. However, Castro couldn’t allow that
Not only have you just contradicted yourself, but you’re also incorrect. Technically, Cuban citizens are not allowed to travel into or through the US, under US law — unless they claim asylum.
It’s perfectly possible that Mr. Gonzales simply wanted his son to return home, and wanted to live in Cuba with his son. This tiresome pretention that everyone in the world wants to live in the USA is nonsensical.
Too bad Elian was so young, there was a case of a 19 year old jordanian lesbian with a girlfriend. Her parents came to America, kidnapped her, beat the crap out of her in a hotel room
It would seem that the remote relatives who attempted to kidnap Elian and keep him from his legal parent would be the equivalent of the kidnappers in the lesbian case, ironically enough. Your political views about the suitability of Cuba as a home for a Cuban minor should not (and do not) overrule the legal dominion of the surviving parent of that child. Period.
posted by Bobby on
“Uh, no. Children aren’t property. They’re humans with specific rights which increase and change over time as they become more capable of contracting.”
—Yes, but in the end they’re the responsability of their parents, like a house or a dog, unless they’re being abused or in danger of being abused. In that case, the state can step over.
” Technically, Cuban citizens are not allowed to travel into or through the US, under US law — unless they claim asylum.”
—I don’t know where you heard that, but any Cuban can go to the US section of interest in the Canadian Embassy in Havanna, apply for a visa, then fly to Mexico, then to the states. The reason many jump into shark infested waters is because getting a US visa is very hard. Unless you’re a cuban celebrity.
“It’s perfectly possible that Mr. Gonzales simply wanted his son to return home, and wanted to live in Cuba with his son. This tiresome pretention that everyone in the world wants to live in the USA is nonsensical.”
—Well, lots of people want to live in America. That’s why we have the minutemen and the national guard protecting the border. So many want to come that we rarely know who’s coming in! In Mexico, they did a general survey and 65% admitted they would move to America if they could. As the son of immigrants, and someone who’s travelled to 20 different countries, I know many people kill to get to this country.
“It would seem that the remote relatives who attempted to kidnap Elian and keep him from his legal parent would be the equivalent of the kidnappers in the lesbian case,”
—Listen, if Gonzales had come to America, and taken his kid. I have no problem with what happens next. But for him to stay in Cuba is proof that he didn’t really give a damn. When you love someone, you do everything you can to be with that person. You don’t stay put while someone else does all the work.
Tell me something, how do you feel about Ruby Ridge and Waco? Even if you agreed with Elian being returned to Cuba, how can you support the government destroying private property and pointing a gun at an unarmed child?
Do libertarians only hate the state when it dissapoints them? Did Elian had to get shot for people to realize the outrage?
Bush can’t even spy on terrorists without the left bitching. But Clinton and Janet Reno got away with Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elian without impunity.
posted by Randy R. on
Yes, and Clinton was never thrown out of office for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. The Horror of it All!
What any of this has to do with parental rights, I don’t know. But apparently, Bobby feels that any child is better off growing up in the US with distant relatives than in a communist country with his own father. That’s a perfectly valid contention, but you don’t help your position by throwing in all the stale vegetables in the fridge.
Was there a perfect solution to the Elian case? No. Law courts are filled with tough facts. It would have been great if the father immigrated to the US to raise his son here. On this point, I hope we all agree. But for some reason, the father felt it better to stay in Cuba and raise his family there. Who knows why? Who cares? It’s not our business. Perhaps Castro threatened to kill or jail all his cousins. There is plenty we don’t know about, and staying in Cuba may have been a perfectly rational decision on his part. And it IS the right of the father right to decide that he (the father) stay in Cuba, right? You wouldn’t force him to immigrate to the US, wouldn’t you?
But regardless, we apply the law to the facts as we find them, not to the facts we would like. The law is clear: unless the parents are unfit, children should be raised by their parents. The law makes no allowance for whether you or I would prefer the child to be raised in one state or another.
If you don’t like this law, then you can lobby congress (which, incidently, is controlled by Republicans, so this should be a piece of cake for you) to change the law to make an exception that no child should ever be raised in Cuba if he makes it to US soil. That’s a perfectly valid law, if enacted. But until then, the Attorney General is obligated to uphold the law as written, not as you wish it to be. And the law was quite clear — if the father wanted Elian in Cuba, that’s where he goes. The fact that the family would not agree to follow a court order is what forced Reno to pull the guns on them.
Not a good situation all around, I will admit. But to pin all the blame on Clinton, Reno and whatever else you want to dredge up is unfair and ultimately pointless.
posted by mikeinaustin on
Bobby says: “Elian’s case was being appealed, SCOTUS refussed to hear the case so it was sent to another court.”
Bobby, again, what “case” are you talking about, and to what court was it “sent”?
posted by kittynboi on
I think the Elian Gonzales thing was one of the worst political issues ever, akin to illegal immigrants and palestine.
posted by raj on
This is funny as heck. Bobby is arguing the Elian Gonzalez case? After Elian was plucked from the sea, his case was in the jurisdiction of the Federal Immigration And Naturalization Service (the INS). He could have been sent to an INS detention center for juveniles until his case could be determined (that is, his right to stay in the US), but, since he had relatives in Florida, the INS instead paroled him to the FL relatives. The biological father–who still had parental rights (the mother had been killed in transit from Cuba to the US)–came from Cuba to the US to try to regain custody of his child. The INS determined that the biological father was entitled to custody, and revoked the parole to the FL relatives. There was at least one, and possibly several lawsuits filed, all of which came down on the side of the biological father. After the INS determined to revoke Elian’s parole to the FL relatives, the FL relatives refused to hand Elian over to the INS, and it was at that point that the INS moved in to sieze the child. It was the FL relatives who provoked the INS action, and they are fully to blame for what happened. They refused to follow the law.
As usual, Bobby doesn’t know what he’s writing about.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Do libertarians only hate the state when it dissapoints them?
Libertarians don’t hate the state. We view the state as vital in the few areas where it belongs and improper in the areas it doesn’t belong.