A Libertarian's View of Gay Marriage

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/31/libertarians-view-gay-marriage/

Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. Most so-called liberals are happy about that. Most conservatives are not. As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way.

To air this issue on my Fox Business show, I invited Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage () and David Harsanyi, libertarian columnist at The Blaze.

Brown says gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman. I asked him to explain.

“Marriage is a public good,” he said. “When you redefine marriage, you redefine it for everyone. In states that have redefined marriage, we’ve seen serious consequences, ranging from what is taught in schools -- kids in first grade in Massachusetts are taught that it’s the same thing to grow up and marry a boy or a girl -- to what happens to religious organizations or organizations that just believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. … You see Catholic Charities' adoption agency essentially being forced out of being able to adopt kids because the state said it is discriminating.”


Whoa. Those are three separate points. I don’t see a problem with the first: If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn’t diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?

“They’re being told that their parents' views are essentially bigotry,” said Brown.

It’s another reason we should have school choice.

On his third point, if a state tells Catholic Charities they may not honor their beliefs and limit adoptions to straight couples, that’s a problem of Big Government, not gay marriage.

Harsanyi says he has a way around the whole fight.

“It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in … a private relationship.”

OK by me. Who needs the government’s sanction anyway?

“When you’re getting married, you are not thinking, 'Wow, the government has endorsed this relationship.' That is not very romantic.”

I pointed out that marriage involves many legal issues, including alimony, child support, hospital visitation rights, inheritance and adoption.

“Within five minutes of my idea coming to fruition, a whole industry would be formed with prefab legal documents that would just allow you to have the sort of relationship you want with the parameters you want legally,” Harsanyi said.

You’d work it out as a private contract. Some hospitals would say we allow same-sex couples; others would say no.

“More than that, I would say in the contract that my spouse is allowed to visit me in the hospital.”

Brown was unconvinced.

“The state’s interest in marriage is that this is the institution by which we create stable families where the kids can be connected to both their mother and their father. … In states that have gone this direction, we see things like attempts to recognize three parents, because there is a biological father and two mothers.”

Again, so what? I don’t care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that’s great.

“Deconstructing marriage is a very bad idea,” said Brown. “We see the rising rates of divorce and unwed motherhood. There is a direct correlation. If you look at any social indicators -- children raised without mothers and fathers -- you see higher rates of incarceration, juvenile delinquency that cost the state money.”

Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It’s mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.

“All of that … started long before anyone brought up gay marriage,” Harsanyi said.

“The state should support what is true and good and beautiful,” Brown countered. "And it’s true and good and beautiful that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Men and women are unique and special.”

I still don’t get his argument.

And I definitely don’t want the state to decide what is good and beautiful.





This article by Stossell is how I feel about the gay Marriage issue . Who do people think they are telling others how to live their life ? I believe one can not help who they love .

 

No one is telling anyone how to live their life. Last time I checked, being gay was not against the law. This is one of the most commonly skewed arguments used to justify gay marriage. Intertwining government recognition of specific unions with banning sexual orientations. This is done on purpose by people who want to present themselves as "oppressed" in order to gain sympathy for their cause and guilt people who disagree with them into silence.

Personally, I will never agree with the gay marriage angle. But I also think this is probably an issue that is best left to the individual states rather than being handled at the federal level.

 

It is not so much getting your way or the government recognizing it, the issue are the legal benefits that come with marriage.

Marriage is not sacred. Marriage is not a Christian institution. Marriage is a legal contract. Plain and simple.

If celebrating a relationship [without the legal bells and whistles] in private is so grand, the Christian right should do the exact same thing. Keep their sexuality in the closet and out of view. Just like what they expect of the homosexuals.

 

It's absurd that a country like the U.S. hasn't already legalized Gay Marriage in all its states.

 

That's for sure!

 

Its a shame that Australia hasn't legalised it either.

 

I have unresolved issues with all of this.

Where does the Church have a say in all this? Marriage is a religious construct.
You can't force the Church to change it's policy. The Church considers gay marriage immoral and antithetical to Church core values.

That's why I've favored civil unions.......yet the (state) govt has no business even issuing marriage licenses. Again, it's a religious construct.

Some kind of legal mechanism that essentially privately "marries" a same sex couple seems in order - so that estate, power of atty, and medical issues are accommodated, and the Church AND govt are not involved.

 

Apples and oranges are apples and oranges.

This should tell you guys something. If multiple countries around the world do not have laws supporting what you are pushing for, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the argument.

 

There are several complications with that position.

Marriage isn't only a religious construct. How religious a particular marriage is can vary from completely to not at all. You don't own the word or the fundamental concept.

Secondly, Church =/= religion. The religious opinions on gay marriage is hugely varied. Just because your denomination of your faith doesn't agree with it can't be imposed on all sections of all faiths.

I agree no church should be forced to go against their core values in this context but that also means that no church should be prevented from officiating gay marriages if they want to.

The government has to be involved, if only indirectly, if we wish gay couples to have the same (or equivalent) legal rights and responsibilities. You can't brush this away as a simple legal mechanism (so you can pretend it doesn't exist).

 

The Church should have no say except at that church , The Church has the right not to change it's policy and should be allowed to keep its core values

and I totally agree with your last statement , I am sure the country can figure out how to allow Gays the right to marry and receive the benefits' of marriage

 

While the thread is on same-sex marriage this unrelated statement caught my eye.

The government has never required the Catholic Charities to disregard their beliefs when it comes to adoption just as it would not require that related to same-sex marriage. What the US government did do was to establish that if the Catholic Charities wanted US taxpayer money then it could not exclude services for those that don't comply with Catholic beliefs. The Catholic Church cannot accept taxpayer money to impose it's religions dogma on others.

There is no requirement for the Catholic Church to accept federal funding nor is it entitled to those tax dollars. It can continue to operate and maintian all of it's religious beliefs without any interference from the US government. The only question is whether the Catholic Church is willing to sellout it's beliefs for taxpayer money. I would suggest it should not but that is purely up to the Catholic Church. If it does so then it should not complain but there are no mandates where it must accept federal funding for services.

The US government will not force any Church to violate the beliefs of the followers. That would be unconstitutional. Whether a same-sex couple marries or not under the law is of no concern to the Catholic Church or any other religious institution. This is marriage under the law and does not effect the often more limited definitions of marriage in the social institution of religion,

 

I think Catholic Charties should not except government monies period and you and I agree on marriage

 

Neither the cities, nor the states, nor the federal government should be allowed to prohibit the formation of mutually beneficial contracts between free agents with equal bargaining positions, under whatever name those free agents choose for their contracts. Marriage is a personal, or spiritual, or religious matter... call it what you want. But it should not be the government's business to tell people what they can call their contracts and which contracts they can choose to forge.

It seems that conservatives would be the FIRST to understand this. And yet they fight with all their might to keep the government in everyone's private lives. It's worse than unnecessary and excessive taxation. At least with taxation you can make more money if you put the time into it. What do you do when the government won't officiate your contract? You can't do anything. It's ridiculous and embarrassing that this issue has not yet been resolved.


It would be worse if the government banned sexual relationships between consenting adults, and even worse were it to ban romantic ones. That's true. And the government, after a long history of doing just that, no longer does. Good. But this does not in any way change the fact that our government is still acting outside its just realm of authority.

 

Adding to your point:

Given that religion is sacred. Given that marriage is a Christian institution. Given that marriage is, in addition, a legal contract.

Why would anyone want the government, of all things, to be allowed to tell Christian institutions how to deal with sacred covenants?

Christians: why would you want the government to have the power to vet your Church's decisions, especially those concerned with the most sacred of acts, through legal manipulation and the blunt force of bureaucracy? The government should be in the practice of defending the sacred contracts, between consenting adults, that churches wish to establish. Don't you agree?

 

Marriage CAN be those things, but that is not always so.

I think the government is concerned primarily with legal or civil aspects, not the religious.

I think the government would enforce the reality, that under our Constitution, the rights of the the individual, trump the assumed power of 'religion'. Without government... 'religion' would likely RULE concerning marriage.

The government should protect the 'rights' of individual Americans.

 

exactly !!!

 

Of course I agree. But I am not trying to convince people who already agree with me. It's the Christian conservatives who need to realize that the philosophy of government that they preach, however satisfying in the short run, can be used against them in their own private lives.

We need to demonstrate that discrimination against same-sex couples is equivalent to government interference with religion-- which it is under any definition. I'm just using theirs.

 

I'm pleased about that.

Why?! The Constitution 'already' support your view. You should defend the Constitution, rather than try to change other people's minds. Really, that is mostly a futile effort.

They'll find out, when a literal plethora of laws further defines the "effects" they may perpetrate upon others. In any case, people are 'free' to practice their religion, as long as what they do is 'legal' and does not infringe upon the basic rights of other human beings.

Again, in my view it is the LEGAL definitions of people's actual rights which are most important. As things are, things need to be BETTER defined, to protect the rights of ALL... but convincing ignorant bigots that ALL should have EQUAL rights, will likely be a perpetual task.

 

I never said it wasn't. It's just the only one that matters in this case. You can't force acceptance on someone through legislation, regulation, or appeals to The Constitution (always the bastion of those without strong arguments pertaining to the merits of policy). You can force tolerance, but only explicit tolerance, and such an action would breed hate and anger. I don't wish to cause such responses.

You can only convince the people who can be convinced by appealing to their interests, not by insisting that your literary analysis of a document supports your view-- especially when they've already analyzed it, and they disagree.

I hope this doesn't get resolved by the Supreme Court. That's the worst way to deal with such a topic. It just prolongs the hatred where it matters more than contracts and wills-- in person-to-person relationships. If you make a majority feel oppressed, their cause has the deadly combination of numbers and powerful resolution. Just chip away at the majority, and soon its cause has neither.

 

Discrimination against certain sexual attractions is not the same as interference with religion. The constitution clearly states religious freedom as an unalienable right.

Conservatives believe firmly in the constitution. The constitution allows states to make laws not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. A libertarian who rants against State Rights are creating a whole new type of government---apart from our original foundation.

Individual states and local governments HAVE CREATED and ARE CURRENTLY creating laws that go against Conservative Values. Conservatives accept that.

One day-----California might be an exclusively homosexual state that might deny right of marriage to hetersexuals. Califonia would have that right.

Libertarians don't like state rights because they are largely progressives and don't want states making the wrong choices. If the states make the "right" choice they aren't arguing.

 

Do you consider marriage, in any way, to be sacred, religious, or spiritual in nature? If the government regulated the use of leavened versus unleavened bread, would you be so quick to ignore the obvious connection?

I do not hold the value of the Constitution above the value of the liberties it codifies. Those rights do not come from the Constitution. They are every persons' by birthright.

A state is an aggregate of individuals. It derives its authority via the same source as does all good government: from the consent of the governed as a means of objectively protecting their natural rights.

Federalism is not inconsistent with the protection of individual rights first, and states' rights second. States' rights are there to protect individual rights. They are not natural rights, and they should not be construed as being above natural rights.

EDIT: In sum: you should not forget why states' rights are there, and why federalism is our system of government. The purpose of federalism is to prevent factions from completely abridging the rights of the People. When a faction is pervasive enough to abridge universally, we should not lie back and say, "But this is our system! The system says this is how it works!" We should say: "Screw this system. It's the natural rights that matter. Let's protect them."

I acknowledge that marriage is not a natural right. It is a corollary of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as are all consensual contracts. The government need not assign a label to some and deny it to others.

 

And I wasn't accusing you (per se) of anything.

The U.S. Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our individual rights as Americans. And while actual "acceptance" of an idea/value cannot be forced... the rights of individuals CAN BE DEFENDED. In the case of homosexual people, there are indeed times/places where their rights should be defended. That is, non-acceptance cannot be forced either. Perhaps in a church, people can come 'close' to that, but not within society-at-large.

I "disagree" with certain Speed Limits as I drive (including the speed at which many perform their rolling roadblocks, etc.)... still, I realize there are LAWS governing those things I might agree or disagree with. In the case of 'homosexuality', many people who OPPOSE it, imagine they have LEGAL rights (or desire the same) where they do not.

I do hope something 'final' and JUST is reached for all Americans (whether by Supreme Court or other legal means).

No, not necessarily. Why do you see a problem with that 'solution'?

Look, we cannot put what's just/right on HOLD... waiting for every 'attitude' to come around; that is a ludicrous notion, really.

I think you are very wrong about this. Even so, there are many venues by which we create and hone our laws over time. And as an African American, I'm very happy that the people before my generation didn't generally see granting just/equal 'rights' in the way that you view them now.

 

Brown v. Board of Education?
Plessy v. Ferguson?

You really think this is a good way to resolve an issue? It'll just make people more resolute in their opposition, and they're likely to succeed in the long run... only this time, it won't be for a just cause. It'll be for an unjust one. Fight the real fight. Don't postpone it so that others have to deal with the real effects of ingrained bigotry.

 

In MANY cases, a change in the LAW, preceded the necessary change within society. That will likely continue to be the case, concerning many things.

 

When addressing the law we must realize that no states had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage prior to the 1970's. By convention the states didn't perform same-sex marriage but there were no laws prohibiting it. It is a rather recent development in that regard and the courts are finally addressing the Constitutionality of such laws.

The "mini-DOMA's" initiated by the States create serious Constitutional problems not limited to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. They also deny due process of the law to same-sex couples legally married in one state that move to another state which refuses to legally acknowledge their marriage contract.