Libertarians and Gay Marriage

TCS ^ | 11/20/03 | James D. Miller

[freedom44]

Libertarians love to duck fights, but on gay marriage they must take a stand.

Some Americans genuinely believe that homosexuality is an immoral act that goes against God. Others either celebrate their own homosexuality or feel that those who detest homosexuality are themselves immoral, or at best utterly intolerant.

Libertarians believe that the state should express no opinion on the morality of acts engaged in by consulting adults. Consequently, you would think that the default libertarian position on gay marriage is simply to have states never address the question of whether homosexuality is moral. Alas, on the issue of gay marriage there can be no neutral position.

If a state allowed gay couples to marry, it would clearly be endorsing gay marriage and proclaiming to America that homosexual love is equivalent or at least morally equal to its heterosexual counterpart. Through marriage the state officially endorses a relationship, so by allowing two men to wed, the state would be taking a strong moral position supporting homosexuality, a position which goes against the religious views of many Americans.

Of course, if the state doesn't allow gays to marry it proclaims that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. Married couples have legal rights that unwed couples don't possess, so by opposing gay marriage states deny homosexual couples the ability to acquire these rights. Given that much of the opposition to homosexuality is religiously based, if a state denies gays the right to marry it is essentially endorsing certain religious views of marriage.

Even if the state compromised on the issue of gay marriage and allowed just civil homosexual unions it would be taking a moral stand. The state would be claiming that gay relationships are not completely abominable, but not quite as preferable as heterosexual ones. Imagine that some state passed a law saying interracial couples couldn't marry but could still be joined in a civil union. Surely through this law the state would be criticizing interracial love.

Evaluating sodomy laws poses far less of a challenge to libertarians than assessing whether same-sex couples should be permitted to wed. Laws against sodomy actively condemn gay sex. In contrast, through the absence of such laws the state neither promotes nor endorses this practice. Consequently, the state-stay-out-of-it libertarian position on sodomy laws should be opposition. In contrast, even though marriage is an activity engaged in by two consenting adults, marriage is also a means by which states endorse relationships. Therefore, opposing bans on gay marriage is not analogous to opposing sodomy laws, for allowing gay marriage represents the state's endorsement of the practice.

Some have suggested that we should sidestep the issue of gay marriage by having the government privatize marriage. I explained here in TCS why this is a horrible idea. To summarize my argument, I pointed out that marriage is a valuable brand name that has strength only because it stands for something very important to many people. Consequently, if anyone could set the conditions under which they got married, the marriage brand name would have no value and consequently marriage would be essentially abolished, not privatized. True, abolishing marriage would prevent the state from having to take a stand on gay marriage, but this position seems a little extreme even for a radical libertarian.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court just struck down its state's ban on gay marriage and gave Massachusetts 180 days to come up with a constitutional solution. Sadly, consistence with libertarian principles isn't of the slightest priority to the Democrats who dominate the Massachusetts House and Senate. Even if Massachusetts legislators were motivated by libertarian beliefs, however, these beliefs would be of no help to them in deciding what to do. On the issue of gay marriage, even libertarians must decide whether the state should endorse or discourage homosexual relationships.

[A CA Guy]

All depends on if the gay lobby backs illegal drugs, if so, they will bend over backwards in support and take many positions with the gay lobby.

[JohnGalt]

It is simply a question of left and right, and the author should no better than to claim otherwise.

Rightwing libertarians, believing that institutions and the separation into the smallest political units possible, insure freedom, versus leftwing ideological libertarians who believe in abstract rights and the state enforcement of these rights.

Count me on the right.

[cinFLA]

Rightwing libertarians, believing that institutions and the separation into the smallest political units possible, insure freedom,

Seems like a lot of RWL's had problems with a condo unit setting up rules against people meeting in their front yards.

[buffyt]

My nephew is gay and lives with another man in a quiet peaceful relationship, they don't go out to gay bars, they don't sleep around. They are in their thirties and very committed to each other. My nephew is a lot more feminine than a lot of women. He played with dolls all the time as a little boy, didn't do sports, didn't date, never liked girls. I think sometimes it is genetic or hormonal. Maybe arrested mental/emotional development. If he didn't live with his partner, they would both live alone. It isn't a sexual passionate relationship. They are like an old married couple. I don't condone. But I am no longer in shock. Have known he was gay since 1989. Got over the initial shock long ago. It was not easy.

[JohnGalt]

Can you at least give me a link? I am well read in current events but don't get too obscure on me.

[BlazingArizona]

As a big-L Libertarian myself, I see the problem as being tha the state is too involved in marriage, period. Our laws on inheritance, property title and post-marital division, and childrearing should be modified to make the state more neutral with respect to marriage. The ideal should be marriage as a social-religious custom in which the state is not involved.

[Capitalism2003]

Libertarians believe in less government across the board.
Personally, I don't like the idea of gay marriage, however I simply don't see any role for the federal government to play in this area. Let consenting adults do whatever they choose. Let adults marry whoever they choose. If Sally and Sue want to tie the knot, why should we object? Why should anyone object? Are you really being hurt by their behavior?

[fontoon]

Are you really being hurt by their behavior?

Yes I am maried and see constantly the cheapening and dergrading of this once strong valiable institution. A strong mariage produces good kids; no need to produce any more screwed up kids.

[newbeliever]

In January my brother-in-law shot and killed his "husband" and then shot himself. He almost made it to 41- the expected age of death of a male homosexual. I wish I had a penny for every tear from wife over the fact he likely is in hell for eternity. Don't ask me about acceptance. Prayer and the truth, that's all anyone will get out of me.

Peace all. By the way- new? No. Just lurking and enjoying since '98.

[RebelBanker]

Unfortunately, the federal government is involved in the definition of marriage because of a multitude of laws, regulations, rules and so forth that treat married couples differently than unmarried couples (of any type). Whether you are a big L Liberterian, a small l libertarian, or in any way conservative, this becomes a very annoying conflict between the desire to keep government out of things versus allowing government to actively promote an abomination.

I like Gov. Robert Ehrlich's (R-MD)comment, "Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms."

[Texas Federalist]

William Bennett put it best. By legally sanctioning the counterfeiting of marriage, we are devaluing the currency.

[Veritas_est]

It isn't their relationships that I protest, although I think that is disgusting and sinful. I protest the homosexual agenda. They aren't satisfied to be "left alone". They insist that the rest of the world must approve of their lifestyle. Not in a million years.

This is from a man who has a good father-daughter relationship with a lesbian daughter. I love her. I hate what she does.

[fontoon]

I couldn't agree more to the currency simily

[pogo101]

Seems to me that the preferred situations for pure libertarians would be the following, in order of preference (that is, they'd most prefer #1, but if that's impossible to achieve politically, they'd settle for #2, etc.)

1. No governmental recognition of marriage at all, regardless of gender; it's strictly a matter of contract between private parties. Hence, no "marriage penalty" on income tax, but no estate tax benefits for spouses either, etc., etc. Everyone would be "single" in the eyes of the government.

2. BUT IF the government is going to sanction SOME pairings of adults, and grant tax or other financial/legal benefits to those pairings, then it cannot discriminate between them on the basis of gender.

3. (The current state of the law, except in MA and VT.)

"1" probably will never happen. So IMO, pure libertarians probably say "OK" to marriage rights/privileges (in terms of gov't recognition) flowing to same-sex couples along with opposite-sex couples.

[FirstPrinciple]

Government supports a lot of sinful things like gambling, abortion, etc. I am not in favor of homosexual union/marriage, but we shouldn't be selective about vices.

[fontoon]

I see exactly what you are saying. I don't see why people want to define themselve by an act of fornication.

Gay sex isn't sex. The anus is not a sexual organ, nor is the tongue.

[Cobra Scott]

All depends on if the gay lobby backs illegal drugs, if so, they will bend over backwards in support and take many positions with the gay lobby.

Considering the topic, is that a loaded sentence or what? LOL!

[jwalsh07]

So IMO, pure libertarians probably say "OK" to marriage rights/privileges (in terms of gov't recognition) flowing to same-sex couples along with opposite-sex couples.

Well, here's your problem with pure libertarianism. There is absolutlely no rational basis for limiting the new definition to couples. In fact by the reasoning of SJC of Mass, any two or more people can be married as long as the love one another and want to be married, sexually or platonically.

Since we don't live in a pure libertarian society this comes with costs to the rest of us. Grandpa marries Uncle Louie so that he begats Uncle Louie survivors benefits. Cousin Lucy weds Uncle Duck so that Uncle Duck is added to Lucy's health care plan at her government job. And on and on.