Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Incoherent Libertarian Position on Marriage
The Ruth Institute ^ | May 18, 2011 | Jennifer Roback Morse

Posted on 05/19/2011 1:31:15 AM PDT by AustralianConservative

The Libertarian Party of Minnesota has taken a position on the proposal to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the voters of Minnesota. I am taking the time to rebut this paragraph because this kind of argument has become all too common, even among those who have every desire and intention to expand the scope of government. You might think this would give Libertarians pause, but, that is another story.

Here is what the LPMN has to say:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve. Government has no business restricting or interfering with marriage. This ban would create a caste system by dividing society into two classes: those who are permitted to marry, and those who are not.

Let’s start at the beginning:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Actually, affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not affect anyone’s ability to “live as they choose.” It affects people’s qualifications for the rights and responsibilities associated with a social and public institution. Same sex couples can live together, invest and spend money together, probably share parenting, and of course, do anything they want in their bedrooms.

(Excerpt) Read more at ruthblog.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; gaystapo; homofascists; homosexualagenda; libertarianism; libertarians; lpmn; marriage; minnesota; moralabsolutes; perverts; sodomhusseinobama; traditionalmarriage
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/18/the-incoherent-libertarian-position-on-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-21677
1 posted on 05/19/2011 1:31:20 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

So I suppose that when polygamy is also permitted, these Libertarians will be against any tax payer funded benefits to the resulting children?


2 posted on 05/19/2011 3:28:12 AM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

Wouldn’t a libertarian have to be against all welfare payments, to anyone for any reason? If not, what’s the point?


3 posted on 05/19/2011 4:38:32 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Obama's "Gutsy Decision": Who's gonna tell the fool that he ain't cool?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

The Founders believed in Religion(and the Christian Religion was encouraged by the State-see Joseph Story) Morality (based upon our shared Christianity) and Knowledge being necessary to good govt. and the happiness of mankind. The Libertarian view that defending marriage would grow government violates the Founding principles.


4 posted on 05/19/2011 4:52:34 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Ping for later


5 posted on 05/19/2011 5:43:55 AM PDT by erod (Unlike the President I am a true Chicagoan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

My take is that the libertarian position on marriage would be that it’s a religious ceremony/sacrament and a contract, and the state has no interest in it, beyond enforcing a binding contract.

What is the historical basis for the state regulating marriage? Why is it thus? Isn’t gay marriage really about getting the state to normalize homosexuality (which for the Left is the ultimate stamp of approval)?


6 posted on 05/19/2011 6:51:23 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
The Libertarian view that defending marriage would grow government violates the Founding principles.

Government capturing the word "marriage" is a reason "traditional marriage" is at risk to begin with.

No longer the mere recorder of committed couples, governments have enacted vast bodies of law conferring responsibilities and privileges to those it alone deems qualified to marry.

Qualifications vary from state-to-state. At times the rules have excluded interracial couples and even divorcees. The libertarian point is all couplings are not treated equally.

The same rationale that government has a right to encourage some "social goods" (some kinds of marriage), allows it to also discourage others (smoking, food consumption) and even create whole protected classes via hate crime legislation.

Libertarians want the most extremely limited government sustainable. Government defining marriages, rather than simply recording, most certainly is an expansion of its power, reach and authority.

Ron Paul suggests private contracts together with personal religious authorities be the determiners of who qualifies for the "married" label and the responsibilities and privileges thereof.

You can argue defining marriage is a proper role for government but you can't argue it isn't growth of government's power over individual lives and interpersonal relationships. It's at that level the libertarians bristle.

7 posted on 05/19/2011 7:57:56 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama will be president until 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
Isn’t gay marriage really about getting the state to normalize homosexuality (which for the Left is the ultimate stamp of approval)?

Rather than be free to change hearts and minds through open debate and personal interaction, government dictates views and behaviors. Only it can exact punishment for non-compliance.

"Gay marriage" codified into law won't be able to directly interfere with religious teaching but it will have a chilling effect in the public square. It's one we've already seen in cases of scripture-quoting t-shirts creating a "hostile environment." The whole point of expanded government involvement is control.

If government was merely an enforcer of contracts, as libertarians suggest, all would be on equal footing. Instead, only that view which government endorses prevails. It's social engineering and fascism that we see trickling further and further into our lives deciding what we may eat, what lights we may see by, what sheets we may use, even whether we may engage in healthcare commerce.

We become more unfree by the minute. From the statehouse to the court house, liberty is under attack by so-called progressives (and even some conservatives).

Their idea of progress is expansion of control.

"You will have more freedom if you just give us more control."

8 posted on 05/19/2011 8:51:41 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama will be president until 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Government defining marriage in some way predates America, age restrictions, siblings, polygamy, etc. I’m not aware of a time in American history when government did not limit marriage.


9 posted on 05/19/2011 10:00:46 AM PDT by ansel12 ( JIM DEMINT "I believe [Palins] done more for the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
Libertarians are much worse than liberals in many respects. What they don't seem to realize is that marriage has NO bearing on how two individuals view each other; its sole purposed is to mandate how OTHERS view them.
10 posted on 05/19/2011 10:10:54 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
What is the historical basis for the state regulating marriage?

Well, the 1856 platform of the new Republican Party says that the party was formed to combat the "twin relics of barbarism," slavery and polygamy.

And four states, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah and Idaho, were only allowed into the Union if they would forever swear off plural marriage.

Folks certainly thought Congress had the power to regulate what constituted marriage then.

One man one woman marriage is the norm established by nature and by Nature's God.

The natural law is the basis for our free republic.

The natural family is our most fundamental God-given institution...both in terms of government and the economy. The state has an overriding interest in preserving and protecting it.

11 posted on 05/19/2011 10:20:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (GOP mantra: 'Repeal and replace.' Translation? 'We can do socialism better than the Democrats.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Yes, they should be. However, if they support polygamy, which by default, they do, this will add to the welfare rolls. Welfare is 10 times harder to scale back than allowing multiple marriages, adding to the problem they say they want to fix.


12 posted on 05/19/2011 11:25:02 AM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

I don’t know that polygamy adds to welfare rolls. Welfare favors unmarried mothers.

Given that a man can father children on as many women as will screw him, and the taxpayer will support the mothers and children, I don’t see that recognizing polygamy makes any difference in the cost of indigent children. This is not to say that I think we should allow it, just that this financial argument doesn’t really hold water, imo.


13 posted on 05/19/2011 12:35:25 PM PDT by Tax-chick ( "Nearly everything Obama said was either factually incorrect or deliberately misleading." ~VDH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

The Government has every right to define what they accept as “marriage” They have No right to define “marriage” there is an important distinction between the two. The Federal Govt. via the supreme Court attempted redefine “marriage” back in 1987.Prior to that in Reynolds v. the United States the Court
said the Mormons could define Marriage however they desired but the United States would not recognize polygamy as legitimate religious practice. (Acting not on the definition of “marriage” but upon the actions of individuals associated with the Mormon Church.) In Murphy v. Ramsey and others (1885) the supreme Court defined “family” and by extension “marriage”as consisting of and springing from the Union for Life of one man and one woman in the the estate of Holy Matrimony. So the Government has been in the business-if you will of defining “marriage for a long time. But exactly how can you say defending DOMA will grow Government?How can defending the Founding Principles of Religion, Morality and Knowledge be indefensible. I cannot be a Libertine /or a Libertarian because they do not defend the Founding Principles.


14 posted on 05/19/2011 12:53:46 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Most of the children of Mormon polygamists are on welfare. Their mothers are considered single, as the father only marries the first wife.


15 posted on 05/19/2011 1:01:50 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

Right ... but they would still be on welfare if the parents didn’t claim to be married.


16 posted on 05/19/2011 1:06:39 PM PDT by Tax-chick ( "Nearly everything Obama said was either factually incorrect or deliberately misleading." ~VDH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

Exactly. Sounds a lot more “coherent” than most of the other arguments I’ve heard. For or against such Amendments.


17 posted on 05/19/2011 1:20:03 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

Exactly – gay marriage will only create more layers of bureaucracy. These people aren’t sincere.


18 posted on 05/19/2011 4:02:45 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Point well made – America is strong because it was built on explicit Christian principles, but radical libertarians are very good at hiding history when it doesn’t suit them. In a nutshell: They’re spitting on the Founding Fathers.


19 posted on 05/19/2011 4:06:38 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Excellent points – you’d kill a professional libertarian in a debate.


20 posted on 05/19/2011 4:08:03 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

I think some libertarians are just closet socialists. Is it a coincidence that they’re always looking to socialist European designer family experiments to implement here?


21 posted on 05/19/2011 4:11:07 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That is a reference to history for state intervention in marriage, but it goes back much further than that. I guess I will do my own research, but God-given institutions seem to me to be mainly the province of the Church, not the government. I’ve never understood why atheists marry. It makes no sense at all to me. As marriage has become more of a civil matter than a religious matter, marriage has suffered as an institution, at least in my humble opinion.


22 posted on 05/19/2011 7:43:46 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

I think there is a problem with that line of reasoning. It has to do with the size and scope of government. Libertarians and socialists appear to be polar opposites when it comes to that rather crucial issue, no?


23 posted on 05/19/2011 7:46:08 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

The natural law is the basis for our republic.

Children have a right to be brought up according to nature, not perversion.


24 posted on 05/19/2011 8:29:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (GOP mantra: 'Repeal and replace.' Translation? 'We can do socialism better than the Democrats.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

The Incoherent Libertarian Position on ___________.

Good for all social issues.


25 posted on 05/22/2011 8:50:55 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson