Skip to comments.The Incoherent Libertarian Position on Marriage
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.
Lets 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 anyones ability to live as they choose. It affects peoples 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 ...
So I suppose that when polygamy is also permitted, these Libertarians will be against any tax payer funded benefits to the resulting children?
Wouldn’t a libertarian have to be against all welfare payments, to anyone for any reason? If not, what’s the point?
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.
Ping for later
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)?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most of the children of Mormon polygamists are on welfare. Their mothers are considered single, as the father only marries the first wife.
Right ... but they would still be on welfare if the parents didn’t claim to be married.
Exactly. Sounds a lot more “coherent” than most of the other arguments I’ve heard. For or against such Amendments.
Exactly gay marriage will only create more layers of bureaucracy. These people arent sincere.
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 doesnt suit them. In a nutshell: Theyre spitting on the Founding Fathers.
Excellent points youd kill a professional libertarian in a debate.
I think some libertarians are just closet socialists. Is it a coincidence that theyre always looking to socialist European designer family experiments to implement here?
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.
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?
The natural law is the basis for our republic.
Children have a right to be brought up according to nature, not perversion.
The Incoherent Libertarian Position on ___________.
Good for all social issues.
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.