On August 2, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of California unanimously endorsed a vote of NO on Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The "NO on Prop 8" Campaign Committee's ballot argument includes the following phrases:
Libertarians, while sympathetic to "equality, fairness, dignity, respect, security in times of need," etc., typically do not consider it the role of government to provide these things to individuals. So, why should libertarians oppose Prop 8?
Because Prop 8 is un-libertarian.
Libertarians oppose the use of government for social engineering. Taxing everyone, including gays and lesbians, but then only giving the benefits of those taxes to straight people, is nothing short of a redistribution of wealth from a disfavored group to a favored group.
Some people mistakenly believe that same-sex couples can easily replicate the benefits of marriage via private contracts. But no private contractual equivalent of marriage exists. Same-sex couples who attempt to go the private contract route must spend thousands of dollars on legal and filing fees, to get only 90% of the way to where opposite-sex married couples are after paying just $50 for a marriage license.
This is the "redistribution of wealth and social engineering" aspect of government marriage. This alone should convince any libertarian to vote NO on Prop 8.
But there's also the "equal protection" aspect to consider, because some things are more important than the immediate net size of government, even to Libertarians.
Regrettably, just a week after the LPC ExCom voted to oppose Prop 8, Adam Summers of the Reason Foundation wrote in his Libertarian Perspective op-ed: "gay rights activists are wrong to petition the government for 'equal' marital status. This demand merely perpetuates the politicization of what should be a private issue. Gay rights activists would better serve their interests by arguing that the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place."
See: Summers Op-Ed
To understand why Summers is wrong, consider this thought experiment: The year is not 2008, but 1948. The issue is not whether to grow government by allowing gays and lesbians into government marriage, but instead whether to grow government by allowing black children into government schools.
Now change Summers's statement to read: "black civil rights activists are wrong to petition the government for 'equal' government schools. This demand merely perpetuates the politicization of what should be a private issue. Black civil rights activists would better serve their interests by arguing that the government should not be in the education business in the first place."
Despite being opposed to government schools, most libertarians would be horrified to see such a pro-segregation argument coming from the Reason Foundation. Yet they are less surprised when a nearly identical argument is made regarding gays and lesbians.
Clearly, just a few libertarians (including at least one columnist at NolanChart.com) still have a blind spot on gay civil rights issues.
Nonetheless, California libertarians can oppose social engineering -- and simultaneously improve libertarians' image in the gay and lesbian community -- by visiting NoOnProp8.com and signing the "Vow to Vote No" petition.
Also, we'll be having Libertarian NO on 8 house parties as fundraisers for the NO on 8 Campaign (San Francisco on October 11, Los Angeles TBD). Email info@outrightusa.org for details.
There will even be a "Libertarian Night" at the "NO on Prop 8" Campaign phone banks. Libertarian volunteers can phone registered Libertarians to oppose Prop 8, while also showing gay and lesbian voters that they can count on Libertarians to defend their equal protection under the law.
That's how you build a "big tent" political party.
Please volunteer for the campaign, and vote NO on Prop 8 this November.
©2008 Rob Power, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Rob Power only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Rob Power is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Rob Power of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Rob Power |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: a Theologian
Date: 2008-10-01 06:03:22
You have thouroughly convinced me of the validity of Summers argument and how incorrect your own is. Even your example swaping "Black" for "Gay" gives credence to Summers line of thought.
The issue isn't who's right. The issue is government influence. Both sides of the argument want government to "decide" on their behalf... but the decision shouldn't be something the government is concerned with in the first place.
Gay people are going to be gay, straight people are going to be straight, and were all going to have to live in proximity to one another. Deal with it. Prop 8 is a tool designed to divide these two groups of people (into Democrats and Republicans). By picking a side, the Libertarians in CA are playing the game. They are alienating conservatives by siding with liberals on this issue. Either way, they loose 1/2 the people who might otherwise support them.
Stop playing the game. You don't have to pick a side in every fight. Choosing to use government to force an opinion on a group of people is what is "un-Libertarian".
Posted By: Rob Power
Date: 2008-10-01 11:29:36
Theologian,
We have picked a side -- the Constitution, and the Judicial Branch that upholds it.
You have clearly chosen the other side -- organized religion, which has nothing but disdain for individual liberty.
Posted By: a Theologian
Date: 2008-10-02 06:08:10
Let me get this straight... because I don't want government involvement in people's lives, therefore I'm against individual liberty and want to set up a theocracy?
I'll admit, "organized religion" (as you put it) was wrong when it allowed government to decide what marriage is. However, appealing to government over what should be a "religious" issue is going about it the wrong way.
Right now both sides are fighting to gain control of the bully pulpit. What they should be doing is lobying to repeal all laws about marriage - remove it from the sphere of the state and put it in the religious / private sphere.
Now, would you mind explaining to me how having such an opinion is against the Constitution? Are you really accusing me of having disdain for individual liberty? Is it not possible to enjoy both religion and the constitution (as most of our founding fathers did)?
Posted By: Rob Power
Date: 2008-10-02 10:04:33
Marriage predates organized religion. Organized religion made the social construct of marriage into a religious sacrament after the fact, just as organized religion made the pagan tradition of illuminating evergreens with candles into a "Christmas Tree" after the fact. If you're one of the people who believe that the universe began a few thousand years ago, then there's no point trying to convince you otherwise. But if you are willing to accept the fact that humanity existed before organized religion, then you can look at all of the archaeological evidence that proves that people were getting married long before organized religion stuck its nose into it. Marriage started out as a way of defining who owned property, so that property could be retained within a family -- a very libertarian concept. Just because organized religion co-opted a normal social structure as a "sacrament" a long time ago, does not mean that we have to pretend that religion "owns" marriage. It doesn't. This whole idea that marriage should be a religious issue is unique to Western society. There are far more married people in the Eastern world than in the West, and most of them will tell you that your religion has nothing to do with their marriage.
Posted By: a Theologian
Date: 2008-10-02 12:34:07
Again, you prove my point. Historically, marriage is a contract between families... I think we both can agree on that. The "governments" roll in that contract is to enforce it - not to dicate who can enter into it (assuming government had a roll at all).
Apealing that far back into history has other downfalls to your argument. The assumption that homosexuals are being denied a right to marry by evil Christians belies the historical truth that homosexuals (in every culture) have NEVER been able to "marry".
So where does marriage belong? I'll accept the argument that it is a "family" issue - no government allowed. I'll accept the argument that the church should not play a roll. I do not accept the argument that government needs to rule on the issue.
FYI - most of Christendom doesn't view Marriage as a sacrament (only the Roman Catholic Church and related offshoots do).
Posted By: Rob Power
Date: 2008-10-02 13:11:58
Actually, it was indeed the Christians who first banned same-sex unions:
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.[9] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[10] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[11]
The Libertarian position on marriage (and it is absolutely correct) is that government should have no ROLE in marriage, but as long as it does, it must not discriminate:
http://www.lp.org/platform
Posted By: Brian Miller
Date: 2008-10-02 16:53:51
homosexuals (in every culture) have NEVER been able to "marry"
That is true. Homosexuals have never been able to "marry."
They have, however, been able to marry. And they have. Sans the Dr. Evil "quotation marks" around every "word," of course. :)
Further, even if you weren't being factually incorrect in your assertion, one has to ask why it matters. Traditionally, women are property of their fathers and husbands, citizenship required noble title and property ownership, and blacks were forbidden from learning how to read and write.
All of those "traditions" appealed to the same book of myths you frequently cite today to justify your present bout of medievalism. You should consider that point.