Libertarians are near-unanimous in opposition to Proposition 8 on the California ballot, which would amend the Constitution to end the right of same-sex couples to marry. by Rob Power
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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:
"equality, freedom and fairness, for all"
"would deny lesbian and gay couples the same dignity and respect"
"just not fair"
"only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need"
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."
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.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23
thumbs so far
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.
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".
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)?
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.
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).
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:
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.
I see The problem with Prop8 as being that it infringes on the rights of those who do not want to accept gay marriage as a definition in society.. But in the same respect to Homosexuals they have been forced into accepting the definition of what a marriage is for years. What becomes apparent is it is the "definition" of marriage that imposes on either side. the question should be how can both exist not being imposed upon? the answer I thought for the libertarians is there should be NO definition done by the state.
If Marriage is a religious function why should the state (Any Government) be the one to decide what it is or isn’t? I would urge all gay rights activates to be fair in this and instead of forcing a definition to be accepted by all that they strive and remove any definition. As that is a cause that both side could stand behind. The state, the schools, and any public organization or office has no right to impose a definition on anyone. So if families choose to teach their children about gay marriage so be it. But no child should be taught either definition in school as this is something that should be taught at home.
As Libertarians I find it diluted to take a side. by doing so you infringes on the rights of another.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 12:21:35
The problem with Prop8 as being that it infringes on the rights of those who do not want to accept gay marriage as a definition in society
Come again? What "right" is infringed by changing a constitutional understanding? We do not have the "right" to have everything just as we like it. Nor do we have the "right" to not have our sensibilities offended.
We have the right to say and write what we want [libel and slander notwithstanding]; to believe what we want; and to be left the hell alone [when it suits, increasingly, the government's purposes]. When we believe something and say what we believe, that does not obviate anyone who believes differently from saying differently - or from being rude about it.
And it doesn't disqualify activism from trying to legislate that difference. A legislated difference doesn't run afoul of "rights" just because someone's being "infringed upon" by having to accept a definition they don't like. This goes back to the non-existent "right" of having everything just as we like it. It don't work that way.
the question should be how can both exist not being imposed upon?
It should? Do you want to gaze into your navel? What can come of that besides lint?
the answer I thought for the libertarians is there should be NO definition done by the state.
The only reason anyone would think that is if they believed that libertarianism is indifferentiable from anarchy. And not merely anarchy, but a pastel-colored anarchy where lions sleep with lambs and sharks recite the credo "fish are friends, not food". These make swell cartoon themes, but don't play well in reality.
Any libertarianism that is going to mean a damn will only concern itself with an accurate enforcement of the liberties - as currently defined - for all, even those to whom it is or was not customary to enforce those liberties.
Marriage is a current liberty. The right to marry whom one wishes, not given to the feds in the Constitution, therefore reserved to the states or the people. The states took it - as is their prerogative. The vast majority of the people in this country like the concept of marriage even if half are not very good at it, and there is a large body of evidence that it's a natural and necessary formula for raising relatively drama-free youngsters.
So if you're going to have "marriage", then you have to allow it to everyone not justifiably prevented from it. We exclude children because we don't consider them mature enough - okay fine. We exclude the currently-married because that can be used for fraudulent purposes - okay fine.
What would be the reason for excluding gays?
Right, I can't think of a reason either except that it makes you uncomfortable. Me too. But big deal.
A generation ago we did this with interracial marriage - and using the same style of argument. The world didn't end, and despite the popular saying, many went back. Who cares?
If Marriage is a religious function why should the state (Any Government) be the one to decide what it is or isn’t?
Because the state is not a place-holder for religion. Freedom of, remember? no establishment, remember?
The state defines the legal allowances, the religion is granted the limited authority to enact it as it chooses or not if it doesn't choose. The law allows divorced people to remarry; the catholic church has fits about it unless there is a purely religious step which is taken. Catholics who are not fine with this extra step can go to the courthouse and get the same legal marriage and many catholic churches will look the other way afterward. If yours doesn't, then change churches.
The state should allow gays to marry because denying it disallows gays the same rights to share property, share problems, and impose in-laws on each other. If a church doesn't want to officiate, it wouldn't have to and the gays can go down to the courthouse and get the same legal merger.
The state, the schools, and any public organization or office has no right to impose a definition on anyone.
How on earth do you expect society to function? The rules of driving are just a series of definitions - red means stop, green means go, yellow means drive really fast ... definitions.
Or are you simply talking about definitions you don't like?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
