Topic: Gay Rights
In Reponse to Prop 8 A libertarian response to gay marriageby Sean Thomas
(libertarian)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Since the California ballot initiative banning gay marriage, the left and right have been up in arms with one another in a battle that will probably never be won by either side. The main stream right has been celebrating, insolently, about how big a victory this has been for so called conservatism, despite all around disappointment in the general election. The left has been outraged, as they normally are, about what a tragedy this is for civil rights, and for equality under law for all Americans. At one time, I might have been upset about this as well.
Before I knew anything about libertarian ideology, I considered myself to be a liberal. This was partially due to the indoctrination I received from our public education system, and also due to a perception that conservatism was entrenched with bigotry and favoritism to the corporate elite. I have always, however, been somewhat libertarian in thought, as applied to issues such as affirmative action. While staunchly anti-racist, I could never understand how racial favoritism for minorities isn't just another form of racism. I believed the only way to truly defeat racial discrimination was to teach people to judge one another on an individual basis, and not by superficial categories like skin color. I'm fairly certain Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. conveyed a similar message in his "I Have a Dream Speech", regardless of whether or not he would have been in favor of affirmative action. (I concede he almost certainly would have, given his political philosophy, as understood by Dr. Thomas Woods in his book "33 Questions You're Not Supposed to Ask About American History").
I've taken a similar line of reasoning recently on the subject of gay marriage. Certainly, I have no inherent prejudices or objections towards homosexuals. I would share with them a distaste for the role that the state takes on in the personal lives of private individuals. I also would agree with them, that laws should be written to treat all people equally. However, I can not wholly side with them in the battle for state recognition of same sex marriage. I in fact, am no longer certain why the state should recognize marriage at all.
I understand that marriage is an almost natural human tradition, that has been shared by various religions, and even valued by many atheist in society. Historically, religious institutions have been tied to the state, and thus marriage has been traditionally recognized by both the church and the state. But let us imagine a world without the state. Unquestionably, marriage would still exist. People would still fall in love, churches would still perform the ceremony, and disputes could even be settled by an agreed upon, non-state, entity. Thus, marriage would be defined by the individual participants and the mediums they choose to ensure such a union.
Now, introduce to this world the powerful centralized unit that is the state. The state wishes that you report the status of your love life to them upon decision to marry, and in return they will recognize it as "official" and make laws to "protect" you from one another in case anything goes wrong. It also promises to steal less money from you via taxes, while subtilely threatening to make laws that make your relationship more difficult if you don't comply. This state believes that the sanctity of marriage should be protected by divinity of government and lawyers. This doesn't sound like a very enticing deal to me.
I realize that marriage and the state aren't divorcing anytime soon, but as far as this entire debate of legal semantics is concerned, I'm not even sure the two sides are even arguing over the same thing. One side thinks marriage is sacred and holy, and that the state recognizing gay marriage will devalue their own personal beliefs. The other side hopes the state will somehow make their marriage more meaningful, and somehow force its acceptance onto those who oppose Either way, no state ruling is going to instantly make individuals more or less accepting of homosexuality. Ultimately, my objection to what happened in California is not the verdict, it is the argument itself. It bothers me that people pay so much respect to the state, that they receive vindication for the state defining the meaning of words for things it need not be involved.
I think the best way for gay couples to fight this one out is to get married anyway. Find a place that will hold the ceremony; move in together; tell people you are married regardless; fill out the paper work to change your last name, or maybe just stop using your old one; cheat on your taxes; sign contracts anticipating your own divorce so you can split half the marital assets - whatever you have to do. There is nothing the state can do to change your beliefs or control the choices you make in your love life.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Sean Thomas only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Sean Thomas 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.
Today, people are so used and indoctrinated into the marriage by the state that they are not ready to remove the state from the equation. Every time I talk to somebody that the real solution to gay marriage is to not have a marrieage defined by the state whether heterosexual or not they don't understand. Even those who are living together do not understand either. Even in religious ceremoies, they tell you that the true marriage is the one by their church and not by the state, yet they make you sign the state paperwork first.
People are so used to the enslavement of the state that I get answers like:
"Then what about taxes?" "What about the children?" "What about the division of assets and liabilities upon separation?" "What about the protection of abused women?" "How will people with no religion marry?" "What about health insurance?" "What about inheritance?" etc... Neither of the questions show a need for the state. All of these private matters could be settled privately with private contracts whether written or verbal.
Ironically the only person who understood my statement was an immigrant from Bangladesh. He told me that his grandparents got married only under the Islam Religion with no state documents. There were no state papers showing her grandparents to be married, yet there was no issue with it throught their entire lifetime. It was later that the government required the documentation.
These gay people are fighting to be recognized by the government. Why should that matter? If they love each other, they can make their own private ceremony and follow the steps that you disclosed on your column. They don't need the state to recognize them and neither do the heterosexuals.
I agree with just about everything the above poster said on the matter. My main concern, ignoring a hypothetical stateless world, is the current ban on non-family members visiting someone in the hospital. My prefered 'fix' would be to see the removal of marriage from governmental concerns to be replaced with a designation of partnership. I don't care what those people who are partners do with eachother in the bedroom.. they can be platonic partners, business partners, or lovers.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-17 15:41:30
Well, if we're really going to be honest about this topic, then we have to admit that the government politicized marriage generations ago. Marriage licenses were issued for exactly that purpose: to politicize marriage. The state (ie the community) wanted to decide for people whether or not they could get married. One of the original purposes for the marriage license was to prevent intermarriage among the races.
Since then, heterosexual marriage has been further politicized for the purpose of giving "tax deductions" and other special privileges to such couples. And finally there is a large proportion of the population who believe that they have the right to politicize marriage when said marriage violates their own religious views. The religious argument is the ultimate form of using government force to stick one's nose into other peoples' affairs...literally!
So while I certainly agree that the state has no right to tell gay people whether or not they can marry, we've only covered half the topic if we don't admit that marriage has been politicized for generations. I also think that the track record of said politicization has been absymally bad.
Whether the state “should” be involved in marriage doesn’t change the fact that it is involved in marriage. We libertarians may advocate private roads but we have govt. roads. Any measure to ban gays, or Jews, Catholics or some other minority, from driving on those roads would be opposed by libertarians. Until roads (or marriage) are depoliticized then equal access is required.
You clearly don’t understand what gay couples need or want here. Certain rights, legitimate even from a libertarian perspective, are predicated on marriage status. To deny gays the right to marry denies them these legitimate rights. It is not about making “their marriage more meaningful”.
As for your solution consider my situation. My partner is not a US citizen and not allowed to come here. I couldn’t stay with him. How exactly do you suggest we just move in together when immigration laws prevent him from even coming to the country? You say “there is nothing the state cand o to... control the choice you make in your love life.” Really! Obviously you have no idea the extent to which the State does precisely that for gay people.
And before marriage laws can be abolished we need to abolish immigration laws otherwise no American can bring a foreign partner to live with them. Marriage laws are intricately tied to thousands of other laws. We can’t cut the marriage laws until we cut the links to those other laws. To suggest otherwise is only to indicate a lack of knowledge about the way marriage laws work in the US. It sounds good but is naive and doomed to fail.
Clearly until the utopia you suggest arrives the only moral position for libertarians is equality before the law for gay couples.
CLS, I do it is a travesty that the government doesn't recognize marriage. Your case is much different than most, in that you can't get your partner into the country. I stand firm in the notion that the state can not control the choices you make, it can only try to punish you for making them. I did take account for the state making laws that will make your relationship harder if you don't comply. This holds true for heterosexuals who choose not to marry as well.
I don't see how the moral position for libertarians to take is to fight for equality under law for laws that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think the moral position for libertarians is to fight to get rid of the bogus laws and for the state to start judging people on an individual basis.
Sean, I liked the article, but I really don't understand this libertarian position on marriage that it shouldn't be enshrined in law whatsoever. It is obviously necessary and appropriate for the state to be involved with any good public policy that encourages the overall health of the society upon which the government derives its authority. Marriage is beneficial to the state because it produces an environment free of governmental intervention that produces the healthiest possible scenario for raising children and controlling the male and female sexual drive within a constructive framework. Without this institution, the state incurs the costs associated with sexual and relational irresponsibility such as foster care, kids going through the court system, orphans and adoption along with an increase in crime and juvenile activity when the institution breaks down from its 'sanctified' structure.
On the other hand, same-sex marriage gives no benefit to the state or societal good whatsoever because it is self destructive to both the society and the individual, and cannot produce the next generation through natural means. Rearing by adoption only further subverts the next generation to tend to behave in likewise fasion and also serves to make marriage an irrelevant societal norm.
Furthermore, the laws regulating those protections are absolutely necessary within the society, especially to resolve conflicts in the event of divorce or custody, or even inherritance upon death of members of the family. This institution of the family cannot simply be ignored by the state as a way to by-pass the moral delema and liberty problems this issue brings to the table.
For those who are religious (within the larger religious traditions of the world), it represents the eventual censoring of their religions and silencing of free speech and religious expression thereof. It may also make churches act compulsory against their convictions and counterproductive to their organizations (IE: force to conduct the ceremony, hire within the church, etc.). In other words it will mean the loss of liberty.
For the religious, it's not just marriage we're talking about - it's everything else that comes with it necessarily if it were to become legalized, especially by judicial decree.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-11-21 17:19:50
The Mrs. and I do not think it is the State's business what agreements or committments we make to each other. We agree that marriage is a decision. Periord. How that decision is communicated and celebrated or santified in the community at large depends on culture and personal preference.
We followed the State statutes for declaring a common-law marriage.
But guess what? The Feds do not accept a State-sanctioned common-law marriage for name changes and SSN changes. That means my wife is not legally free to use our last name for identification. She can't change her driver's license name without the Feds getting involved and we will not invite them into our lives.
I have no empathy with gays who are begging to be regulated and licensed by the State like dogs and cars. What they really want is a club to beat businesses into submission with when it comes to spousal benefits and other perks defined by the State-sanctioned marriage statutes.
Anyone who clammors for more government intervention into the lives of individuals is not a champion of liberty. There is always a personal political or economic reason for such behavior.
I read an awesome post on gay marriage from Jane Galt that you'd probably be interested in, it's the best post on government fiddling with marriage that I have come across:
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.
