A libertarian against state acknowledgment of gay marriage

[free.alive]

I have struggled with this for a while. I frankly could care less on what arrangement two consenting adults make between themselves or what they call it. In fact, I don't want to know.

HOWEVER, the cultural-Marxist thrust in this society makes this issue about something else and endangers us all: the right to contract.

State institution of gay marriage, with the cultural-Marxists in charge, would make the next step being the punishment of people who, for matters of religion of conscience, declined or refused to perform the marriage ceremony. The pressure will be to punish any, say, insurance company that doesn't want to view the relationship as equivalent and provide the same services. And so on, and so on.

People will lose the right to disagree with gay marriage. Public outcries against it will be classified as hate speech. It's already happening in some corners of the globe. That is what I hope to prevent.

Anti-discrimination laws. "Hate crime" legislation. Laws against pharmacists in Washington state forcing them to sell birth control pills. Laws forcing Catholic hospitals to perform procedures they feel are immoral. These things all already exist.

Whether or not you agree with the moral viewpoint of social conservatives, people must not be forced to forfeit their right to be socially conservative - and live it, speak about it and advocate it.

That said, social conservatives need to be checked when they want to use state power to force their values on others. But that's the other side of the coin to fight against - equally.

The best solution we have for ourselves right now is devolution, federalism, localism. We have to advocate that states make their own choices and there is no federal solution.

This last point may not be my best, however I stand by the rest of my argument. And at least people would be able to vote with their feet...

[Minarchy4Sale]

I agree. I understand the equal protection argument, and while I dont agree with it (IMO, the governmental institution of marriage is fundamentally an institution for the protection of children, and everyone has the same right to marry an opposite sex non familial spouse), I consider the fact that .gov is in the business of sanctioning domestic contracts at all to be rather silly. The state's job is to enforce contracts, not to define them (within limits). Although the states are doing a better job of getting out of the way and allowing people to contract around the default arrangements that the legislature would provide for people.

However, as you said, the driving force behind the gay marriage pushers is not just a negative powers issue (what government cant do), but it is also pits these new categories of civil rights (the right to be openly gay without consequence, for example) against the property rights of others. In california, you cant discriminate against gays in housing, or employment, or in a host of other issues. I'm not sure a world where people are forced to deal with people they dont want to deal with is a freer one. Even the law of contracts refuses to enforce contracts of cohesion on the grounds that it is simply impossible to do so... And while I understand the reasoning behind outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public based on race (nobody has ANY control of their color), discrimination against Gays is largely one rooted in discrimination against certain behaviors (nobody knows if anyone is gay or not by looking at them).

In the end, I think it is fair to have a nondiscrimination policy against Gays in the public sector, and a sort of 'dont ask, dont tell' policy in the private sector. If you are gay, and you want to do business with someone who doesnt like Gays, dont act gay. How is this any different than the rest of us putting on clothing we dont like, or refraining from talking about our binge drinking at work? There is a time and place for everything, and we all have managed to figure out what is appropriate in the marketplace without government intervention, I dont see how this topic is any different.

[free.alive]

I'm pretty much in agreement.

However, I can't help but cringe whenever I hear the phrase "public sector."

[Minarchy4Sale]

I'm pretty much in agreement.

However, I can't help but cringe whenever I hear the phrase "public sector."


Short of a complete breakdown of social order, there will always be one, so we might as well learn to deal with it. And as long as their is one, they have to treat all citizens the same... (although that in effect is a fantasy). Perhaps if we get them out of all but the 5 missions outlined in the constitution, we can pretend they dont exist on a day to day basis :)

[KoldKut]

...

[Epic]

how could a libertarian be FOR state-sponsored gay marriage?

It's not of government concern.

[Ozwest]

You guys do recognize that the rest of the world wonders about you guys?

Move on.

[Elwar]

Why do I need a government license to perform a religious act?

[tonesforjonesbones]

These are VERY good points. I wonder why I don't have the right as a sovereign individual to disagree with GAY MARRIAGE.. what about MY rights to my OWN convictions? I have had people on this forum tell me I MUST submit my own belief system to gay people's right to marriage. Where is the liberty in that? I have the RIGHT to my opinion and vote...period! CHRISTIANS have the right to their VOTE and their BELIEF System. tones

[zach]

These are VERY good points. I wonder why I don't have the right as a sovereign individual to disagree with GAY MARRIAGE.. what about MY rights to my OWN convictions? I have had people on this forum tell me I MUST separate my own belief system to gay people's right to marriage. Where is the liberty in that? I have the RIGHT to my opinion and vote...period! Tones

You can think what you want to think.

Your label doesn't define you.

[ChaosControl]

The libertarian position is get the government the hell out of "marriage" and the like. People can contract how they want, but there is no recognition of marriage or civil union or anything similar to that.

[tonesforjonesbones]

we know this...but is it reality? no. tones

[AgentOrange]

I agree with the OP. I am neutral on the issue of gay marriage. What people do with their personal lives is their own business, between them and their God (if they acknowledge one) or their lawyer. But I just can't support the government increasing their power over people's lives.

[torchbearer]

You guys do recognize that the rest of the world wonders about you guys?

Move on.

I wonder about these fucks myself too.

[TonySutton]

I have had people on this forum tell me I MUST submit my own belief system to gay people's right to marriage. Where is the liberty in that? I have the RIGHT to my opinion and vote...period! CHRISTIANS have the right to their VOTE and their BELIEF System. tones

I was not aware that gay marriage advocates were attempting to force you to marry someone of the same sex. :eek: