Gays, Marriages, and Rights: A Libertarian View

[Chris0nllyn]

Anyone who wishes to get married (or divorced) must first seek approval from the government. Think about that for a moment; it’s appalling.

“The state is already too intimate a partner in everyday life. Modern marriage contracts are not agreements between a husband and wife so much as they are three-sided arrangements between a husband, a wife and the state. That is, the state legally defines what a marriage is and how it can be dissolved. Without government approval ‒ in the form of a divorce decree from the court ‒ a marriage cannot be terminated.”

Why is this so? Part of the government’s interest in controlling marriage is historical, as Roderick Long explains: “The term ‘marriage’ has traditionally been applied exclusively to relationships in which the husband held legal authority over the wife– relationships in which the wife was not only subordinated to her husband but actually absorbed into his legal identity.” Of course, fiscal considerations come into play as well. The most obvious example is a tax break. Here’s an idea: eliminate it. (And while we’re on the topic, let’s eliminate all income taxes—but that’s another story.)

While running for president in 2012, Ron Paul—a Republican, mind you—unequivocally stated his views on state involvement in marriage. “I would like the state to stay out of marriage,” Paul said. “A voluntary association shouldn’t be interfered with by the state, so I’d just as soon that the state not issue licenses or define marriage.” Part of the remedy for the marriage debacle, as Paul suggests, would be the abolishment of marriage licenses, which have historically been used not only against gay couples, but also as instruments of racism and religious intolerance, as well. As recently as 2009, a Justice of the Peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple in Louisiana.

If the state cannot grant permission via license, then it cannot enforce its definition of marriage. If it cannot enforce its definition, its definition is meaningless. Religious fanatics and gay pride activists would continue to argue over the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, but their disagreements would not eat away at the fabric of society. The gay marriage argument would be reduced to a peripheral argument over an issue with no policy implications: all-important for those who care, and completely inconsequential to those who don’t.

Imagine a world in which the government were truly and entirely out of the marriage game. What would it be like? Most churches would continue to operate the same way they do now. Both now and in such a future, if a man and a woman are married in a Catholic church, they are accepted as married by the Catholic Church and by anyone else who recognizes Catholic marriages (for example, Lutherans and insurance companies). But nobody would be forced to recognize the marriage.

Now, suppose that some private institution came along ‒ perhaps a church, perhaps not ‒ and decided to marry two men. Anyone would be free to recognize or reject this marriage. Let’s assume that the Catholic Church would not. Further, assume two insurance companies ‒ one that recognizes same-sex marriages and one that does not. A gay couple would probably do business with former. Instead of the state mandating that all insurance companies behave the same way, the free market would guide them to adjust their practices or else lose potential customers.

Everyone would be freer. But there is a broader issue that the gay marriage debate sheds light upon. Many speak of “gay rights.” Those individuals would do well to reassess their choice of words. By framing the discussion in terms of “gay rights,” the idea that rights belong to groups is implied. The same thing happens with “women’s rights,” “workers’ rights,” and, in a slightly different way, “states’ rights.”

Contrary to popular belief, rights are inextricably bound to individuals and only to individuals. A “right” is only a useful construct insofar as it pertains to the individual. By granting “gay rights,” a dichotomy is necessarily set up: There must then be “gay rights” and “straight rights.” One can feel the inexorable mounting of tensions already. There are only individual rights, or “human rights,” if you prefer. The debate over gay marriage completely changes once this is realized. Either every person has a right to voluntarily associate with any other person in a way they decide to call“marriage,” or nobody has that right.

Gays, marriage, and rights: A Libertarian perspective | Washington Times Communities

 

[blazinlow89]

I like this article as it enforces the ideas that I usually put on FB when I have had arguments about politics. I support equal rights, I also support a lot of things that may be considered for lack of a better word liberal. However I do not support them from a political stand point, I support them from a personal standpoint. I believe that the constitution covers every legal citizen equally, everyone deserves the same rights, freedoms and oppurtunity. However this is when I draw the line, I feel the government should have no say in personal things like marriage, abortion etc. I see them as personal choices, decisions are up to an individual not the government.

My other issue is that politicians use things like this as a way to gain political ground. It is wrong, your are no longer discussing personal freedom, you are using government to dictate how people are labeled for their personal choices. I see these as major distractions from the real issues at hand that we as a country are facing.

Some of the people on here may think about me differently as if that matters anyways, but I support gay marriage, I support pro choice and I support freedom of religion. As it is not my place, the governments, or religious leaders place to dictate personal choices or freedoms. It is the individuals rights.

 

[bcp]

Blazin,
would you then support my right as a hotel or restaurant owner, to make my establishment open only to what I through my religion consider a legitimate family and while doing so exclude or refuse service to those that do not fit that description?
And to make it even more to the point, would it be ok to call my establishment the Christian Hotel, or Christian dinning ? Chez Christian maybe?

would you support my right to do that without government intervention or worry of being sued?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Blazin,
would you then support my right as a hotel or restaurant owner, to make my establishment open only to what I through my religion consider a legitimate family and while doing so exclude or refuse service to those that do not fit that description?
And to make it even more to the point, would it be ok to call my establishment the Christian Hotel, or Christian dinning ? Chez Christian maybe?

would you support my right to do that without government intervention or worry of being sued?

The beauty of a free market system allows us to choose where we spend our money.

If you want to pay for a room at the Christian Hotel....go for it.

If I want a room at the Red Light District Hotel....so be it.

If you want to only allow certain people, go for it.

Too many people now-a-days get so pissy and feel like they deserve something because of skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. How about you get what you work for?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I like this article as it enforces the ideas that I usually put on FB when I have had arguments about politics. I support equal rights, I also support a lot of things that may be considered for lack of a better word liberal. However I do not support them from a political stand point, I support them from a personal standpoint. I believe that the constitution covers every legal citizen equally, everyone deserves the same rights, freedoms and oppurtunity. However this is when I draw the line, I feel the government should have no say in personal things like marriage, abortion etc. I see them as personal choices, decisions are up to an individual not the government.

My other issue is that politicians use things like this as a way to gain political ground. It is wrong, your are no longer discussing personal freedom, you are using government to dictate how people are labeled for their personal choices. I see these as major distractions from the real issues at hand that we as a country are facing.

Some of the people on here may think about me differently as if that matters anyways, but I support gay marriage, I support pro choice and I support freedom of religion. As it is not my place, the governments, or religious leaders place to dictate personal choices or freedoms. It is the individuals rights.

It's a shame we can't "like" something twice....

 

[bcp]

The beauty of a free market system allows us to choose where we spend our money.

If you want to pay for a room at the Christian Hotel....go for it.

If I want a room at the Red Light District Hotel....so be it.

Cant argue with you there.
so you think that there should be no more restrictions on business that force them to cater to anyone that walks in?
Think about this now, do we want to go back to not letting the coloreds in with the white folk? would not be my choice, but to some it might.

 

[blazinlow89]

Blazin,
would you then support my right as a hotel or restaurant owner, to make my establishment open only to what I through my religion consider a legitimate family and while doing so exclude or refuse service to those that do not fit that description?
And to make it even more to the point, would it be ok to call my establishment the Christian Hotel, or Christian dinning ? Chez Christian maybe?

would you support my right to do that without government intervention or worry of being sued?

Your business, your choice. Unfortunately seeing as running a business that does take in a profit you are bound by state regulations, taxes, fees and codes.

That is another issue of mine, people complaining because something as simple as a Christmas tree in visible sight offends them. I'm not going to look at someone funny and cry discrimination if they wear religious jewelry, or something that shows their personal choices.

I understand your point and seeing as we have these religious freedoms it should be your choice. However being that the government is so intertwined in everything that exists now, your personal freedoms are hindered. If you opened a restaurant and put up a sign that said no blacks, no Jews, now gays, no soldiers etc you would receive holy hell. Not only from those that feel discriminated against, but also those who feel sympathy and will point and say bad things. I think if anything they can keep on walking and ignore the sign and move onto the next establishment. Unfortunately everyone wants to complain rather then let people enjoy their personal freedoms.

Like many things I hate the double standard when it comes to personal freedoms. Its okay for the black panthers to walk down the street and call for the death of a man, but for the kkk to hold a ritual amongst themselves on personal property is cause to scream offense and discrimination.

 

[ylexot]

Blazin,
would you then support my right as a hotel or restaurant owner, to make my establishment open only to what I through my religion consider a legitimate family and while doing so exclude or refuse service to those that do not fit that description?
And to make it even more to the point, would it be ok to call my establishment the Christian Hotel, or Christian dinning ? Chez Christian maybe?

would you support my right to do that without government intervention or worry of being sued?

I would. :shrug:

BTW, I would also support that right for you to discriminate based on any other reason. I wouldn't really suggest it and think that it would be a horrible business decision, but it's your right to fail horribly too.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

 

[bcp]

I would. :shrug:

BTW, I would also support that right for you to discriminate based on any other reason. I wouldn't really suggest it and think that it would be a horrible business decision, but it's your right to fail horribly too.

I honestly don't think I would fail by restricting access to gays.
I think I would actually increase the families that used whatever my facility was.