A Libertarian's View of Gay Marriage

[Boltfan]

By John Stossel

Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. Most so-called liberals are happy about that. Most conservatives are not. As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way.
To air this issue on my Fox Business show, I invited Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage () and David Harsanyi, libertarian columnist at The Blaze.

Brown says gay marriage threatens marriage between a man and a woman. I asked him to explain.

“Marriage is a public good,” he said. “When you redefine marriage, you redefine it for everyone. In states that have redefined marriage, we’ve seen serious consequences, ranging from what is taught in schools -- kids in first grade in Massachusetts are taught that it’s the same thing to grow up and marry a boy or a girl -- to what happens to religious organizations or organizations that just believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. … You see Catholic Charities' adoption agency essentially being forced out of being able to adopt kids because the state said it is discriminating.”

Whoa. Those are three separate points. I don’t see a problem with the first: If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn’t diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?

“They’re being told that their parents' views are essentially bigotry,” said Brown.

It’s another reason we should have school choice.

On his third point, if a state tells Catholic Charities they may not honor their beliefs and limit adoptions to straight couples, that’s a problem of Big Government, not gay marriage.

Harsanyi says he has a way around the whole fight.

“It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in … a private relationship.”

OK by me. Who needs the government’s sanction anyway?

“When you’re getting married, you are not thinking, 'Wow, the government has endorsed this relationship.' That is not very romantic.”
I pointed out that marriage involves many legal issues, including alimony, child support, hospital visitation rights, inheritance and adoption.

“Within five minutes of my idea coming to fruition, a whole industry would be formed with prefab legal documents that would just allow you to have the sort of relationship you want with the parameters you want legally,” Harsanyi said.

You’d work it out as a private contract. Some hospitals would say we allow same-sex couples; others would say no.

“More than that, I would say in the contract that my spouse is allowed to visit me in the hospital.”

Brown was unconvinced.

“The state’s interest in marriage is that this is the institution by which we create stable families where the kids can be connected to both their mother and their father. … In states that have gone this direction, we see things like attempts to recognize three parents, because there is a biological father and two mothers.”

Again, so what? I don’t care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that’s great.

“Deconstructing marriage is a very bad idea,” said Brown. “We see the rising rates of divorce and unwed motherhood. There is a direct correlation. If you look at any social indicators -- children raised without mothers and fathers -- you see higher rates of incarceration, juvenile delinquency that cost the state money.”

Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It’s mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.

“All of that … started long before anyone brought up gay marriage,” Harsanyi said.

“The state should support what is true and good and beautiful,” Brown countered. "And it’s true and good and beautiful that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Men and women are unique and special.”

I still don’t get his argument.

And I definitely don’t want the state to decide what is good and beautiful.

[Whirlaway]

Why is the gay community so bent on being able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union?

Why can't they accept another phrase; that grants them all the legal rights but call it somthing else?

The sticky issue isn't because of people like Mr. Brown, but the adversaries who argue the right to use "marriage" to describe their relationship when another word would (say "civil union") can be eqully suitable and leglly satisfactory.

The gay lobby wants the right use the term "marriage" as a PR effort to main stream their behavior..it has nothing to do with legal rights.

[Jackie S]

All of us old screwed up straight people should just let the Gays have "marriage", and we will call ours something else, like "civil union".

All this really is is a bounty for divorce lawyers. With a stroke of a pen, an entire new client base is formed.

You can walk away from "shacking up," but you can't walk away from a marriage.

[Boltfan]

Whirlway, us "straights" fucked up any "Sanctity" the word marriage had long ago before this movement happened.

Sorry, but your argument is a loser and is frankly based on hatred more than anything else.

To quote Seinfeld, "not that there is anything wrong with that".

I happen to agree with Mr. Stossell on this point. Not the governments job to interfere in a private relationship contract.

[Laz]

I am solidly in Stossel's corner on this. All of the arguments against it are silly. All a marriage is is a legal status between 2 people. The government should simply call all such relationships a social contract. As was stated there would quickly be standard social contracts available. The marriage ceremony is a religous event typically and if gays cannot find an existing church to perform the ceremony they can start their own church.

As a side note I asked the guy that cuts my hair his opinion on this since he is gay. His response was that not being able to get married was one of the perks of being gay.

[Whirlaway]

I lilke Stossel's libertarian thinking; but on this one he creates a strawman in Mr. Brown...cleaverly, Stossel does it to try to make some point which is "Not the governments job to interfere in private relationship contract" which I agree whole heartedly...

But that is NOT what is happening in real world politics and law....and so Stossel's position is fairyland.

The real issue is why does the Gay community demand the right to use the word marriage when some other word (union) will provide them the equal protections that they claim is so important...

The answer why is because they want to win the social battel over their acceptance; because they can have their legal rights under the laws that are currently in-place. But that isn't enough. They want the social acceptance a well.

You state that my observation is rooted in hate; I think you are so far off base. So I would like to hear from you why this is hate?

Originally Posted by Boltfan

Whirlway, us "straights" fucked up any "Sanctity" the word marriage had long ago before this movement happened.

Sorry, but your argument is a loser and is frankly based on hatred more than anything else.

To quote Seinfeld, "not that there is anything wrong with that".

I happen to agree with Mr. Stossell on this point. Not the governments job to interfere in a private relationship contract.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why is the gay community so bent on being able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union?

Why can't they accept another phrase; that grants them all the legal rights but call it somthing else?

The sticky issue isn't because of people like Mr. Brown, but the adversaries who argue the right to use "marriage" to describe their relationship when another word would (say "civil union") can be eqully suitable and leglly satisfactory.

The gay lobby wants the right use the term "marriage" as a PR effort to main stream their behavior..it has nothing to do with legal rights.

So Whirl why don't you label yourself as a "John" is it ok for people to call you a "John"? I am pretty sure most of your friends and family have no idea that you visit a whore board and pay for sex- so my point to you if the shit fits- wear it!!!!

[surcher]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The real issue is why does the Gay community demand the right to use the word marriage when some other word (union) will provide them the equal protections that they claim is so important...

The answer why is because they want to win the social battel over their acceptance; because they can have their legal rights under the laws that are currently in-place. But that isn't enough. They want the social acceptance a well.

What you claim is the real issue, is really your issue. When a man and a woman enter into a civil union the contract and ceremony is called marriage. They are awarded the legal rights under the law, which is exactly what the gays wanted. They want to be married and have all the legal rights encompassed in it that civil unions don't have. They already have social acceptance, for the most part, which it appears from your post, is something you don't think they deserve. You definitely don't think they deserve the term marriage.

Don't even try to bring up the traditional marriage argument. Marriages were traditionally for land, livestock, position or politics. When I hear traditional family values from politicians that are on their second marriage, like Newt, I laugh. Hearing it from anyone on this board gets the same result. Marrying solely for love is a relatively new thing. Homosexuals have been around as long as people and were more accepted in the ancient world, like Socrates and Alexander the Great.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why is the gay community so bent on being able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union?

Why can't they accept another phrase; that grants them all the legal rights but call it somthing else?

Why is the straight community so bent on being able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union? Let's just call it civil union for everybody. Why can't they accept another phrase that grants them all the legal rights of marriage but call it something else?

Same question, no? As long as we treat everybody the same and the rules are the same for everybody, I don't think anybody ought to give a shit what it's called. "Shacking up" works for me.

Would it be alright to you to call black folks "semi-citizens" but give them all the rights of a real citizen, but we'll just call it something else? Do you think that would be true equality? Do you really think labels are that meaningless?

[Whirlaway]

From the GLAD playbook...

"A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and subsequently by the states of Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word “marriage.”

Their own definition of civil union clearly provides the gay community with full protections that are afforded those who are married....the legal hurdle is that all state's haven't signed on to the civil union approach; like Vermont has....so rather than fight for civil unions state by state...the gay community wants to do it in one easy swipe thru the federal courts. Note the key words "dignity" and "power"....proves the piont that their beef isn't about legal issues.

So the issue isn't that "civil unions" is somehow divisive or disenfranchsing; but that it is more of a challened process to the gay lobby in achieving their goals... the same ends can be accomplished thru wider acceptance of civil unions without the gay lobby hijacking marriage.

[Whirlaway]

You prove my point...."black" like "native american" or "disabled american" is a legal term, so defined....there are standards that are set so that these groups get treatment accordingly (scholarships, federal aid, census counting, etc)..the fact that that society has a definition for that group doesn't deny them their civil rights.....diminish their standing, or somehow disenfranchise them....

We also have a definition for "minors", "male", "female" "unemployed" yada yada.... But the fact that law distinguishes one group from another doesn't diminish their civil rights.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Would it be alright to you to call black folks "semi-citizens" but give them all the rights of a real citizen, but we'll just call it something else? Do you think that would be true equality? Do you really think labels are that meaningless?

[CuteOldGuy]

I think the government should get out of marriage altogether. Allow people the right to select a civil union partner for the sake of transferring property (which is what marriage is for, really) and let people get married by the church. If their church allows polygamy, or marriage between barnyard animals, or whatever, no legal status would be transferred, and people could do what they want. A few safeguards, such as protecting minors from being cajoled in marriage, making sure people enter into the agreement voluntarily, and providing for proof of parentage for support purposes, but other than that, if someone wants to marry their LazyBoy recliner, I don't care.

[akito237]

If members of the government are truly concerned with 1) preserving the sanctity of marriage, and 2) establishing and maintaining stable environments for raising children, then it follows logically that the state should outlaw divorces. Divorce spits in the face of "till death do us part", and a split family is in no way shape or form a good environment to raise children. What's more, an average of 58% of marriages in the United states end in divorce: http://www.divorcerate.org/ . Which begs to question, why are state governments defending an institution that is so easily disregarded?

Remember, people: Liberty and Justice for ALL.

[oglfp12]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think the government should get out of marriage altogether. Allow people the right to select a civil union partner for the sake of transferring property (which is what marriage is for, really) and let people get married by the church. If their church allows polygamy, or marriage between barnyard animals, or whatever, no legal status would be transferred, and people could do what they want. A few safeguards, such as protecting minors from being cajoled in marriage, making sure people enter into the agreement voluntarily, and providing for proof of parentage for support purposes, but other than that, if someone wants to marry their LazyBoy recliner, I don't care.

I agree, except for the bolded part of your post. Why not allow the same legal status to these situations? It is not uncommon for someont to leave part of their estate to a beloved pet. So, why not to their barnyard animal spouse?

I am a social libertarian, so I could care less what someone else does as long as it doesn't infringe on me. No one else's marriage, even gay marriage, has any effect on me at all.

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually there are ways to do that without conferring legal status, such as through wills, trusts, etc. It would take some planning, but it is possible.