Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
Libertarians support letting people not pay taxes and opting out of being ruled by someone else.
Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
[edit] I claimed the U.S. government got involved in marriage to prevent interracial marriage. This statement apparently was false.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: Libertarians support letting people not pay taxes and opting out of being ruled by someone else. Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites. Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites. Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Spideynw:Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Agreed.
Individualist: Would either or both of these things be a step in the right direction?
Would either or both of these things be a step in the right direction?
I don't think so. It would just be legitimizing the government's role in marriage. The best "first step" is to get government out of marriage altogether.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
Government should not exist, and even if you're a minarchist government should have nothing to say about marriage.
Marriage is a contract between individuals - with religious backing only if done so voluntarily.
To support the legalization of something like marriage is to support the government's position to either make it legal or illegal. Today something that is deemed legal can become illegal tomorrow. Government should have no say in this.
If you're looking at legalization in order to gain the various government boons based on theft, then your position is immoral.
Individualist:Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
All libertarians should do whatever they want.
Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
Individualist:Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions?
No serious libertarian can answer this question either.
Individualist:Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
???
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Spideynw:Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites.
You are thinking of state laws against issuing marriage licenses to mixed race couples, back when people realized the federal constitution doesn't guarantee any sort of "right" to marriage, abortion, adoption, etc.
State governments used to do that, but the main reason governments get involved in marriage is to regulate and tax inheritance.
DBratton:State governments used to do that, but the main reason governments get involved in marriage is to regulate and tax inheritance.
There is a federal inheritance tax, but I am not aware of any state ones.
The State is tasked with licensing legally recognized unions because it is the repository of and enforcement mechanism for laws regarding descent and distribution, guardianship of children, maintenance and support , and transfer of property. The fact that such matters impact more than just the parties to the marital union is the justification for why the larger community, i.e., the State, gets a say in such things.
Individualist: Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
What difference would it make if they do? Why do they the state to call themselves husband and husband or wife and wife? Why do they need the state for their marriage to be official?
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Individualist: Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
For a libertarian to remain consistent, yes. But that is presupposing that libertarianism is a political party. Which I don't view as consistent with the ideas behind libertarianism.
Gay marriage doesn't violate the NAP, so regardless if you view it as wrong in a personal sense, if you want to remain consistent with your belief, you should not be trying to enforce anti-gay legislation anyway.
The problem stems from government thinking they should regulate somebody's personal life. Those power-mongering busybodies in Washington trying to attain your vote, so they talk about a Marriage Amendment to the constitution or some stupid BS. I don't think they really care, to be honest. They only want your vote.
Today, the only reason to marry, is to get all of the financial help and tax incentive, really. It's really retarded that me and my girlfriend of seven years can't get a loan on a USED car (my credit is superb). It's so much easier if you're married.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Byzantine, thanks for the clarification. So has the state always been involved in marriage, ever since the founding of the U.S. government?
Remove the state from marriage. Period. While we're at it, just remove the state period. Its not that they should amend existing legislation to allow gays to get married, but to dismantle all marriage laws and allow people to make their own contracts.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Everyone should be equal before the law. If marriage is one less thing the state restricts, then that's one small step in the right direction.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Legalization? What legalization? How do you legalize something which is not illegal? Homosexuals are perfectly free to perform a ritual of their choice and everyone who wishes to think of that making them married is free to do so. Nobody will get thrown in jail for any of it.It is not about "legalization". It is about having your personal meaning of a commitment recognised by the state so that the stare will then shove it down everyone`s throat for you.It is libertarian to try to cut down on the number of various unions the state will recognise and then proceed to shove down our throts as marriage, not to add to them. Arguing for state licensed "gay marriage" is like arguing for more groups to be added to the civil rights legislation. Obviously the second best to repealling this legislation as a whole, is to reduce the number of "protected" groups (until you reach zero) not to increase them.There is no natural right, to have your marriage recognised (and the attitudes stemming from that enforced) by the state. "Bann" gay marriage all day long and after that "bann" non-gay marriage too.
liberty student: Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
Why? Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Of course, what its really about is gays using the state to elevate their unions to the level of the ancient heterosexual marriage and then using the state's civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws to crack down upon dissenters.
Semper Fidelis
liberty student:Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
sicsempertyrannis:Why? Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
You know, I can turn your next statement back upon you and tell you that keeping gay marriage illegal is to keep gays as second-class citizens and using the power of the state to crack down upon anyone whose behavior does not violate your rights, but does "offend" you--just as making farting in an elevator a crime would be. Don't think that you have the right to not be offended; you don't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.
It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.
Rolling it back by growing it - love that sort of logic. I'll ignore the rest of your reply, since it was just another adhom - something youre good at.
sicsempertyrannis:Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
That is why I oppose it. Re-read my post.
sicsempertyrannis:Of course, what its really about is gays using the state to elevate their unions to the level of the ancient heterosexual marriage and then using the state's civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws to crack down upon dissenters.
Since you said "the gays", I was wondering if you would also oppose schooling for black children or voting rights for women based upon those expansions of government. I would because I oppose the expansion of government, but your "the gays" leads me to believe you might not have the same courage of conviction for another minority group.
Are you worried about women being elevated to the level of ancient masculinity or blacks to the level of Caucasian racial superiority?
Stop thinking like a collectivist and life becomes a lot less threatening amigo.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap