Found it on Facebook: gay marriage is not a libertarian value

One of my Facebook friends posted the following:

Almost libertarian

The libertarian in me agrees with a lot of the post.  I’d like government to stop playing nanny to people.  It would make for smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive government, not to mention more individual freedom and personal responsibility.

But, as the Sesame Street song used to say, one of these things is not like the other one:  gay marriage.

I’m not arguing against gay marriage in this post.  I just want to point out that it doesn’t belong in list of “rights” on the poster, because it’s not a personal behavior.  To be equivalent to the other points on the list, the first question should read as follows: “Don’t like homosexual sex?  Don’t engage in it.”

The fact is that marriage is not a private act or behavior, it’s a public one and one, moreover, in which the state has a significant interest.  Stable marriages are good for a state and the children of those stable marriages are a necessity for a country’s future.  Analogizing gay marriage to other individual acts that can be done in the privacy of ones own home or on ones own property or in a private club is a false equivalence.

Having said that, if the state feels that gay marriage is a virtue that will benefit society, the state can then advance gay marriage.  (Or, if it takes my advice, get out of the marriage business, leaving marriage to religious institutions, and legislating civil unions that provide the greatest benefit for the state.)  Just don’t pretend that gay sex and gay marriage are the same thing, because they’re not.

Incidentally, if that was my poster, I would have added one more thing:  “Don’t like guns?  Don’t own one.”

Be Sociable, Share!
  • USMaleSF

    Gay marriage, which I prefer to call genderless marriage, is one of the results of feminism. I call it genderless because it asserts that gender is irrelevant to an institution which to my wondering eyes still appears to be utterly founded on gender difference, sexual opposition, the conditions for childbirth and childrearing. And in pursuit of female power, feminism has tried, with huge and toxic success, to get us* to believe that men and women are interchangeable, that is, “equal.” Men and women are equal now, except for those situations where women are superior to men or feel victimized by men. That’s the rule.
    Plus, no-fault divorce effectively made the marriage commitment a joke. So the field was well sown.

    Gay marriage is just one more battle in the gender wars, which are themselves part of the larger Liberal drive to dismantle the West.
    *us does not mean everyone. If you want to find a place where male/female opposition still thrives, just look to the Blacks, where their huge cultural dysfunction is fueled in part by ancient but skewed and pathological notions of sex differences.
     

  • 11B40

    Greetings:
     
    And if you…
    Don’t like paying for the medical consequences of someone else’s homosex…???

  • Danny Lemieux

    To your point, USMaleSF, the next battle lines are already forming to build on the “gay marriage” victory: groups are already coalescing to promote polygamy and polyamory “rights”. 
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polyamory-the-next-civil-rights-movement
    As Book put it so perfectly, marriage is not about giving adults legal bennies. It’s about creating a nurturing environment that uplifts and protects children.
    All the legal issues that gay couples are upset about (often rightly) can be dealt with separately in the legislatures and courts.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » In France, anti-gay marriage voices emerge — from gays()

  • USMaleSF

    Although the promoters of “marriage equality” jump up and down denying that making gender of the participants irrelevant in marriage would lead to making number of participants irrelevant, I see no grounds in reality for saying yes to one and no to the other. 

  • Charles Martel

    Let’s assume polyamory and polygamy become legally protected forms of marriage. The next step will be a movement to challenge the notion that the government has the right to interfere with people’s affections by insisting that one must be married before one can enjoy marriage’s legal rights. How dare the government stand in the way of my rights if I choose to enjoy the sexual favors of several women (or men) at one time without wanting to jump through some legal hoop by signing a silly piece of paper?

    We already have a proto form of this type of government recognition, namely the extension of financial support to polyamorous barrio, ghetto, and trailer park girls who love havin’ them babies without necessarily knowing who the baby daddies are. Now there’s a case of the government minding its own business!