Same-sex marriage from a libertarian perspective.

Y

buddhist said:

That doesn't have to happen, if plain commoner's languages are accepted by judges and juries, instead of requiring Lawyerese.

Click to expand...

You really think that hospitals should wait on the judiciary to sort out whatever contracts two uneducated people write for themselves?
Tom

"Marriage" is essentially another form of the Corporation, with special rights, privileges, and/or protections afforded to special groups of people. It should be abolished, along with the Corporation.

Libertarian government should only recognize and protect the rights of individual men and women. Nothing more.

columbus said:

You really think that hospitals should wait on the judiciary to sort out whatever contracts two uneducated people write for themselves?
Tom

Click to expand...

Nope, but it should not be too hard for a adult to write something like "I authorize this individual to make all medical decisions for me if I'm incapacitated" nor should it require a team of lawyers and judges to interpret it.

Revoltingest said:

to remove legal prohibitions against gay marriage is the opposite of government expansion.

Click to expand...

The "ban" on same-sex marriage applied to the government, not to the people. Libertarianism is about banning what the government from things. Before the Supreme Court expanded the government's role in marriage, homosexuals were free to live anyway they wanted, just the same as heterosexuals. Homosexuals wanting government licences for marriage is as anti-libertarian as gun owners wanting licenses to own guns. But, faux-libertarians and power-hungry Liberals are happy to give up a little personal freedom to oppress society at large.

But, you stick to your reason-free propaganda talking points, if it helps you feel like a libertarian...

columbus said:

I am pretty darned libertarian on this subject.
There are some unusual circumstances where society needs a fast and unambiguous way to identify someone's "next of kin". If something disabling happens unexpectedly, the hospital needs to know who to listen to in the ER.

Click to expand...

If you were pretty darned libertarian, you'd go with Power of Attorney (a simple contractual right to make decisions on behalf of someone else), not government intrusion. Living Wills work directly with medical situations involving a person and his children. You're just pretty darn rationalizing on the subject.

But there is a great deal of efficiency to gain by having a simple version of the the contract available from the state without lawyers and a million versions that would need sorting under emergency situations.

Click to expand...

Efficiency from government? You speak like a Communist talking about how efficient the government is, even as people wait in long lines for bread. A Power of Attorney form can be printed off the internet and completed in five minutes (plus notary). A living will provides as much detail as a person wants in how they want their medical care and children to be handled if they're incapacitated, none of which is provided by the government marriage except through excruciating court procedures ending in the whims of disinterested judges.

Even if I accept your BS about efficiency, since when it libertarianism about efficiency? A real libertarian sees efficiency as a fruit of libertarianism, not a means of libertarianism.

Jackrabbti said:

The "ban" on same-sex marriage applied to the government, not to the people. Libertarianism is about banning what the government from things. Before the Supreme Court expanded the government's role in marriage, homosexuals were free to live anyway they wanted, just the same as heterosexuals. Homosexuals wanting government licences for marriage is as anti-libertarian as gun owners wanting licenses to own guns. But, faux-libertarians and power-hungry Liberals are happy to give up a little personal freedom to oppress society at large.

But, you stick to your reason-free propaganda talking points, if it helps you feel like a libertarian...

Click to expand...

Yeah......we'll agree to disagree on most of that.

buddhist said:

^ this.

Marriage should be transformed into a private contract between any two consenting adults. A private contract can be made between any two persons to grant each other rights as state-sponsored marriage does now.

Click to expand...

Or more than two.

Luca85 said:

The state should safeguard the interests of all couples. That's why there is need of increasing the number of laws that regulate the domestic partnership , because it IS something juridically relevant.
Civil unions are an example. And all states should promulgate laws about them.
I am both for civil unions and for gay marriage.

But I am not for gay adoption.But not even against it.
I am neutral ...because I am not that sure that gay parenthood is a good idea.

Click to expand...

Of course, since many, many gays have become parents (in the usual way), and done a pretty creditable job of it, I wonder why you would suppose that? After all, Oscar Wilde had sons, and they managed to grow up well and leave (through their own children) a creditable mark on the world.

What is it, exactly, that you think would make somebody who is gay likely to be unable to be a credible parent?

Revoltingest said:

If we were designing a legal system & government from scratch, then privatizing
marriage would make sense. But we have the system we have, & marriage is
inextricably linked with laws, eg, medical decisions, property rights, parental
obligations, dower rights. So making gay marriage legal is a simple & practical way
to advance liberty for gay folk.

Click to expand...

I think it unwise to forget that our legal systems evolved, along with us, within the context of the needs of the community (locally and broadly).This includes a lot of stuff -- economic needs, parents requiring support from children in old age, In truth, and as a gay man I have to accept this, children were and are at the core of what it's truly about, and by and large gay marriage doesn't contribute a lot in that regard.

Then again, we need lots more children today like we need a hole in the head -- think of China's "one child" policy of some years ago -- how would you, as a parent, like it if your son decided to marry the boy next door? That's a real guarantee that you're never going to be a grandparent!

Evangelicalhumanist said:

I think it unwise to forget that our legal systems evolved, along with us, within the context of the needs of the community (locally and broadly).This includes a lot of stuff -- economic needs, parents requiring support from children in old age, In truth, and as a gay man I have to accept this, children were and are at the core of what it's truly about, and by and large gay marriage doesn't contribute a lot in that regard.

Then again, we need lots more children today like we need a hole in the head -- think of China's "one child" policy of some years ago -- how would you, as a parent, like it if your son decided to marry the boy next door? That's a real guarantee that you're never going to be a grandparent!

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of a smaller population, but marriage doesn't mean just having biological children.
And I cannot decide my children's sexuality....it'll be what it'll be. But there is always adoption.

That seems pretty self explanatory to me, though in a true minarchy, government validated marriage would not exist, as it would have no function other than pure formality given the coincidental lack of taxes...

Hammerheart said:

That seems pretty self explanatory to me, though in a true minarchy, government validated marriage would not exist, as it would have no function other than pure formality given the coincidental lack of taxes...

Click to expand...

The pragmatic libertarian.....
We will never rule this country. We frighten normal people, who see such
heavy handed government control as providing security, morality & stability.
But we do have the ability to influence public policy in a libertarian direction.

I assume this as a given...government will have a body of laws regarding
marriage, cohabitation & reproduction. The very best we can hope for is to
steer public policy in a direction of more liberty for all, particularly for those
who are singled out for less liberty, eg, gays who want to marry, soldier, etc.

columbus said:

Sounds like welfare for lawyers.
Tom

Click to expand...

Actually, living wills & trusts are typically cheaper than doing without.
They cost little to set up. Provided they're properly written, & responsible
parties (eg, trustees) are carefully chosen. One's wishes will be carried
out as planned....& entirely avoiding probate.

I am pretty darned libertarian on this subject.

Click to expand...

Is your lifelong goal to make God cry?

Revoltingest said:

Actually, living wills & trusts are typically cheaper than doing without.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah.
It's been explained to me quite a few times "It's cheaper to just pay the damned lawyer". The judge isn't going to listen to you because he is another lawyer! They don't understand simple language.

Revoltingest said:

Is your lifelong goal to make God cry?

Click to expand...

I will let His followers do that for me. They seem to know more about the subject.
Tom

Tarheeler said:

As libertarians, we tend to generally agree that adults should be able to marry whomever they choose. The issue I tend to see when it comes to same-sex marriage is not if should be legal, but if marriage, in any form, should be an action of the state.

Ideally, marriage would be private issue, and seen nothing more by the state than a legally binding contract between consenting adults. But that isn't the reality. In most countries, legal marriage conveys many rights, both legal and civil, upon the parties such as survivor rights, inheritance, next-of-kin status, tax status.

So, do we, as libertarians, advocate for legal recognition and protection of same-sex marriage so that those couples are not legally discriminated against when compared to heterosexual couples, or do we instead advocate for the complete decoupling of the government and marriage for all groups?

Click to expand...

The former.The second will never happen.

Tarheeler said:

So, do we, as libertarians, advocate for legal recognition and protection of same-sex marriage so that those couples are not legally discriminated against when compared to heterosexual couples, or do we instead advocate for the complete decoupling of the government and marriage for all groups?

Click to expand...

Why do you think you have to advocate for one or the other, instead of both?

buddhist said:

That doesn't have to happen, if plain commoner's languages are accepted by judges and juries, instead of requiring Lawyerese.

Click to expand...

Now, imagine your post being a legal text, and people in an especially disputed, highly politicized case poring over the meaning of what you just wrote to find an angle allowing them to gain advantage.