Same-sex marriage from a libertarian perspective.

[Tarheeler]

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?

 

[Iti oj]

First give them the right, for equality. Then fight to remove it from the establishment.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

 

[Tarheeler]

First give them the right, for equality. Then fight to remove it from the establishment.

I tend to agree with that.

Given that our current system actively discriminates against homosexual couples, I'd rather seem them brought under the protection of the law until we are able to completely decouple marriage and the state.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

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.

 

[Alceste]

I think of marriage as a private matter, but it is also very pragmatic for my family to be able to handle our finances as a unit, make medical decisions on each others' behalf, etc. Getting hitched was (in part) a short-cut to that end, without having to draw up contracts or trust a spit shake, or whatever else would replace marriage if it were no longer licensed by the state.

But honestly, I don't really have an opinion on the subject. From a libertarian perspective, I don't see much that is oppressive or coercive in the state doling out marriage licenses to whoever wants one. Perhaps it would be somewhat coercive for the state to REQUIRE marriage licenses for certain rights and threaten prosecution for violations, but I believe we already have the means to obtain those rights by other means and nobody is being pursued by the state for not getting hitched.

Of course it goes without saying that any rights we have should be for everyone, including gay people.

 

[Iti oj]

I tend to agree with that.

Given that our current system actively discriminates against homosexual couples, I'd rather seem them brought under the protection of the law until we are able to completely decouple marriage and the state.

Exactly.

 

[MagickIsChaos]

I think that it should make them considred next of kin but other than that no.... But I do not see how the goverment has the right to deny these couples marriage?

Wait a minute.......... Getting a thought........ Ah it's gone.......

Oh yeah it's beacuse they think they can ABUSE their office to push their own views onto people.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am both for civil unions and for gay marriage.

In the UK civil partnerships were introduced some years ago for gay couples as a compromise, though last year gay marriage was passed into law. There is now an argument being made that civil partnerships should also be available for straight couples and others, which seems quite reasonable.

 

[LibertarianWhovian]

heres my thought....government shouldnt be in the marriage business period, but as long as they are, they shouldnt discriminate either.

 

[VioletVortex]

I don't believe marriage should be a government recognized bond. I think it should be a strictly religious ordeal. This means, if a christian church wants to deny recognition of a gay couple, they should be able to do that. That's not to say that I'm fine with that, I think what they are doing is wrong. However, I don't think the government should have any power over what that organization wants to do regarding their own definition of religion.

 

[Jackrabbti]

Government-backed same-sex marriage is fundamentally anti-libertarian. I don’t consider anyone who supports it be libertarian. Don’t worry, I also don’t consider anyone who wants to increase already massive US military spending to be conservative. A lot of people just pretend to be things they aren’t.


Doing their best imitation of anti-libertarian Leftists, many self-identified libertarians defend same-sex marriage in the name of equality? Libertarianism is about freedom, not equality - certainly not expansion of government in the name of equality. Even pursuing the equality argument, it’s mostly a lie, anyway. At the most basic level, any homosexual man always had the same freedom as any heterosexual man to marry a woman.


The most significant way the government treats married heterosexuals is to make them pay more in taxes. More taxes! Another big “benefit” of being married, having the government regulation your private relationship, especially in terms of dissolving the relationship. Divorce is unnecessarily costly and complicated and most people hate the process. The government is no friend of married people.


When faux-libertarians talk about equality, I really doubt they mean paying more taxes and having the government regulate their relationships. They mean they want to coerce other private individuals, especially private businesses, to recognize and support same-sex relationships. The irony is businesses were free to recognize and support same-sex relationships before the government got in on it. The double irony is that before the government involved itself in same-sex marriage, the government wasn’t forcing anyone to recognize and support any kind of marriage.


If a homosexual couple wants their same-sex marriage regulated, they can draw up a contract to do it. Remember when libertarians thought the way to get things done was buy mutual consent between parties?


The other issue is for faux-libertarians want their neighbors to accept homosexuality as an equal alternative to species-propagating heterosexuality, rather than a sin or a mental disease. When you try to get the government to control people’s thinking, that’s called fascism. Do I need to tell you that fascism is not libertarian? We should have a free marketplace of ideas, win them over with reason, if you’re reasonable.


If there are reasons for the government to recognize heterosexual marriage, if those reasons don’t apply to homosexual marriages, then there’s nothing libertarian about expanding government control to same-sex marriage. And, if there’s no compelling reason for the government to be involved in marriage in the first place, then the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage. My position is that the government should get out of the marriage business (especially now that government is generally hostile to marriage).

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarianism is about freedom, not equality - certainly not expansion of government in the name of equality.

Setting aside the question of whether government should be in the marriage business,
to remove legal prohibitions against gay marriage is the opposite of government expansion.

 

[columbus]

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. If someone dies, the state needs to know who has custody of dependent children. So, legal unions do serve a purpose, although all the government needs to do is keep track of what competent adults decide for themselves.
Marriage is something else, entirely personal and none of the governments business. No need to involve taxes or anything like that. Marriage is between the two people involved and their families and that's about it.
Tom

 

[buddhist]

... advocate for the complete decoupling of the government and marriage for all groups?

^ 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.

 

[buddhist]

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. If someone dies, the state needs to know who has custody of dependent children.

Libertarian freedom means this should be done by the responsible individual, using living wills or advanced directives, ahead of time.

 

[columbus]

A private contract can be made between any two persons to grant each other rights as state-sponsored marriage does now.

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.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Libertarian freedom means this should be done by the responsible individual, using living wills or advanced directives, ahead of time.

Sounds like welfare for lawyers.
Tom

 

[buddhist]

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.
Tom

Libertarianism is about freedom - not necessarily efficiency. Great responsibility comes with freedom. I see that kind of personal responsibility as a good thing - it causes individuals to grow, instead of reverting to childlike complacency.

 

[buddhist]

Sounds like welfare for lawyers.
Tom

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