Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Libertarians, in my experience, have a hard time getting a handle on marriage. If you’re the sort of person who likes to maximize individual freedoms and minimize imposed social forms, then marriage is a strange beast. By getting married, we voluntarily sacrifice many personal freedoms, and we effectively ask society to pressure us into keeping our marital commitments. It’s not quite the infamous slave contract, but it’s close. It is counterintuitive for a libertarian to warm to this sort of arrangement. And yet, the fact remains that where marriage fails, the role of government inevitably grows, and individual liberties accordingly diminish. Apparently, the ball and chain helps make us free.
I’m not suggesting that it’s impossible for a libertarian to work through these oddities, but it’s complicated. Marriage is a classic case of an area of life in which imposed discipline yields great rewards. The methods of imposition are complex, but generally involve the subtle interaction of social, religious and, yes, legal forms that work together to encourage people to maintain this most critical of human bonds. Since every human society in known history has had some such arrangement, there is no shortage of data to sort through, but we can make little sense of it without dealing in the sort of substantial normative claims that make libertarians uncomfortable. They prefer their public policy normativity-lite.
All this is to say that I perfectly understand why so many libertarians come down in favor of homosexual marriage. In fact, the marriage debate provides a great opportunity for squeamish libertarians to distance themselves from the cranky and emotional religious right. Abortion violates the harm principle in a pretty obvious way: it leaves a human being dead. Expanding marriage, by contrast, doesn’t appear to harm anyone. By supporting homosexual marriage, libertarians can prove that they legitimately do not wish to impose a particular Judeo-Christian-inspired lifestyle on everyone, and that they will stand by their live-and-let-live principles even when this puts them at odds with some of their conservative allies. This is a very attractive opportunity for many libertarians. They love the feeling of standing above the fray of others’ messy emotions and biases.
Thus, a common libertarian take on marriage is something like the following: homosexual couples should be able to marry legally, but other people should not be required to recognize or celebrate that marriage on a social or professional level. If you don’t support homosexual marriage, decline the wedding invitation, don’t send presents, and don’t invite the couple to dinner. Everyone should just mind his own business.
It sounds reasonable. Here’s the thing, though. Marriage has nothing to do with minding one’s own business. If a couple merely wants to mind their own business, what need for the chaplain, the certificate, or the rented reception hall? People aren’t marching in pride parades to win the right to mind their own business. What they want is widespread social acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their relationships. They want homosexual couplings to be afforded the same social standing as heterosexual ones.
Given this goal, lobbying for marriage makes sense. Marriage is the gold standard of relationship legitimacy. The fact is that many Americans don’t see marriage as the sort of thing homosexuals can do, and homosexuals are not wrong to conclude that their coupling is widely regarded as irregular and less than respectable. I’ve heard homosexual friends, in their dreamier moments, fantasize about the peaceful, love-tolerant society that they one day hope to achieve. In this society, James and Bob will be able to hold hands in a public park without causing offense, and no one will blink at the photo of Janet and Linda in their bridal gowns.
It’s like those snakes with the fangs that only pop out when they’re preparing to strike. Everything’s love and acceptance until you realize that what they really want is the obliteration of the Judeo-Christian view of marriage.
Sorry to be dramatic, but that's simply where we are. There really is nothing let-live about this vision. Millennia of human societies have understood marriage to be a particular sort of thing. That view has to die before the love-tolerant society can emerge. Some people want it to die, which, given a certain agenda, makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is supporting homosexual marriage as a means to a more tolerant, more free society. Liberals want to legalize homosexual marriage because they want a stronger position from which to pressure conservatives to abandon their traditional view of marriage in favor of something that makes them (liberals generally, not just homosexuals) more comfortable. If there is any other reason for favoring homosexual marriage over and above a civil union-type arrangement, I cannot see it.
I do appreciate, of course, that supporters of homosexual marriage favor different methods for bringing about the desired end. Some are happy to employ aggressive tactics, suing and firing those who do not speedily fall into line with the new customs and mores of the love-tolerant society. Others prefer a softer approach, such as introducing new curricula into public schools. And then, there are some (libertarians often among them) who hope to see a kind of velvet revolution in sexual morals, as the more-tolerant young grow up and replace their stodgier elders. In this last view, co-opting the word “marriage” and some of the more formal trappings may be enough to keep things moving in the right direction.
Personally, I doubt that the velvet revolution will happen. It’s like the frog in the pot of hot water; if you turn up the heat very gradually, it will let itself be boiled to death, but if you heat things up too quickly, it will jump out. For a religious country like the United States, liberals moved too quickly. People are actually thinking about marriage now, and that’s bad news for the homosexual marriage agenda. As with the abortion issue, the marriage arguments are going to become more sophisticated and more familiar, the issue will become entrenched in American society, and our children’s moral sensibilities will be shaped by it to a significant degree, for better or worse. (Of course, I could be wrong about all this, though I hope not. My husband and I have a long-standing bet going concerning homosexual marriage, and if it isn’t legal in all 50 states by the year 2030, I’ll be getting a very nice bottle of cognac.)
My central point, though, is this. A person who truly cares about individual liberties should not support homosexual marriage. A person who relishes pluralism, and takes pride in a society that enables people of widely divergent beliefs to flourish, should not support homosexual marriage. A person who wants us all to “mind our own business” should not support homosexual marriage. Insofar as homosexual persons truly want to live undisturbed, peaceful lives (and some, I believe, really do) they should be content with a substantially similar legal arrangement such as a civil union. Mind your own business by leaving marriage alone.
- Comment (100)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
I think you (and many other people, so don't feel bad) misunderstand libertarianism. You get an answer, but you get there in the wrong way.
You seem to think or imply that libertarians want to maximize freedom to the point of rejecting rules that might impose limits on freedoms.
The whole thing of this is that libertarians believe interactions with people should be entirely voluntary, that is absent of coercion. I'll happilyagree to rules, but not by force. That means people are free to enter into contracts with one another without the consent of a third party.
If you consider marriage to be a contract, then letting the state define the terms of that contract would not be acceptable. But, if, as too many people insist, we need the state's permission to enter into a marriagecontract, then it the only fair way to do that is to open it to everyone.
I, frankly, don't give a fig who you marry. Its none of my business, and its certainly not of the state's business. I wouldn't presume to tell you who, how or where to get married. In return I'd appreciate the same consideration.
Jun '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
If you like having your parental rights (and who doesn't?) then it's important for the state to define who are the legal parents/guardians of a child. I expect libertarians would say, absent protection of parental rights, the state needn't be involved in marriage. But on the other hand, after the child is born is a bit late to come up with guardianship rules. You want them in place when the child leaves the womb. So, we go back to defining what a marriage is. There's no way around it. And who decides? As with most things in law, the political process decides what marriage is.
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
In that case how did society survive before govt licensing reqs for marriage?
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Probably because everybody understood what marriage was and what it stood for without the need for government to get involved. The rising need of marriage licensing requirements is a sign of how corrupt, and un-self-governed our society has become.
As an aside, I'd be curious to know which societies have survived that have removed government entirely from marriage and family. Individuals may be the smallest unit of society, but families are the smallest government bodies in society, so I don't see how larger governments (city, state, county, polis, etc.) could ignore their existence or importance.
-E
Jun '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
They had authorities (churches, elders, etc.) and rules. They just weren't governmental. But today, if it's not the government doing the judging, it doesn't count. Nobody has to respect it. Nobody does respect it.
Apr '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
By happy chance, today's Dilbert:
Don't be tendentious, Fred. Your first post was completely oblivious to society and the fact that 1) it is derived from man's nature as much as his individual rights; in fact, I suspect that being in a society could be included among the individual's natural rights; 2) were it not for society (starting with the family, as the most primitive social groups are family bands), there would be no contracting of marriage. Men and women would just . . . well, you know . . .
Society imposes and enforces rules to protect the children, the parents, and the interests of the relatives who have a stake in the welfare of the family. The state is merely an instrument of society, used by societies that have grown too large for the personal exercise of coercive force to be acceptable and efficient. The state involvement with marriage is nothing special, just part of its general function as the means by which society applies and regulates coercive force.
To answer your question, marriage was regulated by religious institutions . . . and the wife's male relatives.
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole:
If you consider marriage to be a contract...
That's just it; it's not a contract. If you must compare marriage to a legal document, the best metaphor is that Marriage is a constitution. Each one is different, but it still must conform to certain broad limitations, just as the state constitutions had to conform with the US Constitution. A marriage is the initiation of a new and unique societal unit, and it's the best designed to govern the adding of population to the family society and society at large. We are way beyond contract law.
-E
Dec '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Marriage isnt a contract. It is at its core a rite of passage. One state ends and a new one begins and this is conferred on you by others.
May '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Marriage defines a couple's relationship to society more than their relationship to each other. You fundamentally misunderstand marriage, Fred, and that is why you think government needn't be involved.
Aug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
First, social pressure is nowhere near slavery.
Second, libertarians want to minimize coercion, not social forms as such. (For example, a contract is an imposed social form, and libertarians are all for those.)
Libertarians differ on how they view social pressure. Some dislike it. Others welcome social pressure as a necessary alternative to state coercion. I'm one of the latter.
I like living in a society where others help me disapprove of myself when I do something wrong, and aren't afraid to rebuke me when I deserve rebuke. But how much of this social discipline is the state's job, and how much is better handled by networks of social pressure that don't operate at the point of a gun?
One reason Statism is evil is because it crowds out the more subtle forms of social pressure.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 7:01pmNov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
CandE
Probably because everybody understood what marriage was and what it stood for without the need for government to get involved. The rising need of marriage licensing requirements is a sign of how corrupt, and un-self-governed our society has become.
No. Marriage licensing requirements in the US started after the Civil War. It was a method to present miscegenation.
The state requiring a license (legal permission) to marry is an artifact of decades ago when white people were concerned about the dangerous influence of scary Negroes. It was used as a means of control by the nanny moral authorities who wanted to prevent miscegenation. It is a disgusting legacy of slavery and its aftermath.
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
That does not match history or reality.
Also, perhaps our definitions of a contract differ. I prefer our friend Noah Webster's definition:
In what way does a marriage not fit that definition?
Aug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mel Foil
But today, if it's not the government doing the judging, it doesn't count. Nobody has to respect it. Nobody does respect it.
Isn't that the biggest problem, though? That people no longer see a need to respect anything which is not coerced by the state? What kind of value do we place on humanity if we co-opt this trend for ourselves rather than fighting it?
Grendel
To answer your question, marriage was regulated by religious institutions . . . and the wife's male relatives.
And is it impossible for that kind of non-state social organization to work anymore? If not, then don't we have an even bigger problem than just SSM?
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
CandE
Probably because everybody understood what marriage was and what it stood for without the need for government to get involved. The rising need of marriage licensing requirements is a sign of how corrupt, and un-self-governed our society has become.
No. Marriage licensing requirements in the US started after the Civil War. It was a method to present miscegenation.
The state requiring a license (legal permission) to marry is an artifact of decades ago when white people were concerned about the dangerous influence of scary Negroes. It was used as a means of control by the nanny moral authorities who wanted to prevent miscegenation. It is a disgusting legacy of slavery and its aftermath. · 3 minutes ago
Although licenses may have been misused for that purpose here they've been around much longer than that. Besides, this illustrates that marriage should not be treated as a contract for government to control. It was improper for the government to use its power to impose on the institution of marriage before, and it's improper for people to use government to now redefine the entire institution.
-E
Dec '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
That does not match history or reality.
Also, perhaps our definitions of a contract differ. I prefer our friend Noah Webster's definition:
In what way does a marriage not fit that definition? · 26 minutes ago
It absolutely does match history and reality.
A marriage only exists by the approval and agreement of those around you.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 7:37pmJul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
rendel
To answer your question, marriage was regulated by religious institutions . . . and the wife's male relatives.
And is it impossible for that kind of non-state social organization to work anymore? If not, then don't we have an even bigger problem than just SSM? · 2 minutes ago
We do have bigger problems than SSM, including (but not limited to) 60's feminism and no-fault divorce laws. But just because the last generation lost those battles doesn't mean that this generation should throw in the towel and allow even more decline in the institution of marriage.
-E
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 10:42pmApr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
I'm gonna take a different tack. Libertarianism, as with many newer ideologies, tend toward an absolutism in definition. I submit that Libertarians can hold up their notions of individual freedom while making exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
The question then is what principle can occasionally override individual freedom? When Libertarians can learn the answer to that question, they well be ready to govern.
Apr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Although licenses may have been misused for that purpose here they've been around much longer than that. Besides, this illustrates that marriage should not be treated as a contract for government to control. It was improper for the government to use its power to impose on the institution of marriage before, and it's improper for people to use government to now redefine the entire institution.Exactly right, the two people (or more) should be the ones to define what marriage is between themselves.
Apr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Ooh, this gives me an idea. I should present the bones of my "what is marriage?" unit (developed through a good amount of reading, but distilled by me for purposes of undergraduate comprehension) and perhaps you all can help me fine-tune it. I'll wait a few days, though, to avoid burnout.
For now, Fred, I'd ask this: if marriage is a contract, what are its defining features? I make my undergraduates debate and ponder this for twenty minutes or so, but with you I'll cut to the chase: it's hard to define it any any way that doesn't ultimately come down to sex. That's basically what Kant thought marriage was: a lifelong sex contract. Charming, no? But really it's hard to move beyond that if you want to stick to the contract view. There are lots of other things that we think can and ideally should be part of marriage (love, shared life, family), but when it comes down to it, these are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for a marriage to exist.
Also: marriage is open to everyone. It is a a heterosexual institution, in which any competent adult may participate.
May '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Question...
Let's say I'm a Christian on missionary work in some awful foreign country where Christianity is outlawed (you know the places). I've dedicated my life to this work in spite of the danger. I meet someone who is also a missionary and shares this passion. We fall in love. We decide we want to get married, but neither of us wants to leave our work. So, in secret we have our minister marry us before the congregation and before God. Are we really married?
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:03pm