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:
Oct '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr. Bildo: 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? · 5 minutes ago
Edited 4 minutes ago
I think some countries still recognize that as a common-law marriage.
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr. Bildo: 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? · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Within that community, yes. In order for the state or native communities to recognize that, you may need to jump through additional hoops. Common law marriages used to be considered valid, but those times have passed.
-E
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
If I were smart I would've began this by objecting to your title.
Oct '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
This article doesn't sound terribly libertarian to me. That's ok, since I much prefer debating social conservatives to libertarians.
I think you misunderstand the original thought behind gay marriage, Rachel. The idea wasn't to put gay couples in social competition with straight ones, it was to put monogamous bourgeois gay couples above nihilistic amoral ones. In that sense, it originally was a socially conservative idea.
Of course it's been hijacked by social nihilists--only in America are nihilists so powerful that otherwise good public policy becomes bad public policy. In that sense it's a moot point; so long as nihilists are driving the debate SSM will be seen as an attack against monogamy. Perhaps in five years the socially-conservative minded gay marriage faction will gain the upper hand, but that hasn't happened yet.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:22pmNov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Highlama: 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. · 32 minutes ago
Newer?
You think libertarianism is something new?
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Rachel Lu:
For now, Fred, I'd ask this: if marriage is a contract, what are its defining features?
It would depend entirely on the parties to the contract, whatever they jointly decide. Like any contract.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:27pmDec '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
CandE
Within that community, yes. In order for the state or native communities to recognize that, you may need to jump through additional hoops. Common law marriages used to be considered valid, but those times have passed.
-E · 6 minutes ago
There are states that still recognize common law marriage.
STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma's laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Jan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Well, the kind of libertarian I was weaned upon--John Hospers, Murray Rothbard, MacBride (hmm, I forgot his frist name, Roger?), would dismiss the state altogether from involving itself with who the (adult, presumably; but note differences in the age of consent among the several states) partners in a marriage were. At the most they would allow a government clerk--fees paid voluntarily, of course--to register the event.
I'll just add, for what it's worth, that Ayn Rand loathed the whole phenomenon of homosexuality. A woman can hate bolshevism yet still remain a true daughter of the rodina, nyet? (And of her Jewish parents.)
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 9:56pmJul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Foxman
CandE
Within that community, yes. In order for the state or native communities to recognize that, you may need to jump through additional hoops. Common law marriages used to be considered valid, but those times have passed.
-E · 6 minutes ago
There are states that still recognize common law marriage.
That's good to see. Thanks for the correction.
-E
Apr '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
dupped
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:53pmApr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
Rachel Lu:
For now, Fred, I'd ask this: if marriage is a contract, what are its defining features?
It would depend entirely on the parties to the contract, whatever they jointly decide. · 2 minutes ago
No, that makes no sense. Look, we don't just enshrine any sort of agreement in law. Every sort of contract law has a general purpose and function, although the details can be tailored to some extent. If marriage means nothing beyond what the spouses want it to mean, then marriage really means... nothing
Aug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
If you have been married before God and a sufficient number of witnesses, you are married. The number of witnesses need not be very large. If the marriage takes place, as you say, before a congregation, there are probably enough witnesses.
An elopement has been historically viewed as not a very classy way to get married, but as marriage nonetheless.
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Rachel Lu
Fred Cole
Rachel Lu:
For now, Fred, I'd ask this: if marriage is a contract, what are its defining features?
It would depend entirely on the parties to the contract, whatever they jointly decide. · 2 minutes ago
No, that makes no sense. Look, we don't just enshrine any sort of agreement in law. Every sort of contract law has a general purpose and function, although the details can be tailored to some extent. If marriage means nothing beyond what the spouses want it to mean, then marriage really means... nothing · 1 minute ago
If you're asking the general purpose of marriage, its the preservation of capital and protection of children.
Apr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midge, I've been meaning to come back to you and ask: what examples could you give of times when the law interferes with more natural forms of social disapprobation? It seems to me that they often cooperate. Think of colonial towns throwing people in the stocks.
Joseph, I'm not a libertarian. I just know so goshdarn many that I'm always working through these things. But I fail to see how the goal you name could not be achieved by civil unions, and I don't think the motives of many homosexual marriage supporters are quite so benign.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:38pmJan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
An elopement has been historically viewed as not a very classy way to get married, but as marriage nonetheless. · 3 minutes ago
Nice one, serpentina.
Ah, such Bravehearts!
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 8:41pmMay '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
Highlama: 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. · 32 minutes ago
Newer?
You think libertarianism is something new?
Wait. There was a John Locke before the guy on Lost?
Apr '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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?
'Fraid so, especially while maintaining a doctrinaire policy of separation of church and state. Vide the difficulties raised by Islamists in England trying to get Sharia courts accepted as an alternative to the civil judicial system.
re male relatives--The West, too, has a tradition of honor killings, distinguished from the Islamic by being rational. We kill the male seducer/rapist rather than the seduced/violated woman. Cf. "my daddy's gonna straighten you out like a piece of wire".
There is also that portion of the population who want nothing to do with religious institutions, or who just don't like where church marriage law gives way to state economic law.
As for your last question, I agree the state operates way beyond its proper limits, but we have to go to war with the state we have, not the state we would like to go to war with.
Mar '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Is it not anti-libertarian to coerce those not party to a marriage contract (i.e., the unmarried) to contribute through extra taxes and other payments to the benefits provided to those who choose to enter into a marriage contract?
May '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
You'll simply have to believe this: I intend no offense to anyone. But we've all seen the old quote: "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." This strikes me as very much what this conversation has devolved to. Libertarians, like liberals, argue in a closed space, with very narrow definitions and very direct consequences. Conservatives, at their best, at least, argue in broad terms and recognize secondary and indirect consequences. Such discussion are like ships passing a in the night. I suspect that, like liberals, libertarians either don't really understand the conservative positions, or else, also like liberals, they operate on a smaller set of Professor Haidt's moral values. Either way persuasion is pointless.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 9:10pmMay '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Of course it is. However, what libertarian supports disproportional taxes, payments and benefits to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual?