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:
Jan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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.
The "older" libertarians (the folks I mentioned in my earlier post) were focused on autonomy. Later libertarians (Ed Crane, the Cato folk), responding to the charge of libertinism, take a more Tocquevillian view. Ron Paul, honoring the Tenth Amendment, has sometimes taken a federalist point of view on morals legislation.
Edmund Burke and the concept of subsidiarity are fortunately gaining ground against the anarcho-capitalist Rothbardian cohort. Perhaps our friend Richard Epstein is in the van.
Apr '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
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. · 1 minute ago
and since it does neither, shouldn't we just abolish it as a State institution altogether?
I'm in favor of a religious institution called Marriage with all the legacy restrictions and social expectations. Inclusive is Church jurisdiction on all legal matters pertaining to marriage. Yes, capital punishment for adulterers would be fine. Make marriage mean something, or don't have it at all.
If you want a State institution, fine. Just call it something else.
Mar '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr. Bildo
Of course it is. However, what libertarian supports disproportional taxes, payments and benefits to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual? · 1 minute ago
I'd have to say that any libertarian who wants to expand marriage eligibility to include single-sex couples is doing exactly that: making the anti-libertarian aspects of contemporary marriage worse by adding to those eligible for it.
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr. Bildo
Of course it is. However, what libertarian supports disproportional taxes, payments and benefits to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual? · 2 minutes ago
If you can imagine a world (much less create one) in which there are no government or societal benefits given to married couples exclusively, then you can define marriage however you want. Until then, in the real world married couples get benefits.
-E
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Absolutely if the benefits are monetary. I am 100% against coercive taxation. And depending on the benefit we're talking about, I'm probably against that too.
Aug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Rachel Lu:
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.
Really? In addition to sex, aren't married people obligated to care for each other and their resulting children?
For example, in Jewish marriage law, the spouses are obligated to provide each other with much more than sex, like care during illness and the privilege of eating at the same table.
It is, of course, possible to get prenups that stipulate that certain property will not be shared between the spouses, but prenups only exist to begin with because the default presumption is otherwise.
Maybe people these days assume contracts are more dehumanized and ignoble than they actually are. Contracts originated as solemn pledges made ceremoniously before witnesses. Despite the dry legal technicalities, contracts are beautiful, noble things, though like any tool, they can be abused to wicked ends (although contract law tries to prohibit this, which is why an assassination contract is not binding).
If more people treated their marriages with as much respect as they gave other contracts, marriage might be in better shape.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 9:17pmNov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
kesbar
and since it does neither, shouldn't we just abolish it as a State institution altogether?
If you want to abolish licensing requirements for marriage and treat it either as an entirely private affair or, in the case of a contract specifying terms with regards to children, property, etc., as any other legal contract, I'd have no issue. The only point of requiring a license to marry is so busybody third parties can poke their noses into it.
Nov '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Really? In addition to sex, aren't married people obligated to care for each other and their resulting children?
For example, in Jewish marriage law, the spouses are obligated to provide each other with much more than sex, like care during illness and the privilege of eating at the same table.
No, no, no. Don't you get it? There's one and only one proper type of marriage, it has existed everywhere on Earth in exactly the same way and form since the dawn of time, and it must must must be preserved in that form and only that form forever.
If your conception of what a marriage is is different from that traditional holy concept of a sex contract between two and only two people of different biological sexes licensed and sanctioned by the state then you just don't get it and are a nihilist bent on destroying marriage and civilization.
Jan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
@ Rachel Lu on Kant:
This contractarian notion exhibits exactly the frame of mind, mesmerizing extreme libertarians, that I criticized, and I am surprised that Chesterston* seemed to have assumed it.
I favor the criticism Hegel formulated in the Philosophy of Right. He very much had Kant in mind when he argued contrarily that marriage is not a contract at all, but a moment in ethical life. Man and wife do not make deals, for if truly married, they no longer consider themselves as separate persons autonomous against each other. As the ancient text has it, they are now instead "one flesh."
----
* Maybe because he was schooled in England. Love God as they will, the island's philosophers remain British Empiricists to the core.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 10:04pmAug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Grendel
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.
Yeah, I get this. Which is why, no matter what my other thoughts and feelings regardings SSM are, I couldn't support its legalization in the foreseeable future. I just don't want to lose sight of the big picture.
They cooperate when the burden of law is light, and people's first thoughts are "Is this right?" not "Is this legal?"
But when the law becomes so heavy that it supports the assumption that any bad thing should be illegal, you might forget to question whether the legal thing you're about to do might be bad. This leads to more jerks who refuse to stop doing jerky things on the grounds that "it's not illegal" to do them.
May '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr Bildo,
Christians understand two kinds of marriage: legal and sacramental. Legal marriage is a contract which establishes the legal rights and obligations of two sexual partners within a society. Sacramental marriage is a promise (unconditional) in which two sexual partners are permanently sealed by the Holy Spirit (God) in a special relationship with both God and society.
Your scenario is interesting because marriages are more commonly legal but not sacramental than sacramental but not legal. I'll have to look into it and think about it.
But I suspect your scenario is similar to a government denying freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Governments can fail to recognize such rights, but they do not create them. Governments could refuse to acknowledge you as an individual, instead of as Citizen#187389, but that wouldn't make you less of an individual. Likewise, marriage laws merely recognize/honor a pre-existing truth for the sake of other dependent laws.
The corruption of modern cultures has certainly complicated the issue. Marriage independent of religion is a modern idea.
Jul '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Really? In addition to sex, aren't married people obligated to care for each other and their resulting children?
For example, in Jewish marriage law, the spouses are obligated to provide each other with much more than sex, like care during illness and the privilege of eating at the same table.
No, no, no. Don't you get it? There's oneand only oneproper type of marriage, it has existed everywhere on Earth in exactly the same way and form sincethe dawn of time, and itmust must must be preserved in that form and only that form forever.
If your conception of what a marriage is is different from that traditional holy concept of a sex contract between two and only two people of different biological sexes licensed and sanctioned by the state then you just don't get it and are a nihilist bent on destroying marriage and civilization. · 13 minutes ago
Excellent example vindicating Tom's point:
"I suspect that, like liberals, libertarians [...] don't really understand the conservative positions"
-E
May '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Basil Fawlty
Mr. Bildo
Of course it is. However, what libertarian supports disproportional taxes, payments and benefits to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual? · 1 minute ago
I'd have to say that any libertarian who wants to expand marriage eligibility to include single-sex couples is doing exactly that: making the anti-libertarian aspects of contemporary marriage worse by adding to those eligible for it. · 2 minutes ago
Those reforms are not on the table. If there was a ballot initiative to abolish state marriage licensing for both heterosexual and homosexual marriage you would find a majority of libertarians supporting it.
While some are, most of the libertarians I know are not pro-gay anything. Unlike progressives, they are not interested in an indiscriminate society, just a nondiscriminatory government. They see supporting gay marriage as a net win for liberty.
Aug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Aaron Miller:
Christians understand two kinds of marriage: legal and sacramental. Legal marriage is a contract which establishes the legal rights and obligations of two sexual partners within a society. Sacramental marriage is a promise (unconditional) in which two sexual partners are permanently sealed by the Holy Spirit (God) in a special relationship with both God and society.
Exactly!
My own vision of a complete marriage is as a double bond of sacrament and contract. If we were all saints, sacrament alone would be enough. But given fallen human nature, having a legally-binding contract that pressures us into behaving during our less saintly moments is only prudent. Contracts help keep sinners in line.
Apr '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Fred Cole
Newer?
You think libertarianism is something new? · 1 hour ago
Yes, of course it is. It may trace it's intellectual roots farther, but as a movement, yes it's 'newer'.
Jan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
As to the original question: an honest-to-goodness, no-holds-barred libertarian would balk at the notion that he or she should support anything but absolute personal autonomy and full resistance against the initiation of force or fraud. The whole issue of homosexuality and its various entanglements (among consenting adults, presumably) becomes only remotely tangential.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 9:50pmAug '10
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Most sexual harassment and hate-speech laws are probably good examples, as well as other sundry over-meddlesome workplace laws.
Laws that grant entitlements rewarding irresponsible behavior are of course a huge category.
Edited on June 15, 2012 at 10:20pmMar '11
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Mr. Bildo
Basil Fawlty
Mr. Bildo
Of course it is. However, what libertarian supports disproportional taxes, payments and benefits to married couples, heterosexual or homosexual? · 1 minute ago
I'd have to say that any libertarian who wants to expand marriage eligibility to include single-sex couples is doing exactly that: making the anti-libertarian aspects of contemporary marriage worse by adding to those eligible for it. · 2 minutes ago
Those reforms are not on the table. If there was a ballot initiative to abolish state marriage licensing for both heterosexual and homosexual marriage you would find a majority of libertarians supporting it.
While some are, most of the libertarians I know are not pro-gay anything. Unlike progressives, they are not interested in an indiscriminate society, just a nondiscriminatory government. They see supporting gay marriage as a net win for liberty. · 19 minutes ago
It just seems odd to me to deal with what is essentially an unfair institution such as contemporary marriage by expanding the pool of those who can partake of its unfairness. It's rather like opposing the draft yet insisting that women should be subject to it. Fair perhaps, but hardly libertarian.
Jan '12
Re: Should a Libertarian Support Homosexual Marriage?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Most sexual harassment and hate-speech laws are probably good examples, as well as other sundry over-meddlesome workplace laws.
Laws that grant entitlements rewarding irresponsible behavior are of course a huge category. · 7 minutes ago
The examples are too many too list. Legislation (or court decisions) forbiding believing Christians from refusing for reasons of conscience from renting their own property to people who will engage in sodomy is but one. This interferes with the right of a Christian (because he is a citizen, not because he is a Christian)--on his or her own personal property--effectively to express his or her opinion that sodomy is contrary to God's law. He or she is thus hampered vis-a-vis the right of assembly whereby by citizens spontaneously express their opposition to what they opine is unethical behavior.
Here the mandate of a tyrannical state not only supplants the operations of social disapprobation; it quashes them.
Edited on June 16, 2012 at 2:04amNov '10
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.
Precisely. And that is why -- as I never tire of pointing out on Ricochet -- you can have someone as illustrious (or sneeringly supercilious) as Martha Nussbaum explicitly asserting that sibling incest marriage should be made licit.
If any Ricochet readers are not familiar with Nussbaum -- this isn't some loopy postmodernist, but perhaps the doyenne of liberal rationality and moral rectitude.