My observation of the illegality of gay marriage in many states in America reminds me of the slave codes in the south that kept slavery from dropping out of existence. In the absence of the state issuing arbitrary laws about the voluntary relationships between human beings, I think private law would step in to ensure that homosexual couples reap the same financial and legal rewards of marital status, promoting eqaulity. What is your view on the litigiousness of gay marriage, especially your thoughts on it in the absence of the state?
I thought this was a pretty good summary.
I have no idea what a private law system would decide about gay marriage but I think that if they wanna get married they should just move to states that will allow it. I'll just stay here in GA where it's illegal and everyone wins.
Of course it would exist without the state. Any two people could enter into any contract they deem beneficial. There would not be special contracts that only people who meet certain requirements could benefit from.
The state can't bestow extraordinary contractual rights to two people of the the opposite sex, while barring all other contracual rights of two people, lest it be discriminatory. The market would never impose such draconian and socially engineered parameters.
He argues well in that video. You are quite the YouTube warrior, aren't you?
cubfan296:Of course it would exist without the state. Any two people could enter into any contract they deem beneficial. There would not be special contracts that only people who meet certain requirements could benefit from. The state can't bestow extraordinary contractual rights to two people of the the opposite sex, while barring all other contracual rights of two people, lest it be discriminatory. The market would never impose such draconian and socially engineered parameters.
This.
People could still discriminate against homosexuals, of course - but only with their own property. This is where the state has a leg up over the market.
Aside from the religious and other cultural aspects, what does marriage entail? For one thing, it entails joint ownership of property. I think that would already exist in a stateless society, so I see no real issue there. Any courts which refuse to settle divorce-related and other disputes among homosexuals will simply be letting non-discriminatory courts make more money.
For another thing, it entails things like inheritance, power of attorney, guardianship rights, etc. Again I see no real issue with this, as such things would also be a matter of joint agreement.
In today's statist world, there are tax breaks and other privileges bestowed upon married couples by states. All other things being equal, I have no problem with such privileges being bestowed upon homosexual couples who enter into agreements that entail the same rights and obligations as those for traditional heterosexual marriage. I also see no reason to bar homosexual couples from entering into such agreements.
Essentially the above would lead to a situation like in France and Germany, where only civil marriages are legally recognized. Any religious ceremony performed is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. This might be a significant part of the issue for those defending traditional marriage.
One last thing: in no way do I think religious institutions should be forced to hold marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples if they don't want to.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
bloomj31: I have no idea what a private law system would decide about gay marriage but I think that if they wanna get married they should just move to states that will allow it. I'll just stay here in GA where it's illegal and everyone wins.
Isn't this just the love it or leave it argument?
evilsceptic:Isn't this just the love it or leave it argument?
I suppose.
The whole gay marriage push is historically interesting since 30 years ago most of the homosexual movement were and probably still are, bohemians who rather than get married would rather liberate heterosexuals from the bourgeois constraints of marriage. For an excellent discussion of this, listen to this podcast.
Given a libertarian society, i.e. no taxation, there would be no immediate financial for being married, although in the UK these days it actually pays to be unmarried in some cases due to the welfare system. So why would anyone get married? On the finance front the most obvious reason is children- if one party abandons the other then without a marriage contract the abandoned would be burdened with the costs of raising the children; it also helps in determining inheritance of property. Now for obvious biological reasons consistent homosexuals cannot reproduce. The homosexual libertarian Justin Raimondo makes a case against gay marriage mainly in regards the lack of children here.
Another reason would be love as such they want to objectify their life long love and relationship, which would include some homosexuals. The problem with this as it presently legally stands, at least in the UK, is that marriage is no longer for life. At a marriage ceremony there is no declaration of lifelong commitment, nor a vow of faithfulness.
However one of the major reasons for marriage, in the West, is the legacy, or belief, of the Christian doctrine that marriage is ordained by God between a man and women. It holds that men and women are equal in dignity, but different and complementary and that the proper place for sexual activity is in a life long marriage. Now since sex implies children this is all wrapped up together with God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply and subdue the Earth. Lest any one argue that the Bible is anti-sex this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 will be of interest:
3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
The underlying problem of the whole gay marriage movement is its egalitarianism - men and women are essentially interchangeable. There's no need for fathers and mothers, or husbands and wives but of loving carers and life partners. This attitude reminds me of the male member of the People's Front Judea (I think) in The Life of Brian who wanted to bear children. Other members argued for his right to bear children when John Cleese's character responds something like he needs to sort his problems with reality. In a way it is directly related to the tabula rasa, nature vs nurture threads that have appeared recently: mankind is not infinitely malleable, he has a nature. It is obvious for anyone that men and women are different and that biological differences are an obvious pointer to that. In a way egalitarianism rejects the comparative advantages of the sexes and as such is destructive to civilisation. The only way the present lack of specialsation of roles especially relating to children is the welfare system which encourages mothers to work outside the home; note also though the schooling system is one massive and expensive babysitting service.
Now given the reason of children and the innate differences between men and women the incidence of gay marriage, in a libertarian society would be rather low and as such the big push for it seems somewhat odd. There may be some genuine support for it but it seems as though it is a symbol of a liberal's purity at present. Further though it is being co-opted by the ruling class as a further means of egalitarian leveling which will make we the ruled easier to exploit when our natural allegiances have been weakened.
Now clearly gay marriage should not be illegal but it should not be promoted. Libertarians and conservatives should, rather than oppose the gay marriage, support and advocate parallel marriage contracts. In particular allowing Churches the power to make those, men and women, who marry in their buildings sign a weightier, more traditional contract which can be enforced in the courts. This essentially means divorce is harder and the obligations placed on both parties is higher- it would again be a serious commitment rather than the fleeting one it is increasingly becoming. If this is seen to be successful, which I expect it would given man's nature, then it would then displace the statist marriage we have at present. and result in a more stable and prosperous society.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat