Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
Libertarians support letting people not pay taxes and opting out of being ruled by someone else.
Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
[edit] I claimed the U.S. government got involved in marriage to prevent interracial marriage. This statement apparently was false.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Libertarians support letting people not pay taxes and opting out of being ruled by someone else. Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites. Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites. Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Spideynw:Libertarians support abolishing government involvement in marriage. It should be a private matter.
Agreed.
Individualist: Would either or both of these things be a step in the right direction?
Would either or both of these things be a step in the right direction?
I don't think so. It would just be legitimizing the government's role in marriage. The best "first step" is to get government out of marriage altogether.
Government should not exist, and even if you're a minarchist government should have nothing to say about marriage.
Marriage is a contract between individuals - with religious backing only if done so voluntarily.
To support the legalization of something like marriage is to support the government's position to either make it legal or illegal. Today something that is deemed legal can become illegal tomorrow. Government should have no say in this.
If you're looking at legalization in order to gain the various government boons based on theft, then your position is immoral.
Individualist:Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
All libertarians should do whatever they want.
Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
Individualist:Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions?
No serious libertarian can answer this question either.
Individualist:Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
???
Spideynw:Regardless, the U.S. government got involved with marriage to keep blacks from marrying whites.
State governments used to do that, but the main reason governments get involved in marriage is to regulate and tax inheritance.
Individualist: Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage?
What difference would it make if they do? Why do they the state to call themselves husband and husband or wife and wife? Why do they need the state for their marriage to be official?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Individualist: Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?
For a libertarian to remain consistent, yes. But that is presupposing that libertarianism is a political party. Which I don't view as consistent with the ideas behind libertarianism.
Gay marriage doesn't violate the NAP, so regardless if you view it as wrong in a personal sense, if you want to remain consistent with your belief, you should not be trying to enforce anti-gay legislation anyway.
The problem stems from government thinking they should regulate somebody's personal life. Those power-mongering busybodies in Washington trying to attain your vote, so they talk about a Marriage Amendment to the constitution or some stupid BS. I don't think they really care, to be honest. They only want your vote.
Today, the only reason to marry, is to get all of the financial help and tax incentive, really. It's really retarded that me and my girlfriend of seven years can't get a loan on a USED car (my credit is superb). It's so much easier if you're married.
You observe, but you do not see.
Byzantine, thanks for the clarification. So has the state always been involved in marriage, ever since the founding of the U.S. government?
Remove the state from marriage. Period. While we're at it, just remove the state period. Its not that they should amend existing legislation to allow gays to get married, but to dismantle all marriage laws and allow people to make their own contracts.
Everyone should be equal before the law. If marriage is one less thing the state restricts, then that's one small step in the right direction.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Legalization? What legalization? How do you legalize something which is not illegal? Homosexuals are perfectly free to perform a ritual of their choice and everyone who wishes to think of that making them married is free to do so. Nobody will get thrown in jail for any of it.It is not about "legalization". It is about having your personal meaning of a commitment recognised by the state so that the stare will then shove it down everyone`s throat for you.It is libertarian to try to cut down on the number of various unions the state will recognise and then proceed to shove down our throts as marriage, not to add to them. Arguing for state licensed "gay marriage" is like arguing for more groups to be added to the civil rights legislation. Obviously the second best to repealling this legislation as a whole, is to reduce the number of "protected" groups (until you reach zero) not to increase them.There is no natural right, to have your marriage recognised (and the attitudes stemming from that enforced) by the state. "Bann" gay marriage all day long and after that "bann" non-gay marriage too.
liberty student: Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
Why? Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Of course, what its really about is gays using the state to elevate their unions to the level of the ancient heterosexual marriage and then using the state's civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws to crack down upon dissenters.
liberty student:Legalizing is a second best. If libertarians are going to support anything IN MY OPINION, they should not support legalization (state permission) but the rollback of the state jurisdiction over those matters. That's a second best in the right direction. Reinforcing the state's claim to control marriage in a different way is just tinkering around the edges. Which is why I usually oppose all second bests. I have to be radical, so those less radical have perspective on how far they are from real liberty.
sicsempertyrannis:Why? Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
You know, I can turn your next statement back upon you and tell you that keeping gay marriage illegal is to keep gays as second-class citizens and using the power of the state to crack down upon anyone whose behavior does not violate your rights, but does "offend" you--just as making farting in an elevator a crime would be. Don't think that you have the right to not be offended; you don't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.
It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.
Rolling it back by growing it - love that sort of logic. I'll ignore the rest of your reply, since it was just another adhom - something youre good at.
sicsempertyrannis:Growing the state bureaucracy so gays can get their state marriage licenses seems like a giant leap in the wrong direction.
That is why I oppose it. Re-read my post.
sicsempertyrannis:Of course, what its really about is gays using the state to elevate their unions to the level of the ancient heterosexual marriage and then using the state's civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws to crack down upon dissenters.
Since you said "the gays", I was wondering if you would also oppose schooling for black children or voting rights for women based upon those expansions of government. I would because I oppose the expansion of government, but your "the gays" leads me to believe you might not have the same courage of conviction for another minority group.
Are you worried about women being elevated to the level of ancient masculinity or blacks to the level of Caucasian racial superiority?
Stop thinking like a collectivist and life becomes a lot less threatening amigo.
liberty student: Since you said "the gays", I was wondering if you would also oppose schooling for black children or voting rights for women based upon those expansions of government. I would because I oppose the expansion of government, but your "the gays" leads me to believe you might not have the same courage of conviction for another minority group.
No, I wouldnt support women being given voting rights. And I wouldnt support anyone being forced into public schooling; black or white.
Awww how cute. You can adhom just like Baawa.
See, to me you and Baawa have made the fatal error to except that its OK to expand government in certain cases. Call it 'second best' or whatever you want, but I still see it as hypocritical.
sicsempertyrannis:Awww how cute. You can adhom just like Baawa.
That's not an ad hom.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.
sicsempertyrannis:Rolling it back by growing it
Marko:In what ways does the bureaucracy interfere? Examples would be good - no matter how much you hate non-gays.
Just wondering something: do you believe that anyone who stands up for gay marriage must be gay? Because that's like saying someone who supports blacks not being lynched must be black.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Removing the prohibitions isn't growing the bureaucracy.
Removing the prohibitions isn't growing the bureaucracy.
Hows thats? Right now there is nothing stopping gays from having their own marriage ceremonies. Why does the state need to sanctify it?
And you don't know what an ad hom is.
this:
Knight_of_BAAWA: Don't think that you have the right to not be offended; you don't
Don't think that you have the right to not be offended; you don't
Who says I am offended? Thats right, its because you want to attack me instead of attacking my point; namely, that you've allowed your egalitarianism creep into advocacy of growing the state.
sicsempertyrannis:Thats right, its because you want to attack me instead of attacking my point; namely, that you've allowed your egalitarianism creep into advocacy of growing the state.
When did you lose the plot bro?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Removing the prohibitions isn't growing the bureaucracy.
sicsempertyrannis:Hows thats? Right now there is nothing stopping gays from having their own marriage ceremonies. Why does the state need to sanctify it?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Don't think that you have the right to not be offended; you don't
sicsempertyrannis:Who says I am offended?
Look: hate gays all you like. But don't try to justify your hatred by saying that it wouldn't "roll back the bureaucracy" to have gay marriage. That's just dishonest. Just say you hate gays and be done with it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Prohibitions on who can marry whom with consent.
Byzantine:You can marry whomever you want
Tell me: what would you think of someone who refused to acknowledge a mixed-race marriage as a real marriage? I'm not asking as to whether or not the person has the right to think that way (which the person does). But what would you think of the person?
Byzantine: Knight_of_BAAWA:Prohibitions on who can marry whom with consent. You can marry whomever you want and structure your affairs by contract however the two or twenty of you wish. You just can't get a license from the State that says other people have to recognize it as a 'marriage' as well.
You can marry whomever you want and structure your affairs by contract however the two or twenty of you wish. You just can't get a license from the State that says other people have to recognize it as a 'marriage' as well.
Actually you can not use contracts to get all the priveleges given to government recognized marriages. Income tax, inheritence tax, survivors benifits, insurance, hospital visitation, the list is ridiculously long.
I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage but since they have set themselves up in the marriage business and give tons of benefits to married people then they need to allow whoever wants to get to be able to.
Share a meal, a fireside, and a bed. Simply proclaim it to your friends and family. Married. So simple. Why do the churches and state feel the need to meddle?
A cult is a religion with no political power. - Tom Wolfe
Life without music would be an error. - Nietzsche
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. - Edward R. Morrow
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's just dishonest. Just say you hate gays and be done with it.
It's so much easier to deal with hatred when people put it out in the open. Trouble is, people are (subconsciously?) ashamed of hatred, so they invent all sorts of "arguments" to hide behind.
Today, I was told elsewhere by one such patriarchal bigot that,
Marriage is based in the opposition and complementarity of the two sexes. It is rooted in the biology of human being...
Marriage has a real meaning involving real fundamental facts of biological complementarity, and it is at the foundation of society.
I was having a lark responding to the guy, but then Neverfox ruined all my fun by smashing him with some good ol' fashioned Roderick Long (this entry of his on gay marriage, from 2003, is particularly relevant).
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Tukaram:Actually you can not use contracts to get all the priveleges given to government recognized marriages. Income tax, inheritence tax, survivors benifits, insurance, hospital visitation, the list is ridiculously long.
Indeed. Marriage is really a bundle of privileges (masquerading as rights) and to some extent obligations. It's impossible to replicate with contracts, and even in cases where parties have attempted to do so, most bureaucracies have a hard time interpreting them. I remember reading about a gay couple, one of whom was dying of some terrible disease. Well, they had tried their damndest to replicate certain aspects of a marriage "contract" just in case such a misfortune ever befell one of them. And wouldn't you know it? The hospital refused to recognize the contract as valid, basically denying visitation rights to the healthy one. If you search around on http://kipesquire.net (a lawyer, and self-described "world's foremost gay libertarian blogger") you could probably dig up his legal analysis of the practical problems posed by the "contract" argument.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Look: hate gays all you like. But don't try to justify your hatred by saying that it wouldn't "roll back the bureaucracy" to have gay marriage. That's just dishonest. Just say you hate gays and be done with it.
I dont favor giving more power to the state for their (supposed) benefit. But seriously, pulling the 'you hate ___' card though? Pretty lame. If I dont favor civil rights laws for blacks, does that mean I hate them too?
I dont mind private contract type unions, call them marriage if that pleases you. I just dont see why we want to give the state another dominion to rule over.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Look: hate gays all you like. But don't try to justify your hatred by saying that it wouldn't "roll back the bureaucracy" to have gay marriage. That's just dishonest. Just say you hate gays and be done with it.
sicsempertyrannis:I dont favor giving more power to the state for their (supposed) benefit.
sicsempertyrannis:But seriously, pulling the 'you hate ___' card though?
Byzantine:a variety of biological, psychological and social reasons.
These are all subjective valuations. Gay sex doesn't produce babies, nor does a heterosexual couple who have undergone tube-tying/vasectomy. If churches have corollary rights of free association, so do "dem gays".
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Tell me: what would you think of someone who refused to acknowledge a mixed-race marriage as a real marriage? I'm not asking as to whether or not the person has the right to think that way (which the person does). But what would you think of the person?
Byzantine:I would say they are reacting viscerally rather than logically.