Considering that the media refuses to cover Ron Paul’s campaign and has stoned Gary Johnson from any airtime at all, it is understandable that most Americans are unaware of the growing split in the libertarian community between the supporters of the congressman and former Governor, the two libertarian candidates in the race.
Yeah, I know, a split among libertarians is like civil war in Lichtenstein, but even a single cell must divide for an organism to grow. We don’t get too many chances at this multiple candidate stuff, so cut us some slack, ok?
It is getting a little nasty, and the central issue seems to be Congressman Paul’s refusal to support federal gay marriage legislation. To some libertarians, support for legislated gay marriage has become a litmus test, with those who oppose it relegated to some impure un-libertarian designation, “paleo-conservative” being the most popular. At the risk of being so branded, I don’t think this is the right issue to purge our ranks over.
For thousands of years, across all cultures, religions, and government forms, the understanding of marriage and family has been unchanged. Marriage is a sacrament in many religious traditions, a union ordained by God. It does not seem to be a matter for our current government to define what it is or it isn’t. And legislating gay marriage is exactly that - government re-defining for the people what marriage is.
Libertarians reflexively object to government imposing itself into private matters, so it is difficult to understand how this issue has come to drive a wedge into a movement which is way too small to be dividing itself up. I don’t see any conflict in defending the individual rights of gay people (I do) while opposing a legislated redefinition of a term that has had one universal meaning since the beginning of time (I also do). We would not redefine the word “children” because some kids want to live at the neighbors.
Our founding fathers, the classic liberal philosophers, and the icons of libertarian thought in the last century – none of those great libertarian thinkers, as far as I know, advocated legislated gay marriage. Are they un-libertarian? Do we now disown them? Its not like homosexuality was just invented by Elton John – they must have thought about it back then. And, perhaps like me, they came down on the side of none of my business, live and let live, don’t ask don’t care.
I get the whole disparity of government benefits thing, but that is a problem of unconstitutional and unjustifiable bloated government benefits. When black people were denied jobs by law, the remedy was not to add another federal law that redefined the meaning of white. We changed the labor laws that caused discrimination.
As far as I know, there is no law that prohibits any religion from sanctioning same-sex marriage now. If two men or two women want to get married, they can find a church and a minister perfectly happy to oblige. There – you’re married. Whether it is a blessed sacrament or an abomination to the Lord is up to you and Him; neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or any other candidate have a say about that.
You don’t get any more married because the government writes it down on a piece of paper. And if you think that county clerk’s stamp on a license is what keeps heteros together, spare your friends the cost of the his-and-his bath towels and fancy wedding card, because you guys won’t outlast the warranty on the toaster. When even the threat of Hell-fire can’t keep the wrong pants from dropping in unison, don’t expect a dusty paper in a safety deposit box to inspire fidelity.
Let’s try and solve this. Enact FairTax so there are no tax ramifications of being married or not being married. And give every adult person the right to designate a single co-owner of assets and property rights, including succession in death – a turbo POA, basically. Married people will designate their spouse or test that succession process, I suspect. We already have child custody arrangements figured out for every conceivable configuration short of invertebrates; no more laws are needed.
Now what’s the problem? And we all know the real answer: there is a militant homosexual agenda whose advocates use government to force acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of Americans find immoral. Let’s quit pretending this is an argument about something else. And using government force to impose moral judgments is inherently un-libertarian. It is not so cut and dried.
Here is the basic problem for generic marriage: if the gender of the partners in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number? Is 3 ok? 5? A couple of these, a few of those? And what is magic about 18 years of age, or 17, or 16 or younger? Brothers, cousins, moms, daughters, moms and daughters – if we can’t leave the line where it has been drawn for millennia, then why is it ok to draw a new one?
Reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the boundaries of marriage without being haters. But it is no less libertarian to support a traditional definition of marriage than it is to draw the line anywhere else along the spectrum of possible unions. It is certainly not an issue to tear a movement apart that is finally gaining some mainstream traction.
So let’s not tear ourselves asunder over this one, libertarians. And go easy on my man Ron Paul – he was liberty’s only friend for a long, long time.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.
Yeah, I know, a split among libertarians is like civil war in Lichtenstein, but even a single cell must divide for an organism to grow. We don’t get too many chances at this multiple candidate stuff, so cut us some slack, ok?
It is getting a little nasty, and the central issue seems to be Congressman Paul’s refusal to support federal gay marriage legislation. To some libertarians, support for legislated gay marriage has become a litmus test, with those who oppose it relegated to some impure un-libertarian designation, “paleo-conservative” being the most popular. At the risk of being so branded, I don’t think this is the right issue to purge our ranks over.
For thousands of years, across all cultures, religions, and government forms, the understanding of marriage and family has been unchanged. Marriage is a sacrament in many religious traditions, a union ordained by God. It does not seem to be a matter for our current government to define what it is or it isn’t. And legislating gay marriage is exactly that - government re-defining for the people what marriage is.
Libertarians reflexively object to government imposing itself into private matters, so it is difficult to understand how this issue has come to drive a wedge into a movement which is way too small to be dividing itself up. I don’t see any conflict in defending the individual rights of gay people (I do) while opposing a legislated redefinition of a term that has had one universal meaning since the beginning of time (I also do). We would not redefine the word “children” because some kids want to live at the neighbors.
Our founding fathers, the classic liberal philosophers, and the icons of libertarian thought in the last century – none of those great libertarian thinkers, as far as I know, advocated legislated gay marriage. Are they un-libertarian? Do we now disown them? Its not like homosexuality was just invented by Elton John – they must have thought about it back then. And, perhaps like me, they came down on the side of none of my business, live and let live, don’t ask don’t care.
I get the whole disparity of government benefits thing, but that is a problem of unconstitutional and unjustifiable bloated government benefits. When black people were denied jobs by law, the remedy was not to add another federal law that redefined the meaning of white. We changed the labor laws that caused discrimination.
As far as I know, there is no law that prohibits any religion from sanctioning same-sex marriage now. If two men or two women want to get married, they can find a church and a minister perfectly happy to oblige. There – you’re married. Whether it is a blessed sacrament or an abomination to the Lord is up to you and Him; neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or any other candidate have a say about that.
You don’t get any more married because the government writes it down on a piece of paper. And if you think that county clerk’s stamp on a license is what keeps heteros together, spare your friends the cost of the his-and-his bath towels and fancy wedding card, because you guys won’t outlast the warranty on the toaster. When even the threat of Hell-fire can’t keep the wrong pants from dropping in unison, don’t expect a dusty paper in a safety deposit box to inspire fidelity.
Let’s try and solve this. Enact FairTax so there are no tax ramifications of being married or not being married. And give every adult person the right to designate a single co-owner of assets and property rights, including succession in death – a turbo POA, basically. Married people will designate their spouse or test that succession process, I suspect. We already have child custody arrangements figured out for every conceivable configuration short of invertebrates; no more laws are needed.
Now what’s the problem? And we all know the real answer: there is a militant homosexual agenda whose advocates use government to force acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of Americans find immoral. Let’s quit pretending this is an argument about something else. And using government force to impose moral judgments is inherently un-libertarian. It is not so cut and dried.
Here is the basic problem for generic marriage: if the gender of the partners in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number? Is 3 ok? 5? A couple of these, a few of those? And what is magic about 18 years of age, or 17, or 16 or younger? Brothers, cousins, moms, daughters, moms and daughters – if we can’t leave the line where it has been drawn for millennia, then why is it ok to draw a new one?
Reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the boundaries of marriage without being haters. But it is no less libertarian to support a traditional definition of marriage than it is to draw the line anywhere else along the spectrum of possible unions. It is certainly not an issue to tear a movement apart that is finally gaining some mainstream traction.
So let’s not tear ourselves asunder over this one, libertarians. And go easy on my man Ron Paul – he was liberty’s only friend for a long, long time.
“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.
