Government and Marriage Need a Divorce

Posted on March 11, 2013 11:00 am

Since I know everyone was just waiting for me to weigh in, I wrote a somewhat serious piece on gay marriage for PJ Media. I don’t plan on writing many serious articles, but I thought there was an obvious point in this issue that I didn’t see anyone else arguing. Basically, it’s that the status quo on marriage isn’t going to hold, but the path we’re currently on is pretty stupid from a libertarian perspective.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

7 Responses to “Government and Marriage Need a Divorce”

  1. Jimmy says:

    Government and marriage need a divorce?

    Hell, the government and I need a divorce.

  2. seanmahair says:

    So here’s some questions I’ve been wanting to ask. Once they decide that two man or women can be married what stops people from insisting on several partners, or partners of another species or dead partners or whatever other silliness they can come up with? What stops people from deciding that a person 8 years old can be married to someone 62 years old (saw that on the internet the other day, from South Africa)?

    Where is the line then or is there no line? Because we all know that ” A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” (Men in Black 1) In this case there needs to be some kind of control. Churches usually provide that but if the governments in charge we know that will change. This argument is all about making churches allow marriage in their building thus affirming the alternative lifestyle choice. That is bottom line here.

  3. Carpenter says:

    Queer Marriage is a pact with the Devil. PERIOD!!

    It must be opposed at all costs even if that means that the Republicans never win again. To turn a blind eye to this is to spit on Christians and to say you don’t want their votes.

    If the Republican Party, the Libertarians or the so-called Tea Party (that doesn’t really exist) supports Gay Marriage then they are just as doomed as those who pray to thee exalted Obama Almighty for Salvation. Any party on the Right that goes Queer will never win an election. NEVER!!

  4. Mythilt says:

    @seanmahair,
    by changing things to domestic partnership contracts, and removing the government from defining marriage. (Your church doesn’t have to recognize those two men as ‘married’, but it does have to recognize that they have a contract.) you can’t really stop pluralism, but you do stop the other forms. Children, animals, and dead folk can’t enter into contracts, only those who are of sound mind and in their majority can. As for pluralism, considering that it hasn’t been illegal for a man to have a mistress for a long time, the only real reason against it has been for inheritance reasons.

  5. seanmahair says:

    Thanks Mythilt. A concise and intelligent answer to my question. I too think a domestic partnership is the way to go. That way afterward the couple can engage in any religious ceremony they choose by whatever church or group or internet pastor they can get to do so. This seems to be a straw man argument when the actual issue is acceptance of an alternate lifestyle choice. Some people just aren’t fooled byt the histrionics and sound and fury signifying nothing of substance.

  6. tim3048 says:

    I argued that point with Adam Baldwin on Twitter and he told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. Next time I’ll just link that article

  7. Fly says:

    Not only does libertarianism hold that anyone can marry, it simultaneously holds that the government cannot compel anyone (other than the participants) to recognize that marriage. This is a radical proposal. I don’t think you sufficiently stressed the latter part in your article, Frank.

    What is so often danced around is what specific compulsions does the marriage contract impose upon all of society? Private contracts are just between the participants, but the marriage contract is interwoven into a vast array of compulsions in government, including health care, hospitals, employment, insurance, taxes, etc. I’d imagine that some small minority of these compulsions are actually reasonable from a libertarian perspective, such as those related to agents or inheritance or perhaps even visitation rights.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>