Here Comes the Groom’s Boyfriend…..
Here’s an interesting way in which recognizing the right of gay people to marry has advanced the rights of straight people. In Canada, now that gay people can marry, a gay affair is grounds for a straight divorce. Who would have thought that it was not sufficient before now?
State approval of any marriage isn’t a right, it’s an obligation on the rest of us. I have no idea why you, a “libertarian,” are celebrating more intervention of the state into private affairs, or why so many gay people believe the only legitimate approval of their unions is derived from the government. Congratulations on displaying no understanding of anything. You’ve done a real good job today.
Mr. Gunn has shown rather little understanding of the institution of marriage. It creates a legal relationship between two people that primarily obligates them to each other. It governs common property, obligations to care for one another, rights of access in case of injury, rights to care for and make decisions regarding children, and much more. Most of the legal incidents of marriage concern obligations of the parties (for children, debts, and much more), not “rights” against other people that create obligations for them. It is not primarily a state intervention into private affairs, unless Mr. Gunn considers all contracts a form of state intervention into private affairs. I’m afraid that Mr. Gunn’s understanding of legal institutions, including that of marriage, is remarkably deficient.
I have a question: if Christians were allowed to create legal relationships with each other, but Jews were not, would Mr. Gunn be upset by a change in the laws that allowed Jews to create legal relationships with each other, as well?
Freedom of association is a right, it is self-evident. Common property, obligations to care, accessability in time of injury, and power of attorney over children are all contractual agreements that I can enter into with another person outside the bounds of marriage. If this is all marriage means to you then I think it’s obvious that I can “marry” just about anyone these days, right here in the U.S.
State recognition of marriage means that you are locked into the State’s version of the contract, with terms decided by the State, and should the contract end you are subject to the State’s version of dispute resolution and remedies. Any contract with those conditions is indeed a gigantic intrusion into private affairs.
And the obligation created upon me by others when entering into a State recognized marriage are quite real, since I am obligated by the State to finance the judges that sit on divorce courts.
It’s interesting that Mr. Palmer asks me what would happen should Jews not be able to enter into legal relationships with eachother, since Jewish culture has historically been one of the strongest business cultures in the world. One of the reasons for this, I surmise, is because many Jewish businessmen understand the power of reputation and private contract independent of legal boundaries (see the diamond market, for instance). I suspect that if Jews were not allowed to create legal relationships with eachother that they would create illegal relationships with eachother, which would probably be far more efficient and strong than the legal relationships, since there is no state enforcement and they therefore must be based on trust alone.
And as far as your question was trying to trick me into either admitting your point or being labelled a racist, I would rather the State get out of people’s relationships all together: whether straight or gay, Jew or Christian.
For many people, marriage is the public recognition of their relationship and an expression to the world of their love for each other. It is unlikely that a private contractual arrangement would fulfil the requirement of public acceptance and public display that marriage represents.
Has Aaron dodged the question? It was once the case in the U.S. (or at least some parts) that blacks and whites could not intermarry. When people insisted on the equal recognition for their ‘mixed marriages’, would Aaron have said that he was against it? Should they have been satisfied with being told that they were 2nd class citizens and they should be satisfied with ‘illegal relationships’ and with not having their rights over children recognized? I do not know the laws in the U.S., but in most other countries married people can create relationships that unmarried people cannot create. The case of children is themost urgent, but also there are cases of property relations and inheritance, for example.
“It is unlikely that a private contractual arrangement would fulfil the requirement of public acceptance and public display that marriage represents.”
But State acceptance of it will? What an awful thing to posit on a “libertarian” website.
There are three areas of marriage that are important here: the spiritual, the contractual, and the legal recognition of a taxable entity.
I will never recognize that, spiritually, gay people can be married. It is my right to do this and should only be important to you if you wish to argue my theology or if you wish to join my church.
As far as contracts are concerned, I begrudge no man the right to contract for any purpose that does not violate the natural rights of others. I have already elaborated on this. If the state is blocking or restricting the limits of contractual relationship, I encourage it always and everywhere to stop, and NOT to get more involved.
As far as taxation is concerned, IT IS A TAX! Get rid of it! The “libertarian” should be against it!
I don’t see why this is so difficult for people to keep the issues discrete.
Anyone can comment and it doesn’t mean that the host agrees, right? But I don’t care if Aaron can accept gay people or their love or not. His narrow mind is his own problem.
So now set aside his narrow mindedness and bigotry, he says that all should be able to contract as they want to. But without marriage rights they cannot contrct for care of children or for obligations to one another. Aaron says that he encourages the state to stop obstructing contracts. Does he in fact do that? Is he in favor of allowing gay people to raise their children or to adopt children who need parents? It sounds like he is not.
I repeat my question earlier. If Aaron were writing when interrmarriage among races was illegal, would he oppose changing the laws to allow black and white people to marry? It is a reasonable question. If he does not answer, I can make a good guess about the answer he is afraid to give.
Yeah, laws shouldn’t be changed to allow interracial marriage, marriage laws should be abolished altogether just as fairtax shouldn’t replace income tax. Aaron’s last post is very correct, let churches or whathever voluntary institutions bless their marriage.
“…would he oppose changing the laws…”
I oppose the law itself. I do not want it changed, I want it gone. Do you understand? Tell me you understand or I shall be exasperated with your stupidity. Your attempt force me to make a false choice will not work. Stop doing it.
And as far as my bigotry is concerned, consider this: I only seek to deprive the gay community of my moral countenance, which they never had and never will. I assume it is of little value to most gays. You, on the other hand, wish to subject them to the intrusions and predations of that vicious leviathan called the Federal Gov’t. Have you witnessed the awful horrors of divorce court, the heinous renderings of child custody cases? And you want to “bless” gays with all these things? Any man that wishes these things on me is no friend of mine. Consider that.
Mr. Aaron G. is evidently very upset by something. It’s not clear what. Since allowing people of the same sexual gender to enter a marriage relationship expands, rather than contracts, their options, it’s not clear how anyone who supports their right to marry wants to “subject them to the intrusions and predations of that vicious leviathan called the Federal Gov’t.” (By the way, almost no marriage law in the U.S. is federal law; with the exception of the restriction, apparently approved by Mr. G., of marriage to mixed gender couples under DOMA, state law governs marriages in the U.S. At present, for gay couples being married would, at worse, subject them to the “vicious leviathan” called Massachusetts.)
If such subjection were a necessary consequence of marriage and if they were to wish to avoid that, they could do so by not marrying. So adding an option doesn’t seem to diminish their liberty. How does it diminish the liberty of Mr. G? That’s not quite clear, except in the same ways that allowing Jews and Christians to intermarry diminishes his liberty. (It’s quite a tenuous connection, in any case; presumably Mr. G. has in mind such things as effects on tax burdens, but then, quite a few freely entered legal relations affect tax burdens, and it would be strange to want to forbid all of them on such grounds.)
Mr. Straight’s question seems entirely fair, especially since family law is not merely some kind of imposition by the state, but also a set of evolved principles that have emerged over a fairly long period of time to govern property, legal obligations, and care of children. Mr. G. is upset by “the heinous renderings of child custody cases,” which he seems to think are entirely a product of state legislation, which he does not want to change, but opposes per se. Does he seriously think that in a world without states people wouldn’t form lasting relationships that intertwine their interests; or that, having formed lasting relationships, they would not have children; or that, having had children, none of them would divorce, often in very hostile ways; or that, having divorced, none of them would engage in ugly battles over custody of their children? Family law is a means of resolving such disputes. It is an unavoidable feature of social life. The state did not create it nor will it go away if the state is abolished. Why not allow gay people to choose to be governed by it if they wish? Many already have children; what happens to the children if they split up? Why shouldn’t those children be able to say that they live in a family, and not merely “say” it, but enjoy the legal protection that family law affords and that is unavailable without the benefit of marriage?
I agree that giving gays the option to choose to marry does not decrease their liberty, rather it increases it. I agree with Aaron that divorce and child cstody law can be unpleasant, but they are not avoidable.
Aaron also seems very angry and it seems that he is angry at gays. He still did not answer my question – if when blacks and whites could not marry he would have opposed allowing them the same rights had by the people of the same color to marry each other. If Mr. White and Miss White can marry, why not Mr. Black and Miss White? Why oppose allowing that choice? And if that, why not Mr. A and Mr. B or Miss C and Miss D? How does that reduce my rights?
SbnNL,
I answered your question, you just did not like the answer because it doesn’t allow you to state that I’m either wrong in my argument or a racist. Also, you can stop your little insinuations that I’m mad at gays, it’s sad, and unworthy of an intelligent argument. If I’m angry, it’s at people who think that they are oh-so clever with their little question traps. Sexual orientation is irrelevant, as I’ve stated already more than once it is theological in nature and does not affect my argumentation as it applies to concepts of freedom of association, which is the main argument here.
Tom,
I apologize for confusing the federal and state governments. Still, the horrors of divorce courts and child custody laws are real, and marriage laws encourage this. This is because people are told: “You don’t need to create an intelligent marriage contract, the government has created one with its terms for you. Also, if you go ahead and create your own marriage contract, we may not agree with it and will apply our own rules.” This has the effect of discouraging people from considering the legal ramifications of their marriage, or what sort of actions should be grounds for dissolving the contract and what penalties are applicable.
Your original post is an excellent example. The Canadian government did not increase freedom to contract for marriage, it simply changed the terms it will enforce. What if I wanted a marriage contract that specifically excluded homosexual relationships as grounds for divorce? As absurd as it sounds, it should be my preference, but it’s not. Therefore, I am not any more free than I was before, I’m just in a different contract that I may or may not like better.
You talk about marriage as being a set of evolved principles. This is fine, let people put those principles into private contracts so that there is less confusion about what marriage means to them. Do not thrust them upon me, when I might wish to govern my marriage and children in a different manner. Let the contracts be referenced to any court jurisdictions the parties please, whether it be New York Law or Shari’a. Let them pay that court for the services, as businesses pay for arbitration. If gays want to be governed by the terrible marriage laws in this country, let them specify that identical terms in their contract. You yourself admit that the state did not create marriage law, so why should it have a monopoly on it?
As far as the legal protections that marriage provides, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Unless by “protection,” you mean obligations on businesses to provide spousal health insurance and other nonsense that should be once again left up to private contracts.
And finally, Tom, you’ve got me completely mixed up. I don’t want to forbid legal relationships, I just don’t want to be obligated to pay for the courts to arbitrate them. Let them pay for their own courts.
I think that’s it, let me know if I missed anything.
A state recognition of marriage does provide, for people that choose to wed, a public acceptance of their relationship and acts, also, as a declaration to the public at large of their intentions. A private contract, by contrast, to the public at large is merely a private arrangement between two people which the public can ignore because they are not party to the arrangement.
Whether or not this is considered ‘awful’ by a libertarian, and it should not be necessary for only libertarians to discuss matters on a libertarian site, it does assist in exploring why gay libertarians support gay marriage. For gay persons who may feel marginalised by society, the ability to marry and to have such a declaration recognized and affirmed by their state, representing the people, allows them to consider themselves as equal as their heterosexual counterparts.
This may be because when two people choose to marry it is unlikely that they consider it as involving themselves in a contractual relationship – rather they are declaring their intention to remain together and declaring their intention to all those around them. Such a decision would based more upon love and mutual desire and dependance than a rational consideration pertaining to apportionment of activities and future division of assets upon breach. When the state recognizes the marriage, it recognizes the decision and also the reasons behind it – which would include the acceptance of love between gay persons as normal and proper.
Litigation based upon any contracts drafted to the highest quality can take years to resolve. Difficulties with marriage break up tend not to be with the quality of the marriage ‘contract’ but the understandably irrational and emotional behaviour of the parties, or persons, involved with each other. Where two persons come to the end of their marriage without animus or spite, an ordered separation and divorce will often be without difficulty.
The issue as to tax and obligations is another discussion as to whether the state ought to be involved in marriage, but where there is state patronage, such patronage ought to be available by reference to criteria that do not amount to measures equivalent to a qualitative restriction.
I think it is a sad state of affairs (yes, puns abound) when gays, libertarians, leftists and other assorted freethinkers embrace bourgeois morality with this “gay marriage” fad. What happened to “smash monogamy,” “smash the state,” and the sexual revolution?
I am very suspicious about where this is all going. When the marriage goes south the state uses child support collection to excuse every imaginable intrusion including the use of social security numbers as the national ID and the creation of private (or rather not so private) data bases. As for the conditions of the license, will the state reestablish blood tests? CDC surveys at the JP’s office? An excuse to record HIV status? A public registry of who’s gay? Between public records and Zabasearch, Fred Phelps should be on my door step within the hour.
The establishment acceptance of domestic partnership and the like is very suspect. Robert Anton Wilson, someone no one would mistake for Hans-Hermann Hoppe, writes about the “parent look.” That ‘parent look’ is when one gets caught up in the tedious long term thinking about college funds, PTA meetings, and weekly lawn mowing. Thanks, but I think I will pass on the joys of domestic life.
“Home ownership,” child rearing, stifling replications of long term heterosexual marriage are incompatible with artistic achievement, the quiet focus needed for serious scholarship, travel, “alternative lifestyles” and general rabble rousing. These hosannas to family life are just another way to keep the fags, freaks and fundies from acting up. Speaking of fundamentalists, one can find remaining pockets of the patriot/militia movement in rural Texas where folks wouldn’t think of marrying in a 501 (c) (3) church. “That’s a guv-munt chuch.” When Hays County is more progressive than Dupont Circle, the revolution is over
In Liberty,
Slightly Paranoid Bisexual
In our perfect little libertarian utopia (as if anyone could agree on what that might be), we certainly might agree on the complete separation of marriage and state as one of the features of this society. And this is indeed the view I once held; I wasn’t interested in arguments for gay marriage because I didn’t think government should be involved in defining or approving marriages at all. And in a perfect world, this would still be my view.
But as we live in a decidedly non-libertarian world, it’s important to take stock of the set of rights and responsibilities that a civil marriage confers on its participants — and to realize that some of these rights and responsibilities *can’t* be contracted for in any form outside of marriage.
Since marriage is the one form of contract that allows for specific sets of rights and responsibilities between two people, it’s fundamentally unjust to withhold that form of contract from a categorical set of willing participants.
If, Aaron G., you think engaging in a homosexual relationship is sinful, that’s your right. And, SPB, if you want to work toward smashing traditional forms of sexual morality, that’s your right too. But the libertarian in both of you should recognize that if someone else wants to take another path in her pursuit of happiness, you should grant her that right as well.
After all, the only thing under consideration is the right to undertake a specific form of interpersonal contract. This shouldn’t be a controversial notion at all.
Oops… I started typing before entering my name and info, then forgot all about it before clicking “Post.” I didn’t intend to claim anonymity.
Mr. Dixon has very clearly expressed my own view.
I’d add one more thing, however. (I don’t know if he would agree, but I suspect he would.) That is that equality before the law is an important element of a law governed and free society. If there is going to be an army, for example, it should not be able to engage in invidious discrimination against the citizenry, by, for example, segregating the soldiers by race or refusing promotions to members of this or that ethnic group. If a legal privilege or relationship is to be open to one group, it must be open on an equal basis to all. It would hardly be a step toward a free society to insist that, say, Catholics not be allowed to be government employees (hey, that would diminish the number of potential rent-seekers!), or that (since the state should not issue marriage “licenses”) inter-racial couples be denied marriage licenses (that would cut down on government paperwork!). Equality before the law is also an important value of a free society. Yes, I can imagine cases in which partial liberation is better than none, but deliberate state discrimination against some class of persons is not compatible with fundamental libertarian values.
“I used to think we should get the state out of our lives, but then I realized that getting rid of the state is hard work. So now I just say if we’re going to be statists that interfere with contract law and raise a socialist military force, we should do it fairly and make sure to apply Title IX anti-discrimination codes and plenty of other beureaucratic nonsense.”
An excellent argument from a “libertarian.” Congratulations, you’ve won me over to your freedom loving cause by advocating state interference with everyone, regardless of race or creed. You’re a true patriot.
Is Aaron just a total jerk or is he actually not too bright? From what I read above, it sounds like he would consider it a step toward “freedom” (other people can use quote marks, too, Aaron) to pass a law denying the right to access to the courts or police protection for, say, Hispanics, on the grounds that he doesn’t want to pay for those courts, so anyone who can be denied access to them is one little victory for “freedom.” (“I don’t want to forbid legal relationships, I just don’t want to be obligated to pay for the courts to arbitrate them. Let them pay for their own courts.”) Great move. That’s very “libertarian.” And really “smart.”
I wasn’t sure about arguments for and against gay marriage for some time, but lately I’ve been leaning towards it, mainly because of the arguments about “second-class citizenship”. I have nothing against gay people at all, but I didn’t see the big point of wanting to join an institution that straights seem to be leaving. But if some of them want to be married, why should I say no? And to say no because that would mean they could go to court is pretty lame. What kind of a “libertarian” would say that the courts or the police should only protect one group and not another, because he doesn’t want to pay for the courts or the police to provide protection for them? How about a law that says that anyone can violate the rights of people named Aaron, because I don’t want to pay for the courts or police to protect all those filthy Aarons? What a “libertarian”I would be then.
A better summation, Aaron, would be something like:
“I think we should get the state out of our lives, and I’ll spend the rest of my life with that as a goal. But since we’re not going to get the state out of our lives in my lifetime or yours — indeed, probably never — I think that, in the meantime, we should try to minimize injustice in ways that are politically possible.”
Hahaha Anita, that’s a nice straw man you’ve set up there, but no dice. See, you are making the mistake of assuming that I want publically funded courts at all. You have accepted the state as fundamental, whereas I do not. I don’t want to deny Mexicans access to the courts, I DON’T WANT STATE-OWNED PUBLICALLY FUNDED COURTS AT ALL.
How many times do I have to hammer this single point?
The libertarian desires freedom from the coercive state. I don’t care about your arguments over how the predations of the state should be carried out, whether fairly or unfairly, you are trying to make two wrongs a right and I don’t care.
And to be direct, freedom from the state means you are taking the risk that justice will only be done part of the time. This is preferable to the libertarian, who believes that the coercive state is always unjust.
Samuel,
I’m not advocating a law that says that people’s natural rights are void. I also don’t want laws to “protect” my rights. If they’re MINE then let ME take care of them. Okay?
Finally, if there is any law barring free association, I recommend that it be ignored and fought and ultimately, disposed of.
Eric,
Minimizing injustice can always and everywhere be accomplished by telling those who would coerce and violate natural rights where to stick it, and by avoiding them as best as possible where resistance is not possible.
A true libertarian who was also an advocate for gay marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. He would encourage homosexuals to set up their family institutions outside the auspices of the state. He would also understand that using the state to advance moral viewpoints is inherently wrong and unbecoming of someone who thinks their cause is just.
Congratulations to Aaron for making an ass of himself. If you face discrimination by the state against Gypsies (by denying them the right of police protection or the right of going to the courts), you should not oppose the discrimination, but just say you oppose the state! No need to call in the police to protect people who are lynched, for example, because you can merely say you oppose the state! That’s real world libertarianism, right?
For some years I have been a libertarian in the tradition of real – or ‘classical’ – liberalism and I cannot understand how wanting equality before the law is not ‘libertarian.’ Aaron is not a libertarian, just an anarchist, and a not very smart one, anyway. Even a smart anarchist would want legal equality and would not complain if the police officer of the state stops, for exampel, a rape, only because he is a police officer of the state. Aaron has been very abusive of other people here, but his own position is merely laughable.
SnbNL is imparting positions to me that I have not made. I have no problem with anyone who stops a rape, and I never said that I did.
And I do oppose discrimination, I am simply not so vicious as you, who would use guns and violence to do it. I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right.
As far as protecting people from being lynched, I’ll bring my own gun and stand with them. I’m not so cowardly as to beg the state to do it for me.
You call me abusive, but at least I don’t have to put words in other’s mouths and resort to obvious logical fallacies to make my points. I have spoken plainly and directly, something you have failed to do.
Finally, equality before the law is a noble, but abstract concept. I encourage it to be explored in competitive private legal/court systems. It is a conversation for another thread.
Well, that’s that, then! A “true libertarian” wouldn’t get married, according to Aaron. So all of the straight libertarians who are married and who went and got marriage licenses and who have to file their taxes jointly just aren’t “true libertarians.” Settles that. Only single people can be libertarians. My fiancee and I should rethink the whole thing, lest some twerp say we’re not “true libertarians.” Can’t have that! Thanks for setting us straight, Aaron. 😉
Wherever did I say that people who get marriage licenses aren’t married, or that only single people can be libertarians?
I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. It’s bad manners.
Read C A R E F U L L Y, Aaron. I didn’t say that you said that “people who get marriage licenses aren’t married”. You didn’t say that — you said that they are not “true libertarians.” In your own words,
“A true libertarian who was also an advocate for gay marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. He would encourage homosexuals to set up their family institutions outside the auspices of the state. He would also understand that using the state to advance moral viewpoints is inherently wrong and unbecoming of someone who thinks their cause is just.”
So a “true libertarian” who was also an advocate for straight marriage would not beg the state for its blessing. Sounds like your logic means that a straight couple where were “true libertarians” would never get a marriage license and would set up family institutions outside the auspices of the state. So if you have a marriage licence, by your logic, you’re not a “true libertarian.” Your argument, not mine.
Sorry. “who were” not “where were”
I think the ultimate point here is that no matter what the Canadian government has done to tweak its unjust dominion over marriage (in this case adultery definitions), it has really done nothing to further to advance the rights of gay or straight people. Anything short of eliminating state marriage licensure does nothing to advance the right (and rite) of marriage. It’s all just a shuffling around of state imposed contractual terms.
This whole thread illustrates (I think AGunn would agree with me here) exactly why the state cannot ever maintain just dominion over marriage. It cannot justly satisfy through licensure all the subjective definitions of marriage. I mean it’s not fair if a man can’t marry another man. Why can’t Fred petition the court to marry his biological brother? If marriage can be any consensual “arrangement” between consenting adults, why can’t two couples get married in a double marriage relationship with two husbands and two wives? And why can’t the state grant me license to this? Why is it that only a man and a woman are a valid marriage? These are questions that cannot suitably be answered by the state. Other issues could be answered suitably by the state like rape, murder, theft; but with marriage NO!
Even the libertarian who takes the minarchist “night watch man” view of the state, marriage is absolutely NOT something considerable for state dominion. I thought this was an easy one all libertarians agreed on from minarchist to anarchocapitalist.
Anita,
You’re right, I didn’t read carefully what you said. Now I will answer you:
Owning a marriage license does not exclude you from being a true libertarian, just as stealing does not exclude someone from being a Christian. Just because you’re not acting particularly libertarian at the time doesn’t mean you are forever banned from the ideology. I’m not a Randian.
Anyway, your “logical” conclusion isn’t very logical, it’s just a crap attempt to paint me into a corner. Knock it off.
Also, twerp? Surely you’ve got some better ad hominem in there.
Words like “Twerp” should be saved for people who eagerly attack other people for not being “true libertarians” without even bothering to consider what they’re saying. And especially for people who refuse to answer questions and then get upset because they’ve been painted into a corner.
And speaking of corners, you never did tell us if you would have opposed allowing interracial marriage, Aaron. Saying “I would rather the State get out of people’s relationships all together (Aaron, shouldn’t that be “altogether”?): whether straight or gay, Jew or Christian” isn’t an answer. Would you would have supported or opposed changing the laws of Virginia to allow interracial marriage? Hmmm…? It’s easy to get out of that corner, you know. Just stand up and walk out.
A true libertarian wouldn’t work towards more state interference in people’s lives, especially a group of people he claims to care about. So yeah, I’m sorry if you don’t like to hear that. Why don’t you call me some more names.
I’ve answered your question numerous times now. I can’t help it if you don’t like the answer. You’re presenting a False Dilemma and I’m not going to go for it. Again, I’m sorry if you don’t like to hear that. Maybe you should hurl some insults at me to make yourself feel better.
“I will never recognize that, spiritually, gay people can be married. It is my right to do this and should only be important to you if you wish to argue my theology or if you wish to join my church.”
That’s what it’s about — A. G. trying to impose his theology on others.
“And as far as your question was trying to trick me into either admitting your point or being labelled a racist”
It’s not a trick, and not admitting the point doesn’t make you a racist, it makes you an anti-gay bigot — duh.
“Wherever did I say that people who get marriage licenses aren’t married, or that only single people can be libertarians?
I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. It’s bad manners.”
It’s called an inference. People who aren’t morons understand that consistent application of logic can yield inferences from what someone does say to something that they don’t say, and that if the inferred statement is absurd, so is the original statement. This is known as reductio ad adsurdum.
A true libertarian wouldn’t work towards more state interference in people’s lives, especially a group of people he claims to care about.
Here’s one, then, that I think Aaron can agree with: had he been in a position to do so, he would have favored keeping interracial marriage illegal, because it would have worked against “more state intererence in people’s lives”.
I take it that is a fair representation of your views?
Gah, sorry, the software stripped my HTML. That first paragraph is Aaron’s, to which I’m responding.
As a Libertarian, I will add my two cents right here. It is neither the function nor province of government to decide what marriage is or is not.
Anyone who would subject marriage to government is no libertarian.
al
[…] own position on gay marriage has actually been on the web for a little more than four years, in the comment section of Tom Palmer’s blog (there are a couple of references to previous comments that don’t fully make sense out of the […]