One of the many ways to spark a bickering row between conservatives and libertarians is to bring up the subject of Gay Rights. More particularly the idea of Gay Union or ‘Gay Marriage’ ( a term which, for reasons I shall explain below, is an oxymoron).
The proposition that same-sex unions be publicly recognised as legal and binding raises all sorts of hackles for all sorts of reasons. At the risk of generalisation, most conservatives (and a surprising number of socialists) regard such a move as potentially damaging to the accepted social convention of the nuclear family.
This line of argument is not entirely without merit, for customs and conventions often exist for good reason. Unfortunately, they very often become codified under state law thereby attracting the antipathy of libertarians who go on to chuck the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem lies is approaching the subject from an ‘all or nothing’ viewpoint which invariably boils down to one party or another badgering politicians to extend a government seal of approval to a particular version of marriage as a form of official validation.
State benedictions (with complimentary tax classification) are not required and I suggest that clarity can be brought to the debate not by warping and extending existing definitions to breaking point but by recognising and dealing with differences.
Marriage is a heterosexual institution arising from the need of a woman to secure a reliable provider for her babies and the need of a man for a trustworthy vehicle for the onward transmission of his genes. I realise that men and women get married for other reasons too but that does not alter or diminish the basic driver behind the custom.
When I hear of Gay Rights groups demanding the right for same-sex couples to marry my response is not one of discomfort but one of puzzlement. Why? Why do gay men or lesbian women feel the need to dress up as heterosexuals when, in all other respects, they have made it abundantly clear to the world that they are not? I am equally at a loss to comprehend the need for ‘Vegetarian Sausages’ that I keep seeing on supermarket shelves. Why do vegetarians, having eschewed carnivorous ways, feel the need to chop, shape and otherwise manipulate vegetable matter into a simulacrum of meat? It is as if they feel an obligation to pay symbolic deference to a diet they have actively rejected so as to avoid being regarded as too weird. Surely better to simply eat the vegetables and robustly proclaim their vegetarian lifestyle?
If I were a gay man I would not wish to bother with such obtuse apologies. I would revel in my difference; I would glory in my liberation from the old biological and genetic drivers that impel heterosexuals towards onerous commitment, ghastly in-laws and ruinous school fees. In other words, I would neither want nor need ‘marriage’.
But, that is not to say that I would not want an exclusive, monogamous relationship as many homosexual people do. For sure, one does not need a contract in order to enjoin a sexual relationship nor does one need a document under seal to acquire public recognition as a couple but, when dealing with the prosaic, nitty-gritty of such matters as jointly purchasing property, inheritance and pension provisions then legally binding documents and enforceable laws become are not merely desirable but highly advisable.
Further, in entering into such legally-binding commitments, it is altogether reasonable to constitute a form of ceremony wherein such provisions are executed. In time, there will evolve a widely-accepted term for such same-sex arrangements but, whatever term is chosen, it will not, nor can it ever be, ‘marriage’.
It is widely believed that extending the term ‘marriage’ to same-sex unions will serve to accord them respect and universal recognition. This is a mistake. Such unions will be both respected and recognised by people like me who are only too happy to do so and spurned by those who will regard them as some sort of abomination. Those latter people are unlikely to have their minds changed by cloaking the arrangement with a polite fiction.
A vegetable remains a vegetable notwithstanding its description as a sausage and fools no-one. Rather than strain credulity or twist definitions, surely it is better to insist that this world is big enough for both vegetables and sausages.
Lay out the banquet, glory in the choices available and let all come to the feast.
Your suggestion lead in an interesting direction. Gay organizations could generate their own 100% State-Free binding contract of union; set up a registry for them; design ceremonies which could be carried out either in Civil circumstances or in a participating Church.
Set up terms for breaking the contact that require binding arbitration on both parties.
I hope some of our Gay and Lesbian libertarians are reading. They could strike a unique blow for liberty for everyone.
The question needs to be turned around. It is not an issue of the State not recognizing Gay unions; it is the issue of why the State is involved in HETEROSEXUAL unions.
I am curious as to what you mean by “same sex unions”. I agree with your case for marriage as it is normally defined. Essentially, I believe that marriage protects kids (as well as benefitting men and women), ensuring them the stability of background that marriage brings them. This makes them far more likely to succeed in school and avoid a criminal life. Such a protective institution therefore requires the protection of the state.
But equally, the libertarian side of me sees any other recognised union as superfluous. While two individuals can of course enter into any private contracts that they choose, I don’t see why the state should be involved in recognising any of them, when its only legitimate interest is in doing its bit to preserve the institution that will best raise the next generation.
That’s what amuses me about people who argue something like “These two men love each other, so what business is it of the state?”. They don’t realise that what they are advocating is not that the state keeps its nose out, but that it leaves its natural terrain of defending the relationship that raises children, and enters the quagmire of determining which relationship deserve to be called a “marriage”. Such people soon feel forced to admit that if the state sanctions gay weddings, and the sex of the partners does not matter, then neither should the number. Legalise polygamy, then!, they cry. But what about two 60 year aunts who happen to share a flat? They love each other, if not sexually. Why not give marriage to them? And what about a brother and sister? Far from limiting the power of the state, they advocate extending it to endorsement of all sorts of weird and not-so-wonderful “relationships”.
There are marriage laws in all cases, even if they state only that the people involved must be 16+ and both human beings. The idea that state involvement can be eliminated entirely isn’t implementable. All you can do is ensure the state leaves private relationships alone, giving official sanction only to the one in which it has an interest: that which raises the next generation. That’s the truly liberal view, and it is very far from the politically correct extremism of the gay lobby.
You are mistaken. The libertarian view is to completely remove the State from what is a purely Religious issue. Marriage is a church matter, not one for State bureaucrats.
Catholics register their union in their Parish; perhaps gays will define something similar. In neither case is the nose of the nanny State desirable or needed.
Gay-marriage is officially recognized in Germany. This is not about an official stamp of approval, it`s about the privileges of marriage as opposed to “inofficial” relationships: If they have adopted children custody rights will be negotiated just like with heterosexual partners; if one partner dies, the other won`t be at an disadvantage toward the deceased`s family (that was a major problem for Alan Turing when his boyfriend died, because he had no right to the house they shared). Married gays are also able to get the same tax-breaks that married heterosexuals enjoy.
My suggestion is to put every one on an even footing. Remove State sponsorship of a religious matter and simply make these things matters of contract dealt with by Church or Arbiter.
Without the state taking sides, “marriage” is what anyone says it is, period. I don’t think you’d be able to lock it down to your own idea of “proper marriage”. Without the state, you would find “marriages” consisting of five-in-a-bed, or two women, or a guy and his dog… There is no valid definition of marriage except “a commitment to maintain a stable intimate relationship” that would survive the removal of coercion from the piture. You can’t even define it by religion; atheists marry, and will continue doing so. People simply love the ceremony and what it represents.
Absolutely. Marriage or Union is whatever your particular religion (or non-religion) defines it to be. It is not a State matter, and that is the libertarian position.
There are only two organizational entities which need to be involved: a religious one and a civil one. (Civil does not mean government.)
A union is a religious sacrement for those who are religious. For them the union is defined by their Church. I don’t know of any of my Catholic friends who consider themselves bound together by the State. Render unto Caeser and all that. They are joined by God, not Tony Blair.
For those who are not religious (as well as those who consider it a matter between themselves and their Diety(s)), there is the Civil contract. You don’t need many special laws having to do with Marriage; we just throw the lot of it under Contract Law.
Here you would certainly have one area in which Civil and Religious conflict; Contracts have exit clauses (Divorce) where some religions prefer there not be.
All we need from the state is a law that says anyone who has entered into such a contract will be treated as “Married” with respect to all Civil laws; and that courts will enforce the terms of the Contracts as they would any other Civil Contract.
There is nothing on the State side we as libertarians really want to keep around as special privileges in the long term.
Tax breaks. We want to eliminate all taxes (Anarchist) or all but Excise (Minarchist).
Adoption: Seems like this is a Civil Contractual matter between an Orphanage and a potential Adoptor. No room for State interference here that I see.
Dale,
while I agree that this should be no affair of the state, gay-marriage is progress when considered in the context of the current, over-regulated situation.
How can we weaken the State if we continue to place it’s Authority and Recognition above all else? The last century has seen the politicization of more and more of what used to be private.
Our goal is to reverse the trend and remove ever larger swaths from the Public/State arena and return them to the Civil/Private one.
You don’t kill the beast by feeding it.
Dale, I’m not mistaken. I just take a different view. Your libertarian ideas extend to a thankfully unworkable proposal that is essentially the total abolition of marriage – to turn it into a private contract the very definition of which can differ massively from couple to couple, of no meaning beyond what the people entering put into it. No one would be legally committed any more to sharing their property, protecting the kids that result or to any of the trappings and risks that make marriage work.
Thousands of generations have worked on the principle of children being raised within marriage, which has always been recognised in some form or another by society as a whole. There is no doubt that marriage benefits children and society in general, ensuring that kids earn better grades in school, higher incomes in work and are less likely to be involved crime. The last point is particularly significant, as illegitimacy at birth has a greater link to criminality than race, culture, IQ or any other measure you can name.
What you suggest isn’t actually particularly libertarian, at least not in the sense that Charles Murray or David Carr, who made the first post, would recognise it. It’s more like Marxist social engineering. It would do tremendous damage to children and women in particular, and help no one.
I don’t understand this idea that marriage is a religious matter. Just about all culture and ancient traditions have religious origins, but marriage is about more than religious customs. It is the basis of civilisation and the institution into which the great majority of couples enter, religious or not, and into which all children ought to be born, religious or not.
Calling it Marxist social engineering is just plain silly. Marxists wish to control. Marxism means the State defines the One True Ceremony which all must obey else be dispatched to the Gulag.
Libertarians do not wish to control anyone else’s life. If the house next door to me is a practicing old time Mormon, Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim Harem or New Age Group Marriage, it is equally NONE of my business whatever.
It is certainly not my place to request the State to apply violence in my name to break up their family structure, whatever it may be, simply because it does not meet the preconceptions I was brought up with and prefer.
I am quite certain you will find David in substantial agreement with me. I’m quite sure he could expand nicely upon the Contractual issues as well… since he is, in daylight a member of the legal profession. I’d also love to see Alice weigh in as I’m sure she would have some interesting comments on the issue of children.
I think this will be my last reply for now – it is getting to be so late it’s early. So cheers and good night sir 🙂
Yes, I am in substantial agreement with Dale.
The point is, not to squeeze everyone into one model but allow a free market in models.
My prediction, though, is that a very large number of people will still choose marriage. I say that because, despite marriage not being compulsory and despite the fact that there is no particularly pointed social pressure to get married, loads and loads of people still do get married and loads more aspire to (just browse through any Lonely Hearts column).
So marriage seems to be a market leader any way and probably for very good reasons.
To hell with conservatives and their enslaving people to “the good of society” or “the children”. Marriage is a custom; it should not be a law. Culture, tradition, “society” matter not a split damn compared to the immovable moral fact that *you do not have the right to initiate force* – and a ban on any private definition of “marriage” is an intitation of force. Period. Case closed.
It’s good to see a good discussion of social customs and how a libertarian model of civil custom could develop. But it does involve the problem of how to go from here to there.
Is Ralf Goergens correct in viewing an extension of state recognition (not civil liberties as it is erroneously called) to same-sex marriage progress or are there other routes: getting recognition for marital and relationship contracts through the ECHR, if possible.
What are the possibilities here?
David,
At least in America it’s a lot harder to get insurance coverage for your partner from your employer or to make sure your partner inherits your estate if you kick off (esp. intestate) if you’re not married to said partner. Not sure how these problems work in Britain. Obviously medical insurance is not an issue (unless you would, you know, actually like to have medical treatment when you need it, and so go private). Thus the gay marriage lobby addresses some very practical concerns.
As for vegetarian sausage: I am by no means a vegetarian but I avoid British beef, not wanting to get brain rot, and I’m a little leery of pork too. Vegetarian sausage provides a nice placebo. I like it. I suspect the market niche is for people like me rather than ideological vegetarians.
The someone talked about gay and lesbian groups forming their own, civil contracts and ceremonies to carry out unions. The problem with this is that I’m not a member of any such groups, and have no wish to be associated with them. The only such organization to which I am a member is the State, and it only makes sense that the state be the body to recognize my marriage, as does any other.
Sure, it would be nice if we could *ahem* divorce Marriage from the State, but it’s an all or nothing proposition. Either it recognizes gay unions just the same as hetrosexual ones, or it stops recognizing Unions all together. The stronger libertarians would like to prevent the former, because they think it will ensure the latter. Except all it will really do is leave gay unions where they’ve always been – out inthe cold, while everyone else stays and dines at the State sponsored party.
counterpoint
OK, this is going to sound incredibly un-libertarian, but…
Marriage is both a contractual and a spiritual agreement. As of right now, two people of the same sex can make the spiritual commitment to each other as they choose. The government does not interfere with religion (for the most part, let’s not argue this point right now).
The contractual portion is necessarily involved with the state, since it is a legal document. The world accepts the legal marriage as a set package of contracts, embedded in the laws and practices of many things for a long time. Think of this example: when you’re unconcscious and dying, and an important family decision needs to be made (like organ donation), they turn to your kin. Your spouse has first priority. If your partner is same-sex, but not legally married, but have a substitute package of legal documents and contracts bestowing all sorts of privileges to that person… well frankly the time isn’t there to call in the hospital’s legal team to examine the contracts. Either you’re married or not, and you move on.
This happens, not just on ER, but in real life.
Without extending same-sex partnerships the legal standards of practice allowed to heterosexual couples, frankly they won’t qualify 99% of the time for spousal benefits like health insurance from their private companies. They can’t afford to just grant benefits to any person you say so, without the binding commitment of marriage. They can’t afford to hire a legal team to examine your documents and contracts. Either you’re married or you’re not.
Even minimalist governments can provide common externalities and standards. Legal recognition of marriage, as a standard, should be applied with equal opportunity.
My $0.03 (this time you got 50% more!)
I think Jim (of two comments back) is exactly right; the gay marriage lobby is addressing some very practical concerns. Unfortunately, they are addressing them by asking the government to force others to pay for the solution.
While I am sure there are those who are looking for social approval, my belief is that gay marriage as a political movement is (largely) about getting the government to force wealth transfers. The goal is to get welfare, social security benefits, etc. from government and insurance coverage, pension benefits, etc. from employers.
Many libertarian ideals would be wonderful taken together but disastrous taken separately. For example, I would be all for free immigration, IF the state did not force me to support immigrants with education, welfare, etc. My otherwise very clear feelings about legalizing drugs are tainted by the realization that those who did use drugs to destroy their health and productivity (as some surely would) would have me to pay their medical costs and support, thanks to the government. And, in the same way, while I am all for private contracts, including “gay marriage”, what is commonly meant by marriage in this context is access to the (state-guaranteed) benefits associated with it.
Peter, kids of married parents do well because their parents are decent, not because they’re married. While illegitimacy may be an indicator, or whatever, of criminality, this is simply because ‘bad’ parents are less likely to marry. And marriage, like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. There’s the French paradox, too, that it either forces two people to stay together or else is a superfluous thing to two people who want to stay together.
Marriage is a private contract in that it is between two people (in the eyes of God, if you want). The tax concessions and the rest are frippery, which the state can change at will.
Dale’s suggestion of privately-produced marriages is a good one, and something that had never crossed my mind while thinking “Why can’t I get married? Why the hell should I want to anyway?” But I don’t have a boyf right now, so this is a bit academic.
As for this gay lobby, where do I meet them? They’re too busy getting hijacked into supporting the antiwar people to do any harm, and the government is very cagy even of gay equality, so gay people will never, I hope, get special gay rights.
David, did it cross your mind to call your piece ‘Fruits can never be vegetables’?
Ian – what would special gay rights be? Being allowed to drive 20 miles over the speed limit? Not having to pay taxes? Being allowed to own sharks and lions as pets? I don’t know you think gays want, but it’s nothing more the equal treatment under the law.
Ian,
Well, no because that doesn’t quite capture the essence of the point I wanted to get across.
Besides, I have a rule: you can only be rude in the context of comedy. Since it was an attempt at seriousness, serious terms are required.
By the by, I also wanted to avoid reference to the generic (and often pejorative) word ‘lobby’. By ‘Gay Rights groups’ I meant organisations such as Stonewall etc
Sean, I was thinking of things like hate-crime legislation, where people automatically get different sentences according to the state’s categorisation of the victim. In case I wasn’t clear, I believe in gay equality, not rights that apply to gay people but not to straight people (or the other way round). Same with race, sex and the rest. I think I know what gay people want. It often differs from what gay organisations want. Similarly, it would be racist to expect every non-white person to agree with the Commission for Racial Equality or whatever.
David, you’re right. I was being flippant, but it wasn’t obvious in print from someone you don’t know. I’d have laughed out loud if you’d written it, but then a lot of people would have taken offence. Peter used the word ‘lobby,’ and I’m glad you didn’t. We’re incredibly disorganised, and most be-nice-to-gay-people days are the product of PC local authorities and other busybodies rather than gay organisations. The fact that the law discriminates against gay people in immigration, marriage, sex offences and so on means that most campaigning energy aims at equality rather than favouritism.
Hope this clears things up.
Your deliniation of the requirement for marriage does not exclude the viability of polygamy, David. And that is an institution upon which the politicos cast a far mor jandiced eye than gay unions. However, truth to libertarian first principles requires that they be considered in the same light. The government has no place dictating the nature of domestic living arraingements, no matter their form.
Themic has it exactly right – there are two components to marriage, and the state has a role to play in one of them.
Two lesbian friends of mine got married this summer – they had a minister, they had most of the trappings of a wedding ceremony. The only thing missing was the legal paper which a hetero couple would send in to the county registrar. They consider themselves married, as do their friends.
However, aside from the purely economic benefits (health insurance, mainly, though in California, some employers/plans allow “domestic partners” to insure with the group), there are other legal benefits which are either more difficult, or impossible, to obtain without the state sanction of marriage. The state’s marriage package deal isn’t ideal for quite a few people, but it should be available to everyone who is free to make contracts. Gay marriage won’t require gay couples to marry, but it will allow them to avail themselves of the legal benefits of marriage.
Dale, I’m not mistaken. I just take a different view. Your libertarian ideas extend to a thankfully unworkable proposal that is essentially the total abolition of marriage – to turn it into a private contract the very definition of which can differ massively from couple to couple, of no meaning beyond what the people entering put into it.
Oh no! What would we do without the blessings of the suits? How can marriage be marriage unless an overpaid worker gives me a receipt?
Your conservative viewpoint is simply wrong. Customs, traditions, values, and yes, morals, are not a product of the state. They are an product of civil society. They require free interactions between individuals, not enforcement at the point of a gun.
No one would be legally committed any more to sharing their property, protecting the kids that result or to any of the trappings and risks that make marriage work.
Please. People protect kids because they want to, not because they might go to jail if they don’t.
Thousands of generations have worked on the principle of children being raised within marriage, which has always been recognised in some form or another by society as a whole.
Another deeply flawed view held mostly by socialists – that “society” = state. Completely and utterly wrong.
There is no doubt that marriage benefits children and society in general, ensuring that kids earn better grades in school, higher incomes in work and are less likely to be involved crime. The last point is particularly significant, as illegitimacy at birth has a greater link to criminality than race, culture, IQ or any other measure you can name.
Illegitmacy is in fact, subsidized by the state, not eradicated by it.
What you suggest isn’t actually particularly libertarian, at least not in the sense that Charles Murray or David Carr, who made the first post, would recognise it. It’s more like Marxist social engineering. It would do tremendous damage to children and women in particular, and help no one.
I don’t mean to be insulting, but you sir, are a slave to the state. A follower. A child needing to hold the hand of the state-parent.
Individuals, without force to compel them, create a vibrant civil society that serves those individuals and serves their ends. Civil society is the wellspring of our culture, our traditions, our hopes and dreams, our mores, and our lore.
Truth hurts, “blabla”. Suprisingly accurate handle you gave yourself by the way…
James O’: I do not understand your point.
Certainly there is no legitimate role for the state in marriage, which is a private contract between two people, other than it can provide law courts to deal with any litigation regading failure to live up to any parts of an agreement much like any other contract.
James O’
Brilliant response! Well reasoned and succintly placed!
Here’s what I think on the issue:
a)sex requires a male and a female.
b)marriage requires an actual male and an actual female and it is primarily for procreating.
If you are hung up on the exclusatory nature of human language, or think I need to “free my mind” you should realize, for humans, the more encompassing the decision the more literal we have to become, if we are being sued in a court of law we must become EXTREMELY literal and same for deciding rights. Not everyone gets to particpate in every government program, not everyone gets certain tax breaks, the government has to be exclusive sometimes, law MUST be exclusive.
Says James O: “sex requires a male and a female.”
Heh, strikes me you haven’t been exploring all the informational options afforded you by your access to the internet…
Truly, with modern science (stem cell research) it may not be so long before a *pregancy* does not even require a male and a female. Welcome to the 21st century.
I never thought much about the concept of marriage until I got married. Then I experienced the tax hit and wished that my husband and I had formed an LLC or incorporated instead. When I first started hearing about same-sex marriages, it surprised me that this was an issue, as it had never occurred to me that there was anything the State could do to prevent it, even if it wanted to, and why would it? It was obvious to me that disallowing same-sex marriages was illegal discrimination, similar to miscegnation laws. I thought opposition could only come from “God Hates Fags” type xtian fundies and other killjoys. Stupid, stupid me.
A whole lot of commenters here have made much of the fact that marriage in its current form is a very, very old custom. They mostly don’t seem to think that this argument requires any support. This is basically an appeal to authority, a type of logical fallacy, with the “authority” being a bunch of old dead people. I’m not impressed. A bunch of old dead people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe for a long, long time. A bunch of old dead people thought that the right to rule was conferred on kings by God(s) for a long, long time. They were wrong. People are often wrong, about many things, which is just one of the many very good reasons why nobody should be forced to conform to another’s point of view.
“The problem lies is approaching the subject from an ‘all or nothing’ viewpoint which invariably boils down to one party or another badgering politicians to extend a government seal of approval to a particular version of marriage as a form of official validation.”
Hey, my libertarian side won’t badger politicians to extend anything, quite the contrary. We’d all be better off if government took no notice of marriage whatsoever, and I reject the notion that this constitutes throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Are we to imagine that marriage needs government? Are we to imagine that in the absence of state recognition people won’t marry? What would be the harm of completely dropping state recognition of marriage?
To the extent that marriage is a contract, the parties should make it just that: a contract. They should contract for whatever they choose and make explicit the contractual terms which will satisfy them. As a contract this should be no different for any other contract. State marriage is a one-size-fits-all faux contract, which makes every divorce a legal adventure.
Assla_O_Allilum
how are you.
i want shadi in uk with muslim girl