Home > Libertarianism, privatize marriage, Same Sex Marriage > The Incoherent Libertarian Position on Marriage

The Incoherent Libertarian Position on Marriage

May 18th, 2011

The Libertarian Party of Minnesota has taken a position on the proposal to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the voters of Minnesota.  I am taking the time to rebut this paragraph because this kind of argument has become all too common, even among those who have every desire and intention to expand the scope of government.  You might think this would give Libertarians pause, but, that is another story.

Here is what the LPMN has to say:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve. Government has no business restricting or interfering with marriage. This ban would create a caste system by dividing society into two classes: those who are permitted to marry, and those who are not.

Let’s start at the beginning:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose.  Actually, affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not affect anyone’s ability to “live as they choose.” It affects people’s qualifications for the rights and responsibilities associated with a social and public institution. Same sex couples can live together, invest and spend money together, probably share parenting, and of course, do anything they want in their bedrooms.

Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. This statement has multiple meanings, and so is nearly meaningless.  Of course, the vast majority of everything every married couple does inside their marriage is completely private and none of anyone’s business.  However, that is not the subject of the debate.  The subject of the debate is what the public or social institution of marriage is and ought to be, and in fact, whether there should even be such a thing as a public or social institution of marriage.

We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, How can you believe that, if you don’t know what marriage is, or why we need it in the first place? The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.  Marriage exists to protect the legitimate interests of children, who cannot protect their own interests. Without this public purpose, we wouldn’t need marriage at all. And that is why marriage is more than a collection of individuals, and why family law is not simply a subset of property and contract law.  Alas, poor libertarians: they don’t know how to think without a contract metaphor.

We believe all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved… What does this statement even mean?  No one is forced to get married.  And if you and your friend agree to call yourselves married, does that impose an obligation on me to agree that your relationship is a marriage?  What if I don’t want to?  The issue at stake in the marriage debate is precisely the issue of what other people are required to recognize about your relationship.

…as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve.  So, according to this statement, if I don’t choose to be involved with your personal relationship, and I choose not to call it a marriage or treat it as a marriage, you would have no problem with that.  I somehow doubt that the partisans of redefining marriage would accept “privatizing marriage” at this level.  What is the libertarian position on this?

Government has no business restricting or interfering with marriage. I actually agree that marriage is a pre-political social institution that government has no right to interfere with.  I would add that the government has no right to change or redefine the core meaning and features of marriage. Mother, father, child, are natural realities that the government should respect, and merely record, not try to create or redefine.  If your idea here is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, I don’t think that is a coherent or even possible position, for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere.

This ban would create a caste system by dividing society into two classes: those who are permitted to marry, and those who are not.  This is frankly an idiotic thing to say.  No one has an absolute right to marry at all, much less the right to marry the person of their choice.  Everyone can marry on exactly the same terms: find a willing partner, of the opposite sex, above the age of consent, who is not already married or have some other impediment to marriage.  Unmarried persons are not a separate caste.  This is overheated rhetoric, designed to limit careful thought, rather than enhance it.

Supporting same sex marriage is not the only possible libertarian position. In fact, I think the proper position for those who want minimum government, is to preserve the natural pre-political definition of marriage, which has the capacity to create social order with minimal interference by and support from the State. But that is a subject for another post.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Sean
    May 18th, 2011 at 15:30 | #1

    “Actually, affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not affect anyone’s ability to “live as they choose.””

    Well, if you are married to a same-sex partner not a citizen of this country, it kind of affects your right to keep your spouse at your side, without fear of deportment, doesn’t it? I think it would affect a couple’s lives if one of them was deported.

    “Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals.”

    Actually, nearly everyone believes marriage is a private matter between individuals. I know of no one who likes the idea of the state deciding whom one may marry.

    “The subject of the debate is what the public or social institution of marriage is and ought to be…”

    Actually the debate is about why one group, straight couples, is allowed to marry, but another group, gay couples, is not. And also why the federal government favors one group of married couples over another.

    “The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.”

    This is incorrect, as demonstrated by the many childless couples who are married. But even if it were true, how does it create an exclusion for gay couples? The purpose of a driver’s license may be to ensure minimal competence in operating an automobile but if someone wants to get a driver’s license for some other purpose, how is the “essential public purpose” in any way compromised?

    “Marriage exists to protect the legitimate interests of children, who cannot protect their own interests.”

    Does this create an exclusionary rule for childless couples? Apparently not. Lots of childless couples get and stay married.

    “No one is forced to get married.”

    Exactly. So if marriage has an essential public purpose, how can it be completely voluntary?

    “The issue at stake in the marriage debate is precisely the issue of what other people are required to recognize about your relationship.”

    Well, why do you care about someone else’s marriage, and why do you think others care if you “recognize” their marriages or not. I just decided not to recognize that you’re married.

    “I would add that the government has no right to change or redefine the core meaning and features of marriage.”

    So where were you when the government eliminated coverture for women, legalized divorce, legalized no-fault divorce, etc.? I think the “government changing and redefining marriage” cat is out of the bag.

    “Everyone can marry on exactly the same terms: find a willing partner, of the opposite sex, above the age of consent, who is not already married or have some other impediment to marriage. Unmarried persons are not a separate caste. This is overheated rhetoric, designed to limit careful thought, rather than enhance it.”

    That presumes marriage itself is the goal, rather than desired status for an existing relationship. What’s the more likely outcome: marrying someone, anyone, in order to be married, or finding someone who feels unique and special, and wanting to solidify that special relationship legally and publicly, through marriage? Is suspect the vast majority of people would say the latter.

    Libertarians tend to prefer less, not more, government. The flurry of legal activity associated with stopping same-sex marriage suggests more, not less, government.

  2. May 18th, 2011 at 15:40 | #2

    In a libertarian context, the position that government has “no business … interfering with marriage” clearly means “the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.” Bracketing whether that would be desirable, the premise that marriage should be privatized combined with the assumption that at least for now government will continue to set criteria for marriage does not entail either position on SSM.

    As to those who do not wish to recognize SSM, pro-SSM libertarians have to accept your right to refuse to recognize SSM as far as your own private actions go (including those private actions that are regulated by antidiscrimination laws, which libertarianism considers unjustified as to private actions), but would say that the state nevertheless ought to recognize SSM.

  3. May 18th, 2011 at 15:46 | #3

    This is the worst part of all: “Everyone can marry on exactly the same terms: find a willing partner, of the opposite sex, above the age of consent, who is not already married or have some other impediment to marriage. Unmarried persons are not a separate caste.”

    Right. And if we amended the Constitution to shut down all synagogues and non-Christian houses of worship, could we say:

    “Everyone can worship on exactly the same terms: find a Christian Church and attend. Non-Christians are not a separate caste.”

  4. Leo
    May 18th, 2011 at 19:56 | #4

    And if we change the definition of “religion” to “any institution or activity” then the first part of the first amendment would mean “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any institution, or prohibiting the free exercise of any activity.” Maybe that is the libertarian ideal.

    Once you play with the definitions, you destroy the meaning, whether we are talking about religion or marriage. The debate is about the definition of marriage, something the founders had little doubt about, just as they had little doubt about what religion meant.

    I might disagree with libertarians, but at least they aren’t into an Orwellian destruction of words.

  5. May 18th, 2011 at 19:57 | #5

    @Sean
    Not all legal marriages are considered “bona fide marriages” for purposes of immigration and naturalization. It’s a separate consideration. The CU’s I’ve been proposing, which would be defined as “marriage minus conception rights” would not qualify as bona fide marriages, because it’s their commitment to create offspring together and their consummation of that potential that compels us to keep spouses together.

    “Actually, nearly everyone believes marriage is a private matter between individuals. I know of no one who likes the idea of the state deciding whom one may marry.”

    Really? Have you ever asked anyone if they think guys should be allowed to marry their sister or mother?

    “The purpose of a driver’s license may be to ensure minimal competence in operating an automobile but if someone wants to get a driver’s license for some other purpose, how is the “essential public purpose” in any way compromised?”

    They would have to be competent at operating a motor vehicle, we don’t give Driver’s Licenses to people who can’t drive, even to use as an ID, we have special ID’s for that. See here:

    For people who do not have a Massachusetts driver’s license, the RMV can issue one of two official identification cards. The Massachusetts ID and Massachusetts Liquor ID look similar to driver’s licenses; however, they do not extend any driving privileges. These two ID cards are official forms of identity, signature, and age that are accepted in the Commonwealth.

    Those are exactly what I have in mind for CU’s – they “do not extend any driving procreation privileges, which should only be given to relationship types that would be ethical to produce offspring together.

    “Lots of childless couples get and stay married.”

    Only if they are allowed to conceive offspring. I don’t know why JRM has a hard time saying this, especially in a post about the incoherent libertarian position. I figured she didn’t say it because she was a libertarian, or didn’t want to offend libertarians, but obviously that’s not the case.

  6. Marty
    May 18th, 2011 at 20:16 | #6

    Alexander has it right — the true Libertarian position is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. As such, libertarians are likely to see SSM for what it is: a step in that very direction.

  7. Leo
    May 18th, 2011 at 21:26 | #7

    Regarding immigration. Sean has made the perfect argument to allow any Muslim immigrating to the U.S. who has multiple wives to bring them all to the U.S. and demand they be treated as wives under U.S. law. He has also made the argument for marriage as purely a vehicle for immigration, since in his view marriage is for whatever people want to use it for.

    Regarding restrictions on whom to marry. Most people approve of the state’s ability to prohibit marriage in cases of multiple partners or incest. Most people in most states also approve of the state’s ability to define marriage as a heterosexual institution.
    Regarding what the debate is about. It is about the definition of marriage. Sean is free to marry in the traditional sense. He just doesn’t want to, so he wants the word redefined. From previous comments on this blog his new definition is whatever two people want it to be.

    Regarding the essential purpose of marriage. We can differ over the purpose of an institution. Sean offers no purpose for marriage. If it has no purpose in his view, why does he want it? My view is that one of the essential public purposes of marriage is to protect the inherently weaker parties in marriage, including but not limited, to their natural offspring . A degendered redefinition of marriage would make it difficult if not impossible for family law to recognize and react to the inherently unequal economic positions of the partners in the heterosexual institution of marriage (spouses have different biological clocks and different potential biological burdens which in turn affects their relative power positions).

    Regarding defimtitions. Sean is free to derecognize someone’s marriage. He can redefine words to his heart’s content. He just can’t demand that we agree with his definitions and expect us to comply.

    Government can redefine legal terms. It should, however, follow the democratic process in doing so. That is the right the citizens of Minnesota deserve. Otherwise, the citizens are governed without their consent when words are given new Orwellian definitions by unelected elites.

    Regarding less government. If the traditional family continues to be weakened by the deplorable social trends noted elsewhere on this blog, the government will try to fill the vacuum with greater intervention in the lives of its citizens. The government will go broke trying to replace the traditional family. Libertarians, therefore, should be supporters of the traditional family as a counterweight to an intrusive and literally paternalistic state. The continuing “lawfare” attacks by the GLBT community on traditional institutions hardly suggest they want to reduce government in our lives. “Getting government out of marriage” would, in fact, eliminate the hundreds of government benefits associated with marriage that the GLBT community demands, so getting government out of marriage is not their real agenda.

  8. May 18th, 2011 at 21:31 | #8

    You know what’s even more incoherent? Libertarian Transhumanism:

    Libertarian transhumanism is a political ideology synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.[1]

    Self-identified libertarian transhumanists, such as Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, are advocates of the asserted “right to human enhancement” who argue that the free market is the best guarantor of this right since it produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems.

    Now, to the extent that transhumanism is about the right to enhance your own body, I can see how it aligns with libertarianism. But transhumanism goes further than that to concern itself with “human enhancement” of the human race, they want to enhance future humans, not just their own children, but everyone’s: “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition.” That’s doing things to other people, not themselves. They think they can do that with a purely free market approach and voluntary genetic engineering of their own children (which is also called “Liberal Eugenics”), but obviously it is going to require big government oversight and regulation and a huge loss of liberty, not just for the people being created according to someone else’s design, but for the people pressured to enhance their children rather than use their own genes to have children naturally.

  9. Ruth
    May 18th, 2011 at 21:52 | #9

    @John Howard
    And thank you, John Howard, for fighting this with (unmodified) tooth and (unmodified) nail.

  10. May 18th, 2011 at 22:06 | #10

    Rob, I’m curious: In your view, is government required to recognize atheism as a religion and atheist organizations (or perhaps organizations representing specific atheistic philosophies) as churches?

  11. May 19th, 2011 at 01:01 | #11

    Good points. Gay marriage (so-called) will just add more layers of bureaucracy and petty government rules.

  12. Leo
    May 19th, 2011 at 06:14 | #12

    What would marriage look like in a libertarian world? It would be reduced to contracts and markets. One can imagine a series of standard contracts based on major faith traditions (a Catholic contract, a liberal Protestant contract, an Orthodox Jewish contract, an Islamic contract, a Confucian contract, a Buddhist contract, etc.) perhaps with arbitration clauses and arbitration boards made up of associated religious authorities having quasi-legal functions. Are we ready for Sharia marriage law in America? Then there would be various secular contracts: a Lambda Legal contract, a Hollywood-style contract, a Las Vegas style contract, a friends-with-benefits contract, a short-term contract, a lifestyle maximizer contract, a free-form contract, etc. So government would be out of the marriage creation and definition business. A libertarian government would also not recognize any of these “marriages” except as purely private contracts. Any disputes would be resolved through arbitration or civil suits. A libertarian regime would have few taxes and few public benefits, and none of those benefits would differentiate between the different types of marriages or even between those with a private marriage contract and those without such a contract. I believe such a system would be very much to the disadvantage of large numbers of women and children and that such a libertarian world, while not the worst of all possible worlds, would be dystopian. Sean might be disappointed that some corporations as well as government might not recognize private marriage contracts. In a libertarian world, corporations are free to contract with other corporations, but they also have the right to refuse to do business as well.

  13. Sean
    May 19th, 2011 at 18:38 | #13

    “Sean might be disappointed that some corporations as well as government might not recognize private marriage contracts.”

    Not if they did so equally, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

  14. Leo
    May 19th, 2011 at 19:43 | #14

    @Sean

    But the libertarian position, as espoused by, say Senator Rand Paul, is that libertarians are opposed to government interference with private business, whether that means opposition to environmental regulation, labor laws, or anti-discrimination laws. Senator Paul specifically opposes the provisions in the law that prohibit discrimination in what are known as ‘public accommodations,’ which are really private businesses such as hotels, movie theaters, or lunch counters. The argument is that discrimination should be addressed by market forces, not government. When personal and business liberty clashes with government mandated or imposed equality, libertarians will favor the former over the latter.

  15. Kevin Petersen
    May 20th, 2011 at 10:20 | #15

    @John
    When I was a “gay” activist in the 80s I was scared at the idea of a “gay gene” that predetermined my sexual preferences. Okay. Who, then would be the first to abort their unborn “gay” child? The religious right or my liberal friends? Scared me to become pro-life real quick!
    And by the way, if libertarians and progressives want a new constitutional definition of marriage, then why don’t THEY fight to gather the votes to AMEND the darn thing?

  16. Bob Barnes
    May 20th, 2011 at 14:08 | #16

    Ben :
    Good points. Gay marriage (so-called) will just add more layers of bureaucracy and petty government rules.

    Really, I would say regulating marriage, policing it and trying offenders adds quite a bit to the bureaucracy.

  17. Sean
    May 20th, 2011 at 14:57 | #17

    “When personal and business liberty clashes with government mandated or imposed equality, libertarians will favor the former over the latter.”

    Then libertarians would support the personal right of an adult to choose the life partner of his or her choosing, and legal recognition for that relationship.

  18. John Noe
    May 20th, 2011 at 16:32 | #18

    Thomas Sowell said it best, one of the greatest scams in getting special priviledges and restricting individual liberties is to call them equal rights. The pro SSM advocates have taken advantage of this and sadly have scammed libertarians. They have conned libertarians into believing that lack of SSM restricts freedom and creates government intrusion when in fact it does the latter.
    First the facts: Do not confuse the right to marry with the right to a license and benefits. You have a right to travel but not a right to a drivers license. That is a priviledge. The marriage license and accompaning benefits are priviledges and not rights. So no right was denied. As far as inequality goes, the government already created an inequality but granting benefits to married people which are not available to singles. What applies to singles applies to homosexuals. The inequality does not violate your rights because the license and benefits are priviledges and not rights.
    SSM would add government intrusion into our lives not less. Those of us opposed to this lifestyle would be forced to grant health benefits against our will and be forced to pay for them. The same sex couple would be free to go into any private business and property and demand that the marriage be recognized. Do you as a libertarian want to pay higher insurance rates to give the homosexual couple equal coverage. They engage in the conduct while passing the costs onto someone else. Is that the libertarian way?
    Since when does a libertarian favor someone practicing a behavior and then not taking responsibility for it. Since when does a libertarian favor that you can demand that you must approve of their lifestyle. Would libertarians favor homosexual activists going into the public schools and indoctrinating your children and recruiting them into their lifestyle against the parents will. This is already happening in Massachusetts thanks to SSM. When you demand my approval you have denied me my civil right to my own set of morals and values. I have a civil right to not approve of homosexuality. This is libertarian.

    GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR YOU KNOW WHAT LIBERTARIANS. THE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE THE ULTIMATE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. THEY HAVE CONNED YOU INTO THINKING SUPPORTING SSM SUPPORTS LIBERTARIAN VALUES WHEN IN FACT IT DENIES THEM!!!!!!!!

    In closing all readers of this blog and libertarians should go to the Massresistance website and see the effect that SSM has had on libertarian principals. Prepare to be really educated.

  19. May 20th, 2011 at 16:45 | #19

    Sean :
    “When personal and business liberty clashes with government mandated or imposed equality, libertarians will favor the former over the latter.”
    Then libertarians would support the personal right of an adult to choose the life partner of his or her choosing, and legal recognition for that relationship.

    I can see choosing one or many life partners of their choice.

    But why would a Libertarian (who I used to be a part of) want to have their relationship recognized by the government?

    We are talking about people who would rather the government not take care of sanitation or build roads for its citizens. Though, ironically they called me at one point to be a sanitation manager for a large city I was living in since the job had gone uncontested for the past three elections.

  20. Leo
    May 20th, 2011 at 18:45 | #20

    @Sean

    Yes, but that legal recognition would only be as a private contract, with no public recognition required. The reason I oppose this libertarian solution, which isn’t the worst possible solution and to which we might eventually be headed, is that it would put women and their children at the mercy of a marriage marketplace in which they would be in an inherently weaker position than men both by virtue of the burdens of pregnancy and lactation and their inherently different biological clocks. The result would be to accelerate the feminization of poverty.

    No Libertarian Party presidential candidate has gotten more than 1.1% of the popular vote or more than one electoral vote, so while I respect the intellectual position of libertarians while disagreeing with it, I see no prospect of a libertarian government any time soon.

  21. Leo
    May 21st, 2011 at 10:25 | #21

    @John Noe
    A pure libertarian would want to get government out of education and health care as well as out of marriage. This isn’t going to happen any time soon, if ever. Getting government out of marriage but not getting it out of health, education, and welfare, would result in a vast increase in government (as you correctly note) as the government tried to pick up the slack resulting from an accelerated decline in the strength of traditional family.

  22. John Noe
    May 21st, 2011 at 16:44 | #22

    One last piece of advice for Libertarians. Do not be taken in like the looney liberals. The SSM advocates only want to use the decent Libertarian people to further their own selfish agenda. Fall for their trap and you will lose membership and not gain them.

    True American conservatives reject SSM. In elections RINO’s are losing. The Republicans have come to understand that if you want to win elections reject SSM. If you let the homosexual agenda in then you will lose your election.

  23. Sean
    May 22nd, 2011 at 04:53 | #23

    Libertarians would approve of same-sex marriage because they want less government generally and less government intrusion (and in this case, religious intrusion) into the private lives of citizens.

    Since marriage strengthens a couple’s relationship, whether they’re straight or gay, they are more likely to remain a couple, and care for each other without government support. In addition, a personal choice that has no negative impact on anybody else or on society (and has lots of positive impact, which the libertarian might not care about either) would be off-limits to government, for the libertarian.

  24. May 22nd, 2011 at 19:44 | #24

    Sean: > Libertarians would approve of same-sex marriage because they want less government generally and less government intrusion (and in this case, religious intrusion) into the private lives of citizens.

    To Sean’s credit, arguing that increasing marriage to being general romance regulation (a.k.a. “strengthens a couple’s relationship”) is less intrusion by government makes about as much sense as anything else he’s written.

  25. Leo
    May 23rd, 2011 at 07:07 | #25

    I would note that Sean already has full access to what marriage would be in a libertarian world, i.e. a purely private contract. There is nothing prohibiting Sean from finding a partner and drawing up a contract for joint ownership of property, inheritance rights, etc. What he would be missing would be the rest of oft-claimed 1,300 government benefits, but in a libertarian world, those benefits would no longer exist.

    The 1,300 benefits seem to be a major goal of the GLBT movement, so I doubt they would support their abolition.

    It remains to be proven and remains a dubious proposition that reducing marriage to a private contract would strengthen the couple’s relationship. My point is that reducing marriage to a private contract would weaken society’s ability to protect women, especially, but not limited to, child-bearing women. Hence, the heterosexual definition of marriage is not irrational or discriminatory, but rational and functional.

  26. Sean
    May 23rd, 2011 at 15:21 | #26

    I would note that Leo’s observation fails to note that some couples get a bunch of rights for the bargain price of a $35 marriage license, while other couples are expected to invest thousands of dollars in legal fees to get that same bunch of rights. And many marriage rights can’t be bought at any price: the right not to have to testify against a spouse in court, for example.

    If you can argue that marriage helps straight couples, not gay couples, go for it. Society benefits, however, when any couple’s relationship is strengthened, especially if there are children involved.

  27. May 23rd, 2011 at 19:00 | #27

    So Sean, lost the libertarian paradox, falling back to your equality paradox of promoting gays at everyone else’s expense?

    I’m still waiting for you to explain why expanding government regulation of marriage to being regulation of romance in general is way to shrink government.

    That was, if I understand it right, the gist of Leo’s argument also.

  28. John Noe
    May 24th, 2011 at 15:53 | #28

    Great points Leo and On Lawn: You have correctly recognized that Sean and his homosexual ilk are trying to use Libertarians to support them by making the false lie that SSM supports the Libertarian position. The SSM advocates are snake oil salesman and are the ultimate con artists. Again do not be fooled. Look at where SSM already exists and you wll see the damage that has been done as will see the additional intrusive government into our private lives.

    (1) In the free marketplace the homosexuals were either uninsurable or had to pay hihg premuims to cover the risky costs of their behavior. So the used SSM to have the government interfere in the free market and had the government mandate that all private businesses had to recognize their SSM. This resulted in increased health care costs and insurance for the businesses.
    (2) There have been children’s campgrounds who did not hire homosexuals as councelers and put them with children of the same sex. Thanks to SSM this discrimination has been outlawed. Although straight males cannot work in the girls camp, homosexual men can work in the boys camp. Any unwanted sexual advances by the homosexual male councelers results in increased costs to the businees owner as they must pay for the missconduct of their employees.
    (3) There were adoption agencies who only allowed couples who provided a mother/father to adopt their children. Thanks to SSM the government mandated and intruded onto the agencies and forced them to allow SS couples to adopt against their will. Notice the homos interfering purposely with the free market.
    (4) Thanks to SSM the homosexual activists have access to your children in the public schools as they use the legality of SSM as a way to promote the homosexual agenda down your children’s throat whether you like or not. Parents are not allowed to opt out.

    I rest my case those of you who are Libertarians. Do not be fooled like the Liberals.

  29. Sean
    May 25th, 2011 at 16:26 | #29

    “So Sean, lost the libertarian paradox, falling back to your equality paradox of promoting gays at everyone else’s expense?

    I’m still waiting for you to explain why expanding government regulation of marriage to being regulation of romance in general is way to shrink government.

    That was, if I understand it right, the gist of Leo’s argument also.”

    Uh, I think Sean WON the Libertarian “paradox,” since Libertarians prefer less, not more, government and it requires more government to peek inside someone’s pants to see what genitals are there. Plus the Libertarian preference for expanded liberties supports legal same-sex marriage.

    Oh, and I appreciate the Libertarians getting on board with the American ideal of equality for all citizens!

Comments are closed.