American Libertarians Say Keep Government Out of Marriage

For a bunch of people obsessed with the idea that Carbon Dioxide is destroying life on earth American ‘progressives’ have generated a lot of CO2 whingeing about the politics of same sex marriage recently. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage have directed Two Minutes Hate claiming that right wing Christian nut jobs’ i.e. anyone who doesn’t support the idea that it is an inalienable human right for two bearded queens to put on bridal gowns and go mincing up the aisle together are just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.

Thia frenzy of self righteousness was triggered by one of the most left wing of US Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor asking if the courts overturn democratic votes banning same sex marriage how could they then deny the right to polygamous marriage, marriage between humans and non humans or marriage between adults and children? A fair point well made, but it seems ever left leaning supreme court justices are not allowed to question the inalienable human right of turn burglars get get married.

I agree that the U S Supreme Court should keep the government out of marriage.

George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.

In fact, not one of the couples living in America who were married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed. My friend who was married while living in Canada feels no need to remarry now he and his other half are living in France.

Government does not create marriage, it provides some legal rights which are taken care of by civil partnerships.

To be sure, over time the institution of marriages evolved, divorce is easy now. The age of consent and the some of the criteria for entering into the contract have changed but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.

Marriage pre-existed the government and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.

What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say ‘right wing nut jobs’ are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are talking bollocks.

It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so.

Marriage may evolve to include gays, lesbians, humans and horses, dogs or other animals, one man and several women or one woman and several men or even dirty old men and children one day. But the time for that has not arrived. according to The Book of Revelations these things will happen in the end times. So as I believe the Book of Revelations is a pile of crap and the world is not going to end any time soon, what are we bothering about.

I’ve no objection to people campaigning for legalisation of gay marriage, I support democracy. But don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people lobbying for legislation to support their minority view are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as a bunch of irrirating whiners.

That the supporters of gay marriage cannot be honest about what’s going on suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”

They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

So if you are a caterer, hotel, florist, etc. who does not like same sex marriage too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. And if they are gay men you’re not likely to get paid because the boys will have spent ten times what they could afford trying to outdo Elton John in the ‘absolutely no taste’ stakes. You will be made to by the power of the courts to provide your service. Saying no to my son and his other half Debbie because you don’t like the look of them would be OK but saying no to a couple of queers who look like they haven’t a penny between them would constitute a hate crime. That’s where we are headed if we keep giving in to self pitying whiners.

So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage in the USA and here. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but there again it might just evolve into extinction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s