Libertarian David Boaz on Gay Marriage

[zzxxqy]

If government weren't in marriage, then this really wouldn't be an issue. However, it's there, and it's not going anywhere. Saying that the states should decide this issue, over the interest of the individual people, is utterly absurd. When on EARTH did states become more important than people? Government over individuals? Seriously; why don't you "libertarian" advocates of this tell me?

[affilinet]

This has nothing to do with the video but a lot of people that marry arent really religious at all,i never understood why this people get married in the first place if its a religious thing.I know atheist that get married in a church,fuc.king ridiculous isnt it?

[LasagnaIsGood]

The reason we have all this conflict is simply because of the government benefits that comes with marriage. If gay marriage was legalized, why wouldn't you be allowed marry you dog? This would make sense considering many people could use it as way to reap in more government benefits.

The root of the problem are the gov aids. Get government out of the marriage business completely. If people wish to sign a contract stating to give half of everything they own when they split up, so be it.

[LittleSn00py]

Privatization of marriage is the only meaningful move social conservatives can make. By privatizing marriage, gays lose.

[WhyMeMoFo]

Every time I hear an American who identifies him/herself as a 'Libertarian' I just cringe. There people are NOT part of the Libertarian movement, they are hidden totalitarians. Their freedom = their ability to dominate others. Economically. Libertarian Socialism is the ONLY true Libertarianism.

Thank you.

[HayateAzekura]

You are not the kids, I am sure many kids just want to be love, gay or straight parents

Government shouldn't legalize or legalize gay marriage. They shouldn't even be there in the first place

[Felhaven]

Marriage is a religious institution. Plain and simple. The government should have nothing to do with it. The whole legal framework for marriage only exists because of our insane tax system, with a flat tax there is no need to jointly file taxes. the only other thing it does is ensure that your spouse gets your stuff when you die, and anyone can write a will that does the same thing.the whole anti gay marriage thing is nothing else than bigitry, saying you think its "just wrong" is no better

[Aphoresis]

@Felhaven

The whole gay marriage thing is bigotry? Aren't the advocates of gay marriage the ones that brought it up in the first place? As you have explained, much of the legal elements of marriage can be accomplished through contract law, so why are we even discussing this?

[PikSokolit]

I agree with most here. As a libertarian myself, i think Govt should get out of the marriage biz all together. And all welfare/benefits to married couples should be eliminated to make it fair for all. It isnt really even a question of supporting or not supporting "gay marriage", that is totally irrelavent. Marriage is a private affair and Govt shouldnt have influence whatsoever in our personal matters, let individuals define for themselves what marriage is, Govt shouldnt decide for us !!!

[nocturnezero]

Libertarian positions on social issues always lean towards the more liberal side, with an emphasis on downsizing the influence of the state in matters of consent and exchange. As has been said, liberals are social libertarians, and libertarians are social liberals.

[owl975]

so yeah. we need more of this.

[mumanator27]

While I partly agree with most of the posts here I have a slightly different take. Marriage is a cultural or religious commitment which is suppose to bind one person to another for their entire lives. No government, whether it is local, state, or the federal government has a place in licensing or regulating it. That being said, while government does have its hands in marriage, I would not support legalizing gay marriage as it would greatly threaten religious liberty.

[mumanator27]

If the government were to legalize gay marriage, what would stop them from forcing religious institutions to marry homosexuals and to allow adoptions by homosexuals when these things violate their religious moral codes. Also, I'm not 100% sure that it is discrimination to allow heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage. While people choose their sexual preference, only one allows for procreation and the continuation of our species. This is why the two can never be equal.

[mumanator27]

I do believe, as a heterosexual married man, that it is unfair that I receive certain benefits (especially concerning taxes) which others cannot. I just believe that trying to fix the system (i.e. legalizing gay marriage, extending tax benefits to gay couples) is not the way to go. I think the taxes we pay which allow for these benefits should be repealed. I believe that two consensual adults should be allowed to engage in any contract they please as long as it does not harm others.

[mumanator27]

I would fully support removing the ability of any government to license and regulate marriage and, in the time being, for any individuals living together, regardless of relation, to jointly file for income tax returns as they would be just as financially dependent upon each other as any married couple would be. Personal property does not belong to the government at all and should be allowed to be transferred from one individual to another without penalties regardless of circumstance or relation.

[ProphetWolf]

@mumanator27 What in the name of all FUCK are you blathering about? Do you have cerebral palsy and just hit the keyboard and that literary diarrhea just so happened to come up...? That has to be it... First of all; if your magic space wizard in the sky doesn't want you marrying someone of the same sex, then YOU don't have to, although I would recommend just getting a new god, but I digress... Second; NO, homosexuals do not CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex and I think you know that.

[GW728917]

@mumanator27 That assumes its 100% choice.

[GW728917]

@mumanator27 how does someone else's right to be married threaten your liberty to fuck who you want for the rest of your life.

[HildaBennett1]

hmzi really need somebody to Well yah should find out

[ThePregnancySlaves]

Scatology aside, degenerates are forever crying foul in regards to polite society's ban on debauchery. Marriage, by definition, can never be anything more than the codifying of coitus between breeders. Marriage's only legitimacy involves taming men, by binding each man to one woman & the children he's sired. Buggery is not the basis for marriage. The practitioners of queer behavior demand free rein. They know no satiation. Society demeans fatherhood to its detriment.

[beckweth]

Libertarians a full of thinking people. Libertarians might be the only hope to save the sanity of this country.

[InFromTheVoid]

Marriage as it its now, is affected my federal gov. (not just the states) Ever hear of Social security?

I agree 100% with what this man is saying. :)

[rogerfgay]

Many people are still unaware that the federal government took over marriage and family law and destroyed the institution, sucking away civil rights as it did. (And yes, I agree with everyone who says that's unconstitutional.)  I've written numerous articles on the topic over the past 15 years. The campaign for it was a prototype for global warming industry. Same stuff - fake government reports - huge media propaganda campaign .. fake emergency ...

[fede2]

i agree pretty much in full. the government should have no say in the matter whatsoever. marriage is a value defined by culture and and the weight of cultural values rests on those who value them. it is not for burocrats or politicians to decide what others should value.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

For once let's not bail out another failed institution. Let marriage fail. It should be privatized. It would make divorce irrelevant.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

States regulate marriages not the federal government. Let's abandon marriage and divorce. This is the best interests of the children anyway. Why do queers get to force their progressivist public sexuality on us and our children?

[psychawareness]

David's position on gay marriage is exactly mine. Exactly.

[jumboshrimp09]

@psychawareness

same

[duck24x]

To the idiots who can't think past their "state's rights" dogma - who do not have the mental capability of thinking about the consequences of actions - forcing people to move some place else in order to obtain the exact SAME rights that OTHERS in their current state already have - you had better guarantee they can PICK UP THEIR HOUSE that they currently reside in, and HAVE THE SAME JOB, etc when they get there.

[psychawareness]

Yeah, that's not the point.. Marriage is not a federal institution. It's like saying that someone who only qualifies for disability benefits in one state and not another state should expect those benefits to be nationalized or something.

[Doc418]

This nonsense of "state's rights" is a weak argument for the protection of equal rights for gay citizens. The reality is, government is involved in marriage and since it is involved, the laws governing marriage should apply to all, heterosexuals and gays. I hope the so called Libertarians would drop this State's rights nonsense (people have rights not states) and stand up for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Those rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage fits all three.

[lucaswhitemetal]

I'm a libertarian, and i hate churches, but i do belief churches should have the right to decide them selfs without the "defence" of the government for such... get the government out of churches decisions..

Churches are ofcorse diferent.. so you might have a few that will aprove it.. so here you go.. ;D..

Why do people make it such a problem, Jesus Christ -.-'..

[babyloniandream]

As a libertarian, I don't believe we should legalize it, instead we should get the government out of the marriage buisness. I believe they should be aloud to marry, but that it shouldn't be a government issue.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@babyloniandream what about adopting kids? with laws. I think many kids wouldn't want gay parents, realistically.

[daobagua]

@SeeProfileForDetails May I ask if you have ever been an orphan?

[WhyMeMoFo]

@daobagua I was an Orphan once, but I didn't care for it, so I gave it up.

[grigorexxxcore]

Very smart man. We need him for president!

[babyloniandream]

Look into libertarianism, most libertarians share his view. I sure do.

[ragordon168]

america goes around the world preaching democracy and that all people should be equal and free to do what they like, no matter their race,gender, faith or sexuality.

so why should it be different on your own doorstep?

if all men are equal then you cannot say that one group cannot do something that another group can just because their different.

the gov should gt involved and say "they can gt married if they want, dont like it? then get to fuck you bigot!!!"

[dmlauffer]

If we let the federal government step in on marriage, they will probably use it to justify all sorts of power grabs. Its an issue that should be dealt with at the state level. I would vote in favor of it, but I certainly don't want the feds to grab more power.

[Savior20061]

But Clinton already did step in on marriage by saying what was and wasn't marriage.

Personally, I'm a liberal, so I say do whatever it takes to insure equality for all. If the gov't has to slap around a few Jesusfreaks, I'm all for it.

[sleedolfine15]

As a libertarian I believe that Boaz is right. Government---esp. the federal government should have nothing to do with marriage--except insofar as necessary to enforce contractual agreements--It's a private affair. But if the government is involved then equallity ought to be the rule, In other words,any 2 or more consenting adults should be allowed to marry,

[purzheen]

I don't acknowledge that homosexual relations, whether exclusively between two consenting adults for a lengthy period of time or not, are best described with the word 'marriage'. I do believe that individuals should have the right to say and do what they please, but I do not believe any individual or government has the right to force me to agree that two men seeking consensual orgasms constitute a marriage.

[111thedude111]

So what? You don't have any say in the arrangement, so no ones is going to force you to acknowledge it, just like they don't need your acknowledgment.

[purzheen]

I understand why you feel that way, but I don't think your opinion is an accurate reflection of the facts. The government can force church-run adoption agencies to accept homosexual partners as valid parents. It is possible right now for anyone, gay or not, to go to a lawyer and draw up documents giving another person one's money, property, etc. The arguments of discrimination are phony; a husband and wife are not equivalent to just any pair of consenting, sexually-involved adults.

[Eastmanarium]

And a couple being able to obtain a marriage license from the state forces you to acknowledge it, how, purzheen...?

[fringefries]

Let me guess? You're CLAIMING to be a Libertarian, but you're actually running away from the damaged brand name of the Republican party? This is typical of Republicans. Why can't you just be loyal? We call you LINOS Libertarians in Name Only. This is the problem with the Libertarian party. They are at their best real LOYAL patriots at worst harbingers of liars like you who pretend to be one of their members. You are an infection and an UNLOYAL one at that. A virus to erradicated.

[purzheen]

All true Americans were once libertarians, my friend. It seems that a group of folks like you now consider the label to be their own 'special' brand. Don't worry, your club is safe. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. I spent more of my adult life as a registered Democrat -- does that make a 'real' libertarian? You are not a libertarian if you think the government should force a redefinition of marriage upon its citizens.

[duck24x]

@purzheen I don't believe anyone should force me to agree that a corporation deserves any individual legal rights. For that matter, I don't believe anyone should force me to believe that judges and cops and prison guards should have any special rights that I don't have - such as the right to kill people.

[purzheen]

Well, I honestly believe that corporations should not exist; businesses should be owned by real human beings who are subject to the consequences of their actions. I also think that cops have been given far too much authority over our lives. There are too many laws and too many ways for the state to punish us and obtain revenues through dishonest means. I'm not an anarchist, I simply believe that individual should be the holder of rights, not the government.

[mattius83]

As a Libertarian, I believe government has no right interfering with civil liberties and the private sector. The government serves us, not the other way around. That said, my philosophy regarding this issue is this: the power of love always overwhelms the power of government.

[electricfoxx]

Government is government, whether state or federal. No government should interfere with marriage. @notyourfriendbuddy, states banning gay marriage is the same as saying "If you don't like federal gov't banning gay marriage, move to a different country." Is polygamy immoral for your religion? If it doesn't affect you, why care? Banning is a dangerous slope. First, it was polygamy. Now, the government might arrange marriages. Say YES to freedom in all forms.

[Frogstomp121]

They should be able to live freely, especially in a country like the United States in which all men are created equal, or so it says.

[PFTECHMETAL]

As a libertarian. I could care less what two adult wish to live there lives. Freedom is for every one or not at all.

[withoutasong]

Support for smaller govt. does not mean state rights. State rights is code word for allowing minority persecution in intolerant areas of the country. Same thing happened with Racial civil rights. Leave it to the states? Just another way of saying I support the discrimination.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

You've got it all wrong.

Currently, six states have legal same-sex marriage. If a gay couple want to get married, they reside in one of those states, or any other state that legalizes it in the future. If, however, you do not wish to live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, you reside in a state(s) that does not recognize it. EVERYBODY WINS

The ONLY "persecution" or "discrimination" would be if the FedGovt decided either for or against. NOBODY WINS

[Eastmanarium]

Wow, I really disagree with you. Are you saying you'd support a state's right to exclude people of different races or religions from marrying...? I don't see how allowing a state to discriminate is "everybody wins," as you put it.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

States don't "exclude" people from getting married.

You can marry whoever you want, whether your state recognizes it as a legal contract is another matter. Should the Federal Government force states to recognize polygamy? You wouldn't want them discriminating against Mormons now would you?

[Eastmanarium]

States do exclude classes of people from getting married, specifically with same-sex marriage bans.

And no, the federal gov't should not "force" states to recognize polygamy, but banning polygamy isn't discriminating against a class of people. The Book of Mormon doesn't advocate polygamy in actuality, though it is part of their idea of "Heaven." It's incomparable.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

During the 1870s and 1880s, laws were passed to punish polygamists, and in the 1890 Manifesto, the LDS Church banned polygamy. When Utah applied for statehood again, it was accepted. One of the conditions for granting Utah statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution. This was a condition required of other western states that were admitted into the Union later. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE MAKING AN ARGUMENT!

[notyourfriendbuddy]

So how does everybody win if the Fed Gov't decides to ban gay marriage instead of leaving it up to the states to decide?

[peaceispatriotic7]

The worlds great religious traditions emphasize the love of neighbor as well as the love of God, and that compassion, justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people are the religious most authentic & noble expressions. (Copied from an amicus brief submitted to the California Surpreme Court in support of gay marriage) I just couldn't have said it

[ReagansGhost]

Thou shalt not stab each other in the ass

[peaceispatriotic7]

Men and women do that shit all the time! Thou shalt be in prison?

[procommenter]

[marriage 1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family -- Fr. p. 1384 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" -- 1967] Gay "marriage" should ALWAYS be between consenting homosexuals.

[LoveToday8]

Gays and lesbians pay taxes too [they subsidize marriage for heterosexuals] and as marriage stands now, it is discriminating against people who want to marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is a government issue, not a religious one. Gays and lesbians are not clamoring to marry in churches, they just want the same rights, priviledges, etc afforded to heterosexual couples.

I was just thinking about privatizing marriage, decided to look it up and came upon this video.

[procommenter]

Why "gays and lesbians"? All homosexuals are gay are they not?

[LoveToday8]

In the glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) community, some people prefer the word gay for gay men...and lesbians for female homosexuals.

Why are you so focused on just that small part of my comment?

[procommenter]

Thankfully we humans possess free-will.

[gregvs3]

Me and my girlfriend once talked about marriage, and we both decided that if we ever got married we would want to make divorce exceedingly difficult, since we both agree that marriage should be taken very seriously. However, under American law this is impossible. I'm debating whether or not I should tell her that, since the idea of a "permenant" marriage makes her pretty happy.

[gregvs3]

Well I guess I do care in one sense - marriage is basically a means of insuring efficient raising of children. Under government this function has deterioated severly - with child support laws women have less incentive to be as careful with their mates, and have less problem getting rid of them for a new man once they are tired of them, since there is no financial incentive to keep them around. No fault divorce I think makes this trend even worse. There is no incentive to make it work.

[gregvs3]

Part of me thinks that the "homosexual movement" would lose a lot of its fire if they didn't consider themselves to be repressed. I think the fact that they are seen as victims of a tyrannical government appeals to people of a more rebellious nature.

Not that I particularly care one way or another [I agree with Boaz], just my two cents of observation.

[xxblodlustxx]

You don't see it as oppression? People are kicked out of the military and lose their benefits, couples cannot get married and get access to the same resources as other couples, up until a few decades ago a person could be arrested for homosexual acts. Homosexuals have been oppressed for centuries. Enough is enough.

It's a slow process, but I think we're getting there.

[MirkoStee]

Traditionally marriages were arranged. I think it should be illegal for people to marry people who they fall in love with. Since when does marriage have anything to do with love. What's love go to do with it?

No, marriage should only be legal when arranged by the parents, and only in exchange for goods, services and/or money, or to seal business and political alliances.

[martysoffice]

Marriage BY DEFINITION is between a man and a woman! Nobody is saying that two men cannot live together, or sign any contract between themselves. Other than politcs, we need to remember the Moral side of things. Society is weakend enough as it is with all the filth on tv and the internet. The last thing we need is to redefine tradional marriage for our young kids to get confused. The natrual creation of human comes from male and female. We need to stand up for family values. "Quialty before Eq

[jankren]

Just let the homos marry. Goddammit!

[ReliableInsider]

This is why Libertarians and the new Republican Party are fundamentally at odds with one another. The new Republican Party is ANTI-libertarian. It's OBSESSED with meddling in people's personal lives.

[Darragh545egfs]

_YOURFREEGAYWEBSITE._COM_ Owned. Seriously, that would hurt like shit.

[quietstormprod]

yeah, libraries are good but my point was/is who regulates what books get to be in and which stay out? that is the important point for me b/c libraries definitely don't take in every book, well at least the ones in the OC don't. so im just saying, yes, you can have a "good" institution or public facility (?) but how good is it if it is being regulated by the gov't or another institution or whatever who do have reason (not valid maybe) to keep things from the public?

[JaneCochran]

Many libraries suffer from incompetence, ego trips, & worse from mayors, councils, boards, etc. They often have their budgets cut for other projects that the voters wouldnt approve so that libraries have to beg for more.

Personally, as a lover of libraries & former volunteer and possibly a future reference librarian, Id be happy to pay membership to a library as I do a fitness center and allow them to be run by professionals instead of dysfunctional bureaucrats.

[eboing]

The point of a public library is to give equal access to information. Public libraries also serve as local public archives, storing and making available historical information about the community in which they reside.

[JaneCochran]

Agreed, but thats more the THEORY as opposed to the practice. At least here in CA, library budgets are cut in defiance of clearly stated law, and society at large isnt ready for equal access to info.

I could see a point about the homeless being denied entrance into libraries on a routine basis due to lack of ability to pay, but how often do they USE a library as its intended anyway? If anything, it mostly draws in crazies who just make trouble for librarians & patrons both.

[quietstormprod]

"cause when they own the information, oh

they can bend it all they want" - john mayer, "waiting on the world to change"

I know this quote from the popular song is in regard to television but if anyone knows anything about media, we all know that gov't and media are in cahoots.

basically my point here is that yes, libraries are good but who regulates what books you get to read? you really think you get all possible books and all truth just b/c its a library?

[robertdallago]

Should you want you can also try to create an environment more to your likening and beliefs within the state that you live as long as you do so with out force. We see to often the federal government tries to enforce the same standards of living to the people of the state of Maine as well as the people of Texas. Why not let the people of all 50 states decide how they choose to live. The federal government only needs to insure that every state will be free to do so.

[robertdallago]

For the most part people do not understand that this nation was formed as 13 separate nations with one common goal of freedom. The cause of the libertarian party is to reduce the power of the federal government. Let the states decide how to police, how to educate, who should be able to marry, what laws on what drugs and alcohol should exist along with abortion. If you do not care for the way your state legislates you are free to move to one that is more in line with your point of view

[obmax1212]

No, we should not privatize police. It sounds like your question could more generally be stated, do we need government at all? The answer is yes. It has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force (note retaliatory force, not all force). In a totally privatized society (anarcho-capitalist) the law is subjective. Objective law is necessary. There are better sources of information on this philosophy if you're at all curious. Message me.

[obmax1212]

Not really. It isn't exactly difficult to purchase books and house them somewhere. When you have immense sums of tax money to spend, as in the cities you mentioned, you could expect to see nice libraries. But to claim that libraries exist because of government is not only ridiculous, it's a lie.

[hayesism]

All the best libraries are privately owned by universities.

[ReliableInsider]

Which . . . are subsidized by government.

[kaiwaig]

Libraries - what is your point?

[TracyII77]

Privitization is the best solution. The crossroads on the issue is: When is a couple denied their right to be married as they see fit, and when is a person or group of people forced to support what they view as a sin? As far as legal issues go, there are many ways that people can enter into legal contracts, which go beyond even marriage. Most of the legal issues that gays are looking for equality on, are shared by adults with no marriage connections.

[TracyII77]

When my father was stationed away from my family for a year, I was granted various power of attorneys over both their estate and my much younger brother, since I was the second adult in the house. As far as my medical care and my 401K, since I am single, my benefit plans allow me to name any adult of my choosing to have legal authority in the case of my incapacitance or death. I shouldn't have to support other sexual behaviors to attain legal equalities.

[flintstone9812]

It seems to me that 95% of legal issues ARE better off left up to the states to decide what they want.

Taking decision making away from the federal level puts it closer to the people it will actually serve. When something moves UP to the government level it becomes vastly more complicated and expensive to solve or amend.

STATES RIGHTS.

That way within the US you could end up with differing states rights and people could relocate to live within their conscience.

[Whoo69]

I agree with Boaz's position that we should privatize marriage, but that would take a lot of reforming of our laws, like tax laws favoring married couples and things like that.

However, as much as I respect states' rights, I don't think if we're to keep marriage a gov't contract, we should give it to the states. We've already seen 17 states ban it through amendments (not just laws), and I believe gay marriage is a human right. The federal gov't cannot allow states to deny rights.

[ferrozm]

Govt's don't create anything. Govt's have not done anything well they have good intentions but ultimately they wind up creating more problems than there was in the beginning.

Name one thing that the govt has ever done to advance humanity or even protect it?

[ReliableInsider]

Basic scientific research. Subsidizing universities, student loans, public schools.

The Internet.

[ferrozm]

well first of all the whole issue of tax codes with regards to marriage is more of a symptom of the govt stealing people's money through taxes than of marriage itself. You have to do away with the tax codes.

[ferrozm]

you must not have been listening because he said marriage should not be handled by govt. at all.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

He was saying that its a personal issue not a state or federal one.

[stone1home]

"Fora: The World is Thinking".

Since when does this libertarian bullshit qualify as "thinking"?

[ferrozm]

Oh no because accepting government talking points is much more intellectual.

Dumb ass

[stone1home]

Bite Le Knob.

[doom876]

Since when does conservative propaganda and labeling things as "god's will" to eliminate the need to use facts qualify as intelligent debate?

[ferrozm]

Why do you assume that I accept god's will or conservative talking points?

[annpetasupporter]

"Since when does conservative propaganda and labeling things as "god's will" to eliminate the need to use facts qualify as intelligent debate?"

EXACTLY

[doom876]

Those are just the most used arguments that conservatives really fall behind, rather then use facts and sense.

[stone1home]

I am not a "conservative".

[ImperiusRex]

He wasn't skirting the issue. He was saying that his preference be that government play no role in granting marriages, and a gay couple should be able to get married by whichever church will marry them. But if there IS any gov't involvement, the federal government should leave it up to the states. His personal view is that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable to him, and he has voted to extend marriage to gay couples when he has had the opportunity to do so. I think that's pretty clear.