Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Proposition 8 Was A Victory For Liberty (A Libertarian Defense Of Traditional Marriage Alert)
Culture11 ^ | 11/23/2008 | Mike Thomsen

Posted on 11/23/2008 8:07:33 PM PST by goldstategop

Proposition 8 was an unsung victory for defenders of individual liberty. Wait, I know what many people will say to this. How can a measure that prevents gay couples from getting a marriage license be beneficial to the defense of individual liberty? It's because that vote represented a line drawn in the sand, even if a thin one, preventing the government from furthering its control over the institution.

As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married. They may not necessarily be legally married, but there is nothing stopping them from having a marriage in every other respect, including the public sanctification of their relationship and vows. This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.

The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage. They know that in a society based on a more concrete notion of freedom of association, that their views will have a hard time competing for dominance, and so they seek a short cut through the state.

In this day and age, it's refreshing to see some small, if temporary, victory in preventing the further politicization of an aspect of our culture. American politics are increasingly totalitarian in the literal sense that totalitarianism was explained by its proponents in the early 20th century: everything is political; every issue is up for debate before the legislature. One of the best defenses of individual liberty is oppose every attempt to politicize aspects of our culture.

Liberal opposition to Proposition 8 is understandable, but libertarian opposition is not, considering that the one real libertarian position on marriage is that it should be a private institution, unregulated by the state between consenting adults. In that sense, Proposition 8 was also a libertarian victory, as it slowed down the state regulation of marriage and might give libertarians ammunition to use with social conservatives to utterly abolish state licensing of marriage should the courts take this out of the voters' hands.

It's certainly educational to observe how many homosexual activists responded to the vote on Proposition 8. For them to compare their situation with that of black Americans is not just offensive, but ludicrous. Black Americans not only faced a whole host of very serious limitations on their legal rights, but often faced the imminent threat of violence should they even peacefully assert their rights. The biggest threat most of them will ever face is the possibility that somewhere, someone won't approve of them.

If most people aren't seeing this as a major civil rights battle, it's because it really isn't. Unlike being black or female, sexual orientation is something that can be controlled, hidden and denied. For millennia, priests practiced celibacy successfully in defiance of strong male heterosexual sex drives. Others have suppressed and denied impulses that their cultures have deemed immoral or depraved for equally as long. The defining difference between "women's rights" and "minority rights" versus "gay rights" is that short of plastic surgery and medical therapy, one cannot control, hide or deny their gender or race.

None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.

It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; california; classicalliberalism; culture11; freedom; homosexualagenda; liberalfascism; libertarianism; mikethomsen; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; proposition8; queerlybeloved; samesexmarriage; totalitarianism; traditionalmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
A libertarian defense of traditional marriage. Not all libertarians subscribe to the shibboleth that all marriages are created equal. They do not. Legitimizing same sex marriage means forcing society to accept homosexuality as just and moral. In a free society, left to their own devices, there is no way the gay community could gain such voluntary recognition for the way it chooses to live out its existence. And there's more. Its not a civil rights issue. Opposing same sex marriage above all, is indeed a victory for liberty in this country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

1 posted on 11/23/2008 8:07:33 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What ticked me off was that it was 4 CA judges who decided gay marriage should be legal. If the state feels that way, then let our legislators enact a law. They won’t do it. - same on the federal level, i.e. for abortion. They let a handful of judges make the decision, defying public sentiment, and slink out of putting their money where their mouth is.


2 posted on 11/23/2008 8:12:05 PM PST by Inkie (Attn Dems: Loose Lips Sink Ships -- but hey, I guess that's your goal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It is highest form of convolution language to deny people the liberty to do something and then call it a victory for liberty. Paging Mr.Orwell.


3 posted on 11/23/2008 8:12:44 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
That's not the author's argument. He says its wrong for the state to impose a particular arrangement on every one else. If gays really believe in liberty, all they have to do is propose taking the state out of licensing marriages. If they don't want to do it, then their motives will be obvious to all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

4 posted on 11/23/2008 8:15:40 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
You can't be imposed upon by someone exercising a right. That's what a right is. They can do it.

There are how many million ghomosexuals and you ascribe the same motive to them all? maybe some of them just want to marry and have you mind your own business.

I know we're having an ongoing anti-gay war here, but please don't describe restricting rights as a victory for liberty.

This will be the only clause in the state constitution or any that I know of in any state which restricts the rights of people.

5 posted on 11/23/2008 8:19:47 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I was responding to the self-contradictory headline of the thread.


6 posted on 11/23/2008 8:20:35 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
There have always been restrictions on whom one could marry. Its never been an absolute right and no one has ever been compelled to get married. So where is the discrimination?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

7 posted on 11/23/2008 8:22:01 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
We were declared independent of a king on the basis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage is a clear example of the latter two.

8 posted on 11/23/2008 8:24:05 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Marriage was adopted for the purpose of having children, to simplify. Children need both father and mother to grow up to be well adjusted men and women.

The marriage vows have meaning beyond words. God made woman for man.

That marriage be considered by two homosexuals to each other is unthinkable.

The privilege to marry is not denied to a homosexual man to a heterosexual woman, though I think it would be a very sad situation for the woman.


9 posted on 11/23/2008 8:25:20 PM PST by Paperdoll (On the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
That was a divorce. We divorced the Mother Country because of irreconcilable differences.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

10 posted on 11/23/2008 8:26:02 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Was that a rhetorical question? The discrimination is that you have the government now prohibiting two tax-payers from getting married.


11 posted on 11/23/2008 8:26:21 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Non-responsive


12 posted on 11/23/2008 8:27:09 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
Gender is a legitimate basis for organizing our society and its affairs that would never be countenanced with any other criteria. Men and women are different and that's reflected in our laws and its not discrimination to acknowledge gender is relevant to the definition of marriage.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

13 posted on 11/23/2008 8:30:32 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
No one's liberty has been denied. They have the right to marry anyone as long as it is a member of the opposite sex and both parties are willing and free to marry. They have the same rights as straight people. Plus they can form a civil union that confers the same rights as being married. This is not about "rights", it is about controlling people and destroying morality so the government can step in and take the place of religion.

It has been done over and over again in communist countries. The plans are all laid out by the communist. clear as bell. Try reading some communist BS sometime, it might open your eyes.

The bottom line is this, their is no constitutional basis for same sex marriage, you can't "deny" a right that never existed.

14 posted on 11/23/2008 8:31:58 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
I pointed out that your example is the opposite of marriage which is an act of social unification of two as one. The American revolution was about a breakup of one people that had been formerly united under the same king. Hardly non responsive as an answer.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

15 posted on 11/23/2008 8:33:20 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
Traditional values are essential to freedom. Without them, the opposite is tyranny.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

16 posted on 11/23/2008 8:35:09 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What you consider legitimate and a basis for denying these taxpaying adults from getting married are overriden buy human rights. Your definition and opinions are just that, yours. The opinions of the majority are just that. The majorty cannot vote against the rights of others. Otherwise, blacks would still be in segragated schools.

That's why everyone here whined so much when the conservative Cal Supreme court rendered the decision that did. They can't understand this basic concept of freedom because thay can't let those filthy homos have anything.

17 posted on 11/23/2008 8:35:11 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Wow. This guy gets it. Too bad Boob Barf couldn’t figure this out when he drank the libertarian kool-aid and issued press releases claiming a 4-3 gay marriage ruling from activist judges was a “victory” for “state’s rights”


18 posted on 11/23/2008 8:35:12 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Liberty, companionship and love, ARE traditional values.


19 posted on 11/23/2008 8:35:49 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Don't forget those traditional values of slavery, women as second class citizens. Was the opposite of them tyranny?

You're in over your head here. Call your ping list or whatever.

Good night.

20 posted on 11/23/2008 8:37:19 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson