Sexual freedom has long been a pillar of the libertarian philosophy. The idea that the state shouldn’t interfere in private affairs, including marriage contracts, is hard to refute in light of how most government crusades shake out for the common citizen. But after the courts have championed the cause of marriage equality, many Americans are finding out just how revolutionary the concept is – and they’re definitely not feeling the love.
Rainbow flag hung by homosexual activists in New York. Image: NYCmag.com
Not surprisingly, social liberals are applauding the left-leaning courts of late, for striking down traditional definitions of marriage at an alarming rate. For all the precedent in human history validating the purpose of marriage as the foundation of the natural nuclear family, in only the last decade, most of the country including the federal government and the District of Columbia have either come out of the closet – or have been forced out.
Today, 36 States recognize same-sex marriage. As the Christian-based Family Research Council points out, all but three of these radical shifts in the definition of society’s most basic structure are the result of unaccountable, unelected and almost insurmountably permanent court decisions. To a libertarian, this should present a major problem.
Libertarians, both as a philosophical subset and as a political party, advance a cause of equality, including a laissez-faire approach to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, with a view that the state’s place is neither to discriminate against nor legitimize contractual unions between individuals. Under the rule of the courts, however, the ideal of equality that libertarians hold dear has been twisted into a nightmare rarely ever seen this side of the Iron Curtain.
Under the rule of the legislating judiciary, it’s not at all laissez-faire for many Americans. On the contrary, this radicalism on the part of the courts has real, harmful consequences regarding our understanding of the First Amendment. The second-order effect of creating a new right to a state-recognized homosexual marriage is that your freedom of religion is immediately abridged. Especially so, should you dare take your religion out of Church and into the workplace – for as it now stands, there is absolutely no legal protection for your conscience.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, learned this the hard way, as they were just this week handed a livelihood-crushing $150,000 fine from the State of Oregon, which may be adjusted up to as much as $200,000 pending a March 10 hearing, for politely refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. The reason for their refusal? Aaron and Melissa are Christians and feel that participating in a homosexual ceremony would violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Because they dared to let their conscience guide their business practices, their mom & pop wedding business has been effectively stamped out by a gleefully coercive state, and they will be forced to surrender what probably amounts to four or more years of labor, all for having the audacity to hold a belief and act upon it.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, hammered by the State of Oregon for being Christian. Image: FoxNews.com
They’re not alone either. In states that recognize homosexual marriage, Christians in the wedding service industry from photographers to bakers to wedding planners are being forced out of the workplace for not participating in the radical redefinition of marriage, and the wholesale persecution is just beginning.
Even the Church itself is threatened, as we have seen in Houston this past year when openly homosexual mayor Annise Parker attempted to subpoena the sermons of several pastors, to be scanned for defenses of traditional marriage that contradicted her idea of “equality.” Parker’s intent was to use the Houston Churches’ tax-exempt status to intimidate those pastors into silence. She would have succeeded in this blatant abuse, but for the loud public outcry that eventually forced her back into her place.
Annise Parker, lesbian mayor of Houston, uses the coercive power of the state to stamp out any religious expression she doesn’t like. Image: Jenn Charr via GayStarNews.com
All told, when one honestly looks at what’s being done in the name of equality, supporting gay marriage turns out not to be very libertarian after all, but is actually very totalitarian when put to practice. The homosexual agenda turns out not to be about liberty, but instead is revealed to be just one more way for the state to control you and circumvent your rights.
For philosophical libertarians, the hard crux of the matter is that homosexual marriage erases more civil liberties than it protects. Or more properly stated, it erases “Inalienable Rights,” such as the Right to participate in the workforce without compromising your religious values, and replaces them with a false substitute: “Civil Liberties.”
[adinserter name=”Post Ad”]
Here we find yet another fatal flaw in allowing government to administer justice. Despite all the left’s rhetoric about liberty and equality, the homosexual agenda through gay marriage is being used as a blunt weapon against Christians, especially those who choose to do business based on their deeply held values. It’s also being used to undermine the rule of law and the democratic process itself. Defining marriage between a man and woman is overwhelmingly supported by voters, yet it’s a handful of activist judges who take it upon themselves to override those votes.
Conservatives remain “phobic” of libertarian social views on homosexuality, presenting an electoral problem for both. Image: politeaparty.blogspot.com
Protecting someone’s choice to engage in certain behaviors, and forcing others to affirm and support those behaviors against their will, are two dangerously different things. Proponents of gay marriage should not get away with packaging that abuse in any way that casts it in a light of fairness and equality, and libertarians who believe in true equality should take them to task about the deception.
Instead, let us propose an alternative view. It would be a far more “libertarian” question to ask why all marriage is illegal by default – that is, until we pay the state for a “license” to wed. And why do church clergy at religious ceremonies, despite being protected from the iron fist of government by that ever-illusive wall-of-separation, still invoke “the power vested in me by the State of…?”
Until those fundamental questions are resolved, it doesn’t matter if we argue for or against same-sex unions. It doesn’t matter if the supreme court upholds the several States’ right to define marriage based on the will and consent of their citizens. Until we figure out exactly what a marriage is, and where the authority to wed and have children comes from, both paths inevitably lead us to subjugation.
By Anthony James Kidwell – DontComply.com
11 Comments
short Link
I am pulling back from Libertarian thinking because of the bias of most Libertarians against Christians. Libertarians and Free Thinking advocates have very similar agendas, which is to eliminate the Judeo/Christian culture in America. This article was a good “out of the box” view of what a good Libertarian might think (e.g. no law acknowledging marriage); however, most Libertarians don’t think in these terms, but look for opportunities to eliminate the Judeo/Christian influences in America. This issue has single handedly destroyed the emerging joining of forces of Christians in the Republican party with Libertarians. As a Christian that held Libertarian views I find myself frustrated and, to be honest, scared for myself and my family. My fear is not just the liberals but now Libertarians due to this issue.
Namenomnomnom
Yeah.
And my bible says I can own slaves and that my slaves must obey me.
That Emancipation Proclamation was a usurpation of my God-given right to own negros. And every court decision that ever recognized human rights for the sub-human slave progeny has trampled further on my religious right to own darkies. Emancipation of negros? How anti-libertarian can you get? They can’t be considered human. Because that tramples on my right to exercise my slave-owning religion. What’s next? Letting women stand up and talk in church?
How can I practice my pro – slavery religion in this anti-libertarian cesspool of attempted racial equality called America? I can’t. WAAAA. WAAAA! LOOK! LOOK OVER HERE I’M BEING OPPRESSED.
Gays want to visit their loved ones in the hospital now, too. Which if we let them do it will oppress me even more. Every time one of them gay fellers goes to visit the person he loves in the hospital, the rheumatism in my oppression bone acts up something terrible. And with no chattel pickaninnies to carry my burden for me, neither.
You may well imagine that I get a full blown case of the vapors and have to retire to my fainting couch whensoever The Gay Agenda Inc. puts a gun to my head and makes my think about the possibility of a good, slave – owning Christian having to bake a cake with two little bride statuettes up on top. Now that right there is some real oppression I’ll tell you what.
Can I get an AMEN?
The Emancipation Proclamation was anti-libertarian just like this so-called Marriage Equality stuff is. Making reactionary Muslim and Christian fundamentalists like us honor the basic human rights of our black and gay neighbors is just as anti-libertarian as all get out, just like my brother Mr. Kidwell says. Mr. Kidwell and I are being so goshdarned oppressed right now I’m half tempted to stamp my boot.
Oh and please forgive brother Kidwell for his sinful prevarication about overwhelming support for the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. That could never happen in a Christian country like this because our Bible is very clear that marriage is defined as between a man and lots and lots of women, who should be assisted in their duties by rooms full of concubines. That is the Biblical way and all of these monogamy laws are an abomination before my Lord and Savior which trample on my religious rights in a most un-libertarian fashion.
No cakes for gays and lesbians! Nosiree. My Bible says it is a sin to suffer a sinner to eat cake, whether you baked it yourself or one of your kitchen darkies or one of your many wives or concubines baked it for you.
And let’s outlaw shrimp cocktail real quick, too. For it is an abomination before the Lord. And every time someone orders one my Christian right to live in a world where no one eats shrimp is trampled. Legalized shrimp is anti-libertarian!
Anthony James Kidwell
Wait, what’s with all this crap about slavery and emancipation? Never mind, I don’t care. You apparently equate homosexual behavior with being of a certain race, which is fairly offensive in itself. But then you want the government to force Christians out of business, and you would have it done gleefully. Liberty is the Right to do anything you want with your business – including refusal of service to anyone you want.
Namenomnomnom
Your notion of liberty is to deny service to someone on the basis of their race or gender or the fact that their kid has Downs Syndrome or any other prejudice you happen to have?
Your business is on land defended by the parents and children of all those kinds of people you want to marginalize. It runs on power generated by all those kinds of people you hate.
The road to your business was dug and paved by people including individuals of races and genders you don’t want to darken your doorstep.
I presume you don’t want the LGBT firemen to be allowed to skip the fire at your place, or the LGBT EMI to be allowed to refuse to put the defibrillator on you just because you happen to be steeped in archaic prejudices.
They are all contributing to society in ways you thanklessly benefit from every hour of every day. You insist that liberty is your entitlement to take from all, but deny the fundamental American principle that all are created equal.
That is a kind of weird definition.
Christians are people who obey God’s injunction to judge not, lest they be judged. Hence no Christian will ever be put out of business for denying service to someone for their race or gender or other God-given trait.
If hypocrites making a pretense of Christianity get a life lesson about how to actually follow Him (e.g. don’t make everyone in the crowd prove they are heterosexual before getting a loaf or a fish), I’m cool with that.
The fact that the subjects of slavery and Emancipation are of no concern to you paints a pretty clear and ugly picture. Is that really where you’re coming from?
Anthony James Kidwell
I think you’re on the wrong website. You must be looking for “comply.com.”
First things first, what Lincoln’s “emancipation” really was all about, what Lincoln really was as opposed to what the yankee-doodle worshippers say he was – whole different conversation. Believe me, it concerns me greatly, but it’s for a different dialogue. On that point however, “slavery” seems to me a lot closer to actually forcing someone to do something he doesn’t want to do…such as bake a cake with two men on it for a topper when it violates his religious principles, or get out of business all together.
Secondly, you seem to be confused about the actual teaching about “judge not.” Christians are taught to love the sinner, because we are all sinners ourselves, but to despise the sin. Is homosexual “orientation” a sin? No. That’s not even a Church teaching. Homosexual acts, that is the sin, and participating in pagan ceremonies, ie. a homosexual wedding by baking the wedding cake, that is also a sin.
You are also complying with an artificial caste paradigm, that of “the homosexual” as a certain class of person with a distinct culture and identity. All of that garbage is a construct of the political left. Homosexual is not a noun, it is an adjective.
And in the first place, if you believe in the free market at all, you would support the customer’s right to take business elsewhere. Instead you support them going to the government to ruin that cake shop because they wouldn’t do something against conscience. That’s a sorry way to deal with capitalism.
Steve Warford
You are attempting to equate two different things and you know it as does the entire LGBT community. Slavery/racial discrimination are not the same thing.
Namenomnomnom
No, Steve. I’m not trying to equate. I’m drawing an analogy. It is impossible to draw an analogy between “the same thing.” To draw an analogy is to recognize that two things are indeed different things, but crucially similar in one or more regards.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to claim by saying: “slavery/racial discrimination are not the same thing.”
Obviously, slavery as it was previously practiced in the US, was an instance and a type of racial discrimination. Slavery is a subset of racial discrimination. I never said they are the same thing.
My bible says it is perfectly fine to own slaves. Enslaving human beings is no impediment to Salvation. Whatsoever.
But the US Constitution, as ammended, differs. The US wisely recognized that the Bible, insofar as it advocated and licensed such heinous injustice, has no moral authority nor any credibility aa the basis for a system of laws.
That’s why you were never jailed for attending a clambake, or wearing cotton skivvies with some elastic knitted in to the wasteband. Both of these things would necessarily be illegal in a Christian country, since The Unerring Word Of God proscribes shellfish and fabric made of more than one kind of fiber. Also illegal would be divorce, and working on the Sabbath, and ever cutting your forelocks.
Your haircut, Steveand your diet and yoyr underpants offend God–per the Bible–yet our laws let you go around on a regular basis with shorn forelocks, eating an occasional shrimp if the mood strikes, and wearing boxers or briefs.
What our Constitution does not allow is for you to discriminate against your neighbor simply because of who God made him or her to be.
You can’t discriminate against your neighbor by enslaving him or her just because he or she is black (under the Biblical curse of Ham) as was done for so long *in perfect accord with the teachings of the Bible.*
Nor can you discriminate against your neighbor because he loves his fellow man–in the Biblical sense.
Whether black or gay, you can’t enslave or otherwise legally marginalize your neighbor because of their innate nature.
If you want to propounded the argument that gender identity is a choice, please prove your case by choosing to not be sexually attracted to what we traditionally call the opposite sex. At the same time begin to have involuntary sexual responses at the thought of naked men, naked men caressing and penetrating your own naked body. Is your body responding yet, Steve?
I’m not asking you to sin. Involuntary physiological responses are not sins. Please stop short of actually lusting after men. Merely begin to get an elevated pulse, galvanic skin response, and of course an elevated penis whenever a scantily clad man comes into view.
Please have all members of your congregation demonstrate their ability–and so the human ability–to make this choice.
When all the men in your church are standing naked in a circle, gazing below each other’s waist with raging tumescence *caused by gazing beneath each other’s waist, you will have begun to make the case that being gay is a choice. When you and all of your homerotially energized fellow churchmen will swear on the King James that there isn’t a woman in the world that could excite you in the least, your argument that being gay is a choice gains probity.
When all of the women in your congregation become lubricated at the very thought of one another’s invasive touch, and all the women attest that neither you nor any other Christian man has any sexual appeal for them whatsoever, finally you have the sort of empirical evidence you would need to claim that being gay is a choice, a “lifestyle thing” rather than a condition of life created by the Creator.
Steve Warford
You are being ridiculous – the article was not about stopping gays – it was about not making religious people have to participate – and I know every LGBT supporter is smart enough to see the difference.
short Link
You prove the point that the goal is to eliminate the Judeo/Christian culture and force people to violate their faith and practice. You will see people lose their jobs, rights to participate in society, and even be imprisoned. Why don’t you look for answers to would allow both to co-exist… because you don’t want Christianity to exist. Look in the mirror when you talk about bigots.
Mulle Welz Noorlun
The main reason i don’t claim Libertarian. I cannot reconcile my faith to gay rights & favoritism. Great article!
Mary Leyendecker
good read