Gay Marriage Is Not a Threat to Freedom

The right to marry a person of the same sex fits perfectly within Thomas Jefferson's conception of freedom.

One reason Americans have moved so rapidly toward support of same-sex marriage is their stubborn bias toward liberty. When interest groups demand something material, or when they seek to take something from other groups, the public is apt to resist. But when a group asks to live and let live, it can usually count on getting its way.

Legal scholars have long thought that if the Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, it would base that decision on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "the equal protection of the laws." When Justice Anthony Kennedy made the case for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, though, he relied on a different provision. DOMA, he wrote, "is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment."

The right to marry a person of the same sex fits perfectly within Thomas Jefferson's conception of freedom. "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God," he wrote. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The beauty of gay marriage is that it grants something to one group that doesn't come at the expense of anyone else. Heterosexual rights are undisturbed. Straight people could marry before any state legalized same-sex matrimony, and likewise after.

That fact explains why so many non-gays have come to embrace the idea. But it presents a high hurdle for opponents of same-sex marriage. Even Americans who have moral qualms about it may not think the law should try to dictate morality.

After all, the Supreme Court said in 2003 the Constitution protects the freedom of adults to engage in sodomy -- a decision that conservatives spent five minutes denouncing and never mentioned again. (Well, except for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, who wants to reinstate its ban.) It's a small step from saying people should be free to have sex with whomever they want to saying they should be free to marry whomever they choose.

So how did staunch opponents of gay rights react to the decisions striking down DOMA while upholding marriage equality in California? By claiming that it would trample on their rights.

Thomas Peters, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage, told me, "Same-sex marriage and religious freedom don't coexist very well. In fact, they probably are mutually exclusive."

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association called the DOMA verdict "the greatest threat to the First Amendment in history." The Liberty Institute said the rulings will mean "attempts to use government to punish those who disagree" and "create a climate of fear and oppression."

It's a bit rich for these groups to complain that the court is infringing on their freedom to infringe on the freedom of gays. Advocates of same-sex marriage are not trying to exclude heterosexuals from matrimony. They are only asking to be free to practice it, as well.

But opponents charge that churches will be forced to host same-sex weddings and their clergy will be required to perform them. Churches that refuse, they say, may be stripped of their tax-exempt status.

The likelihood that any of these fears will come to pass ranges from minimal to zero. State laws allow divorce, but Catholic priests haven't been forced to preside at the weddings of divorced Catholics. Employment discrimination laws haven't been applied to end bans on female clergy. Nor have such internal church polices led to the loss of standard tax exemptions.

The only real friction comes in areas where religious institutions provide public accommodations or act as agents of government. A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost a special tax break for an open-air pavilion after it refused to let a lesbian couple use it for a civil union ceremony. Catholic Charities abandoned the adoption business in Illinois rather than work with same-sex couples in civil unions.

Those cases may represent good or bad policy, but they're not a new thing. A hotel owner who objects to integration on religious grounds can't bar access to blacks. An organization taking state money for state contracts has to comply with state policies. Lawmakers will have plenty of these peripheral issues to argue about, but the idea that believers will suffer rank oppression is a fantasy.

The only liberty they will lose is the liberty to deprive others of their liberty. Sorry, but that's one freedom a free society doesn't offer.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Deep-dish pizza isn't a threat to freedom, either.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Deep-dish pizza isn't a threat to freedom, either.

    Really? Really? First you want to call it "pizza" like it's a normal thing! Then it'll be "pizza" with things like chicken on it. Next thing you know they'll be letting people get more than one "pizza" at a time. Gasp: Polyvory! They're already telling Army cooks they have to make pizza! Next they will force McDonald's to make pizza!

  • ||

    Everyone who eats out ought to have the opportunity to eat deep-dish pizza, as long as no saturated fats are used to make it, cause that stuff clogs arteries.

  • ||

    Next thing you know a father will be eating pizza with his own son!

  • ||

    We cannot give the people the right to choose any topping that they want!

  • Torontonian||

    "Next they will force McDonald's to make pizza!"

    McDonald's used to make pizza in the 90's, but they stopped.

    Proof that "pizza" is a choice and "pizza makers" can be cured.

  • robc||

    Folding pizza IS a threat to freedom, however.

    Proof: Where do people fold pizza? NYC. The same place that has stop and frisk and soda bans and Bloomberg and etc. QED.

  • some guy||

    Folding pizza is the most convenient way to eat real pizza, though. Less mess. I don't care where the idea comes from.

  • robc||

    Technically, knife and fork would be less mess.

    Or, you know, cut the slices a width that doesnt need folding. Or, not so much grease running off that it is that messy.

  • some guy||

    Who eats pizza with a knife and fork? The whole point of crust is to make it hand-friendly.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The whole point of crust is to have something boring to throw away at the end.

  • Rhywun||

    The whole point of crust is to have something boring to throw away at the end.

    You wouldn't throw it away if you were eating real pizza.

  • robc||

    Who eats pizza with a knife and fork?

    Italians. Other Europeans. Myself on the 1st piece of a Detroit-style pizza.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "OIL", YOU HEATHEN!

  • robc||

    Grease is not oil.

    Grease, however, is the word.

    As is the bird.

  • anon||

    B B b b b bird bird bird, bird is the word...

  • anon||

    I don't trust people that eat pizza with a knife and fork.

    Of course, I don't actually trust people anyways, so there's that...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do they fold pizza in Naples? I'm guessing "yes" as Neapolitan style is thin-crust.

  • robc||

    I think they use knife and fork, at least that was my impression when I lived in Europe (although Ive never been to Naples).

  • AlmightyJB||

    All pizza is thin crust.

  • Sevo||

    robc| 7.1.13 @ 8:05AM |#
    "Folding pizza IS a threat to freedom, however."

    Well, I'm in favor of pizza freedom, but...

  • Fluffy||

    So, wait. Is Chapman declaring that stripping people of control of their property under the pretext that said property is a "public accomodation" doesn't harm their liberty?

    Just checking.

    Is that an official Reason position?

    Some clarification would be nice.

  • Marshall Gill||

    C'mon, Fluffy, of course it is. The government expansion of positive rights for gays is what Reason is all about. They only publish several articles a day on the subject, wtf have you been?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Chapman uses the word "liberty". It doesn't mean what he thinks it does.

  • robc||

    Chapman uses a word. It doesnt mean what he thinks it does.

    No need to go for the specific, when the general applies just fine.

  • Free Society||

    To further prove your point he mentions the liberty to deprive others of liberty. I get the analogy, but we all know that Steve Chapman loves positive "freedom".

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The only real friction comes in areas where religious institutions provide public accommodations...
    Or florists, or caterers, or...

    "Gay marriage is not a threat to freedom, except in those cases in which it is."

    Zod, what idiocy.

    The problem is government power, not gay marriage as such, but let's not pretend that gay marriage doesn't present yet another avenue for the squelching of freedom.
  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Lack of preview and poorly closed tags are also problems.

  • Fluffy||

    Will no one save us from this tag scourge?

  • Rich||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    EDIT BUTTON!

  • ||

    One reason Americans have moved so rapidly toward support of same-sex marriage is their stubborn bias toward liberty.

    Is he serious? He can't be serious. Someone tell me he's not serious.

    The reason that Americans, other than the small percentage that actually is in favor of civil liberties over party cheerleading is because it is part of the left's Culture War. It's simply a way for these people to show how sophisticated and tolerant they are, to distinguish themselves from the Christian mouth-breathers in the red states.

  • Free Society||

    They're so tolerant of others that they have no tolerance for people without much toleration for others.

  • califernian||

    It's simply a way for these people to show how sophisticated and tolerant they are, to distinguish themselves from the Christian mouth-breathers in the red states.

    This much is absolutely true. Sometimes the useful idiots lean in the right direction momentarily. But without question the vast majority of those who support gay marriage and gay rights do so for reasons and principles that have nothing to do with the libertarian reasons for supporting these things.

  • robc||

    Marriage licensing is a real, and growing, threat to freedom.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    You think they'll let you go out and have sexual relations with just anyone.

    Next you'll want to form a long-term relationship with joint property and all that shit.

    You're going to need a license for all that - otherwise SOMALIA (with free sodomy).

  • some guy||

    joint property

    Contracts allow for joint property. All the other stuff that's tied up in a marriage license could be handled with contracts.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    But government would still be arbitrating the contracts!

    /redtony

  • Marshall Gill||

    Next you'll want to form a long-term relationship with joint property and all that shit.

    Common law SSM? Every person, gay or straight, has the right to divorce someone to whom they were never married.

  • wareagle||

    But when a group asks to live and let live, it can usually count on getting its way.

    does live and let live mean there will NOT be lawsuits when some business or other decides against taking a gay couple's money? And what will the Dems do with the blacks in their constituency, the ones who oppose gay marriage far more vehemently than all those rednecks in flyover land?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Ignore them, as usual?

  • thom||

    If the choice is between systematic discrimination of an entire set of people vs the occasional homophobe having his rights trampled by being forced to take money from homos, I'm going to err on the side of no discriminating.

    I don't think businesses should be required to do business with other races if they'd prefer not to, but I'm definitely not in favor of reinstating the Jim Crow laws in order to protect racist business owners.

    Sure, some of you are going to respond that "it's not the same thing because gays are icky!", but I really don't care.

  • Libertymike||

    Your first paragraph is a logical failure.

    First, what is the "systematic discrimination of an entire set of people"? I assume that you are referring to the state's heretofore refusal to license homo marriage, yes? Thus, in your first paragraph you are initially writing of the efforts of the government, not of an individual or one particular business entity.

    Second, you create a strawman choice between the state's marriage permission regime and the "occasional homophobe having his rights trampled". Its a classic false choice peddled by progressive tyrants.

    You conflate Jim Crow and marriage permission regimes with individual choice. Why should any person be forced to sell marriage related goods and services to homosexual couples? You obviously prefer the application of force to solve problems.

  • thom||

    Why should anybody be forced to sell marriage related good to black people? I don't think they should. I think it's a violation of their rights. But the solution is not to prevent black people from marrying. That's an even more egregious violation of liberty. If you are so blinded by the ickiness of homosexuality that you don't see the equivalence, then God bless you, you're probably just not going to come around.

  • sgs||

    So, you're ok if the people you don't like get fucked over as long as the people you do like get what you want them to get.

    Which makes you a piece of shit.

  • Zeb||

    Everything comes with a tradeoff. I think he makes a legitimate point with the comparison to race. Would you have opposed repeal of anti-miscegenation laws because it would open the door to discrimination lawsuits? If not, how is this any different?

  • ||

    It's not a legitimate point because it's a false dilemma. The government created the protected classes and also runs the licensing scheme. Because of that legal structure there is no option that doesn't entail violating someone's rights. That you consider the "right", more properly regarded as a privilege like all other licenses, of gay people to have their marriages licensed more important than the rights of business owners is your personal judgment. But the dilemma isn't created by people who want to preserve and exercise their individual choice.

  • ||

    You're still creating a false dilemma. Individual action and government action are not the same thing. No one has proposed preventing the states from licensing gay marriages in order to protect the rights of businesses to refuse service to a protected class. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that the government's decision to license gay marriages entails trampling on the rights of businesses and individuals. It shouldn't be that way. That's the government's fault. Not the individuals.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The beauty of gay marriage is that it grants something to one group that doesn't come at the expense of anyone else.

    As long as you ignore the force of the state requiring people to give up their freedom of association, I guess. The people who have been sued over their refusal to do business concerning gay marriage are going to be very surprised with your assertion.

  • some guy||

    That's two separate issues. You can't use one dumb thing government does as a reason why it must do some other dumb thing.

  • robc||

    It SHOULD be two separate issues, but it isnt.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Tell Chapman.

    If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I am making no such claim.

  • some guy||

    You did make that claim. You may not have made it for yourself, but you did make it for "[t]he people who have been sued over their refusal to do business concerning gay marriage". It's still a conflation of problems. The problem isn't gay marriage, it's the government forcing people associate with others.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My earlier post said, "The problem is government power, not gay marriage as such, but let's not pretend that gay marriage doesn't present yet another avenue for the squelching of freedom."

    I thought a big thing around here was that foreseeable consequences are not unintended. It was quite foreseeable that the government was going to force people to do things they didn't want to do here.

  • robc||

    foreseeable consequences are not unintended

    Its not that big around here. Seems to cause an argument whenever it is brought up.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Well, hell, what doesn't?

  • some guy||

    I didn't see your earlier post until now. True this is foreseeable, but that doesn't mean its a good reason to prevent government recognition of gay marriage. If anything, maybe such recognition will make some people realize that government has no business licensing marriage in the first place.

  • robc||

    If anything, maybe such recognition will make some people realize that government has no business licensing marriage in the first place.

    Ive spent 23 years arguing that. I cant even get people on H&R to oppose marriage licensing à outrance.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't think it's a good reason to prevent it, either, I'm just saying that arguing that it doesn't negatively impact other people's freedom, in some instances and under our current laws, is either ignorant or bad faith. There are good arguments for why it shouldn't be prevented but "it doesn't come at the expense of other's freedoms" isn't one of them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And maybe unicorns will fart rainbows.

  • Fluffy||

    That's totally fair. And frankly I agree.

    That is far, far different from what Chapman is saying, though.

    I say, "You can't use bad discrimination laws to justify bad marriage laws."

    Chapman is saying, "Fuck you, business owners who will get fucked over. Just deal with it. It's not like this is something new, and fuck it, that's not liberty anyway."

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That is much more concise than what was actually written and still captures the essence of the zodawful thought process.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Thank you for that, as I don't actually want to read a Chapman piece but I do enjoy reading the comments on them.

  • Zeb||

    Anti-discrimination laws and gay marriage are distinct issues. Gay marriage does not come at any expense to anyone else. The anti-discrimination laws that apply to private parties are already there, so it's not a new problem.

  • sgs||

    I love that you post that after someone else already posted something that demonstrates how stupid your thought process is.

  • Zeb||

    What the fuck are you talking about, you stupid prick? 1. You have no idea what my thought process is and 2. No one posted anything that demonstrates how stupid my conclusions are. Because they are not stupid. Now fuck off.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Wrong. Let's take the case of a gay couple where only one partner works. The other gets to claim SS benefits based on the work history of the working partner but never paid into the system for those benefits. That means that other taxpayers are injured because they have to make up the difference (eventually and assuming we don't pull a Greece or Zimbabwe). Now you can claim that hetero couples already impose that burden but by definition this increases the count of couples that fall into this category and so it most certainly comes at an expense to someone else.

  • some guy||

    A hotel owner who objects to integration on religious grounds can't bar access to blacks.

    But he should be able to. You can't legislate morality. If someone wants to be a bigoted dick on his own property he should have the right to do so. Maybe when the rest of us boycott him out of business he'll learn his lesson.

    Similarly, florists should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Their customers will judge them accordingly.

  • robc||

    You can't legislate morality.

    You can, as we see all the time.

    But otherwise, everything else you wrote is correct.

  • some guy||

    You can, as we see all the time.

    Are you being pedantic here? Should I have said, you can't "enforce" morality legislation?

  • robc||

    Its enforced too.

    See all the people in jail for smoking a joint.

    Tell them it isnt being enforced.

  • some guy||

    And yet tens of millions of people still smoke joints, including some of the people currently in prison.

  • ||

    ROBC - do you believe it should be illegal to smoke a joint? Or should it not be? And why?

  • robc||

    ???

    I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

  • ||

    Just answer the question.

  • robc||

    I have a 10 year posting history on H&R, I think my position is fucking clear.

    I dont think you understand a thing I wrote.

  • ||

    I am new here. I was reading what you wrote without the context of a ten year posting history.

  • robc||

    I am new here.

    There is a search feature at the top.

    robc's rule* of internet forums:

    Always lurk for 3-6 months before first post. Get to know the regulars, so you dont embarrass yourself with stupid-ass questions.

    *more of a suggestion, but violate at your own peril.

  • ||

    robc - would you rather know that a hotel owner hates your guts for who you are before or after you rented the room? I would rather know beforehand.

    I would prefer to NOT rent a hotel room from a bigot.

  • some guy||

    Me too. Just because he has to serve you doesn't mean he has to serve you well.

  • ||

    Exactly. I would be afraid he might give me the room with bed bugs.

  • sgs||

    The fact that there are two people seriously suggesting what you two are suggesting is really disgusting.

  • sgs||

    And you definitely won't get sued for providing substandard service at the point of a gun, will you.

  • robc||

    Not sure why this is a reply to me, I think we are in agreement.

  • ||

    Maybe I need to learn the local snark here. I thought you were of the view that hotel owners should be forced to rent to people they hate.

  • wareagle||

    you'll find that most people here tend to oppose govt forcing anyone to do most anything.

  • robc||


    I thought you were of the view that hotel owners should be forced to rent to people they hate.

    I said the exact opposite, I really think this is more of a reading comprehension problem.

    I agreed with some guy who said " If someone wants to be a bigoted dick on his own property he should have the right to do so" and "Similarly, florists should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason". How does me saying that is correct lead to you jumping to the opposite conclusion?

  • sarcasmic||

    Morality can be legislated, but it doesn't magically make people moral.

  • crashland||

    But it makes the self righteous feel so... righteous.

  • anon||

    You can't legislate morality.

    Doesn't mean we can't try!
    /sic

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else was a threat to freedom?

  • Rich||

  • hitesh87||

    This is a separate contract,
    Virtual Assistant Services, pay them for services rendered only to you instead of going through the same process of working full-time employees and not have to suffer.

  • Rich||

    "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God," he wrote. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    Emphasis added. Of course, this was prior to religious tax exemption.

    /snark

  • crashland||

    Gays getting hitched isn't a threat to my liberty, however, for those SS couples getting married, it sure will impact theirs. Everybody should be free to voluntarily embrace the chains of marriage.

  • AdamJ||

    Jim Demint was on Meet the Press for Heritage saying the same thing; that somehow allowing gays to marry threatens his religious freedom. These people's religion must not be very strong if this will destroy their faith. To this I always like to apply the "why should you care if I'm going to hell" principle.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't think it's about destroying their faith so much as being required by the state to act in ways that violate it.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Although, in all fairness, there are those faithful who just think it is icky, and your stated principle applies just fine to those.

  • crashland||

    Exactly. Fred and Paul getting married has no impact upon my religious beliefs or in any way delegitimizes my 29 year marriage. Plus seems to me that long term committed relationships strengthen rather than weaken our society.

  • wareagle||

    no impact until Fred and Paul sue the church that refuses to recognize them as a couple and won't perform the ceremony. And even though there are numerous churches that WILL perform gay marriage ceremonies just as quickly as hetero unions, what do you think the odds are of some couple or couples purposely looking for the houses that balk?

  • crashland||

    The gov compelling people to associate with those whom they dislike is a different battle.

    If the day comes that a pastor is forced to marry a SS couple against his will... The consequences will be dire. I just don't see such a thing happening in the foreseeable future.

    Ideally government would be completely out of the marriage business, but I don't see that happening either.

  • Jgalt1975||

    This is a tiresome bugaboo. Churches already routinely refuse to marry people for a variety of discriminatory reasons. Most obviously, quite a few churches, probably a majority even, will only perform marriages for couples who are both members of that denomination. I've never heard of an American court finding that to be unlawful discrimination even though religion affiliation has been a protected class for federal civil rights purposes for 50 years.

  • Harry A. Ness||

    Yeah.... but you forgot the florist argument. I mean what will happen when florists (that small percentage that isn't already gay) are forced to do business with the gays getting married?

    The industry was already teetering on brink of collapse after the end of interracial marriage prohibitions and now this???!!

  • sgs||

    Because minimizing the governments abuse pf property rights with snark makes your point so valid.

  • Harry A. Ness||

    Yes, it's proper to minimize those things that are minimal. Perspective is important.

    I am more concerned with people having their religious preferences written into law than I am with a florist having to follow just one more government regulation.

    I would rather the florist be free to discriminate. But the florist could not discriminate before based on interracial marriage, and this is hardly different. It wasn't a big deal then, and isn't a big deal now.

    There were many people being actually harmed by the refusal of the government to recognize SSM.

  • ||

    IOW, we should all accept your moral judgment on who is more worthy of their liberties. Because you hate moralists who wish to impose their views on others...

  • Marshall Gill||

    There were many people being actually harmed by the refusal of the government to recognize SSM.

    Really, "harmed"?

    No, not a single person has been harmed by the failure of the government to recognize their personal relationships. The denial of benefits is not "harm".

  • robc||

    To this I always like to apply the "why should you care if I'm going to hell" principle.

    I can answer that question (I dont think it applies to the gay marriage issue at all*): Because we are ordered to care.

    Its a basic tenet of Christianity. I am ordered to love my neighbor as myself, so if I care about myself going to hell, I have to care about you going to hell too.

    *However, I will repeat what Ive said on many threads on here -- marriage licensing (gay, straight, whatever) is a violation of 1st amendment freedom of religion (assuming incorporation via the 14th).

  • Jgalt1975||

    I always understood the purpose of the golden rule as being to encourage positive acts by Christians, not to encourage the imposition of negative restraints on others (especially without regard to whether those others are even Christian to begin with).

  • robc||

    What is it with reading comprehension today?

    Where did I say anything like that?

    I was talking about "caring". How is "caring" a negative restraint? Seems like it is a positive act, in fact.

  • AdamJ||

    I always took love thy neighbor as thyself to mean, for example, "love your Muslim neighbor and put his needs on equal footing as your own, but love him for what he is, not trying to change him." I can see how that could be extended by some to mean that you should try to convert that neighbor, but that also could be extended to religious crusades. And what if your Muslim neighbor believes te same thing about you and his convictions are equally strong? I say love thy neighbor as yourself while you are both on Earth. I don't believe spreading kindness and selflessness necessarily must lead to your concern for religious differences.

  • robc||

    The "love thy neighbor" bit may not specifically encourage conversion, but their are other specific orders to preach the gospel in all corners of the world, so, you know, that is there.

    And I dont think it can extend to crusades without completely warping things.

  • Floridian||

    Robc, why do you think some people (not meaning you) say that gay marriage violates their religious freedom while not opposing marriage between Hindus, Buddhist, or whatever religion? It seems to me if your religion does not recognize same sex marriages it should not recognize marriages performed in another religion. I only ask you because you seem like a religious guy and may have some insight into how other religious people think/feel. Thanks.

  • robc||

    No clue.

    Seriously, I have no clue.

  • Floridian||

    Thanks for the honest reply.

  • Bryan C||

    "It seems to me if your religion does not recognize same sex marriages it should not recognize marriages performed in another religion."

    I'll try to answer, based on my own experiences and Protestant upbringing.

    Christians generally maintain a certain level of respect for honest practitioners of other faiths.

    Most religions have a set of core beliefs and practices that are fairly similar, and marriage rites are a good example. Some Christians might look at, say, a Hindu or Muslim marriage as an imperfect reflection of God's true principles, while at the same time recognizing that it does aspire to those same principles.

    (Which doesn't mean, of course, they won't try to convert a Muslim or a Hindu, or that they won't regard them as in need of salvation. That's a different subject.)

  • Floridian||

    Thank you for the response. I guess it is a matter of degrees. Christian union being perfect, then other religious union being imperfect, and then homosexual union even less perfect. I guess I don't see the difference in degree and would expect same sex union to get the same level of deference as other belief systems as in not being challenged legally. However I understand some people believe homosexuality is an abomination where different religions are not seen in the same light, thus the different treatment in marriage.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I'm somewhere between Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the atheism scale, and even I have to admit that the bible does order its believers to proselytize. I'm pretty sure it's ordered not just by Jesus but by Paul after he's gone, and more than one time.

  • Floridian||

    I'm not anti-religion and understand if you honestly believe you are saving someone for eternity how you would be compelled to act. What I don't understand is why people who are religious would fight homosexual marriage but not other religious marriage. I tried a google search for the reason and came up blank. Anyone have any thoughts. As a side not it seems that religious people try to save atheists but I'm not sure how often they try to save people with a different mainstream religion. I find that odd.

  • Libertymike||

    Good observation. A very good observation.

    Why? You have stumped at least two posters on the proposition you presented.

  • anon||

    As a side not it seems that religious people try to save atheists but I'm not sure how often they try to save people with a different mainstream religion. I find that odd.

    Religious people equate morality with religion; hence, if you have no religion, you must be immoral/amoral (pick one) (in their mind).

    Those that follow a guidebook of morals for no other reason than to go to heaven cannot comprehend why someone might be good or commit good actions without the fear of burning in hell for eternity.

    Yes, I'm basically saying that all religious people are sheep, which their bible really says for me.

  • ||

    What I don't understand is why people who are religious would fight homosexual marriage but not other religious marriage.

    Because other religious marriages that are otherwise heterosexual don't violate the tenets of their faith. If it makes you feel any better though, Christians do still think the heterosexual partners in those marriages are going to hell along with the atheists and gays.

  • Floridian||

    Hmm. I guess that makes sense from their point of view. Heterosexual atheist marriage is still one woman, one man and they can be converted and then it turns into a Christian marriage. Two men or two women if married and converted would still be a violation of their tenants.

  • robc||

    To add to this, way late, and paraphrasing:

    Biblical advice on marriage says a Christian should marry another Christian. However, if a Christian is married to a non-Christian (say, got married before the conversion), they should not divorce them, but continue on in the marriage.

    So, obviously, there isnt any kind of disapproval of the general concept of marriage outside the Church. Those marriages are considered valid.

    I would also add that the concept of marriage, as specifically discussed in the gospels, predates Christianity or even Judaism, so isnt specifically a religious ceremony. It involves God bringing a man and a woman together, not particularly a Christian man and a Christian woman (or a Jewish man and a Jewish woman).

    So that would explain the acceptance of heterosexual marriages from other religions (or atheists).

  • Floridian||

    Thank you to those kind enough to respond to my questions. I think I have a better understanding of the religious objection to homosexual marriage now. Peace.

  • ||

    I guess that makes sense from their point of view. Heterosexual atheist marriage is still one woman, one man and they can be converted and then it turns into a Christian marriage. Two men or two women if married and converted would still be a violation of their tenants.

    Exactly. This is also reflected in the laws against heterosexual polygamy. Despite the marriages being heterosexual and therefore within doctrine as far as that goes, the multiple participants violates other religious tenets, and therefore they oppose them. Although pretty much the entire old testament is one long orgy of polygamous marriages and chattel concubines.

  • cavalier973||

    Would these same people fight polygamous marriage, even if it were, say, a group of Southern Baptist polygamists urging its legalization?

    I submit that they would.

    As a side not it seems that religious people try to save atheists but I'm not sure how often they try to save people with a different mainstream religion.

    Through the International Mission Board (www.imb.org), Southern Baptists support approximately 5,624 missionaries who are engaging 655 people groups, of populations greater than 100,000, around the world.

    New churches numbering over 1,364 are planted through the efforts of more than 5,304 North American Missionaries, whose efforts are coordinated through your North American Mission Board (www.namb.net) and individual state conventions.

    Working together, Southern Baptists saw 855,756 new believers baptized in 2009!

  • anon||

    Chapman's a homophobe. Why else would you separate "gay rights" from rights we all enjoy regardless of whether we're gay or not?

  • Anders||

    We really need to know what Paula Dean thinks about Gay Marriage.

    She needs to be a regular columnist for Reason Mag.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Others have dealt with the freedom-of-association issue, so I'll skip that and instead comment on Chapman's Cuccinelli-bashing:

    "the Supreme Court said in 2003 the Constitution protects the freedom of adults to engage in sodomy -- a decision that conservatives spent five minutes denouncing and never mentioned again. (Well, except for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, who wants to reinstate its ban.)"

    As I've mentioned on a few occasions, Cuccinelli does not want to prosecute adults for sodomy with other adults in private. What he *does* want is to keep a guy in prison who sexually propositioned a 17-year old girl. See his petition to the Fourth Circuit:

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-co.....dMoose.pdf

    (He also questions the 4th Circuit's second-guessing of the Va courts - consistent with his views on federalism)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now, there may be some Virginia voters who have a principled objection to using the sodomy statute against someone who solicited sex from a minor. But that's not the talking point we're getting from Mother Jones and Reason - instead, there's the suggestion that Cuccinelli wants to put adults in prison for committing sodomy with other adults. This false assertion is aimed at the swing voters in the hopes that they can be fooled into thinking that they risk prison for what they do with their spouses and significant others. That is patently absurd, yet Cuccinelli's opponents keep promoting this accusation.

    Why? We can understand why Mother Jones promotes this ridiculous talking point - they hate Cuccinelli for standing against Obamacare and EPA excesses, and they want the voters to choose a Democratic governor for Virginia, thus earning headlines throughout the country about Virginians rejecting a Tea Party "extremist."

    What's Reason's excuse for echoing these talking points?

  • Anders||

    "What's Reason's excuse for echoing these talking points?"

    Libertarian confusion, obviously.

  • sgs||

    Ed, honestly, I ignore you because of the stupidity you engage in with your idiotic abortion rhetoric.

    You probably don't care, but I know I'm not the only one.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So, what is it about my abortion rhetoric which is worse than that of other posters?

  • Marshall Gill||

    I am dissapoint.

    I thought that my positions on abortion were pretty darn close to Ed's but I haven't been called out on my stupidity for them. Of course, being called a poopy head isn't exactly an intellectual challenge.

    Note to self: Argue the known, scientific beginning of life as conception more strenuously.

  • ||

    So you are openly and proudly admitting that you rely on the ad hominem fallacy to evaluate an argument? And for such a petty reason as a disagreement on a moral/ethical issue about which there is much contention, even among libertarians? NTTAWWT, but it's the kind of thing you should maybe just do without speaking of it.

  • Tony||

    Do you even notice you're supporting government telling people what kind of sex they can have? "He won't use it in that way" is not the typical way a libertarian speaks about such things.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's not the way I spoke of it, either.

  • califernian||

    ummm... are you actually arguing in favor of Ken Cucinelli's desire to reinstate sodomy laws in Virginia? fer realz?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No, I'm saying that if his opponents stated his position correctly, it would piss off some libertarians, perhaps, but wouldn't have a big impact on the swing-voting soccer moms. So his opponents have to make stuff up i hopes of scaring the SMs.

  • califernian||

    His position is that the state of Virginia should have the power to imprison people for sodomy.

  • Bryan C||

    "The only liberty they will lose is the liberty to deprive others of their liberty. Sorry, but that's one freedom a free society doesn't offer."

    Yeah, they're just being required by the government to work for someone else against their will. Who on earth could possibly see that as a deprivation of liberty?

  • ||

    Exactly. It's bad enough I have to support straight people through survivor's SS benefits or retirement programs or medical programs. Now I'm going to have to support homosexual couples too.

    The government has no business legislating marriage. It should but it's nose out. That is the most reasonable and fairest solution.

  • ||

    At the very least, the federal government should get out of the racket and leave it up to the states.

  • Joao||

    "One reason Americans have moved so rapidly toward support of same-sex marriage is their stubborn bias toward liberty."

    Just because one begins and ends an article with the word "liberty" does not make its ideas well-reasoned-out or libertarian.

    Caution #1: The the idea of gay marriage has only been remotely conceivable for 10 years. Is this a reflection of the attention span and "gimmie-gimmie" attitude of this generation. How do we know it will really work?

    Caution #2: BHA. Does it contribute to the issue? look it up.

    Caution #3: (Reuters) - A Washington state florist who refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, in the second legal action accusing the vendor of discrimination. Sounds like the State using force against the choices of a private party and then opening the door for busy-body social organization to do the same. Is that what you are about?

    Finally, the crux of the matter. Marriage is an ancient, honorable institution with so many social benefits that it still remains. If society decides that gay folks coupling up is of benefit, fine. But it boils down to a word:

    I'm married, as was the rest of history. If you want to extend that to some other form, CALL it SOMETHING ELSE: Civil Unions. That shows that it is legal, but society does not have to accept it. Logic and peace, baby.

    Radical gay haters and traditional haters are trying to force their views on society. Resist.

  • Tony||

    Separate but equal is inherently unequal. There is no coherent argument for denying full marriage equality to gays, so that's what this country should have.

  • califernian||

    I find it very hard to believe you are really only bothered by gay marriage because you are a fanatical linguistic prescriptivist.

  • Joao||

    "One reason Americans have moved so rapidly toward support of same-sex marriage is their stubborn bias toward liberty."

    Just because one begins and ends an article with the word "liberty" does not make its ideas well-reasoned-out or libertarian.

    Caution #1: The the idea of gay marriage has only been remotely conceivable for 10 years. Is this a reflection of the attention span and "gimmie-gimmie" attitude of this generation. How do we know it will really work?

    Caution #2: BHA. Does it contribute to the issue? look it up.

    Caution #3: (Reuters) - A Washington state florist who refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, in the second legal action accusing the vendor of discrimination. Sounds like the State using force against the choices of a private party and then opening the door for busy-body social organization to do the same. Is that what you are about?

    Finally, the crux of the matter. Marriage is an ancient, honorable institution with so many social benefits that it still remains. If society decides that gay folks coupling up is of benefit, fine. But it boils down to a word:

    I'm married, as was the rest of history. If you want to extend that to some other form, CALL it SOMETHING ELSE: Civil Unions. That shows that it is legal, but society does not have to accept it. Logic and peace, baby.

    Radical gay haters and traditional haters are trying to force their views on society. Resist.

  • DarrenM||

    The beauty of gay marriage is that it grants something to one group that doesn't come at the expense of anyone else.

    That's true of many things. Using the same reasoning, marriage among multiple (more than two) people should also be protected. 'Marriage' to a member of another species should also be protected, again for the same reason.

    However, it's not really up to you to decide what's an expense to someone else. Everyone places different value on different things. Just because *you* don't care about the consequences from another's actions, you assume no one else should, which is pretty arrogant.

  • ||

    You sound like a straight version of Tony: externalities everywhere, so rights be damned.

  • Slothrop||

    So let me get this straight (no pun intended):

    The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government should prohibit a specific class of citizen frrom entering into a specific type of contract, which another class of citizen is allowed to enter into, and/or tell the former class of citizen they may not legally use the same word (?) to refer to this contract as the latter class of citizen does, because of other laws which also happen to exist independently of whether this contract/speech prohibition exists or not?

    Am I getting this right?

  • odalysrowan16||

    as Kelly explained I didn't know that a student able to get paid $4595 in one month on the internet. have you seen this web page Go to site and open Home for details
    http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement