Federalism and gay marriage
May 17, 2008 – 11:44 am by JohnI came across a blag that supports the Libertarian Party in the name of gay, lesbian, and bixexual rights, Outright Libertarians, and its proprietor, Brian Miller, has been writing a lot about the ruling by the California Supreme Court that California’s illegalization of gay marriages was unconstitutional. In an example of why they endorsed Dr. George Phillies for president, he writes:
As a lobby for fully equal and uniform treatment by government for LGBT people (and ALL people) under the law, Outright Libertarians has a duty to its membership and the Libertarian Party to support the candidates who best fight for that principle at a local, state and federal level.
Only two Libertarians saw fit to release presidential press releases on this topic — effectively getting into the fight. And only one of those candidates embraced the proposition that equal protection of the law is not a discretionary thing to be implemented or revoked by pluralities, but an uncompromising and fundamental principle of the Constitution of our republic.
In the press release Dr. Phillies issued regarding the California decision and gay marriage in general, he said,
It is wonderful to hear that once again our Courts have defended our Constitutional rights. Once again, our courts have agreed that separate is not and cannot be equal.
I think from an overall government-reducing standpoint, this position is the wrong one to take. As I wrote a couple days ago, the problem is not that government treats people and their marriages/unions unequally; the problem is that it treats them at all. Romantic/familial/sexual relationships don’t have anything to do with government, and I’m confused as to why a so-called minarchist would think they do or should. The heterosexual-vs.-homosexual-marriage issue was created entirely by the State arrogating to itself the power to define what marriage is and license people to call themselves married. Less government, not more or different government, would solve the problem almost immediately.
Surprisingly, Bob Barr is on the right(er) side of this issue. I have not, am not, and will not ever endorse that drug warrior and military interventionist for any office or for any private position whatsoever, but he’s right about one part of this issue: the Constitution says nothing about marriage, the Imperial Federal Government should do nothing about marriage, it’s equally right (that is, wrong) for the Imperial Federal Government to ban same-sex marriages as it is to force all states to recognize them, and however you want to construe the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment takes precedence over it.
Using the central government to enforce your lifestyle values is equally as (un)just as Christian fundamentalists and other bigots doing the same for their values.