A Libertarian Position on Gay Marriage by Brian Doran

      For a Christian or anyone with religious beliefs it can be somewhat of a challenge to reconcile those religious beliefs with the stands that their political party takes. I am a Christian and I must admit that it is sometimes a challenge to reconcile my religious beliefs with my libertarian political beliefs. If I were a Democrat it would be hard to reconcile the belief that the state has the responsibility to take care of most of the physical needs of the population through myriads of welfare programs. Churches used to build and run hospitals and schools and provide food and clothing to the disadvantaged through voluntary charity. The fact that the church has been supplanted in this function by government is a major contributing factor to its decline. If I were a Republican it would be very hard to reconcile my belief that wars are only to be waged only in self defense. I have just scratched the surface here and to be honest most of my contentions with the major parties deal with issues that have nothing to do with religion. But even with the issues where the religious and political cross it is much easier for me to reconcile my religious beliefs with libertarianism than the other options.

      Taking a stand on gay marriage presents a challenge to Christian Libertarians and dare I say all Libertarians. I personally have had to weigh my tolerant and empathetic attitude towards my gay friends with what my church says. The stand that mainstream libertarian candidates such as Ron Paul and Bob Barr took was that it was up to each state to decide what the accepted legal definition of marriage is. Which is perhaps a constitutional position and may lessen the offense to conservatives which may otherwise be prone to vote for the candidates, but it still sounds like a cop out. It begs the further question: so what should the law be in your state? And if the answer is I would let the voters decide that, it sounds even more like side stepping and dodging the question. I was only marginally comfortable with this position.

      It is only a political issue because of the preferential treatment that married couples get through tax code and law. Government directed social engineering picks favorites according to what is democratically decided. This manufactures enmity between groups and gives people an issue to fight over that has nothing to do with all of the ways that big government and big finance rob us blind. But I digress.

      The stance that I am coming around to I first heard articulated by Gary Nolan, the nationally syndicated radio host whom contended for the 2004 Libertarian presidential nomination. He was being interviewed by Michael Medved on his radio show. When asked about the divisive gay marriage issue he advocated that all laws concerning marriage should be abolished, that couples should be free to form legal contractual unions as they see fit, and that churches should perform religious ceremonies that are independent of the state. At first I have to confess that this sounded like a cop out. Not addressing the issue directly and answering the question: should we allow gay marriage or not? But really it responds to the issue even more deeply than simply picking a side. Now I think that this is the best stance not only for libertarians, but perhaps for all Christians as well. And I embrace it just as much for religious considerations as I do for political ones.

      In Europe few people get married and often choose to cohabitate and even have children together without getting married. The churches in many of these nations have strict rules that don’t allow for people to be married if they are ‘living in sin’ or have previous divorces. Churches in America now often look past these historical strict restrictions because they tend to believe that getting married is the ‘right thing to do’. So they have made those concessions to save the institution of marriage but pretend to be resistant to any other changing of the rules to save the institution. I now fully believe that the institution of marriage has a much better chance of surviving if it is defined by couples who take the time to consider what they are getting into and discuss the rules they will follow, and churches that are free to define marriage independent of government decrees.

      Anyone who has gotten married or witnessed a marriage in a church knows that the minister who performs the ceremony announces at the end “by the power vested in me by God and the state of Ohio I now pronounce you husband and wife”. I have developed a problem with this. Are our ministers both ministers of God and agents of the state? If Gods law is superior to man’s law then why are we concerned with what the state defines as marriage? In the Amish community no minister registers with the state and couples are united only under the authority of God. They seem to have some pretty stable marriages without regarding these laws that are supposed to save marriage. It is not the laws concerning marriage and divorce that keep people together, it is their love for one another.

      Not surprisingly some obscure fundamentalist sects also practice marriage outside of the law like the Amish. I think this is for a very good reason. What if for all of the state ballot initiatives and court cases that these so called social conservatives pursue they eventually loose this political battle as the culture changes and gay marriage becomes socially acceptable? If historical patterns of social progression follow the same path they have been on for the last fifty years, social conservatives will be forced to accept gay marriage just as they had to eventually accept the mixed race marriages that they fought so hard against. At the end of the day they simply look like bigots and they damage the mission of the church, which is not a political one but a spiritual one anyway. What is worse, by participating in the political process they must accept its outcome. They cannot say this is unfair when they had an active role in the process. Could this mean that they must marry gay couples in their churches or risk loosing tax exempt status? Remember we have ministers acting as agents of the state in this regard. How hypocritical is it to say that you accept the outcome if it goes your way but are outraged if it goes against you? Such pitfalls await the church if they continue to act as though these matters are to be decided by the political process rather than by God and churches themselves.

      I want to look to a future where the state is separated from the church, that they are free to decide these matters for themselves. I am certain that there could be many churches that will be comfortable marrying same sex couples, but I don’t believe that the ones that are not should be forced to do so. I accept that I have no say in telling others what they can do through the use of government decree backed up by government force. I only ask the same consideration in return. Libertarianism means limiting the power of government in our lives, our communities, and our churches. Because of this, I believe that libertarians, Christians and those of us who are lucky enough to be both, should advocate for the end of all marriage laws.