Libertarian position on gay marriage

[z9000]

deleted

 

[OrbitzXT]

As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He avoids the question by saying it's a state's right issue. Meaning he isn't against gay marriage if states vote for it and pass it. But he wouldn't pass an amendment one way or the other for or against it. I'm not the most well versed on Ron Paul's stances but that was the opinion I got watching debates.

 

[Cshelton21]

Curve the argument to a states right issues. The federal government has no authority at the alter or the bedroom. If a state wishes to allow a bonus for a "Legal Marriage" and then sets out to define that marriage, that's fine. Those powers are enumerated to the States. however the federal governments "Marriage tax bonus" is bogus because at its core federal taxs are bogus.

Ron Paul's position is that marriage and government are not, well... married.

 

[sirgonzo420]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

What "insurance", "hospital", and "family" reasons?

What compelling need is there for governments to "recognize" and regulate marriage?

 

[craezie]

I completely disagree with Ron Paul on marriage (one of the few things that I do). Marriage is a spiritual covenant, but it is also a legal obligation. Marriage is, and has always been, a legal contract recognized by government and society at large. You cannot have a legally binding contract without a legal record. With that contract comes both privileges and responsibilities to society.

Marriage is not just two people who are in love, or who live in the same house, or who have sex.

 

[bluesc]

What's hilarious is that liberals are gushing over Obama's comments, even though he has only taken the same position as Ron Paul. From Obama's campaign email:

"I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them."

Now what is the issue?

 

[z9000]

deleted

 

[sirgonzo420]

double post

 

[James Madison]

Having power of attorney would take care of most things. Any remaining issues could be cleared-up by explaining the situation.

 

[craezie]

A marriage is an exchange of vows... essentially a contract.

The government has no place in it.

Clearly you do not work in law, as the government regulates almost all important contracts. Laws governing different types of contracts are essential for society to work and to preserve equality before the law.

 

[Beardbar]

It's a hard one that I deal with quite a bit. I support Ron Paul, I support gay marriage. I get asked the question often by my more religious friends and I tell them.

Its covered by the 1st and 14th amendment. Unfortunately most religions feel a need to extort their views on others, but this is America and you can't pick and choose which freedoms people get. Life and Liberty man.

 

[Jovan Galtic]

If government is not giving anything away, "official recognition" is meaningless. In a free (libertarian) society "married people" don't get any privileges from the government so it makes no difference.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I'm not sure of the libertarian party's position. My position is that marriage should not be ordained by the government.

Obviously by my user name, you all probably already knew my definition of marriage is the physical union of one man and one woman, but these unions should be between the man and his wife without government recognition.

This ofcourse, is a liberals worst nightmare scenario, because they could no longer use such a ridiculous issue involving an extremely small minority as leverage in politics. Also not recognizing straight marriage would actually reduce the noise of the gay movement. But apparently most of my brethren are not aware of this fact.

End straight marriage recognition and then there will be equality. Ofcourse most gays and leftist fear this simple compromise as it hampers both agendas.

 

[flynn]

As far as I know, Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He avoids the question by saying it's a state's right issue. Meaning he isn't against gay marriage if states vote for it and pass it. But he wouldn't pass an amendment one way or the other for or against it. I'm not the most well versed on Ron Paul's stances but that was the opinion I got watching debates.

There is a slight misunderstanding with that. Ron Paul has a pure libertarian position on marriage. He wants the gov to get out of it because marriage is business between two consenting adults and not government at the federal level.

 

[craezie]

If government is not giving anything away, "official recognition" is meaningless. In a free (libertarian) society "married people" don't get any privileges from the government so it makes no difference.

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

I got you brotha, post this on facebook

 

[flynn]

Hey guys, need some liberty related help. I posted something on facebook about how we should privatize marriage and was left this comment

But unfortunately two people need the government to recognize their relationship for insurance, hospital, and family reasons. It's awesome that Obama has evolved his view. I do like Ron Paul, but a recognized legal marriage is more important than the credit he is giving it.


Any good ideas on how to respond?

Respond: Well then it is a good thing that no one is debating whether government should certify marriage or not. The essential argument is, of course, whether government has the power to decide who should get married. Ron Paul is not against a city official stamping a piece of paper to certify between consenting adults. Ron Paul is against government having the power to decide that city official should have any say on consenting adults' personal liberty to form union.

 

[pcgame]

..

 

[flynn]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

So your argument is, people are not smart enough to sign a set of documents to delegate multiple life/death/health related responsibilities if marriage was never invented? Okay, end of straw man attack from here. I just want to say maybe, just maybe government has granted too wide variety of privileges through marriage over the years that people fail to see in each events of life, there maybe other simpler solution to achieve the same thing.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

In a libertarian society marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions. Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator, government would have zero involvement in such an institution. Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union between consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or 10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose. A much different world that would be.