Why Proposition 8 was a victory for liberty
November 18, 20082 comments
Proposition 8 was an unsung victory for defenders of individual liberty. Wait, I know what many people will say to this. How can a measure that prevents gay couples from getting a marriage license be beneficial to the defense of individual liberty? It's because that vote represented a line drawn in the sand, even if a thin one, preventing the government from furthering its control over the institution.
As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married. They may not necessarily be legally married, but there is nothing stopping them from having a marriage in every other respect, including the public sanctification of their relationship and vows. This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.
The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage. They know that in a society based on a more concrete notion of freedom of association, that their views will have a hard time competing for dominance, and so they seek a short cut through the state.
In this day and age, it's refreshing to see some small, if temporary, victory in preventing the further politicization of an aspect of our culture. American politics are increasingly totalitarian in the literal sense that totalitarianism was explained by its proponents in the early 20th century: everything is political; every issue is up for debate before the legislature. One of the best defenses of individual liberty is oppose every attempt to politicize aspects of our culture.
Liberal opposition to Proposition 8 is understandable, but libertarian opposition is not, considering that the one real libertarian position on marriage is that it should be a private institution, unregulated by the state between consenting adults. In that sense, Proposition 8 was also a libertarian victory, as it slowed down the state regulation of marriage and might give libertarians ammunition to use with social conservatives to utterly abolish state licensing of marriage should the courts take this out of the voters' hands.
It's certainly educational to observe how many homosexual activists responded to the vote on Proposition 8. For them to compare their situation with that of black Americans is not just offensive, but ludicrous. Black Americans not only faced a whole host of very serious limitations on their legal rights, but often faced the imminent threat of violence should they even peacefully assert their rights. The biggest threat most of them will ever face is the possibility that somewhere, someone won't approve of them.
If most people aren't seeing this as a major civil rights battle, it's because it really isn't. Unlike being black or female, sexual orientation is something that can be controlled, hidden and denied. For millennia, priests practiced celibacy successfully in defiance of strong male heterosexual sex drives. Others have suppressed and denied impulses that their cultures have deemed immoral or depraved for equally as long. The defining difference between "women's rights" and "minority rights" versus "gay rights" is that short of plastic surgery and medical therapy, one cannot control, hide or deny their gender or race.
None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.
It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.
As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married. They may not necessarily be legally married, but there is nothing stopping them from having a marriage in every other respect, including the public sanctification of their relationship and vows. This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.
The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage. They know that in a society based on a more concrete notion of freedom of association, that their views will have a hard time competing for dominance, and so they seek a short cut through the state.
In this day and age, it's refreshing to see some small, if temporary, victory in preventing the further politicization of an aspect of our culture. American politics are increasingly totalitarian in the literal sense that totalitarianism was explained by its proponents in the early 20th century: everything is political; every issue is up for debate before the legislature. One of the best defenses of individual liberty is oppose every attempt to politicize aspects of our culture.
Liberal opposition to Proposition 8 is understandable, but libertarian opposition is not, considering that the one real libertarian position on marriage is that it should be a private institution, unregulated by the state between consenting adults. In that sense, Proposition 8 was also a libertarian victory, as it slowed down the state regulation of marriage and might give libertarians ammunition to use with social conservatives to utterly abolish state licensing of marriage should the courts take this out of the voters' hands.
It's certainly educational to observe how many homosexual activists responded to the vote on Proposition 8. For them to compare their situation with that of black Americans is not just offensive, but ludicrous. Black Americans not only faced a whole host of very serious limitations on their legal rights, but often faced the imminent threat of violence should they even peacefully assert their rights. The biggest threat most of them will ever face is the possibility that somewhere, someone won't approve of them.
If most people aren't seeing this as a major civil rights battle, it's because it really isn't. Unlike being black or female, sexual orientation is something that can be controlled, hidden and denied. For millennia, priests practiced celibacy successfully in defiance of strong male heterosexual sex drives. Others have suppressed and denied impulses that their cultures have deemed immoral or depraved for equally as long. The defining difference between "women's rights" and "minority rights" versus "gay rights" is that short of plastic surgery and medical therapy, one cannot control, hide or deny their gender or race.
None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.
It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.
Categories: conservatism ,
constitution ,
editorial ,
homosexuality ,
libertarianism ,
social conservatism
I guess I don't follow your logic about libertarian positions on Prop. 8. I agree with you when you say that marriage should be a private institution, in fact, I agree with it so much I've filed a amicus letter (not brief) with the CA court on the subject arguing, in part, that removing the legal designation of marriage from the books is an option open to them that they should consider (it's textually coherent with Proposition 8 and legally coherent with equal protection.)
http://www.polychromatic.com/amicus/amicus_final.pdf
(Note that that letter *ends* with the conclusion that 8 should be overturned on amendment/revision grounds, but primarily is a vehicle for bringing the court to the "removing the designation of marriage" argument, something the court considered in "In Re Marriage."
I disagree only on two points. First, when you say it
"slowed down the state regulation of marriage", that seems to contradict my sense of it, it adds regulations and exceptions, it requires the state to inquire into the sex of the people asking to be married. I see "8", with all due respect, as a small increase in state regulation, not a decrease.
On the second point, you say that 8 "might give libertarians ammunition to use with social conservatives to utterly abolish state licensing of marriage should the courts take this out of the voters' hands." If you are right that those are the consequences, if you think there's really a chance that California will remove the designation of marriage from it's books, well, I'd be for it. However, so long as that state designation is tied to federal benefits for opposite-sex couples, the chances of that happening (despite my brief to the contrary) are essentially, I believe, zero.)
Interesting argument, in any case.
Look at it another way. Society is only forced to recognize heterosexual, monogamous marriages right now. If same sex marriages are added, then an additional standard is added. Furthermore, there are religious freedom issues involved here, since religious employers enjoy very little protection for their religious views when it comes to employment.
I also don't regard sexual orientation as the sort of thing which deserves equal consideration under the law. It's not like being black or being a woman, where I could at least see how someone could argue that those things deserve to be protected because they are undeniably biological. What causes homosexuality is unknown. I don't think there's a single answer because I've known people who engaged in homosexual acts just to behave like deviants.