mind your business

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Don't Legalize Gay Marriage. DE-Legalize STRAIGHT Marriage. A Libertarian Solution

Get the Privatize Marriage t-shirt.

A government powerful enough to give you the right to marry is a government powerful enough to take it away. The only way for both sides to protect marriage as they understand it and achieve true marriage equality is to give all individuals the equal right to define marriage the way they see it.

Pooling our definition of marriage in the public sphere is problematic in the same way and for the same reasons as pooling our money in the public sphere: it leaves us all bitterly divided and endlessly fighting over what to do with a "public resource" that belongs to everyone and no one. As long as one monolithic giant gets to define marriage for everyone, everyone will be fighting for their own definition to prevail.

Conservative advocates of the traditional family are constantly reminding us of the critical importance of marriage. LGBT activists and their supporters, who have tenaciously fought to legalize gay marriage, clearly value marriage as well.

If both sides value marriage so deeply, why would either want to hand it over to Washington or to any of the fifty state capitols to define, control, and regulate?

Is it because they've done such a great job with their stewardship over the other resources they've appropriated from us? Don't just write me off as a libertarian. If you complain about either party as much as I know you do, if you are as unhappy with as many aspects of public policy as I know you are, then you can't say you think the government's doing a great job with what they have already. I read Gallup. I know how sorely you disapprove of Congress.

"They're all a bunch of crooks," right? You hear both "sides" saying it. Why would you want a bunch of crooks to get in bed with you and your partner? To have any say over who you get to love and what that's supposed to mean? Why hand the government one more thing? Why not try taking something back from them? Especially something so crucially valuable and deeply personal and spiritual. Why not privatize something that is so-- inherently private?

Conservatives like to privatize things, right? And DE-legalizing STRAIGHT marriage would create the (hashtag) marriage equality that the progressives seek, right? Wouldn't it be nice to stop fighting about this? To no longer have to fight about it? Wouldn't it be nice to stop hearing about it? Wouldn't it be nice to put this back in the bedrooms, and churches, and private places where it belongs, instead of all over freaking Facebook and Twitter and fast food chicken restaurants where it's making us hate each other?

Just privatize marriage. It's a libertarian solution that I'm very proud of. It would work.

And now some words of wisdom from Doug Stanhope (NSFW):


  1. The word "marriage" has meant the same thing (one man, one woman, united until death or divorce) in Western civilization for thousands of years until very recently the Supreme Court claimed it now means something else. I have no problem if homosexuals want to be "harried" to form "harriages" or lesbians want to "larried" to form "larriages". But if we call harriages and larriages "marriages", we are forcing a new interpretation not only on all federal and state laws but also on all private contracts, advertisements, postings, etc. The straight forward thing to do is to use a different name, for example, "civil unions", of which there might also be multiple kinds (sexual and asexual, perhaps). The idea that privatizing "marriage" while expanding its definition with unforeseeable consequences is "libertarian" is crazy. To live in a civilized society, there must be a set of ruling definitions within a ruling language (or ruling languages). Otherwise, no one will know what anyone else is talking about. To say that could lead to misunderstandings would be to put it mildly. Do not be drawn into the would-be ruling class's plan to dominate society by dominating the language.

  2. I don't understand why Gen Y/millennials have such an aversion to marriage. Whenever my friends say things like "I don't need a contract to commit," or "it's just a social construct and I don't need it to be legalized," etc, to me that translates as "I have serious commitment issues and I don't want to be tied down to one person for the rest of my life. I know that if I get married, it will end in divorce. So we might as well save the hassle and not get married." It's just immaturity and a lack of fidelity. If marriage is so awful then why has the LGBT community faught so hard to be able to get married? You can keep your "partners" and "civil unions" and "common law marriages," but simply living together is not a marriage. It's a roommate with benefits.

  3. Dolt! Sorry,but marriage as a legal-state is a RIGHT which has $-value.Again, stright-legal-unions are not the only type, and life-long Loveing unions, that are non-traditional "marriages" do indeed need to be legally-recognized in order -4- people to gain the same just benefits as the "1-man,1-woman kind. They are much more than "friends with benefits!" You simply want to (again!) keep the 'Queers' from a "thing" that you get to do. That's unkind and small-minded; get over it. D.T. Lowell

  4. Sorry,to make it clear I was responding just to "Jane doe's 9/1/2016, comments! I dug the main article.

  5. Thanks you for very nice sharing. I read this article very useful and interesting. Thanks you
    organic product suppliers in Rajasthan

  6. This article is wonderfully written!