He Hasn't Been Reading, Mr. Goldberg

LIBERTARIANS AND GAY MARRIAGE [Jonah Goldberg]

TCS has an interesting take on the relative silence of the libertarians on the issue. by James Miller. He argues that libertarian opposition to sodomy laws made sense because a limited state shouldn't criminalize private activity. But state endorsement of gay marriage is a different question because it means the state will actively take a side in the culture war rather than stay neutral. And, from a libertarian perspective, taking sides is a no-no. Rather than face this reality, the libertarians are ducking the fight.

Pfft.

One, two, three, four, five, and six. A broad blog perspective on this libertarian's position on homosexual marriage.

Assuming Mr. Miller is objectively correct in saying libertarians have been avoiding the issue of gay marriage, so what? Might it just be that most libertarians have looked at the issue and come to the same conclusions: deciding the State has no business telling up which marriages are valid and which aren't...and deciding gay marriage opposers to be so utterly unreasonable and insane (see this for an example) as to not merit debate any longer?

In any case, Mr. Goldberg, you and he are wrong on one point.

But state endorsement of gay marriage is a different question because it means the state will actively take a side in the culture war rather than stay neutral. And, from a libertarian perspective, taking sides is a no-no.

The state doesn't belong on the marriage approval business. It has no legitimate role doing this at all. Additionally, the state shouldn't grant advantages to married couples. It has no business distorting the economy this way and putting single people at a disadvantage. The Goldberg/Miller theme presents false alternatives because, in my opinion, an honest libertarian doesn't want the state to recognize ANY marriages.

But I don't fault you and other pundits for not reading my website.

UPDATE(8:22am)
Pet peeve time.

Conservative Groups Rally to Gay Marriage Issue

Conservative religious and pro-family groups rallied on Wednesday against a Massachusetts ruling backing gay marriage, promising to make it the first shot in a cultural battle likely to extend into the 2004 campaign.

[...]

Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, said it had energized conservative activists to a degree not seen since the 1973 Roe v. Wade court decision legalizing abortion.

"This is probably the best thing that could have happened," Wildmon said. "Every major pro-family group in the country is cooperating with each other now."

My emphasis.

Can anyone politely and logically explain to me how deliberately throwing up roadblocks to people who want to get married and start families...is pro-family?

Posted by Drizzten at November 20, 2003 12:53 AM