Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part II The Libertarian Approach

In many respects, the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s marked the triumph of an individualistic, sentimentalistic view of marriage. Some feminists in this period alleged that the institution of marriage was part of patriarchical oppression. In addition, sexual libertines claimed that marriage was obsolete and that couples did not need “a piece of paper” to live together and love each other. Most people did not accept these radical claims. However, the dominant view of the period was that marriage was first and foremost about love and individual happiness. If an individual was unhappy in a marriage, increasingly the idea that the union should be dissolved and the individual should seek another relationship that made them “happy” was accepted.

In all of this, the interests of children took a backseat to the individual happiness and felt needs of their parents. The idea that an unhappy couple should fight to work things out or even stay together for the sake of the children was seen as outmoded and thus was increasingly rejected. As social attitudes about marriage changed, so too did the state laws, which allowed for no-fault divorce. The result was a sharp rise in the divorce rate, pitting men against women in bitter court cases over property, alimony and child custody. Predictably, all sides, men, women and children suffered. Unsurprisingly, the new attitudes about marriage and sex led to an increase in out of wedlock births. Today, they are quite common, especially among the poor, which only fuels a cycle of poverty. And while the divorce rate has somewhat stabilized, divorce has scarred many people and made them wary of marriage, which in part has resulted in the rise of couples not bothering with marriage and living together without being married, either as a trial run to marriage or in lieu of it. Because divorce is so common and the financial and emotional risks of divorce are so great, to an extent who can blame couples for living together without being married? Unless one has strong religious convictions against pre-marital cohabitation, why not the way things are these days?

Clearly our society has greatly changed in the last 40-50 years. The state has already greatly changed its approach to marriage as most states have allowed no fault divorce. Should it further change its approach? Should it allow “gay marriages” as a few states now do? Or should the state get out of the marriage business altogether?

I would argue that society and the state’s view of marriage is in flux at the moment. At this juncture, there are three possible courses for the state, or rather barring the federal government once again trampling on states' rights, states to take in the future with respect to marriage. The first course is to return to the idea that marriage is primarily an institution for the bearing and raising of children. This would mean ending no-fault divorce laws and only allowing divorce in very limited circumstances such as abuse, abandonment or adultery. It would probably involve state-required or sponsored counseling for couples in troubled marriages, especially couples with children. It would also mean that “gay marriages” or any other alternative marriages would be seen as a farce and out of the question.

Frankly, I’m not sure if this first approach is even possible in our society today. The second course, which would best be described as the Libertarian approach, would entail the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. The term “marriage” has strong religious connotations for many people. As the state should not be involved in religious matters, it should no longer use the term “marriage.” It should find another term such as “civil union” to cover the legal aspects currently covered under state-sanctioned marriages such as shared property, child custody (which should always favor the biological parents first), benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance and so on. In the Libertarian approach, the state would grant civil unions to any and all consenting adult who desire them. Consenting adults would be free to dissolve their civil union if they desire, much like divorce today. Religious bodies would still be free to conduct weddings and recognize marriages as they see fit. And with the state out of the marriage business, “marriage” would become strictly a religious or cultural matter for individuals, their faith communities and their families and friends.

The Libertarian approach would have the state grant civil unions to pretty much any type of arrangement consenting adults might form. The phrase “consenting adult” is always the operative one as it is self-evident that children and non-consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into legally binding relationships. Civil unions would be allowed for all kinds of relationships, including heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, plural marriages of various kinds, incestuous relationships and even non-sexual relationships such as friends or roommates living together. The state’s concern here would not be to impose any kind of value-judgment on relationships. Rather, the idea is to allow consenting adults to live their lives as they see fit and manage their property and benefits according to their wishes. This does entail risks as the relationships they enter could dissolve in the future, with the negative financial consequences that we see with divorce today.

There is a third option as well. This seems to be the approach of most left-liberals today. This would be for the state to continue to issue marriage licenses as it already does, but to issue them to same-sex couples as well. The justification for same-sex or “gay marriage” is that marriage is a right and that it is a violation of the rights of homosexuals not to allow them to marry. The argument generally goes that the state needs to ensure “marriage equality” and that “loving, consenting adults” should not be denied the right to marry.

I am very skeptical of this third approach. In my experience, those who take it are adamantly against polygamy and other alternative forms of unions, with the exception of same-sex unions. The reasons they give for this are entirely bogus. For example, they argue that polygamous relations would be complicated from a legal standpoint, they would involve “unequal” relations between men and women and would led to an imbalance in the ratio between men and women. Yet if marriage is a “right” there is no reason to deny someone there “rights” because it would be legally complicated. And who are they to impose their liberal values about gender equality on consenting men and women? Certainly many well-educated women don’t agree with them. They have no right to force their beliefs on gender equality on others. Also, if they are so interested in the ratio between men in women in society, they would probably be against same-sex marriages as well.

It is incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical for liberals to call for same-sex marriage on the basis of "marriage equality" and oppose polygamy or plural unions. It is also worth noting that liberals not only see homosexual behavior as normal and moral, but have repeatedly attempted to label those who question this idea as “bigots” who should be treated in a similar manner as racists are today. Because of their intolerance towards religious conservatives and inability to see that the views of religious conservatives on sexuality are rooted in their faith as opposed to “bigotry” or “hatred” the left is not to be trusted on this matter. They certainly cannot be trusted to respect the civil and religious liberties of those they dislike, especially religious conservatives. I suspect liberals want to use same-sex marriage as a tool to impose their values on homosexuality and gender on the rest of society. This means beating down any voices of dissent and using "gay marriage" to further legitimize homosexuality.

I fail to see how this is any different from the “intolerant fundamentalists” who make up the so-called “religious right” that liberals love to complain about and demonize. But liberals have make up their mind that homosexuality is a good thing and can’t seem to understand that reasonable people who aren’t motivated by hate or bigotry could possibly disagree with them. This is just another example of how parochial, narrow-minded, intolerant and self-righteous some liberals are. I expect that liberals will continue to attempt to push their approach on marriage on society in the next few decades. It is highly likely, however, that full or partial success on their part in the political arena, or more likely than not in the courts, will simply make the “culture wars” between liberals and conservatives more bitter and protracted than they already are today. Thus, I oppose this third approach and see it as the most dangerous to our society, republic and civil liberties. I don’t doubt for a minute that “gay marriage” as pushed by liberals could well lead to the curtailing of religious liberty, especially as religious conservatives would be labeled as “discriminating against gays” or as engaging in “hate speech” or some such nonsense. I don't put it past liberals to blatantly violate the First Amendment in the name of “gay rights.”

What then should be done? I believe the first approach I outline would be the best for society. It would also be helpful if orthodox churches and Christians took marriage much more seriously. This would mean more serious efforts to strengthen marriages and families and to fight divorce and the easy divorce culture we have today. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to accept divorce as normal. We wouldn’t be having any discussion about “gay marriage” if heterosexuals in general and Christian heterosexuals specifically haven't failed so badly in marriage these last 40-50 years. Part of facing the problem is for orthodox Christians to first look in the mirror and make changes of their own.

While the first approach is the best one, I am skeptical that it is politically, culturally or socially possible. As has been said, politics is the art of the possible, and true conservatives must be realistic about what can be accomplished through politics. If this is the case, the Libertarian approach is the best. Consequently, I grudgingly favor it. If the state isn’t going to impose the right values, it should seek to impose none at all, allow complete religious freedom on marriage and sexuality, and allow consenting adults to do whatever they want with their relationships and property. Unfortunately, I doubt many liberals or many conservatives for that matter would go for the Libertarian approach. This is why we are probably in for a knock down drag out over the definition of marriage and the state’s role in marriage in the coming years. The Libertarian approach would probably work best to defuse further "culture wars." However, speaking of realism in politics, defusing said wars may be too difficult from the outset, meaning a long cultural and political fight is in order.

None of this will be pretty, and although I won’t be surprised if we end up with “gay marriage” in all 50 states, there is no guarantee that the left will “win” or even if they do that legal victory will give liberals the results they ultimately desire, namely the normalization of homosexuality and "gay marriage." After all, legal victory could be a Pyrrhic victory. As an institution, civic marriage has been continued devalued since the 1960s and if and when the get it could end up as a worthless prize for gay activists. Also, there is no guarantee that “gay marriage” will even work or that gays won’t divorce at high rates. As with all the changes we have seen since the 1960s, the sure losers in all of this will be children. But hey, in our individualistic, selfish and materialistic culture, it’s the “happiness” of adults that really should matter, right? So who cares about them?