United Liberty
Dear gay marriage opponents - I have a deal for you
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 2:02pm | posted by Brian Lehman
America as a whole is moving towards support of extended marriage rights to gay couples, but there is still a sizable majority that opposes this. While I find most of their arguments to be quite lacking, there is one that I have seen a lot that I can believe can be easily addressed by marriage rights proponents. This is the fear that if government were to recognize that gays have a right to marry, it would mean that churches and private groups would be forced to accept these unions and perform gay marriage ceremonies.
Leaving aside my strong disagreements with such discriminatory stances, I do believe in religious liberty and, in a broader sense, the ability of private organizations to determine their own rules. For instance, I fully support the right of Augusta National Golf Club to deny membership to women, even if I personally find that to be a sexist policy. With rare exception, a company or group should be able to do what it wants. If some find those rules objectionable, they have the right to not patronize that establishment.
Thus, if a government were to decide that, because gay marriage is legal, they should be able to force churches to marry gay couples, I would heartily defend that church. This is because, above any personal distaste I may have for such a stance, my higher belief is in liberty. As a libertarian I accept the idea that private actors will hold positions I find objectionable. As I see it, this is the cost of being free and able to live in a society where my personal views are respected. Especially as someone who is in a religious minority that is held in contempt by many, I understand that freedom of conscience is of paramount importance.
So here is my deal for gay marriage opponents. For your part, you need to accept that gays should be able to marry, even if you personally don’t think that is “marriage” in the eyes of God. You need to understand that while you see marriage one way, millions of others do not, and we’re best off in a society that leads to the most liberty for everyone. In return, here is my promise. I, and I believe many of my fellow libertarians, will steadfastly defend the right of churches and private groups to not perform these marriages. I will defend the right of private businesses to not cater or photograph gay weddings if they feel that strongly about it. It is my strong belief that the free market will inevitably prevail here, but I will firmly oppose any state action to force them to violate their conscience.
This, I believe, can remove the final barrier to support of gay marriage for many. If libertarians can make this promise to religious conservatives - that we will stand with them in defending their right to religious liberty - I believe we can coax those who sincerely base their opposition to marriage equality on this fear. Of course, many are using this as a cover, but I believe we are best off when we assume good faith from others. At the very least, this would take away one remaining plank in the opposition and help people realize that gay rights do not threaten them in any fashion.
As I see it, this isn’t even a matter of promising anything. There’s no conceivable interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment under which it would be permissible for a government entity to tell a church who it must marry.
Just as the Constitution prohibits the government from telling the Catholic Church that it can’t refuse to marry non-Catholics, or divorced people, it would also prevent the government from forcing any religious entity from marrying a same-sex couple if it violated the beliefs of that church.
And as an aside, if anyone ever tried to do that I’d be as strongly opposed to it as I am strongly supportive of same-sex marriage.
You’re right, of course, Doug. I think this is a weak argument to begin with. It seems to be the final refuge of those who want to claim that gay rights somehow cause them harm. Honestly they are grasping at straws at this point.
Grasping at straws, eh?
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/22/3387931/western-hills-student-su…
I could name a thousand more.
Brian, every libertarian should be up in arms about the not-so-slow erosion of freedoms that have taken place because one small, petulant minority thinks that it’s feelings are more important than your rights. All opposition is “bullying,” all differing opinions are “hate” and no constitutional protection stands in their way. Free speech and free exercise of religion mean nothing to them.
If you were a real libertarian, you’d be fighting mad about this. You’re not because you aren’t.
You’re the one grasping at straws.
Doug,
Two years ago I wouldn’t have believed that the government could force anyone—much less a church—to provide abortifaecents in its insurance coverage.
Six years ago I never would have believed that the government would force anyone—much less Catholic charities—to give children to homosexual couples.
The government doesn’t much care about the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. It does what it wants. Stop telling yourself that “it can’t happen here.” It can.
How about military chaplains? Can they be forced to perform homosexual weddings?
“And as an aside, if anyone ever tried to do that I’d be as strongly opposed to it as I am strongly supportive of same-sex marriage.”
I’m glad you would be strongly opposed. But your strong opposition wouldn’t mean a damned thing. The government would do it anyway.
We’re moving in the direction of Canada and Northern Europe. This homosexual movement is the antithesis of freedom. It has nothing to do with “live and let live” or the “privacy of their bedroom.” It has to do with coercing affirmation.
Here’s a proposed law in Kansas law that would force churches to host gay weddings:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/proposed-ordinance-would-force-churches-…
Keep knocking out those pillars of society for last 6000 years with acquiescence. Soon we will live in a leftist’s world.
Begging your pardon, Mr. Lehman, but what exactly were you giving up again? I mean, in a deal, you give something, and we give something. It looks like you identify “not being forced to ‘marry’ people that goes against our religious beliefs” as the issue you’ll give us. But we’ve already got that. I mean, was your initial impulse to demand that we be forced to break conscience or get out of the marriage business (cf., Catholic adoption agencies), and this is your concession? Not much of one, it seems.
Oh, and a note on “discriminatory”: I do hope you understand how careless and blunt a term that is? “Discrimination” is no big thing: it means treating things/people/objects differently, and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. The problem is UNJUST discrimination—that is, treating things that are alike in all relevant senses differently (or, conversely, treating things that are different the same.) The central claim of gay marriage opponents is that a same-sex marriage is NOT the same as a heterosexual marriage (for one thing, it shifts the meaning of marriage from the interests of the children to the fulfillment of the adults). That’s what the debate is about. The hand-waving “discrimination!” charge is just a shorthand method of begging the question. Useful for rallying your troops and making you feel good, but it pretty much avoids the debate altogether by assuming you’ve already won. Bad form, that.
To be honest I shouldn’t have to “give up” anything. I don’t believe that the rights of millions should be held hostage because of others’ personal discomfort. This was more intended to nullify a popular argument against gay marriage - that it would somehow be “forced” upon people. If opponents can be assured that their rights will be protected, they really can’t say that gay rights threaten them in any fashion.
Thank you for your honesty, Mr. Lehman. So in other words, you’re not actually offering us a deal. You’re offering terms of surrender. Delightful. It’s so nice knowing that you don’t find it necessary to establish that homosexual marriage won’t do any harm to our society before you make it the law of the land, just as long as you’re willing to grant us a waiver. Please pardon me if I reject your not-quite-generous concession (especially since we’ve heard such reassurances before, only to see them conveniently forgotten in pursuit of the next milestone).
Nice, Slarrow.
I love their idea of a “deal.”
Here’s their indulgent position on the issue: Give us same sex marriage and we won’t gang rape your first amendment rights. Sound fair?
No, it isn’t fair. How about you keep your damned hands off my first amendment rights in any case? How about that?
“I don’t believe that the rights of millions should be held hostage because of others’ personal discomfort.”
And they’re not. Marriage is not a right. Find it in the Constitution. Oh yes, you can’t. Also, two men do not constitute a marriage. All persons have the same ability to marry a person of the opposite sex.
No one’s rights are being threatened here, except maybe the rights of people who oppose homosexuality.
Check you Constitution. Free speech and free exercise of religion are right there in the First Amendment. There are no sexual rights, anywhere.
Nice try, sly guy.
“This was more intended to nullify a popular argument against gay marriage - that it would somehow be “forced” upon people.”
And it is. I have no choice if I want to recognize their counterfeit marriages. If one of my male employees tells me that he’s “married” to a man, I am forced to treat their counterfeit marriage just like any other real marriage. Yes, same-sex marriage has been forced on the people of most states who were not allowed to vote. Including my state.
“If opponents can be assured that their rights will be protected, they really can’t say that gay rights threaten them in any fashion.”
Too late for that. My rights have been restricted so far I can’t even recognize the country I live in any more.
It seems that you’re trying to offer a treuce—if they’ll respect my rights, I should be able to respect theirs, right? Great. I do. I respect everyone’s rights. Homosexuals have the same right to free speech, to free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, free assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to be free of self-incrimination.
It just so happens that marriage is not a right, and two men are not a marriage. I will not play a balancing act between their “rights” and my rights. Sorry.
Wow - so all I have to do is agree to the radical redefinition of one of the pillars of my culture, and in exchange, you’ll grudgingly agree to support my basic Constitutional rights? What a deal!
Hey, while we’re at it, got any bridges in Brooklyn you might be willing to sell me?
Mr. Lehman:
While we may disagree with respect to certain “discriminatory stances,” I suspect that we both agree that the government should have no role to play in defining, sanctioning or otherwise intermeddling with religious institutions and/or ordinances. Perhaps that is where we can find common ground to get government completely out of the marriage business.
Your point, “This, I believe, can remove the final barrier to support of gay marriage for many. If libertarians can make this promise to religious conservatives - that we will stand with them in defending their right to religious liberty - I believe we can coax those who sincerely base their opposition to marriage equality on this fear,” is unlikely to appease the conservatives—even those who are not using the issue as “cover.” It is rarely libertarians that conservatives are wrestling against to keep the government from interfering with their religion. Rather, it is the egalitarian leftists—witness the Hands On Original t-shirt spat. While not directly on all-fours with this issue, also consider the present controversy concerning churches’ religious objections to particular mandates of Obamacare. While I appreciate Doug’s insight into the protections afforded by the Constitution, those protections are granted at the whim of 5 people.
If libertarians were in control of any substantial portion of any government, your promise might matter. As it is, it is still only the lunatic fringe who believe in liberty. Were you to convince the Republocrats to make the same promise, it could matter, but considering their record for honesty, wise men would see it as only one more empty promise motivated by political convenience.
Truthfully, conservatives (just as leftists) are unlikely to be persuaded by the logic of freedom. Nevertheless, as long as you are giving them the benefit of the doubt, why not convince them to join the cause of liberty rather than the cause of the other side of the big-government coin? Surely, your brand of libertarianism does not advocate treating citizens differently based upon their marital status. Accordingly, the goal should be to show religious conservatives why the government’s mere recognition of marriage of any sort is an affront to religious liberty. For that matter, convince everyone across the entire political spectrum that government’s recognition of marriage, together with all of the social engineering that such recognition entails, is against the interest of all of us.
Were it not for official government recognition of marriage and the engineering that is part and parcel to such recognition, few on either side of the big government coin would probably care how the government defined “marriage” anymore than they care how it defines baptism. That is precisely why it is unlikely either side will join the cause of liberty in this or any other issue of the day. Doing so would cause one side to give up the “rights” of plunder and the other side to forfeit the chance to one day be the a plunderer of the same variety.
Thanks for your promise, though.
“I suspect that we both agree that the government should have no role to play in defining, sanctioning or otherwise intermeddling with religious institutions and/or ordinances. ”
Guess again. Lehman isn’t making the argument that government shouldn’t define marriage. He’s saying that government should redefine marriage and anyone who doesn’t like it should be content with a narrow religious exemption for their church only.
“Truthfully, conservatives (just as leftists) are unlikely to be persuaded by the logic of freedom.”
I am very much persuaded by the logic of freedom. It is my freedom that is on the chopping block, not yours or homosexuals’.
For the last time, marriage is not a right. Two persons of the same sex do not constitute a marriage. Everyone has the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex who is of legal age, not already married, and not related by blood. There is no particular type of person who “can’t get married.”
The road to hell is paved with religious exemptions.
Lehman: Our actual, constitutional rights are not a token to be traded for someone else’s imaginary extraconstitutional rights. They are not equivalent and we will not give up one to hold on to the other. Take your “deal” and shove it.
You know what I want? I want these anti-gay religious people to acknowledge that NON-religious straight couples are able to marry in our country. I also want those same people to explain to me why that isn’t an issue for them? If marriage is solely a God-sanctioned religious institution (as Dan Cathy described), why is it okay for non-religious people to take part in it? …and if non-religious people can marry, how can you possibly make a religious argument against gay couples having that same right? Answer: You can’t, without being a hypocrite.
I also want these anti-gay religious people to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are an actual CHOICE, and that choice does NOT give them special privileges to foster discrimination at other Americans. I also want them to acknowledge that their choice is based solely on faith, not fact. So they are actually harming gay Americans based on nothing but a strongly held FEELING. I’d like them to acknowledge how fundamentally repugnant (and un-American) that concept is, and how “strongly held feelings” were used to rationalize bigotry and discrimination aimed at blacks (and other ethnic groups) and women throughout our history. I’d also like them to admit that the United States is not, nor has it ever been a Christian theocracy. Our Founding Fathers clearly did not want religious dogma to be the basis of our laws.
As the for author’s support for private businesses discriminating against gay people? A baker is not a private business. They serve all of the public. The same goes for bed and breakfast inns, and florists. The flip-side of that coin is, why would a gay couple want to support a business that doesn’t want them as a customer? So perhaps these bigoted businesses should identify themselves by using some kind of anti-gay symbol similar to the “No Blacks” signs that racists used to have? I think that would be appropriate.
yeah i know that there are plenty of people who are against of the same sex marriage. however, other countries have tried to legalized it and i guess it is now approved.
thanks,
wedding videographer sydney
Post new comment