This article might be a little delayed but I’m not one to watch the news that carefully so it took me a while to find out about it. At work one day someone had mentioned that California had just legalized gay marriage. Of course this was big news in Texas were we have an amendment to our state’s constitution banning gay marriage. While it makes no difference to me who does whom in their bedroom at night it seems to be a big deal with everyone else. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how libertarianism will not advance unless were are able to destroy inane prejudices like this one which about half of the people in this country still cling to.
A little background. In a 4-3 decision the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and come June 17 gay couples in California can start engaging in this “sinful practice” enjoying all the same rights and privileges as straight couples. Of course the religious right in this country is seeing red and are looking for blood. One of the most astonishing articles I read concerning this topic was written by Maggie Gallagher of the far right conservative magazine Human Events.[1] In her article Mrs. Gallagher vehemently attacks the ruling in California by stating that discriminating against gays is totally different than discriminating against other races. After all blacks are not an abomination to God and you wont enjoy the fires of hell just because you are a Mexican. Mrs. Gallagher stated that on May 15 “four California Supreme Court judges brazenly overturned more than four million California voters, 2000 years of human history, common sense and even common decency.” And this is what we, as libertarians, have to deal with. It is this mentality that we are going to have to defeat if we are going to see libertarianism really take hold in this country and the single moral principle we must use is the defense of private property. I’ll discuss this idea later. For now we’ll return to a critique of Mrs. Gallagher’s article.
According to Mrs. Gallagher “four million California voters” have the right to dictate how the other thirty-two million Californians can live their life. The hard truth of the matter is that no man has any right for any reason to tell another how to live his life if that person is harming no one else. The basic underlying principle of libertarianism is if you’re not screwing with me I’ve got no right to screw with you. As for the court overturning common sense and common decency Mrs. Gallagher is totally out of line. Common sense and common decency dictate that you cannot use force to make a person live the way you think they ought to live. Common decency says that even if you disagree with someone or their life style they still have the right to engage in it. And yet the religious right see no problem trotting out the Bible to defend their beliefs that they and they alone know the best way for people to live. Why, they are only trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage and save the souls of all of those sinners out there! Who are we to question them? See John 8:7.
California’s Proposition 22 which was passed in March of 2000 effectively banned gay marriage, though only statutorily not constitutionally. Prop. 22 states that marriage is “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” This is the legislation that the California Supreme Court struck down. But we haven’t seen the end of this. Mrs. Gallagher and her religious right friends are frantically working to get Prop. 22 cemented in the state’s constitution come November. Prop. 22 has enough signatures to get it on the ballot and if enough people vote for it then gay marriage, and basic human rights, are once again banned by the state. They simply cannot allow gays to have the same basic human rights as everyone else because, as Mrs. Gallagher states, “Same-sex marriage is not just about letting Adam and Steve get some juicy new government benefits, it’s about inserting into our law the principle that ‘gay is the new black,’ that sexual orientation is just like race and then using the law as a club to repress, marginalize and stigmatize Americans who disagree.” Yes, of course, we wouldn’t want to stigmatize the Americans who disagree would we. We all know that when this country was founded it was done so under the assumption that government was to ensure the rights of the majority of the people and repress the minorities. Just look at this statement from one of the premier founders of this nations government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [2] Clearly we must not allow minorities to have the same rights as everyone else.
Mrs. Gallagher does make some valid points, however. The ruling that gay marriage should be treated the same as racism opens up a whole new can of worms. Already the state is using racism to bludgeon people who discriminate in the work place, in their own business and even in their own private lives. This ruling could mean that the state could now use that same force to repress the activities of various religious groups and those that dislike the homosexual lifestyle. She cites, as an example, a case in Massachusetts where the Boston Catholic Charities, which was an adoption agency, was driven out of business by the state because they refused to place children with same-sex couples on an equal footing with traditional marriage. Another case was that of a Methodist group in New Jersey who was denied part of their real estate tax exemption because they refused to permit civil union ceremonies to take place on church property. There is a very real possibility that this ruling could mean that any person, group or church who discriminates against someone because they are gay could face legal issues much like we do today when dealing with race.
The answer to the problem lies in a single axiom that thankfully all libertarians seem to understand: The Right to Private Property. Problems arise when the state tries to force “equality” on all people. Unfortunately reality doesn’t support the idea that equality can be legislated and enforced through the courts nor should it be. As self-owners we have the absolute and fundamental right to think and act the way we want so long as we are not using force against another or violating their property rights. That being said every man, woman and child on this planet has the fundamental right to discriminate or not against another person. For instance, a Protestant church who fundamentally disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle has the absolute right to deny homosexuals entry to their property. As owners of the church the church members have the right to dictate who can and cannot come on to their property. And a gay man who owns a night club has the right to put a sign up that says “No Straights Allowed.” He has the absolute right to dictate who can and cannot enter his club and if his club is for gays only it is his right to deny straights entry to the club.
We, as libertarians, must do more to help these people understand that, while they may not agree with a persons life style, that doesn’t give them to the right to tell others how they can live their lives. And those people don’t have the right to tell the religious of this country how they ought to conduct their lives as well. Equality can only come about through social change. You cannot legislate equality since everyone has the fundamental right to discriminate against another (since no one can claim ownership of another’s mind and thoughts). While we cannot morally use government force to change the lifestyles and habits of others we can use our moral arguments to try and steer people onto another path.
It is essential that we focus on teaching others about the ultimate right to own property and all that it entails. Property rights begin with yourself – body and mind – so thinking and believing any way you wish is totally and completely within your rights. Discrimination, while probably morally wrong, ultimately is the right of every person if they so desire.
The case in California only helps to illustrate just how much progress needs to be made. We cannot have a libertarian society if people do not understand that they have no right to use force to dictate to another how they ought to live their lives.
[1] Gallagher, Maggie. “Prop. 22 Can Save Traditional Marriage in California.” 29 May 2008. Human Events. 30 May 2008 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26716).
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment