Marriage, Freedom, Discrimination
Many others commit the offense, but Ryan Sager, the industrious libertarian pundit, commits it more often than most. That is, he assumes without warrant that freedom and equality are not only consistent with but in fact demand government recognition of same-sex marriage. Sager writes, in his recent review of Grover Norquist’s book Leave Me Alone:
[T]oday’s Religious Right is hell-bent, above all else, on writing discrimination against gays into the Constitution—overriding states that have begun to move toward accommodating gay relationships with either civil unions or full-fledged marriage. They are . . . the ones who need to learn to leave others alone.
In other words, according to Sager, those who resist government-endorsed, same-sex marriage favor “discrimination” and can’t simply “leave others alone.” Neither conclusion withstands scrutiny—provided that government-endorsed marriage is seen for what it is rather than what Sager or anyone else might assume it to be.
The right to government-endorsed marriage is no more or less than the right, upon application, to have a government bureaucracy refer to one’s relationship with another as a “marriage.” To be sure, government-endorsed marriage happens to trigger a variety of rights and duties under state and federal law. Some of these rights and duties are significant (for example, that “married” individuals have a duty to support each other); others fairly trivial (for example, that “married” couples are treated under the Internal Revenue Code as one shareholder for S corporation purposes). But none necessarily follows from the government’s decision to call a relationship a “marriage.” On the contrary, one could imagine a world where being “married” in the eyes of the government has no legal consequences whatsoever. Certainly, advocates of government endorsed, same-sex marriage are not seeking simply to have the rights and duties that happen to apply to traditional marriages apply also to same-sex marriages. Otherwise, they would (sensibly) pick and choose which rights and duties they would like to have triggered and which ones they would rather avoid.
Nor does government-endorsed marriage necessarily have any effect on individual liberty. Whether or not a government bureaucracy describes an individual as “married,” he can still hold a job, procreate, take walks in the park, drink soda pop or live in the same household with other individuals. He may even choose to hold himself out to the world as “married.” Whether the world will accept his claim is of course another matter. Historically, the state only began “recognizing” marriages because it found it convenient to do so. As “social facts,” the marriages themselves already existed and will continue to exist whether the government decides to call them “marriages” or not.
If the right to government-endorsed marriage is nothing more than the right to obtain a piece of paper from the government describing oneself as “married,” does it offend liberty or equality if the government withholds this right from anyone? Yes—but it is important to see why. Any adult for any reason may wish to cause the government to refer to any one or more of his relationships as a “marriage.” If the government denies him, then the government by definition is discriminating against him. Thus, if the government recognizes only traditional marriages, it is discriminating against those who want the government to recognize same-sex marriages. If the government recognizes same-sex marriages, it is discriminating against those who want the government to recognize polyamorous marriages, or bestial marriages, or autogamous marriages, or any other types of marriages.
One may say, as many do, that very few people actually want, say, autogamous marriage (i.e., marriage to oneself). True enough. But it is equally true that relatively few people want same-sex marriage. (The movement for government endorsed same-sex marriage is driven less by those who want it for themselves than by those who want it for others.) From the perspective of freedom and equality, government-endorsed same-sex marriage is not an improvement over government-endorsed traditional marriage. To say otherwise is to say that some people should be denied the same rights that are enjoyed by others.
In the final analysis, government-recognized marriage in any form is inconsistent with equal liberty. All sides of marriage debate agree that a right to government recognition of marriage is worthless unless the government denies that same recognition to others. Even advocates of same-sex marriage do not want the government to start recognizing, say, autogamous marriages, for they feel government recognized autogamous marriage would make a mockery of both same-sex and traditional marriage. The right to government endorsed marriage is thus inherently a right to have the government discriminate against others. Such a right by definition cannot enjoyed by everyone. Government-endorsed marriage requires discrimination.
In reality of course, not even the most passionate same-sex marriage advocate actually cares about anything so trivial as whether the government calls same sex relationships “marriages” or not. Government endorsed marriage is instead a means to an end. That is, impassioning both sides of the debate is the mutual conviction that, by endorsing certain relationships and not others as “marriages,” the government has the power to change people’s minds. Thought control, in its literal sense, is what the debate over government-endorsed marriage is about. The principled libertarian or egalitarian position is that the government should not call any relationship a “marriage” to begin with. In the meantime, surely the movement that initiates an effort to change other people’s minds through (soft) government coercion is the greater threat to liberty than the counter-movement that merely puts up resistance.
As for Sager, he calls himself a libertarian. But let us be clear about what he means by this: In Sager’s mind, certain thoughts are so polluted by bigotry that the government should actively be seeking to squelch them. Correct or not, Sager’s position does not become a champion of freedom.
Comments
Mr. Bramwell:
I noticed you practice at a major NY law firm. Do those folks know you write for Taki and other conservative publications? Has this been an issue in your career? I’d love to know as I am in a very similar position but fear publishing anything too overtly political lest the lock-step liberalism drive me out or the Islamic Law division in my firm issue a fatwa.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Sebastian,
Gee, so glad to hear that Gotham Law Firms have started “Islamic Law Divisions”. Emerging markets are an important consideration to be sure. Perchance do they also have “Unintended Consequences Law Divisions” or is that simply handled under “ Misc. Billable Hours”?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
At the second-tier Houston firm (in terms of number of personnel, anyway, we do tend to provide more than our share of Texas Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit judges, not to mention Secretaries of State (Jim Baker)) in which I practice, my stance is that I am providing some of the “diversity” that they are now so big on having—all anyone has to do is to come into my (admittedly very cluttered) hole in the wall office and see the picture of the Captain and the Archangel Michael Cross on my work wall to see (if, that is, they even know what these mean) that I provide diversity to the right. You don’t think the powers that be would take issue with that do you?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I hasten to add, in case anyone needs to be reminded, that my views are my own and do not, in fact as well as in theory, represent those of my better-known spouse.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I not only agree with Austin’s comments but am at a total loss as to why
the neocon press bothers to publish Sager at all. Like Austin I see in his opinion
pieces expressions of leftwing bigotry more than a defense of freedom,save for some
occasional boilerplate about free trade and the market. Possibly S serves as a backup
for David Frum, who has come to represent the same spectrum of non-libertarian,
“libertarian” positions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The gay marriage issue is an invented conflict to serve the two party system as a way of distinguishing the fake conservatives from the fake liberals. Since both major parites are pro war, big government, anti-personal freedoms, they needed something to keep the rubes entertained. Voila!!! Same sex marriage!!!! We can get everyone in a dither over tis non-issue and the suckers will all fall in line.
Mr. Bramwell correclty points out the real issue here is the abillity of the state to decide what is a marriage. I think the eventual hope of the state is to have coercive power over religious groups.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Woody:
Many of us would like to see your spouse on the Supreme Court!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I hope we don’t forget that recognizing same sex marriage also means recognizing same sex divorce, child-support, aid to families with dependent children due to divorce, Social Security benefit claims. It’s not really about wanting to proclaim onesself married to the world. It’s about claiming the social welfare benefits.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My only question is, what the queer
eye will be wearing in divorce court?
I can’t think of anything more
destructive of the gay lifestyle than
marriage.
In fact, it may be the cureall to
“gayness” that we have been looking for?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Gays wanting to marry are a small sub-set for that reason. The biggest enemy to marriage in this country isn’t gay marriage it’s heterosexual marriage. However the serial polygamy of these days calls itself. The largest numbers of multiple marriages coming from the so-called Christian moral red state self-righteous Republicans who grasp a bible in one hand then insist everyone be forced to live by the codes of Leviticus. Or at least the ones they accept. A shrimp cocktail and a ham sandwich is ok but God says stone the fags.
Jesus said what God has joined together let no man put asunder. Marriage is a sacrament between two people. The minister witnesses the solemn promises. The state has no part in this.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is only because we accept the premise that what is “legal” is “right” that this is an issue that causes concern. And it is an extension of democratic majoritarianism. “We” march on down to the school house and “elect” our representatives, so they must be “representing” our will, right? Even if that were true (which it clearly is not), it astounds me as to why 99 corrupt imbeciles should , in theory, be more “right” than one good man. Perhaps when we jettison these notions will the government’s “recognition” of anything be brought to its proper level - irrelevancy. “Recognize” gay marriage, the “right” to abortion, the “sovereignty” of narco-pimps in Pristina, and so forth all you want, “our” dear leaders in Washington, we won’t care as long as less than 10% of the “people” goes and pulls a lever or punches a card come November.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Tom,
Thanks for your kind thought, for which Her Honor will be grateful as well.
All the best,
Woody
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Marriage is between a man and a women.In Christian marriage it is a contract for life.Gay Marriage is a sad joke.In places where it is legalized, very few people take advantage of it.Let sin remain sin,heterosexual marriage is the glue of society.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Church groups in my nation unsuccessfully resisted gov’t-approved “gay marriage” two years ago (it is now legal in Canada) because of the real fear that pastors and priests would one day be commanded to officiate in these ceremonies, or else face the wrath of human rights tribunals. The Justice Minister at the time dismissed these fears but refused to provide legal protection for padres who might turn down the chance to bless these unions. After all, perhaps the Minister thought, Canadians are too moderate and compassionate to use these tribunals against refuseniks in the church. Ahem.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Prof Gottfried,
I don’t think it’s necessary to explain Ryan Sager’s impressive rise in terms of how
well he fits into any “neocon” master plan. Sager is just the sort of hard working
loyalist that would be an asset to any movement, no matter what its ideology happened
to be. I agree, however, that his libertarianism often isn’t very libertarian. As for
his political correctness, it is part of very broad trend which is not unique to any
particular movement. Sager is probably more politically correct than the average
movement conservative (or libertarian), but not so much as to alienate himself from
the movement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well, that’s an unkind way of putting it. But without “hacks” you couldn’t have a
movement. Only the founders of a movement can be said to be free of hackery. Also,
hackery increases during the life of a movement, which is why, for example, the
conservative movement is so boring these days.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If the government recognizes same-sex marriage,
then the government can force everyone to accept it.
Even your kids in elementary school.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bramwell sed: “In reality of course, not even the most passionate same-sex marriage advocate actually cares about anything so trivial as whether the government calls same sex relationships “marriages” or not. Government endorsed marriage is instead a means to an end. That is, impassioning both sides of the debate is the mutual conviction that, by endorsing certain relationships and not others as “marriages,” the government has the power to change people’s minds.”
Your argumentation about “goverment endorsed marriage” escapes me, and the only insight I agree with is the above.
Gays don’t give a dang tooting about the “sanctity” of traditional marriage, they want the rest of us to be forced to “respect” the “way they live their lives”.
Forcing this on the public with “gay marriage” is the means to their end it seems. I really doubt that anything will change though.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s sad no matter how hard they try Gays, can’t get any respect.It will never be normal or healthy.How can you define your life by perverted sexual practices?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jack,
Unfortunately, they do indeed get “respect” of a sort. Large companies cover their “partner’s” insurance needs and many become partners in legal or consulting firms, while others become teachers and tv reality show hosts and most get accepted as neighbors. Many may hold their noses and their tongues, but the “gay community” has made significant advances in forcing the rest of us in accepting the “normality” of their pathology. Now you are likely correct in so far as many/most clearly see their behavior for what it is - definitionally abnormal. But one the writers here is correct in saying that the school system will force it on children and the media blitz will continue to pound the message into the minds of the masses. There was a time not too long ago when they would never have been given a perch on television, much less a second thought in terms of “marriage”.
I would repeat my earlier statement in that the west’s infatuation with democracy and ideological majoritarianism has a lot to do with this and other problems. Once the state was elevated above all other institutions in society and once that state apparatus was separated from a natural order of things (class and aristocracy) via marxism and liberalistic democracy, society was set upon a path of destruction. Given that there does not exist a trully independent and local media, and given that there does not exist a non-ideological, non-statist academe, and given that the church was removed from having a say in our “public” life, how can we expect to battle the blasphemy of gay “marriage” or any other moral depravity that the government now foists upon us?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Eagle; I guess the Muslims are God’sudgement on us, for all the homosex and abortion.No society can suvive, with the way these 2 abominations are pushed in the western world.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.