Government power is backed by force. And when that force is used to require someone to perform an act which violates their personal moral code or religious belief, that force is an invasion of individual liberty.
Under current law, everyone has the right, regardless of sexual orientation, to
“determine how to purchase property, transfer property after death, or share property as joint tenants. These contracts hypothetically might include the freedom to contract for services, such as making health decisions when incapacitated, or providing comfort at a patient’s bedside,”
quoting Mr. Hrabe, in his response to my article on liberty. The debate on gay marriage and gay rights today is not a debate about freedom of contract, it is a debate about using the force of government to require people to accept homosexual behavior, no matter what their personal or religious beliefs happen to be. It is an invasion of religious freedom, no matter how the argument is couched. That is why the current debates on gay marriage and gay rights are anti-liberty.
It is about forcing people to accept that behavior. Everyone, gay or straight, already has complete freedom of contract to take property as they wish, to transfer it as they wish, to allow whomever they want to visit them in the hospital, to enter into contracts of mutual support, or even make health care decisions. A “marriage” is not necessary to do those things, so why is it so important to recognize “gay marriage?”
Our marriage laws do not discriminate against gays and lesbians, at all. Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish. I am not being flippant when I say that, it is a key premise. Marriage is not about sex (I could be flippant and say anyone who has been married knows that), it is about protecting children and their caregivers. Throughout history, women have been the primary caregivers for children, and the commitment that it takes to raise children, economically and emotionally, is significant. Creating a protective incubator, so that the caregiver and the child can feel secure is important to the long term health of the caregiver and the child. Society has created marriage for that reason, and that reason only. And because that is important, the law accords special property, contracting, housing and other protection to married people, not so they can have sex with whom they wish (they can do that anyway, if they don’t care about the economic and emotional trauma they will cause), but so that children and caregivers have a level of legal protection.
Those who want gay marriage want to redefine marriage to be about who they want to have sex with. That undermines and demeans marriage, and destroys the protective incubator marriage gives to a child and its caregiver. More important, however, it grants to those the special privileges that were granted to children and caregivers in the law, and forces others to accept the sexual behavior, regardless of their personal or religious objections.
Why else would Senator Mark Leno want to try and force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual scout leaders? Why else would there be a law about prohibiting sexual reorientation counseling? Why do we need a law that forces employers to accept crossdressing in the business they own? Why else do we need gay marriage, when all the property and contractual privileges of marriage exist outside of marriage. The major benefit of marriage is a long line of statutory and case law history that protect caregivers financially, in case the breadwinner decides to flake out on his or her obligation to the children. Government recognition of “gay marriage” is not necessary to do that.
No, the recognition of gay marriage and gay rights is necessary to use the government force to require third parties to accept the behavior, and that is where Mr. Hrabe’s arguments fall. He wants to use the language of liberty to force third parties to accept homosexual behavior. Since at least 1976, when the laws on sodomy were repealed, gays and straights have been equal in the eyes of the law, in all ways, so no new laws are needed to enforce that equality. The only resistance that exists today are the moral and religious objections to homosexual behavior (the same resistance exists towards lots of other sexual behaviors, the myriad of fetishes that are limited only by the human imagination, but those folks are not, yet, campaigning for the right to marry to exercise their fetish), and the effort today is to get gay marriage recognized so that government force can be utilized to require acceptance of the behavior.
And that is where Mr. Hrabe gets it wrong. Love whom you wish how you wish (except children and animals), but don’t use government to tell someone else they have to accept it. Organize your life how you wish, with whatever contracts you wish, and government will enforce those contracts in court. However, don’t expect everyone to freely accept your choices. They are your choices, and you will reap whatever benefit or pay whatever price for those choices. Don’t however force someone else to do something that they believe will cost them morally or condemn them to grave consequences in the hereafter. Liberty says we pay the price for our choices, and our neighbor pays the price for theirs. We do not get to substitute our judgment for theirs, using the power of government to enforce our judgment. Mr. Hrabe would do just that in the case of those who do not accept homosexual behavior. That’s not fighting for liberty, that’s fighting for a bigger government.