Some libertarians are applauding the recent Supreme Court decisions relating to same-sex marriage, not because of anything to do with the Constitution, limited government, federalism, individual liberty, the proper role of government, or separating marriage from the state, but because they just happen to like the idea of same-sex marriage. As I have argued elsewhere, they are entitled to their opinion, but there is no libertarian “position” on same-sex marriage.
On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative passed in 2008 that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry that the California Supreme Court had recognized.
On Wednesday, March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the merits and demerits of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal legislation passed in 1996 that defined marriage as only “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and that permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the section of DOMA that defined marriage (sec. 3) was unconstitutional, thus ending the ban on same-sex married couples being recognized as married and eligible to receive federal benefits. The Court also let stand a 2010 federal district court ruling that declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.
Conservatives who believe in traditional marriage and consider the term “same-sex marriage” to be an oxymoron are disturbed by the Supreme Court’s rulings. This is not generally because they find fault with any legal or constitutional arguments, but because the Court did not, in their eyes, rule in favor of traditional marriage—legal and constitutional arguments be damned.
But conservatives are also disturbed by what they see as libertarian support for same-sex marriage. This is not generally because they find fault with any arguments about individual liberty and the proper role of government, but because libertarians are not, in their eyes, upholding traditional marriage—philosophical arguments be damned.
More @ WND
read Vance's full essay at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/laurence-m-vance/cultural-conservatives/
Thanks. It was posted as a comment on Blue and I had no idea there was more, so I have changed it. Once again, thank you.
Delete"I believe it is entirely possible to be a resolute social and theological conservative and at the same time be an uncompromising and hardcore libertarian."
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian, you can't insist that any certain moral foundation form the basis of your society, either. How can one be a resolute theological conservative and hold to a social/economic theory that says many things proscribed in the Bible are ok?
"Conservatives can and should be libertarians because there is nothing inherently libertarian about same-sex marriage, legalized abortion, or recreational drug use."
There's nothing libertarian about insisting that these things stay out of my community, either.
The truth is tolerance equals acceptance in practice. If you tolerate it, it will be in your community.
I think libertarians like the author of this piece are completely dishonest or wilfully ignorant. They know that in practice their philosophy is socially the same as today's liberal relativism. No right and wrong, other than "coercion bad", but who gets to define coercion?
Maybe if you are speaking of pure Libertarian, but I imagine they are few and far between. For instance Ron Paul, Mr. Libertarian, is big time anti-abortion and a man of the Bible.
DeleteMaybe. I just see how values can be preserved in the libertarian system. I would also argue that most "libertarians" are just republicans trying to distance themselves from the GOP and as such are actually conservatives.
DeleteWords.
A Jeffersonian Democrat, I believe.
Delete