On October 29, the Public Religion Research Institute released a study about libertarians in the U.S., and the extent to which they are not the same as Tea Party supporters. See full information about the study here.
This article in The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, summarizes some of the interesting points from the survey.
The disturbing part is the number of “libertarians” who oppose same-sex marriage. Shame on you all.
Hell, the entire reason I came to libertarianism in the first place was because I was so ticked off at the GOP’s hatred of gays.
The results depend on how the question was posed. Libertarians shouldn’t be in favor of government recognizing gay or straight marriages.
If you’re for eliminating government recognition of marriage, then you’re for same-sex marriage. I’m tired of people saying they’re somehow different. They’re not. We’re taking away the government’s ability to keep gay people from leaving their inheritance to their spouse, visit one another in the hospital, etc. This is a pro-liberty issue. Just because gay couples get a slip of paper from the government doesn’t mean government is somehow more involved. Government LOSES power.
Imagine if the argument was that legalizing marijuana is anti-liberty because we’re giving government power to regulate it and we’re not legalizing all drugs. That would be just as stupid as the current argument on gay marriage.
STOP THIS IDIOCY.
The survey was about individuals who identify themselves as philosophical libertarians. It wasn’t a survey of Libertarian Party members.
The TEA Party movement was actually started by libertarians, but the establishment saw it as a threat, so it was hijacked and coopted by conservatives, most of whom are loyal to the Republican establishment. The TEA Party is a good example of a movement that had a lot of promise at its beginning, but has been neutered and rendered ineffective.
But how did they identify what a libertarian was? Was it just someone who said they were a libertarian? Who are these libertarians who oppose same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, or ACA repeal? How can they POSSIBLY be considered libertarians?
My point is that the numbers should have been 100% on all, because anyone who opposes any of that is neither a big L or small l libertarian. This in and of itself makes the study completely & utterly worthless.
Yes, if you’re for eliminating government intervention in same-sex marriage, then you’re “for” same-sex marriage (ie, don’t want to get in the way of it). But that is a very distinct position from being in favor of government *recognizing* same sex marriages. They’re two completely different things and different policy directions, and you rarely hear most LP members running for office advocating the elimination of marriage licenses (or changing it to a contract basis). Just being in favor of government recognition of same-sex marriages without saying anything further gets the LP caught up in traditional left-right culture war wedge issues, and it turns off more voters than explaining a hands-off position. Would you want a libertarian candidate to say flatly that he’s pro-choice and that his position on the issue is the same as most liberals? How does this attract more voters than a traditional liberal candidate? It’s not as bad if a candidate says he/she wants to recognize same-sex marriages as long as we eventually get rid of government marriages, but that’s still legitimizing an unequal, interventionist policy and making it liable to last longer. It’s like an LP candidate saying they want more tax credits and deductions for various businesses, so that eventually ALL businesses might have the same tax break. We all know that won’t happen though; similarly, gay and straight bigamous marriage will probably remain the only officially accepted forms of partnership if the dialogue continues as it is.
Being in favor of allowing only gay/straight bigamous marriage is not marriage equality. Being open to ALL relationships between consenting adults, however they want to express them, is marriage equality. Your tax return shouldn’t be determined by sexual behavior. Domestic partners (in a relationship or not) should be able to receive the same benefits contractually, without having that external incentive to marry. Lastly, despite supposedly being more open-minded, I doubt the majority of same-sex marriage advocates would be in favor of having consenting polygamous marriages held on the same footing by government, but that’s what justice and equanimity demands.
No tax of any kind can be “equinanimous.” A tax by its very nature is discriminatory, and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense. Similarly, a marriage contract recognized by the state for purposes of defining a category of civil rights, benefits and obligations attendant to the civil contract is also inherently discriminatory. “Justice and equanimity” does not, therefore, “demand” that polygamous relationships be recognized on the same legal footing as relationships between two humans. If they do, then I suppose one could argue that if the entire adult citizenry of a town declared a group “marriage” by holding hands at the town square, then they would “justly” be entitled to recognition as a polygamous marriage and “equananimous” treatment under the tax code.
So I disagree. All these “slippery slope” arguments (humans in groups of three or more, fathers and daughters, humans and beasts, etc.) are in my view pretty silly at best, and at worst are sometimes (not in your case) smokescreens designed to disguise an underlying sexual orientation prejudice.
Now, if you want to argue that civil entities should only confer civil contracts and should cease applying the label “marriage” to them, I’m with you. Let churches define “marriages” in any way they want (including humans in groups of three or more, fathers and daughters, man-goat-lawnmower, etc.). Let the churches own that word and let’s just end that particular bogus argument. Civil authorities don’t need to be in the “marriage” business and if using the word gives even the appearance of breaching the separation of church and state, it should be abandoned.
Another good reason to abandon the unnecessary and arbitrary distinction between civil unions and civil marriages is that it would eliminate the establishment of “classes” of unions which many “nonstraight” people find objectionable, and justifiably so.
We may agree on this point as well.
In short, in my opinion civil authorities should recognize only civil union contracts. I wonder how many Libertarians, as well as liberals and conservatives of both major parties, might agree with this “radical” concept.
Appendix 2 of the report explains how they decided who to call a “libertarian”.
“Now, if you want to argue that civil entities should only confer civil contracts and should cease applying the label “marriage” to them, I’m with you. Let churches define “marriages” in any way they want”
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Completely different from Jed’s position. With the tax incentive part, asking government to give more people a tax break still legitimizes that tax. Better to eliminate it/reduce it across the board.
Also I believe this is an issue of separating church and state – marriage should fall into the former.
I would agree and add that part of the reason it was hijacked and co-opted was because the Libertarian party tried to distance them selves from it. I made a strong case for allying with the tea party and working with them and was shot down with brilliant counter arguments such as they are “loons waving signs”.