Cancel Register Now Reset Password?
Advocates for Self Government Logo

1010 N Tennessee St
Suite 215
Cartersville, GA
30120-8528

Phone

(770) 386-8372

Fax

(770) 386-8373

Orders & Donations

(800) 932-1776

Quick Contact

info@theadvocates.org

Sign up for our Liberator Online Newsletter

The Liberator Online is full of expert tips and libertarian discussion. It’s the best way to stay current on breaking libertarian news.





Feed_icon_large

Separation of Marriage and State

Published May 17, 2012 in Talking Points by Sharon Harris

The issue of gay marriage is in the headlines right now. 
 
Libertarians, of course, have the best solution to the conflicts now raging on this issue. The libertarian position ends all the political arguments over how government should define marriage and what government should and should not allow. 
 
To cut to the heart of this issue, try using this simple phrase: “separation of marriage and state.”
 
A conversation might go something like this: 
 
“Just like almost all Americans favor separation of church and state, libertarians favor separation of marriage and state -- and for much the same reason. 
 
“Adults should be free to engage in any voluntary relationships and contractual associations they wish. They should be free to have their union blessed by a religious leader of their choice who is willing to do so, and they should also be free to have a marriage ceremony without a religious leader.
 
“If they want to make contractual obligations, the private sector is quite capable of drawing those up. How others choose to regard any particular union is similarly their own business, just as we are free to have opinions on religious and political matters.  
 
"Just like separation of church and state, separation of marriage and state will create social harmony. There is no need to have government involved in this extremely private and personal matter.”
 
Ron Paul has said something very similar, and his phrasing is very useful as well: “I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function. … I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
 
The libertarian position ends all the contention, all the anger, all the coercion that inevitably comes with government involvement in marriage -- just like separation of church and state eased and ended religious conflicts in our society. 
 
The phrase “separation of marriage and state” can help make that clear -- and quickly define a common-sense position that many people have not yet heard.


Get tips and suggestions from Sharon Harris along with experts Michael Cloud, Mary Ruwart, and David Bergland with The Very Best Ways You Can Communicate Libertarian Ideas - Panel Discussion.


Showing 10 Comments

Pubilshed May 18, 2012 by John M.

Gravatar I do agree generally with this position and that this is a great way to cut through to the heart of the issue. I just want to point out one small qualification that should probably be made when anyone is discussing this. When two people get married, they gain the legal right to make decisions about one another if one of them becomes incompetent or unconscious. This is very important in end-of-life situations, particularly. It is also a realm where homosexual couples have had particular difficulty (one member of the couple ends up comatose in the hospital, the ten-year partner wants to make decisions about end-of-life based on conversations the couple has had over the years about the desires of the unconscious person, but is overruled by the hospital who sides with the parents who have had a strained relationship with the couple because of their homosexual partnership). The point being that this is one important wrinkle which is not resolved by a "separation of marriage and state" statement. It can still be laid out as a qualification, namely: "and, for end of life issues, anyone can go to their state website and print out a form which lists who her decision-makers should be in case she is incapacitated."

Pubilshed May 20, 2012 by Guest

Gravatar as long as you love one another, you can FORM WHATEVER RELATIONSHIPS YOU WANT... Sorry for the "liberal" oppressors who demand recognition and welfare from others, and again, SORRY for those "DEFENDERS OF MORALITY" who in fact, confuse us what love actually is... Well they are the ones with what they call LOOSE MORALS like the PHARISEES!!!

Pubilshed May 22, 2012 by Paul

Gravatar I want to throw a wrench in the gears, here. The only real debate is obviously over regulations and taxes, like all other government related problems and debates. Shouldn't real families (not gays, I am anti-gay) get tax breaks so they can bring up children? Can two gays get shared insurance? Marriage is a legal contract with certain rights and responsibilities - so I guess I mean to say that libertarians should try to think out more exactly how this legal arrangement would look. Note: I agree with the idea that basically we should get rid of any government involvement in marriage. From that starting point, I would liek to see how we deal with the legal implications of this, given our current system's framework.

Pubilshed May 23, 2012 by chris

Gravatar Can I answer Paul's first question. "Shouldn't real families (not gays, I am anti-gay) get tax breaks so they can bring up children?" the answer to this question is simple...NO!

Pubilshed May 25, 2012 by david

Gravatar personally, i think government should get their fingers out of the marriage pie. the radical right wing needs to read the amendments again and look for somthing involving "state", "church" and "seprate". their "morals" are ignorant and servile. this just goes to show family values on parade.

Pubilshed May 30, 2012 by rob

Gravatar Its quite simple, if in a church its marriage as defined by that church, if getting together by the state then its a civil union as defined by that states laws. Does not matter what genders the two parties are. Marriage is church only.

Pubilshed June 01, 2012 by Christopher

Gravatar Chris, there are many different families. To say gays aren't considered is absurd. i know a lot of hetero couples who never had children. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of getting MARRIED? You get all the benefits in all 50 states, not the one legally wed in, FYI!

Pubilshed June 16, 2012 by Rob

Gravatar 1. There should not be any governmental advantage/disadvantage afforded to anybody, and certainly not due to a relationship situation. 2. Children born should have the adults responsible for their birth listed on a birth certificate, which becomes the primary mechanism (contract, if you will) regarding their care. A woman would have the right to demand determination of paternity should it be denied by the man. 3. Adopted children would have the legally responsible adults listed on the adoption records which would serve the same function (from a responsibility perspective) as the birth certificate. 4. Any adults desiring to enter into any relationship where they seek/expect to serve in a legal and/or fiduciary responsibility for each other would be required to do so via a legal contract specifying the extent of such relationship. 5. "Marriage" or whatever people care to call their religious/non-religious ceremony of commitment would have no legal standing or effect.

Pubilshed June 20, 2012 by Ramon S

Gravatar @ john m. I think what the author is trying to say here is that the couple would have the right to decide whether or not they want to enter into a "contractual relationship" (aka marriage). If they do so, then they will be awarded the rights set forth in said contract. My guess is it would act very much like a marrital contract. So your end of life questions would not be questions at all. They would be handled just like any other "married couple".

Pubilshed June 25, 2012 by Bill

Gravatar On the surface I can agree with the statement we should have “separation of marriage and state”. Unfortunately it is not that easy, since government has already ready imbedded itself into marriage. Consider Social Security, marriage partners are entitled to a portion of their partners SS payments for life. Also the financial system requires marriage partners to be responsible for the debts of their partner. There are many other areas where a state sanctioned marriage has ramifications. Because of that fact, we still need an open marriage system in our laws.

Add Comment

You commenting as a guest Sign in

Get your own Gravatar

Advocates for Self-Government 1010 N Tennessee St Suite 215 Cartersville, GA 30120-8528 Phone (770) 386-8372 Fax (770) 386-8373 Orders & Donations (800) 932-1776

Contents copyrighted © The Advocates for Self-Government, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. Donations tax-deductible in U.S. All rights reserved.

Powered by Blacksnow Media