Libertarianism, Marriage, and the True Meaning of Family Values

Regarding the debate about homosexual marriage, a common libertarian position -- which I have shared -- is that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the state and made a private, contractual relationship. Christopher Tozzo (a.k.a. KipEsquire) of A Stitch in Haste argues against that stance and for legal recognition of the homosexual union as a form of marriage....

KipEsquire seems to be more interested in the legalization of homosexual marriage than he is in the real effects of legalization on society's well-being. To put it in the form of a question: What's really at risk if society -- acting through the state -- undermines the privileged status of heterosexual marriage by bestowing equal benefits on other forms of marriage, and even on temporary relationships?....

The recognition of homosexual marriage by the state -- though innocuous to many, and an article of faith among most libertarians and liberals -- is another step down [a slippery] slope. When the state, through its power to recognize marriage, bestows equal benefits on homosexual marriage, it will next bestow equal benefits on other domestic arrangements that fall short of traditional, heterosexual marriage. And that surely will weaken heterosexual marriage, which is the axis around which the family revolves. The state will be saying, in effect, "Anything goes. Do your thing. The courts, the welfare system, and the taxpayer -- above all -- will pick up the pieces." And so it will go....

Faced with a choice between libertarian shibboleth and libertarian substance, I have chosen substance. I now say: Ban homosexual marriage and avoid another step down the slippery slope toward incivility and bigger government.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST, WHICH IS VERY LONG.