I think Bill Barnwell was looking for the opinion of some other religious types, so I’ll chime in. Even as a traditionalist Catholic, I strongly disagree with my fellow religionists on many matters, especially those concerning the State. That being said, I vehemently disagree with Marcus Epstein, and I agree with Charley Hardman completely.
I think as far as two people being a “couple,” that is decided by their internal and spoken commitment to each other. Any two people can be a couple, whether they are gay, “shacking up,” etc. So what? Who cares about the lousy piece of paper from the State? However, I can’t believe folks are missing the most obvious fact in this whole gay marriage thing: marriage, by definition, is the union between a man and a woman. So what’s the problem here? Gays can’t be married! The problem is that gays are trying to finangle the State to help make them that which they can never be: a married couple. They can be a couple, but why aren’t they content with going off and making the internal commitment to one another that they are, indeed, a couple? Because they, like every other special interest or minority group, want to use the State to squash society’s traditions with their notion of lifestyle, and they want it accepted as “normal” (oh how the PC Peoples hate that word). But that kind of thing is just as “normal” to society as the relationship/union between a 70-year-old man and 12-year-old girl. Look at immigration; it is the largest of State programs (next to war), but many libertarians who support it do so because they have hatred for traditional institutions and the idea of voluntary association/integration. Just read some of these “forums” out there that constantly assault the anti- immigration views of LRC.
It’s the same for the gays and their “program.” They argue for the State to endow them with special rights, and there are those on the opposite side that hate the notion of gay coupling so much that they argue for the maintenance of State marriage – as it currently stands – so as to preserve their own idea of what is acceptable. However, our traditions would be better served via a Hoppean private property anarchism with true voluntary association and no foced integration by the State, where patterns of voluntary integration will take us away from that which we don’t think is palatable. But as long as we have the problem of forced integration, society will continue to spiral downward into the sewer which we are becoming.
How the hell can any libertarian – even of any Christian stripe – support some fat-and-happy, biased judge in Washington making his own rules for what goes on in our relationships and in our bedrooms?7:42 am on July 6, 2003 Email Karen De Coster