Libertarianism 101: Consenting Adults & Marriage

Another tenant of the Libertarian philosophy is there should be no laws regulating what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. The key words here being "consenting" and "adults." As long as there is no unconsentual harm to anyone's person or property, why should the government (a) care or (b) be the arbitrator of morality? In my opinion, the government needs to get out of the bedroom ... or the living room or the kitchen or wherever else one prefers to engage in mutually agreeable activity.

A discussion of consenting adults generally leads to the topic of marriage ... straight or gay. In my opinion, the government should get out of this discussion as well. I believe marriage to be a religious institution ... not a civil one. Why the government cares who's married to whom is beyond me. If some religious denomination wants to "marry" two men, two women, two woman and one man, etc., what do I care? It's not like these people would be doing anything they weren't already doing while they were single ...

Given the government's current policy of enacting laws that endow certain privileges and benefits based upon one's marital status (e.g., income tax, right of survivorship), I can understand the philosophy of those in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn't a gay partner have the same rights as a heterosexual partner? Well, in most cases ... they can.

A power of attorney can be granted to a gay partner in order for them to make medical decisions for their partner. A life insurance policy can have a gay partner as a beneficiary. Many private health insurance policies permit one additional adult (of either sex) to be included. It is only where the government gets involved (especially income tax and social security benefits) that these same partner benefits are denied. This is why the government needs to repeal/revise all laws that use martial status as a litmus test.

If you're not necessarily religious, another argument is based upon the idea that marriage is a contractual relationship. Why the government feels it needs to get involved in a contract, entered into freely, between two or more parties is, again, beyond me.

Some would argue the government needs to be involved in marriages in order to protect the interest of any minor children. Given that being married has pretty much been eliminated as a prerequisite for having children, the government needs to be concerned about all children, regardless of whether their parents happen to be married.

What about divorces? One point of view might be that the government, not being a party to a marriage, would not be involved in the dissolution of one. Would this mean that one spouse (or two or three) couldn't sue in civil court for damages based upon this dissolution? Hell, folks sue each other every day for just about any silly reason (spilled hot coffee comes to mind) ... why would the end of a marriage be any siller than what's already happening. Another point of view might be that whatever religious organization that sanctified the marriage would be the arbitrator of its termination.

To summarize:

• Let religious organizations or formal, private contracts determine who "marries" whom.


• Eliminate/revise all government laws that identify marital status as a condition.


• Allow the free market to determine what types of policies are available from insurance organizations.


• Keep the government out of people's bedrooms.


• Privatize Social Security or allow survivor benefits to be paid to any person.