In anticipation of the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, many questions and debates are being sparked about the definition of marriage. According to many, most notably the Roman Catholic church, marriage is strictly defined as being between a man and a woman. It is a sacred covenant, and violating it in any way is considered a terrible sin. On the opposite end, many are opposed to the church's views and want a federal law which will officially declare homosexual marriage to be legal nationwide.
From a libertarian perspective, we look most closely not at the issue of what the definition of marriage is, but more so that the federal government is once again meddling where they do not belong. Though it tends to be overlooked the tenth amendment to the Constitution is quite clear when it says that any power not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution is left up to the states and the people to decide. However, as usual, people do not seem to be concerned with what the Bill of Rights has to say. In our arrogance, we always seem to feel that our views are the best, and that legislation must be made so that everyone makes the "right" decision. This point of view has caused many problems in the past, and it undoubtedly will in the future.
On the issue of gay marriage, it is another simple concept in the eyes of libertarians: unlimited freedom so long as you do not infringe upon the freedoms of others. It does no harm to an individual or their liberties for their neighbor to be gay or to get married, so why does it matter? Freely consenting adults should have the ability to choose what to do with their lives, including who they want to marry. But to make a federal law defining marriage undermines the constitution and dangerously dulls the line keeping government out of religion. I only hope that we tread especially carefully over the next few weeks, and that the final outcome is in the best interest of everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment