July 2, 2015—Milton Friedman famously said, “In a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others.”
I have always thought this was pretty standard libertarian doctrine. So an email I received from the Libertarian Party saying, “We applaud and celebrate this victory, and we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and prosperity in any way they choose,” came as a bit of a shock.
The Libertarian Party, which I am a card carrying member of, has endorsed gay rights since its first platform in 1972. Additionally, in 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to anti-gay laws and endorsing full marriage rights. Decades ahead of the other two parties.
Two years ago when the Supreme Court shot down DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), I celebrated along with the Libertarian Party. We celebrated because the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has no place in the institution of marriage. The word marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution, not one time. I put the entire Constitution in an Excel sheet and did a lookup for the word marriage, and it’s not in there, which according to the 10th Amendment makes this a states issues.
This is why you get a state issued marriage license. So the Libertarian Party is applauding an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government in which they took a power from that states and claimed it is as there own? An act it did not have to do to legitimize gay marriage. We were well on our way to doing that, may I remind you of the Friedman quote: persuade others, don’t use coercive force. Look at the progress “We the People” have made on this issue in just the last decade.
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage. Prior to the decision on June 26th, 36 states plus D.C. had already recognized same-sex marriages. A Pew research poll showed that less than a decade ago same-sex marriage had an approval rating of 33 percent. That same poll now has about a 60 percent approval rating as of May 2015. So the states and the people were well on there way to achieving the goal of nationwide acceptance of same-sex marriages. This is a direct result of we the people using our ideas to persuade others their tastes are bad, not using coercive government force to get what we want.
What happened to Ron Paul’s view on gay marriage? The Congressman said, “they should be able to do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.” Remember this from the 2008 Republican primaries?
We all cheered this. Would the Libertarian Party now say the former Texas congressman was out of line? Or not a supporter of equal rights? Paul argued that we should not impose our standard on others and the federal government should have nothing to do with marriage. After all, if government wasn’t involved in marriage at all, there would be no discrimination in marriage at all.
The Supreme Court looked at this and looked at the Constitution and at the 10th Amendment and said it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court took the 10th Amendment, which gives all powers not delegated in the Constitution to the states and or the people, and said Nope, this doesn’t exist.
May I remind the SCOTUS, tyranny for good is not good at all. Which brings up another interesting question: Why does the Supreme Court get a pass? This is an overreach of power. Congress has a rating in the mid-teens, the President has an approval rating around 40, down drastically from when he took office. The opinion of the Supreme Court has stayed pretty consistent despite a history of judicial tyranny. The Supreme Court has upheld tyranny at its worst many, many times before. Judicial tyranny has upheld slavery, segregation, as well as internment of Americans of Japanese descent.
This is not about whether same sex couples should get married, something I agree with. As a resident of Texas, if Texas, which up until the ruling did not recognize gay marriage, had put this to a vote like other states I would have voted to approve gay marriage without hesitation. But, my opinion on same-sex marriage does not outweigh the 10th Amendment.
If we are giving the federal government the power to overrule the states marriage laws, does the federal government also now have the power to overrule states laws in terms of legal age to enter marriage? Georgia says that with parental consent you can enter marriage at the age of 15. In Mississippi the legal age to enter the marriage is 21! Should we be waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on this? How far do we want to go with this?
Although people ought to be free to marry as they choose, this decision doesn’t represent freedom. It’s just another example of judicial tyranny and government over reach and the further eroding of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was established by the Constitution, so no, it does not have the power to supersede the Constitution, the very document that established it.
Do you think the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling was a victory or loss? Comment below.
This article is hosted, designed, and promoted with the assistance of readers like you. Give a gift to keep VoicesofLiberty moving the message of liberty forward.