Condemning homosexual behavior but calling for the
state to recognize it, is an incoherent position. Such
a stance is not a laissez faire attitude of “I disapprove,
but will tolerate this.” No, it is tantamount to saying,
“this is wrong, but I approve of it.”
The principle of liberty—a guiding star for libertarians—does
not play a role in this debate. Once we’ve granted the
legitimacy of civil marriage, we are already playing on the
turf of government action. The next question is: whose
morality will guide that government action?
Sure, but libertarians, according to Master, would have marriage become an extension of friendship, a relationship not governed by law, hence no need to be recognized by the government. As for shared or co-owned property, that would be covered by private contract, as imperfect as that might be. As for the first paragraph, I suppose there's a difference between disapproving something but tolerating it, versus saying something is wrong but condoning it, however I'm not sure the distinction in many contexts is all that important really.
10:18:29 PM Comments disabled
|