Right To Marry
by Scott Lazarowitz: Morning
the "gay marriage" or same-sex marriage distraction is
in the news and on the talk shows. Some people say it is a societal
or cultural issue that government must address, and others say it
is a religious issue.
marriage issue is a private issue. And yes, the individual
has a right to marry.
Who the hell
is the government to allow or forbid private people to establish
their own voluntary associations, relationships, contracts and marriages?
right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically,
Amendment does state that "The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
There are an
infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual
has an inherent right as a human being to oneís life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesnít interfere with
anyone elseís same right.
Based on this
right of self-ownership, each individual has an absolute natural
right to do with oneís life, oneís person and property as one wishes,
as long as one is peaceful. Unfortunately, statists and politicians
do not understand this.
the right to self-ownership in his magnum opus, The
Ethics of Liberty. (Here is The
Ethics of Liberty online at the Mises Institute.)
In my view,
the individual owns oneís own life.
in which you live does not own you, your neighbors do not own you,
the State does not own you.
the State has no jurisdiction over your life and has no legitimate
authority to determine whether you may or may not marry or whom
you may or may not marry.
has the right of self-ownership and jurisdiction over oneís own
life, as long as one does not violate anyone elseís person or property.
And each individual human being has a right to establish voluntary
contracts with others who are mutually agreeable to said contracts.
Such contracts are not the business of the State or of your neighbors,
as they are private contracts. The terms of the contracts
and who may or may not participate in them are the business of those
who are the parties to such contracts, those who voluntarily agree
to such terms, and itís no one elseís business.
who attempt to intrude themselves into such contracts, whether they
be your neighbors, Grandma Harriett, or government bureaucrats,
are intruders, trespassers, and just plain meddlesome busybodies.
And that includes marital contracts.
Does it matter
what past court decisions have said about marriage and marital contracts?
Not really. Courts are State monopolies of ultimate judicial decision-making;
therefore they are illegitimate, because, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe
many people within a given jurisdiction did not voluntarily agree
to or sign on to a contract to employ such courts. If there is a
dispute in a marriage involving a marital contract, the moral and
ethical way to settle such a dispute is for the parties to the contract
to find a third-party arbitrator. They should not be compelled by
legal force to have to use the Stateís one monopoly court.
Now, the only
candidate for President who believes that the government should
stay out of the marriage issue, to my knowledge, has
been Ron Paul.
And in my opinion,
there should be complete separation
of marriage and state. No one should have to get a license issued
by government bureaucrats to marry. It is not the business of the
government to permit or forbid a private individual to establish
oneís own private contracts voluntarily.
It seems to
me that some so-called conservatives, such as Michele
Bachmann and Rick
Santorum, believe that the State owns the lives of the people,
and should use its armed power to dictate who may or may not marry,
and should dictate the terms of these private contracts. Obviously,
some religious conservatives do not believe in the inalienable rights
of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These statists support a communityís use of the State and its compulsory
legal and police powers to force a certain social view onto the
entire population, a.k.a. social engineering.
I believe that
Willard Romney does not have the same kind of repressive social
convictions as the other statist reactionary politicians, as Romney
is the epitome of finger-in-the-air weathervane pol. Despite his
support of "stateís rights" on the issue of same-sex
marriage, currently for political reasons, Romney supports
the proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage
to please the religionists and conservatives who believe in socialist
government-managed social engineering and societal central planning
idea of employment- or tax-related financial benefits or privileges
associated with marriage: Private employers have an inherent right
to dish out whatever benefits they want to give employees, and based
on their own views of morality. No one should interfere with that
basic private property right.
But since government
employers are government agencies, and because everyone
owns the government, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed in his book,
The God That Failed, then everyone should be included
in benefits without arbitrary discrimination against certain groups
And with the
complicated, destructive tax-theft system now in place, what we
have now is social conflict and the planned
chaos of socialism
and central planning.
The only way to resolve these issues is to get rid of the socialist
system now in place, get rid of the welfare state, and restore the
peopleís freedom of voluntary association and contracts, and their
right to keep every bit of the fruits of their labor.
we need to ignore these petty distractions and concentrate on the
more important issues, such as the wars that George W. Bush started
and that Barack Obama has escalated and expanded in our governmentís
continuing provocations of people overseas, and the police state
that further destroys our liberty and compromises our security.
Yes, the right
to marry is as much a right to establish contracts in any other
part of life, and itís nobody elseís business. It is just as much
a human right as the right to not be drone-bombed to death or detained
indefinitely sans due process by a dictatorial President run amok.
Among the current
presidential candidates, only Ron Paul supports freedom of contract,
as well as promises to repeal many of the intrusions into our lives,
liberty and property that government bureaucrats have inflicted
on us. Romney and Obama do not believe in restoring such individual
freedom; their desire is for more power and control for themselves
and their fellow government elitists over the lives of the people.
that Ron Paul continues to make waves in the GOP, and if he doesnít
get the nomination, letís hope he then runs against the two Republicrat
and Demopublican statists Obomney and Rombama.
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Scott Lazarowitz