Helping Justin Raimondo Get It Straight on Gay Marriage

Justin Raimondo, until recently, was against the legalization of gay marriage,

Now, however, in an essay at the American Conservative, he is questioning that view:

I want to take the opportunity to recant—or, rather, publicly rethink—my position.

He explains his new thinking this way:

 I was content with this “hold the line” stance, which drew a line in the sand between the unconquered territory of gay relationships and the government-occupied territory of heterosexual marriage, until I applied it to other areas… and to my own life experience. I kept up the battle against this statist “invasion” on Twitter, where I railed against the Supreme Court decision as “a disaster for gay people”—and then I had an epiphany.

What—I asked myself—about marijuana?

Now this may seem like a non sequitur, but think of it this way:

Smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana is an activity—like homosexual relations—that is illegal and has been frowned upon by polite society up until the very recent past. It is still illegal under federal law, although several states have decriminalized its use. It is, in short, a province of that “unconquered territory” where State rules and regulations don’t apply. The FDA doesn’t have any standards applying to its content, production, and sale. Except in those states where it is legal—for “medicinal” or other purposes—the government doesn’t tax it. It’s part of the “realm of freedom.”

Does that mean it shouldn’t be made legal?

Of course it doesn’t.

Here's the problem with this thinking. Government shouldn't be in the business of regulating marriage, marijuana, or for that matter, cotton balls. The default view on all these should be that the government should just stay the hell away, not "legalization," which I have pointed out is now becoming synonymous with  regulating and taxing.

Indeed, Justin seems to understand that it is this slippery slope of regulation where gay marriage "legalization" is headed:

A caveat: the victory of gay marriage advocates didn’t take long to develop into an attack on the churches, and the threat of a legal assault on all those religious institutions that “discriminate” against gays. The ACLU has already repudiated its support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and we’re seeing calls for the revocation of churches’ nonprofit status. This was entirely predictable: indeed, I did predict it in my debate with Jonathan Rauch. But even I’m shocked at the swiftness of the gathering anti-clerical storm: the ACLU’s repudiation of its defense of religious liberty occurred the day after the Supreme Court decision. They’re probably already writing the legal briefs demanding that gays be allowed to recite their marriage vows in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

Libertarians and others who uphold the principles of a free society must unequivocally defend the churches against this vicious and small-minded assault. In the present context, Christians are the new gays—pre-Stonewall, pre-Lawrence, pre-Obergefell.

Thus, one must ask: What is the benefit of gay marriage legalization, from a libertarian perspective? Does it provide more freedom or is it likely to simply add regulations? I can't think of any way that gay marriage adds more freedom for gays. If they want to live with each other, they can certainly do so anywhere in the United States, with near zero chance of harassment by police.

Marijuana legalization is a different matter. Many, many have been incarcerated for the sale or possession of marijuana, thus legalization does provide an important freedom to marijuna dealers and users. To be sure, marijuana legalization is not perfect from a libertarian perspective, since it is now regulated and taxed where it has been legalized, but a libertarian could certainly argue that the lack of a prison threat is a major advance in the right direction.

There is no such benefit when it comes to the legalization of gay marriage. The libertarian test for the move has not passed, It does not in any significant way advance freedom for gays or anyone else. The scale is tilted to regulations now being piled on top of the legalization. And, indeed, the horrific possibility of new regulations on religious groups because of the "legalization." 

We live in a very complex world where government has its fingers in everything. Often, there are no clear cut moves toward liberty based on new proposals on how government should deal with a situation. For the libertarian, the best we can do is attempt to find the method which most advances freedom, but always point out that government should really have no business regulating the many things it does.

Legalization of gay marriage: NO. Legalization of marijuana: YES, but with major caveats. And be suspicious of all "legalizations." if they do not significantly advance freedom, they are likely a trap for more regulation.

-RW