29 votes

Gay Libertarian on Marriage Equality

I've been an avid reader of the DailyPaul for some time and I feel it has been lacking an outspoken voice from the gay community. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing that Libertarians don't care about gay rights, or minority rights, etc. There are no gay rights, there are no women's rights, there are no Black or Latino rights. There are only universal human rights that each of us is entitled to. I was, therefore, inspired to create this video. Thanks for watching! :)


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous

Marriage licenses was

Marriage licenses was introduced in the United States at the end of the 19th century due to eugenics goals, such as a ban on mixed-race marriages and marriages of people with transmittable diseases. Lawmakers wanted to make sure the new generation was strong and white, Hitler went too far in the 30's, but remember, marriage licenses is a progressive invention. It is not part of the country since its foundation. Getting the govt out of the marriage license business today is very simple, because the states govt no longer provide for marriage licenses to accomplish eugenics, you just need to reform the tax code.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

Well first you are way over

Well first you are way over complicating things. And you are wrong that Government has been involved in Marriage since our founding. It was the churches for most of our history, government involvement is a rather recent anomaly along with the inception of income taxes etc.

it's not a pipe dream it is still possible to marry without government becoming a 3rd party to the marriage contract and thus claiming jurisdiction over the children and property etc.

Gays can use a power of attorney to have all the same legal operation of statute as married couples but they are ignorant and want to make a spectacle of being gay at least the out spoken ones...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

All the more reason

to treat the issue of homosexual marriage with a grain of salt. I know I for one have a lot bigger fish to fry.

You're right things that are hard shouldn't be attempted

Only strive for sound principles if they are easy.

egapele's picture


much time on your hands. Redirect.

We may not have one particular advocate

but many of us are for the rights of everyone and have/would defend whoever as equally as the next person.

Welcome to the forums BTW.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Matthew 19 :11-12

Jesus replied"Not everyone can accept this word,but only those to whom it has been given.FOR SOME ARE EUNUCHS BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY;others were made that way by men;and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.The one who can accept this should accept it.".....The conclusion I would draw from Christ's words is to accept that some people are born gay and not to hate,condemn or judge them for being born that way.I believe your conscience would lead you to the same conclusion,even if you did not believe in God.I posted these verses because I thought it might help some reconsider if they have any contempt in their hearts for gay people.Truth,freedom and peace.

being a eunich and being

being a eunich and being perverse are two different subjects. Being born a eunich is like a birth defect, not a choice. Nice reach.

Some people are born eunuchs.

Eunuchs are not homosexuals, they are heterosexuals who were neutered. If a boy is born without the physical ability to procreate, it means he is born sterile. Some people were born sterile. Jesus ordered the Children of Israel to stone any man that was found lying with another man after the Hebrews came out of Egypt. I don't think God would order Israel to execute homosexuals if he made some people to be born homosexual. That wouldn't make any sense.

I don't think you are much

I don't think you are much different than the Taliban with your faith in fairy tales.

You're absolutely right on one thing.

My faith isn't in fairy tales, but, I and every single Bible-believing Christian in the world are very much like the Taliban in the sense that we believe the Bible is inspired by the Creator of the universe. The Taliban believe the Qu'ran is inspired by the Creator of the universe. If I were a Muslim, I would no doubt be sympathetic to the Taliban because if the Allah of the Muslims was real and not just a moon "god" that the cutthroat Muhammad transformed to fit his demonic religion, then the Taliban would be right.

ummm I don't think Jesus was

ummm I don't think Jesus was alive when Moses led the Hebrews from Egypt. Yes that was Jesus in his preincarnate human body. But you are dealing with 2 different times. People were judged by the law which was what you said. Today people are under grace. I do agree with what you are saying Just that most do not see Jesus as God almighty. They see him as just a man. They do not understand exactly what you said.

They don't believe Jesus when He said,

"Before Abraham was, I am." They assume that was a mistranslation, it was what John wanted Jesus to have said, it was what John wanted to convey to people that he said, and a whole number of things. But, those same people like to cherry pick the parts of the gospels that fit their worldview. It's funny, you don't hardly ever hear of anyone claiming the Sermon on the Mount was fictional or a "mistranslation."

John 8:7

"But only he who has never sinned may throw the first stone"

atleast you admit it is sin.

atleast you admit it is sin.

egapele's picture



Verstehest du nicht Englisch?


egapele's picture


Non, eu estou creados a partir británico ocupada Irlanda do Norte. Primeira xeración nos Estados Unidos. Beije miña aparvado fermosa estadounidense.

01010111 01100001 01101001

01010111 01100001 01101001 01110100 00101100 00100000 01110111 01101000 01111001 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100100 01100100 01100101 01101110 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110010 01100001 01101110 01100100 01101111 01101101 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101 01110011 00111111

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

be careful what you ask for

ain't that the truth. I am all for getting government out of marriage. In fact my county did stop issuing licenses to everyone for a while which was absolutely fair and wonderful.

Currently though, marriage has many meanings which is why the issue causes so many problems. We really have to look at what marriage means with regard to government. It is basically a built in contract with far reaching tentacles- for better or worse. So people look at what hets get from it- ease of hospital visitation, spousal insurance, etc. and they want that too. You point out well that there is a downside though and that is the loss of freedom. (not to mention the government tracking you and making you get tests)

So, out of fairness gay people should be able to get a state sponsored marriage. But maybe it would be even better if the state got out of the marriage business altogether. Then the hets would have to deal with what the gay people already deal with and benefit from the extra freedom from government control as well. That would be fair too.

What country is that that has stopped issuing marriage licenses?

I would like to research that further.

As far as hospital visitation, spousal insurance etc it seems like that should be easily settled by a legal document saying one person has authorized the visit of the other person in the event of hospitalization. Is that not possible? If so why not? If there is some rule or law preventing such a solution, seems like that's what needs to be changed not the definition of marriage.

As far as spousal insurance that seems like it should be a free market thing. Insurance companies could provide services to whatever variety of spousal relationships they want or not. If none of the insurance companies will provide insurance to gay couples, there will surely arise an insurance company that will provide it and reap untapped profits as well receive the business of those who support gay marriage and who are boycotting the other insurance companies.

You mention the rights and benefits hetero couples enjoy that are denied to gay couples, that these benefits from the government are actually a loss of freedom. I tend to agree. This is true because you are allowing the government to define marriage. If it can be defined one way by the government, then when power or public opinion sways it can be defined another way, possibly even to the detriment of hetero couples. You lose freedom. It's the same with drug laws. If you cede the principle that you own your own body and that government can regulate what you put in it you've lost some of your freedom. You may like that the government forbids the use of drugs but what happens when the government decides you can no longer drink soda, raw milk, buy non gmo foods or grow your own organic food. What happens when the government provides your healthcare and says it won't pay your bills because you are not running 3 miles a day like your insurance terms require you to to receive coverage? What happens when the government can kidnap you and force you to shoot at people who you've never met and have never done you wrong? You lose freedom. Letting government handle and define marriage is a loss of freedom.

Therefore I believe this issue has become a classic King Solomon type dilemma. The story of the two women fighting over who is the rightful mother of the baby. Unable to reach an agreement Solomon decrees to cut the child in half and give equal parts to the respective women. Unable to bear the thought of the child being split, the real mother begged to let the other mother have the child in order to save it's life. King Solomon then knew who the real mother was and the child was given back to her.

So translation both pro and anti gay marriage (the two women) are fighting over who is the rightful owner of marriage (the baby)
If both sides continue to disagree and fight over it the baby (marriage) will be torn apart. That is why I feel like the true mother, one who believes in traditional marriage, that in order to save marriage it must be taken out of the hands of government, even if that means losing any of the rights or benefits the government offers it. I do not wish to be forced and legally bound to acknowledge and accept something I don't believe is marriage. I don't believe I have the right to do likewise and force others to accept and acknowledge my definition of marriage. So I believe the best course of action therefor is to take it out of the governments hands. Call your relationship whatever you wish. It is none of my business, as long as you don't dictate to me what marriage is.

Either everyone should receive the same benefits the government grants equally, or no one should receive them. For the sake of marriage and freedom I prefer the latter.

County not Country

They are issuing them again sadly.

You can read about the History of it in Oregon here:

This is the best understanding and explanation of the marriage

issue I have come across. Thank you. Very well stated and very close to my own thoughts coming from the opposite perspective, being very pro traditional marriage.

The government being involved in marriage is the problem. People inviting too much government into their lives is the problem.

Both groups for and against gay marriage are trying to use the force of government to dictate to the other group something that is neither of their business and especially not the government's. Take the government out of the situation and the problem disappears. Then neither group has to accept the others definition of marriage and both can choose to live their lives the way they see fit, with the person they see fit and call it whatever they want.

Basically, you don't tell (force) me what marriage is I won't tell (force) you. Live and let live.

That is what the libertarian view is, or at least should be in my opinion. Gary Johnson confusingly has a very pro government involvement view on the issue which is one of the reasons I can't support him (link to his recent town hall, see his answer to question 5, very disturbing):

Don't care

and I don't mean that in a negative way. Two people want to be happy, I don't care to stop them. let's all try our best to be happy and do our best to contribute to the happiness of others.

I'm all for gay marriage...

they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose



Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I regularly attend "pride" fests to preach the gospel...

The sodomites always look at me with a confused expression when I tell them to stop asking permission from the government to get married. It's as if they cannot conceive of such an idea. I tell them that what is truly bothering them is that they know God disapproves of sodomy, so they are looking for the government to say, "it's OK, we will give you feelings of legitimacy". They hope the government will quiet their own conscience. It doesn't work. I usually leave them with a hug and a prayer in my heart, while they are left dealing with previously unheard of ideas they must consider.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

how condescending I think you

how condescending

I think you secretly like male flesh.

i'm a woman--and yes, i love my husband!


Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html