In a recent post at The Daily Caller , Kendrick MacDowell wrote that Libertarians are obliged to support same-sex marriage, and argued this on the grounds that “marriage is a government-sanctioned institution and the government has no legitimate interest in the genders of the spouses-to-be.”

I can’t say I’m really a Libertarian, and it’s precisely this sort of thing that prevents me from being one.

To be sure, I have profound respect for much of what the Libertarians have to say. And when they talk about freedom, limited government, free markets, etc., they really mean it. They aren’t merely paying lip service to these issues. When it comes purely to political doctrine, the Democrats don’t need to worry about the Republicans or the Tea Party. It’s the Libertarians they actually need to fear.

But the problem with Libertarianism is its failure to recognize moral absolutes with theistic origins, and its subsequent radical elevation of personal autonomy. They find themselves arguing about whether governments should even exist, and base limitations of personal freedom on the notion that “all individuals have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

Which brings us back to MacDowell’s piece: Most Libertarians may well agree with his conclusion that they should support same-sex marriage, but his grounds are spurious with respect to the nature and origin of marriage.

He does rightly assert that marriage is a “government-sanctioned institution”, an assertion that some deny nowadays. But he goes on to say that the government has no business concerning itself with the genders of the participants in the institution. The obvious difficulty here is that the participants in marriage are vital to its very nature. And if the genders of the participants are irrelevant, why not the number of participants? And, worse, if the genders and number are irrelevant, why not the species?

The nature of marriage is defined by scripture. That is why the participants are one man and one woman. It’s true that there is a civil aspect to marriage. It is, after all, a legal contract. But it is inherently religious in its nature and finds its origins in Genesis 2. It is a mistake to view marriage as singularly civil or religious. It is both.

Libertarians might see no impediment to having three wives or marrying one’s cat. But the dual nature of marriage simply doesn’t allow for a purely civil view of the institution, one in which it may be redefined to suit any view an individual may desire.

Note: For a bit more on the historical development of the Protestant view of marriage, see my earlier post The Nature of Marriage.

You May Also Like

Bob Vander Plaats and the Idea of a True Friend

Daniel Finney of The Des Moines Register demonstrates, yet again, in his back and forth with Bob Vander Plaats that the press doesn’t get evangelicals.

12 Weeks Out Grassley Leads Conlin by 20 Points in Latest Iowa Senate Race Poll

Twelve weeks out Rasmussen is calling Senator Chuck Grassley’s seat a solid…

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland to Close Four Clincs

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced today that due to the loss of most of their state funding they would be closing four clinics in Iowa.

Bobby Schilling Announces Run in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District

Former U.S. Rep. Bobby Schilling officially announced that he will seek the Republican nomination in the Iowa 2nd Congressional District race.