Get PJ Media on your Apple

Libertarian at CPAC Says Government Violating Rights of Religions That Support Same-Sex Marriage

Michael Medved, though, says the assertion that same-sex marriage has been banned in any state is “a liberal lie.”

by
Rodrigo Sermeño

Bio

March 8, 2014 - 7:17 pm

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – At a panel discussion on CPAC’s main stage Friday, libertarians and social conservatives agreed that while they share some core beliefs, they remain at odds over the issue of same-sex marriage.

Tom Minnery, president and CEO of CitizenLink, said there are many things that social conservatives appreciate in the Libertarian Party’s platform.

“Libertarians have led the way in helping us understand the need to cut back wasteful government and to get government out of our lives,” Minnery said. “But we also find this in that party platform: Government does not have the authority to license personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices.”

Alexander McCobin, co-founder and president of Students For Liberty, disagreed with the assumption that being a libertarian means being a member of the Libertarian Party.

“What it means to be libertarian is to be committed to a certain approach to political philosophy where the principle of individual liberty is the most important,” McCobin said.

McCobin said one can be a social conservative and be a libertarian when it comes to public policy, the important difference being the view of what the government “ought to mandate for individuals.”

“Just because you think people ought to act a certain way doesn’t mean you want the government to require them to be that, whether you’re talking about banning Big Gulps or banning certain types of marriage,” he said.

Matt Welch, editor in chief at Reason magazine, said libertarianism transcends political lines, noting that some of the best ideas on political issues have happened outside of the two major political parties.

“Libertarians are perpetually disappointed by the activities of both major parties for various reasons. Sometimes it is because the parties have failed to live up to their own best ideas,” he said.

Besides touching upon some of the common ground that both sides share, same-sex marriage dominated most of the conversation. One of the questions debated was protecting religious liberties of individuals as marriage equality advances across the nation.

“Libertarians and social conservatives can absolutely work together if we realize that we’re both trying to limit the scope of government when it comes to the freedom to associate and act as we want,” McCobin said.

The main issue for the panelists was whether marriage equality should be imposed by government fiat.

Matt Spalding, associate vice president and dean of the Allan P. Kirby Jr. Center at Hillsdale College, said it is a violation of religious freedom for a state or the federal government to force anyone to recognize same-sex marriage.

“Even if we disagree, and we clearly do, we must have an agreement on religious liberty,” Spalding said. “There’s a profound, deep and moral and religious objection to redefining marriage. Giving that power to that state is a destruction of the very liberty we cherish.”

Michael Medved, host of The Michael Medved Show, agreed that the issue comes down to religious freedom.

“Right now the key issue regarding marriage is not the definition of marriage anymore, it is one of religious liberty,” he said.

McCobin, however, added that the liberty of those religious institutions that support same-sex marriage has also been violated.

“The kind of religious liberty that has been infringed upon for decades has been the liberty of those whose religious practices support same-sex marriage,” he said. “The government has prohibited them from engaging in the religious practices that they want.”

Medved took issue with the assertion that same-sex marriage has been banned in any state, calling it “a liberal lie.”

Same-sex couples have been allowed to marry, but 33 states do not recognize these marriages as valid.

Medved, however, said he supports adoption by same-sex parents, getting some cheers from the audience.

He said a belief in federalism should nonetheless unite both libertarians and social conservatives and states should be able to decide for themselves without interference from the federal government.

“We right now have a great belief not only in religious conscience and the rights of religious conscience when it comes to marriage, but a great belief in federalism,” Medved said. “The idea that New York and California may have legitimated or recognized or decided that those states should sponsor gay marriage doesn’t mean that Texas should be compelled by overreaching courts or anyone else to sponsor gay marriage.”

Rodrigo is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
At then end of the day, I don't care what my neighbors do, so long as:
1. I'm not compelled to do it or participate in it.
2. I'm not compelled to pay them to do it.
3. I'm not compelled to clean up after them.
4. I'm not compelled to endorse it.
5. I'm not compelled to teach my kids that it's "ok".
6. I'm not compelled to re-define words to 'normalize' it.

So, much of the crap that gay activists have done since the 70's falls under one or more of the above, and has become the same kind of moralistic bullying that I hated from the Moral Majority. Congrats, Act-Up, you've become the same intolerant bigots that you claimed you despised.

Act-up's crowd refused to change their behavior to guard against transmission, but then demanded that the government rob people to pay to find cures and treatments for AIDS. (Worse, they stated that until it started affecting straight white people in significant numbers, they'd never get any funding, and endorsed additional risky behavior to that end). Very liberal entitlement-minded behavior - you owe me, and you can't tell me what to do in exchange for free stuff.

The retaliation against the people who voted or supported California's Prop-8 is absolutely reprehensible. The same mindset has filtered down to be an assault on any differing viewpoint, from the Chik-fil-A owner's personal opinion, to Phil Robertson's personal philosophy for his own life, to bakers and photographers who don't want to participate in a gay wedding, (which has been misrepresented into a 'Jim Crow separate-seats-at-the-lunch- counter' strawman).

It has become another vehicle for blatant anti-Christian bigotry, who's members will ignore the murder of gays, acid thrown in women's faces, genital mutilation, wholesale slaughter of people by Muslims, but who will spit all kinds of vitriol over a peaceful, static Nativity Scene, or a child wearing some sort of Christian iconography to school (Or have a cow over the kid's Christmas choir).

What was initially a request for tolerance has become anything but, and has encompassed everything I hate about the Left and statism.

Its another thing in a long march to "everything is either mandatory or prohibited". Republicans would do well to embark on a campaign to expand both options and personal accountability, e.g. "your body, your choice, your responsibility"
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
" Do these owners have the right to impose their personal religious views on their employees?"

Wrong question. The question is; do the owners have the right to determine what kind of health insurance they will provide to their employees for free, or at a reduced rate, that the employer is paying for?

Second question: does the employee have the right to seek work elsewhere if they are not satisfied with the conditions of the health care insurance provided by the employer?

The answer to both questions should be YES.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (55)
All Comments   (55)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
9 Reasons to Restore the Death Penalty for Homosexuality

Reason #1 “George Washington in his Farewell Address writes "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

Those who discourage public debate by name calling are a danger and threat to the very nature of free government. Jesus stated that calling someone "Roca" (empty headed) is a punishable offence. Why? Because it destroys the process of enlightenment which is required for making the majority sensible for important social impacting decisions. Name calling is a criminal offense. The Gay Community relentless use of name calling such as homophobic, bigot, nut-case, and other derogator statements destroy public debate and destroy free government based on the enlightenment of the majority and is criminal and another reason to make homosexuality illegal. God in his wisdom made homosexuality a capital offense.

Reason #2 Gay activist have corrupted and have used corrupted judges to topple the Constitutional Will of the American People. The right to escape punishment is not an American right but a judge made right.

Reason #3: The Gay political activism is corrupting American children in the public educational system beginning in kindergarten will not stop until the death penalty is enacted for the crime of homosexuality.

Reason #4 the use of public bathrooms of their sexual escapades is corruption of the decency of the community

Reason #5 The “lewd and lascivious” gay parade is destroying local communities and cities, and is perverting our local administrators and police.

Reason #6 The death penalty for homosexuality is commanded by the God in the Bible

Reason #7 The perversion of child adoption is a threat to that child where a home ought to offer a high quality example of a home based on sensible values.

Reason #8 The Gay Community vicious attack against the Christian community should not be tolerated. The power of the majority of American have the right to restore the punishment for homosexuality

Reason #9 The relentless corrupting the American people by media outlets for gay perversion must be brought to the end. Restoring the punishment for homosexuality will end media corruption, and well and judicial corruption.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
The author wrote "He said a belief in federalism should nonetheless unite both libertarians and social conservatives and states should be able to decide for themselves without interference from the federal government." That position has been untenable since Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, under the 14th Amendment, that American citizens have a right to marry each other regardless of race, and that that no state can abridge the right of American citizens in this matter. This issue has been settled since 1967. Being unaware of it, or ignoring its significance, is incompetent journalism.

Beyond that, the American Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, requires each state to recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

I did not see any mention of which churches recognize same sex marriage, though denying freedom of religion to members of those churches is an important point in the article. Some churches that marry same-sex couples include UCC (United Church of Christ, or Congregationalist), UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association), MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), and some Anglican or Episcopalian churches.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just to show how hateful and bigoted I am:

I disagree with Michael Medved that gay partners should get the same treatment with adoption as married opposite sex couples. One parent of each sex is the best home for a child in terms of development. A committed same sex couple is better than foster care and I believe they should be allowed to adopt older children but not babies. With waiting lists for even special needs babies stretching as long as they do I think preference should be given to the most promising of circumstances.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The US Constitution also prevents Muslims and Marxists from practicing their totalitarian religions too.

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not that I can see. Marxists are free to believe and vote as they wish, although not to throw bombs or break windows. Muslims are free to practice, except for polygamy (which I would recognize as their right if freely chosen) and jihad violence (which I would never recognize as a right for any group).
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The limitations on the Federal Govt in the Constitution prevent Marxists and Mohammadeans from fullfilling their totalitarian doctrines...at least theoretically.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
No state can be all things to all people. Time to reassert that the United States is a collection of Anglo-European Christian states...albeit with large degressof personal liberty.

If you can't reconcile yourself to that, then hit the road. There are many flavors of nation states, should be able to find something more agreeable.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I believe that as a society we are getting ourselves all wrapped around the axle on the issue of same sex marriage for no good reason. I believe the answer to the problem is simple. Get government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious institution, one that long predates the United States of America. Leave marriage/same sex marriage up to the individual religions to decide how they want to handle it. Then it would be a discussion between the church leadership and their members. I doubt the Catholic Church would be performing same sex marriages but other denominations might be ok with it. What the government is interested in is civil unions and that's for the legalities involved in a relationship - insurance, taxes, etc. Anybody married by a recognized church (the Church of I Love My Cat doesn't count), same sex or otherwise, would automatically be conferred with civil union status by the government. Atheists would only receive civil union status but would have exactly the same rights as any married couple. If they absolutely had to be married they could go to a church if that church would have them but again, that would be between the church and the atheist couple. I believe civil unions for same sex couples is already a fait accompli in just about every state isn't it? It seems we're already most of the way there.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy DS Craft
Civil unions for same-sex couples are more widespread but still the exception, at least counting by state. I don't know if a majority of the population lives where same-sex civil unions are lawful.
We have the entirely predictable and oft-predicted problem that couples who married or registered unions in states that recognize same-sex relationships legally have relocated to states that don't and can't engage the legal system as married couples would.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
At then end of the day, I don't care what my neighbors do, so long as:
1. I'm not compelled to do it or participate in it.
2. I'm not compelled to pay them to do it.
3. I'm not compelled to clean up after them.
4. I'm not compelled to endorse it.
5. I'm not compelled to teach my kids that it's "ok".
6. I'm not compelled to re-define words to 'normalize' it.

So, much of the crap that gay activists have done since the 70's falls under one or more of the above, and has become the same kind of moralistic bullying that I hated from the Moral Majority. Congrats, Act-Up, you've become the same intolerant bigots that you claimed you despised.

Act-up's crowd refused to change their behavior to guard against transmission, but then demanded that the government rob people to pay to find cures and treatments for AIDS. (Worse, they stated that until it started affecting straight white people in significant numbers, they'd never get any funding, and endorsed additional risky behavior to that end). Very liberal entitlement-minded behavior - you owe me, and you can't tell me what to do in exchange for free stuff.

The retaliation against the people who voted or supported California's Prop-8 is absolutely reprehensible. The same mindset has filtered down to be an assault on any differing viewpoint, from the Chik-fil-A owner's personal opinion, to Phil Robertson's personal philosophy for his own life, to bakers and photographers who don't want to participate in a gay wedding, (which has been misrepresented into a 'Jim Crow separate-seats-at-the-lunch- counter' strawman).

It has become another vehicle for blatant anti-Christian bigotry, who's members will ignore the murder of gays, acid thrown in women's faces, genital mutilation, wholesale slaughter of people by Muslims, but who will spit all kinds of vitriol over a peaceful, static Nativity Scene, or a child wearing some sort of Christian iconography to school (Or have a cow over the kid's Christmas choir).

What was initially a request for tolerance has become anything but, and has encompassed everything I hate about the Left and statism.

Its another thing in a long march to "everything is either mandatory or prohibited". Republicans would do well to embark on a campaign to expand both options and personal accountability, e.g. "your body, your choice, your responsibility"
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only one of your points that pertains to same-sex marriage is 6, supposedly re-defining marriage to normalize it. Laws all over the country made divorce easier. (Too bad for us here in Nevada, as it made obsolete the six-week stay in Reno for citizenship and divorce under our law. We enjoyed your spending here.) Since you held still for re-defining marriage when the law liberalized divorce, you are not now in a position to assert that marriage law never changes or that the definition of marriage never changes. Remember, please, the quaint expression "until death do us part." In any case, no one compels you to use the word marriage to include same-sex relations. The issue is not what the word means to you, but what it means under the law.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why not throw the Easter Bunny in with Norquist and Khan?
Slander by trying to use guilty by association and nothing is showing the association.
The Boards findings? “....found [Mr. Gaffney’s] purported
evidence unpersuasive and the claims false and unfounded.”
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Minnery said. “But we also find this in that party platform: Government does not have the authority to license personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices.”

Consenting adults already have that freedom. The gay-marriage lobby (including many libertarians) is very disingenuous in claiming otherwise. The issue is: what kind of relationship merits special government protection and privileges (some at the expense of single people)?

If government is supposed to "get out of the marriage business," as many people unthinkingly assert, then it follows that the government does not recognize any personal status of "married" as distinct from a single individual. It's absurd to say that the government, representing society, should extend certain benefits and protections to a "marriage" relationship without setting on parameters on what actually constitutes such a relationship.

It's also absurd to say that only a bigot would maintain that a man+man relationship is fundamentally no different from man+woman one, or that same-sex "parenting" should not be socially encouraged and endorsed.

Young children crave a mother. (I have seen this craving in a little girl being raised by two men.) Children of all ages crave a parent of the same gender. It's selfish to raise children deliberately in a "two fathers" or "two mothers" household.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy dolcenontroppo
It's true that consenting adults now have the freedom to choose their own sexual practices. Until around 1861, though, men who committed homosexual acts in the UK could be hanged and often were. Afterward, they were subject to life in prison.
In the US, in my own lifetime, men were sent to prison for homosexual activity. Lawrence v Texas was around 2003; until then, Texas could prosecute people for homosexual activity and sometimes did so.
Homosexual people are leery, with much reason, of having their freedom threatened by anyone or anything. Legal recognition of partnerships would be a step toward reducing prejudices toward them, I think, so I support it.
The government has no business privileging or burdening traditional marriage or same-sex marriage, either one. The government's role would be to provide convenient legal structure for couples, traditional or same-sex, so they don't have to go through contracts and lawyers to hold property, inherit, or operate as each other's next of kin.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
We draw a hard line between heterosexual and homosexual attachments, when the more interesting issue is power as divided between couples of either preference. See http://clarespark.com/2013/03/27/power-in-gay-andor-heterosexual-attachments/. More fluidity would help, though if you believe that you will spend eternity in hell, there is really no argument.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All