Earlier this week, Susan Lee wrote Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll, a column on libertarianism. I wanted to comment back when it was written, but I held off, wanting to refrain from blogging for a few days ("I have passed the test...")
I considered myself a libertarian for a brief period of time, about two years. I eventually decided to stop using the label because of its association with two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which are both mentioned, but not addressed at length, by Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee states, regarding what Libertarians believe:
They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of "best behavior" in social or cultural matters.
Regarding abortion, the only way to believe that abortion is not an act of force is to believe that a fetus is a non-living thing, or an animal undeserving of protection (lower even than PETA's standards). When I opened up my mind to the possibility that there is a living person inside a woman's womb, I realized that there is a huge difference in moral culpability based on whether that "thing" is a human life, possessing a fundamental right to live, or a non-living thing with no rights. The morally safe position is to recognize it as living, and to respect the unborn child's right to life, at least at the same level of protection as the mother's right to life as well. If we are wrong, the consequence is an inconvenience which we can deal with. The consequence of the abortionists' belief, that the fetus has no right to life, is the irrevokable end of a human life. People who argue pro-abortion say that the decision is each woman's to make alone, but that is inconsistent with making murder illegal at all. I read a comment on a bulletin board that it doesn't matter, the baby doesn't know it's dead, but isn't that true of all murder victims? The fact that someone isn't aware of their own murder doesn't justify it. The Libertarian view that abortion is morally justifiable is not consistent with its core beliefs. Libertarians should be opposed to abortion.
The issue of gay marriage is more complicated, but after a lot of thought, I have decided to be opposed to it. The clincher for me is how we treat children in our society. If children were not involved, I would not be opposed. I do not believe that children can grow up as healthy with "gay parents" as they do with a mother and father. I believe that sexual complementarity is an important part of growing up and relating to other people. There are studies coming out now which point out that there are significant differences between children who have "gay parents" and heterosexual parents. With more time, I believe we will see more significant differences. I believe that gay marriage will be used to make adoptions by gays more acceptable in our culture, and for that reason I am opposed to it.
The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has also come out in support of same-sex marriage. I was married in a UUA-congregation. I wonder how I would have reacted if my minister at that time told me that he would'nt sign our marriage certificate? I guess we wouldn't have gotten married there after all. Somehow, reading this, I feel a need to go wash out my eye.
Posted by joelfuhrmann at February 15, 2003 07:12 PM