Can You Be a Libertarian and ProLife/Anti-Gay Marriage?

I recently began receiving a free trial subscription to TIME Magazine. In the latest issue, there was a very good article about Republican Presidential hopeful, Representative Ron Paul. I was pleasantly surprised that the article was mostly a factual description of the Congressman and not some liberal or conservative commentary on the man. However, the author attempted to explain that he is not a true libertarian, as Paul claims to be, because he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I would argue that, in fact, these stances that he takes are part of what make him, and others like him, libertarians.

First, let us define what it means to be a libertarian. To truly be a libertarian, you must recognize that, no matter your personal worldview or ideology, the only standard that all humankind can be fairly governed by is the standard of freedom. No one can have pure, untainted freedom without taking away the freedoms of someone else. So we must be governed by the idea that "one is free to do whatever it is he pleases as long as he does not take away another's freedom to do whatever it is he pleases." A lot of Christians and other religious groups falsely assume that it is illegal to murder someone in America because God instructed us not to do so in the Ten Commandments. This, while it is a nice thought, is false. Murder is illegal in America because it is the act of one individual taking away another individual's freedom to life.

Now that we have defined the standard of freedom that all man can be fairly governed by, let's talk about how someone who claims to hold to this belief can do so and still expect abortion and gay marriage to be outlawed by the government.

It's hard to show a pro-choice person this because, to someone who is pro-choice, an unborn baby is nothing more than unwanted tissue that science has decided to call a fetus. Why wouldn't you be able to to just toss aside an unwanted piece of tissue? We do it all the time. So, of course, in order to win this fight, you have to first show the person who disagrees with you that the thing they call a fetus isn't a thing at all but a human being.

Interestingly, there are situations where the pro-choice crowd will treat a fetus as a human being. These situations are, of course, when it is convenient for their cause. For example, if a person assaults a pregnant woman and "kills" the fetus, the fetus is no longer referred to as a fetus but an unborn child. This allows the court system to pursue murder charges against the offender, even if the mother had every intention of terminating her pregnancy. If the unborn child is actually just a piece of inconvenient tissue, such as under arm fat, the absence of said tissue should merely result in assault charges.

There is a process of abortion, called twin reduction, in which a mother pregnant with twins can choose to keep one "fetus" and abort the other. This has, curiously, raised ethics concerns in a field that does not value tissue as being human. Many who are pro-choice find it unethical to choose to keep one unborn baby and not the other. Somehow, in their minds, it's more moral to keep both "fetuses" or abort them both than it is to abort just one. However, if the tissue in your womb is merely tissue, the decision to terminate one and not the other should be a pretty simple decisions to make. The fact that this process raises concern even in pro-choice circles is fascinating to me.

If you can actually manage to convince your pro-choice friend that the dismissible "fetus" is in fact human, it should be pretty easy to then reveal to them how you can be pro-life and be a libertarian. By terminating your pregnancy, you are taking away that person's freedom to life. It is not the mother's life to take away. It is not a doctor's life to take away. That life belongs to that person and that person alone. The mother may be responsible for that life, but that life does not belong to her.

The defense of outlawing gay marriage is going to take a bit of explaining, as it's not actually the outlawing of gay marriage that a true libertarian desires, even though it comes across that way. Marriage is a Christian covenant (contract, promise) between a man, a woman, and God. Most modern dictionaries have a more modern definition that removes the "God" part and many even remove the distinction of a man a woman. If you research back to it's earliest meaning, it is the one I have stated above.

With this definition, it's not even possible for someone who does not believe in God to be married. An atheist cannot be married. A Muslim cannot be married. Two men cannot be married. Two women cannot be married. It wasn't until different governments began the institutionalization of marriage that these other uses for the word "marriage" even came to be.

What a true libertarian seeks is not the outlaw of gay marriage, but to completely abolish the institutionalization of marriage as a government "tax status". Marriage in the USA, as far as the federal government is concerned, is simply a tax status. Marriage should be regulated by the Church, not the government. The Church should be deciding, through correct interpretation of scripture, who should and should not enter into a marriage covenant. Libertarians have no problem (well, no legal problem, anyway) with two men being able to file their taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, and have a sexual relationship each other, if that's the lifestyle that they have chosen for themselves. As a man, I cannot tell them that they can't do these things together. However, as a Christian who desires to uphold the Word of God, I can and am expected to hold other Christians to God's standard. I can't hold non-Christians to God's standard any more than a Muslim can hold me to his standard.

It was disappointing to read what TIME said about Ron Paul and all who are true libertarians, but it really wasn't that surprising. Most people fail to see these things for what they are because they are afraid of true, American freedom. American freedom puts all the responsibility on the individual, and people today would rather be spoon fed from a trough than have to claim responsibility for anything unless it's easy and makes them look good.