Why Everyone is Wrong About the Gay Marriage Ruling

I’m a heterosexual, unmarried, non-religious person. The Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling doesn’t affect me, right? Well, yes and no. Since I live in the US, unfortunately everything that happens in D.C. affects me. I’d rather it didn’t, but here we are.

I’ve mainly seen two reactions to the ruling. My more liberal friends are ecstatic, saying today is a celebration of love and equality. My more socially conservative friends (of whom there aren’t very many, to be honest) are mostly quiet. A few have posted Bible verses and are telling their church friends to pray.

As usual, I think both sides are wrong. (That’s why I’m so popular!) Why do I think they’re wrong? And how can “both sides” be wrong? I’ll answer the second question first: There are more than two sides to this issue. You believe a false dichotomy if you only see two opinions.

Conservative Fallacy

First, the social conservatives. This is a little bit easier, so I’ll tackle them first. Opposition to homosexuality is almost entirely religiously based. Social conservatives say that “traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.” This is simply untrue. Historically, traditional marriage was mostly one man to many women, and the Catholic Church used to grant same sex marriage until the 1300s. The “one man to one woman” thing is a relatively new development in human history.

Even in the Bible, many of the great heroes of the faith had many wives and concubines. Some, like David and Paul, are believed to have been bisexual (David) or gay (Paul). (Obviously, this is a controversial topic.) In the natural world, we see homosexuality amongst animals of almost every genus despite claims from the religious that it’s solely a human immorality. So basically, the social conservatives don’t have a leg to stand on.

Harem by Gil Elvgren, American painter (1914-1980).

Liberal Sycophancy

So, the liberals and libertarians are correct, right? No. Marriage is not about love. It can be, but there are many reasons to get married, and love is only one of them. People marry for social stability, for money, for children, for government benefits, and for a host of other reasons. (Same link, again. There’s some good info here.) So, it’s about equality, then? No, it isn’t. Marriage gives you special benefits from the state, e. g. tax breaks. What about those of us who are unmarried? What about asexuals? People who don’t believe in marriage? True equality only happens when people are treated equally across the board. This is not about equal rights, it’s about extending state-sanctioned privileges.

Why do liberals get excited that nine people in robes get to tell us what to do? Rejoicing over this ruling is affirming that other people have the right to command us how we should live, and should be allowed to meddle in the very private matter of our love lives. Had the ruling gone the other way, I’m sure the liberals would be outraged. Would they still obey, shrug, and say, “It’s the law”? I don’t know, but I suspect not.

So our masters changed their minds, decades behind the zeitgeist. (It’s not the first time, either. How long until they came around to racial equality? At least this time, we didn’t need riots.) We should all be living free, without permission, without consent. That’s true freedom of choice.

JULY 1st UPDATE: Will Grigg from Pro-Libertate has written a much better takedown of the progressive position than I have. It’s here.

Enjoy Weezer’s Pink Triangle, about a man who falls in love with a gay woman. Buy some of my art, too! (Please.)

A Disclaimer About My Politics

Thanks for reading this post, I hope I challenged you in some way. Agree with me? That’s cool. Disagree? Even better. I’m just a random guy on the internet, voicing his opinion (at the time of writing this blog post; opinions change as more facts and experience are gathered). But imagine if I had the political power and will to force you to agree with me! That would be terrible, and that’s the point of voluntarism and non-aggression. You should not be forced to agree with me. Please extend me the same courtesy.

“The word ‘politics’ is derived from the word ‘poly’ meaning ‘many’, and the word ‘ticks’ meaning ‘blood sucking parasites’.” -Larry Hardiman

Political Blog Posts

• The Democrats Don’t Deserve Your Vote
• The Republicans Don’t Deserve Your Vote
• The Libertarians Don’t Deserve Your Vote
• Democracy ≠ Freedom
• I Don’t “Feel the Bern.”
• Confessions of a Public Servant
• Leaders vs. Rulers
• Libertarianism is Better Than Progressivism
• Why I Do Not Vote (And Neither Should You)
• The Traffic Court Swindle
• Top Five Reasons I Don’t Argue Politics on Social Media
• Why Meaningful Debate is Impossible
• Dos and Do Nots for the Liberty Minded
• “There ought to be a law…”
• A Defense of Fugitive Slaves
• Conspiracy Theories are Dumb

Please Support this Blog

Thank you for your time and attention, and thanks for reading! If you’d like to help keep this blog going, please support it! You can help in a couple ways:

First, buy something from my shop! I’ve got mugs, tapestries, canvas, tee shirts, phone cases, pillows, blankets, and much more.

Second, hire me directly! I’m a professional caricaturist/illustrator. I’m currently offering pet illustrations, personalized caricatures of you or a loved one, and celebrity caricatures. Click the links for details and pricing, or just send me a message by using the form below. Basic illustrations start at just $15!

Become a Guest Blogger

This article was written by a guest blogger. Do you have something you’d like to share with my readers? Contact me to become a guest blogger.