Whistleblowers Detail Why Drones Weren't Used at Trump's Butler Rally
Kamala Harris Finally Issues Statement About Pro-Hamas Takeover in D.C.
We Might Have Found a Clue That Points to a Motive for Trump's...
The FBI Director Rehashed a Trump Assassination Conspiracy Theory Yesterday
These Congressional Democrats Are Scrambling to Distance Themselves From Border Czar Harri...
Have You Seen the Aftermath of Pro-Hamas Chaos?
CrowdStrike Actually Gave This to Its Partners as Part of Its Apology Over...
Trump Campaign Demands 'Equal Airtime' in Response to Biden Oval Office Address
Finally, Something Democrats and Republicans Agree On
Harris Campaign Makes Quite the Admission About Project 2025
Creepy: A 'Nonpartisan' Website Just Deleted Some Damning Data About Kamala
There's More to That Kamala Harris Campaign Memo
Here Is New Information FBI Director Disclosed on the Attempted Assassination of Trump
Here We Go: Media Spins That Kamala Isn't Technically the Border Czar
Is Politico Serious With This Headline About the Pro-Hamas Agitators in D.C.?
Tipsheet

The President Discusses Marriage Protection Amendment

Here is the text of his comments.

UPDATE: The debate has started on the floor of the Senate now, on C-SPAN.

On the subject, I'll point you to one of my favorite things I've ever read on this subject-- "A really, really, really long post on gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other," by Jane Galt.

Advertisement

Jane is always thoughtful, and she approaches this issue from an unusual place. She's a libertarian economist with no opinion on gay marriage. In this post, she addresses the idea of gay marriage by looking at other major policy changes and the unintended consequences they had:

To which, again, the other side replies "That's ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!"

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!" This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can't justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he's only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened in America just the same.

This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn't. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

Advertisement

It's a really interesting read-- one I've remembered and referred to repeatedly since I read it more than a year ago.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement