by Kat Powell

The 2011 article from Reason.com, “The Gay Marriage Debate,” addresses the debate on whether same-sex marriage is the State’s business. The author, John Stossel, believes, as a libertarian, that everyone should mind their own business when it comes to the matter. Frankly, I could not agree more.

“Marriage is a public good,” is the first quote we get from Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. It is painfully obvious that Brown believes it is his job to define to the world what is acceptable when it comes to marriage. However, I cannot bring myself to agree with any of his points, possibly because none of them are clear.

In Brown’s first point, he states that he believes if gay marriage is normalized, it will have a negative effect on the marriages of heterosexual couples, and that gay marriage has brought “serious consequences” to our society, including what is taught in schools. Personally, I believe that new information regarding social issues being taught in schools should be viewed as a positive aftermath, and will surely help children avoid shock later in life whenever they see a same-sex couple in public. I also believe that when bringing more information about gay marriage into the school system and normalizing it, you are teaching the children a level of acceptance and respect for other people that they might not have been taught at home.

Brown’s opposite libertarian columnist at The Blaze, David Harnsanyi, believes he has a way around the whole fight. “It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in ... a private relationship,” Harnsanyi stated. Stossel pointed out that marriage involves many legal issues, including alimony, child support, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and adoption. “Within five minutes of my idea coming to fruition, a whole industry would be formed with prefab legal documents that would just allow you to have the sort of relationship you want with the parameters you want legally,” Harnsanyi said. Although Harnsanyi continued to make clear and valid points on why same-sex marriage should be a private affair, as opposed to a State issue, Brown was not convinced. According to Brown, "The state's interest in marriage is that this is the institution by which we create stable families where the kids can be connected to both their mother and their father. … In states that have gone this direction, we see things like attempts to recognize three parents, because there is a biological father and two mothers." It is my belief that the connection between the child and the parents is what makes a “stable family,” not the sex of the parents or how many parents there are.

"The state should support what is true and good and beautiful," Brown stated, "... and it's true and good and beautiful that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Men and women are unique and special." I still cannot seem to find a single reason why someone else’s private relationship is the State's concern.

Frankly, I don’t believe that it is any of our jobs as human beings to decide for others what is “true and good and beautiful,” and I surely do not want Brian Brown deciding that for me, or anyone else.

Works Cited

The Gay Marriage Debate- John Stossel- Reason.com- 9.1.2011 https://reason.com/2011/09/01/the-gay-marriage-debate/?print=