Marriage Libertarian Argument

Specifically when discussing same sex marriage the question “Well even if you disagree, who are you to stop them” comes up.

People readily admit that if nobody is forcing your church to recognize or perform these marriages, what do you care if others do? How does this ruling actually affect you?

So basically how do you counter the argument that even if we aren’t forced to conduct weddings or are in any way directly affected, why is it any of our business what non-Catholics choose to do? How do we argue against the Libertarian viewpoint?

I’ve always been of the opinion that the Sacramental aspect of marriage and the civil aspect of marriage should be completely separate. This is how marriage is viewed in many countries.

The United States is peculiar in that ministers also operate as Officers of the Court in marriage. Ministers can sign marriage licenses (which are instruments of civil law). I think that’s crazy.

My brother is a priest. He “automatically” has the authority to sign and authorize civil legal documents. He did not have to apply for this authority. He has no license in his wallet or certificate on his office wall. He took no oath. He never took a class in civil law. And, yet, he has the same authority as a judge or a justice of the peace (both sworn Officers of the Court) to sign marriage licenses. That’s crazy.

In Germany, for example, no priest can contract the civil aspect of marriage. A German couple must go to the Standesamt (a justice of the peace) to have their marriage recognized by the State. They may, if they wish, also go before a minister to have their marriage recognized by their faith. German priests cannot sign marriage licenses.

This is an entirely sensible arrangement. The State has no business defining what a Sacrament is. The State has every right to recognize any sort of union and bestow certain rights and responsibilities upon it under civil law.

The civil and sacramental aspects of marriage should be separate, with civil authorities administering the civil part, and ministers administering the sacramental part.

This is a Justice issue. The argument you can make is that the Supreme Courts decision goes against the ***common good ***of society. Children are going to be taught same sex attraction is normal in their schools, its going to be on TV and loaded in the media and politics. Children are going to be without mothers and fathers. To me it is very anti-religious and/or like American Politics is its own religion in itself. As Catholics we cant force anyone but we are called to preach the truth to make society a little better.

Who are they to deny someone their say in how society is run?

People readily admit that if nobody is forcing your church to recognize or perform these marriages, what do you care if others do? How does this ruling actually affect you?

I have posted [this letter](“A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights by Dawn Stefanowicz within Foreign Affairs, Marriage April 24th, 2015”) several times and no one has responded to it yet.

…if nobody is forcing your church…

If people think the gay movement is done, they have a rude awakening coming.

So basically how do you counter the argument that even if we aren’t forced to conduct weddings or are in any way directly affected, why is it any of our business what non-Catholics choose to do? How do we argue against the Libertarian viewpoint?

There is more to society than individuals, which is what libertarianism is all about. What you are quoting is another liberal “BIG LIE”. When the Mormons practiced polygamy way out in the Utah Territory, they weren’t bothering anybody, but…

Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for a unanimous Court in Reynolds, quotes Francis Lieber, the most respected American legal authority of the day: Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. … For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles."
Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both.
by Stanley Kurtz

What governing principle will emerge from Friday’s ruling? That’s the question that needs answering, for the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change.

Previous generations of intellectuals and social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. Particular people advocated the policies that led to today’s 50% divorce rate and 40% out-of-wedlock childbearing rate. None of these intellectuals and social experimenters have ever been held accountable.

**I have libertarian leanings, I think the government should be very limited, and that it is a social construct to protect physical things, like life and property, and should have their hands off of spiritual, philosophical, or intellectual things. **

Since the government has is a reasonable responsibility to protect people from harm, there are laws that regulate something like the use of certain drugs etc.

I would argue that if drug use only harms the person using the drug, it should be legal.

If there is solid evidence that drug use actually cause harm, or the potential of harm, to others, then the government should regulate those drugs.

Take alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, a perfectly legal drug in most circumstances, unless you are operating a motor vehicle. In that instance, you are a danger to other people. The government has the responsibility to protect other people, therefore, they have the right to regulate the use of driving while intoxicated.

If somehow there were some study that produced some data that same sex marriage causes some harm to society, the government has a reasonable responsibility to regulate it, otherwise government is only protecting the property rights of two people that signed a contract, which I think is pretty reasonable, even if I disagree with the sexual morality of the two people participating.

Even if all that is true and we know it is, they can always come back and say “well it’s not like that this time. This is just specific to them with no other repercussions and you can’t assume any will come”

Basically the plain argument is “it doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t affect you, it’s just governmental not church, so you Catholics have no right to impose your beliefs on others since this ruling does not impose any beliefs on you”

How do you argue against that point as a Catholic. Just that point alone.

“A libertarian is just an absolute monarchy with a very small kingdom.” :stuck_out_tongue:

The problem with this view is that it is sophistry. The person is dodging the real issues by creating the illusion of a neutral position (“pro-choice” people often make the same mistake").

Christi pax,


St. Peter and St. Paul, pray for us!

Father Mitch Pacwa addresses this in his audio CD, Relativism and Her Three Ugly Sisters.

This is not an argument at all since someone’s beliefs will be forced on others, no matter the issue or what system of government. Isn’t that why we have elections and why you vote for candidate “A” instead of “B”? You want A’s programs forced on society instead of B’s. A candidate for a local election tried to use that line on me and was quickly swept away by an aid when she heard me ask that. Does your opponent in your debate really believe that Hillary would fight tooth and nail for decades to get to a position so she can’t force her beliefs on society? Someone would have to be pretty naive to think that.

i believe that the government saying it is illegal to consider the well-being of children in our marriage laws will result in, either consciously, subconsciously or even unconsciously, in man americans a further callousness to children in our society.

people in general understand that the law is supposed to be for the common good. the supreme court has determined that two men or two women receiving recognition of their friendship by the state overrides the well-being of children.

That’s true. The problem however with making it legal, it not only gives permission but it gives liscense to do evil. Leaving the impression that there is no downside what so ever to the evil activity. Which is complete nonsense, arrogance, and wrecklessness of the court.

It’s naieve to think it will stop there. Already buisnesses have been put out of business for acting on their religious principles.

Next we’ll see discrimination in job applications.

We know
*]that same sex attraction is not the sin. When that attraction becomes sexual activity THAT’s the sin and THAT’s what’s condemned [In Context](“ Corinthians+6:8-10&version=RSVCE”). When the consequence is “They will NOT inherit the kingdom of God” there is no ONE that can overturn God, and there is no expiration date to that verdict for one who dies in that sin. It’s NOT my opinion, it’s right there in scripture. ergo their argument isn’t with me it’s with God.
*]Marriage is instituted by God, and is to be between a man and a woman. It’s pure arrogance by the SC judges to legalize activity that is condemned.
*]relativism in moral issues actually violates the 2 great commandments, Love God with your whole heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
[/LIST]So basically I would counter with

Mt 7: 3 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Jesus]

the Supreme court rulings of 72 legalizing abortion, and 2015 legalizing SSM , only makes door #2 wider and the road easier to Hell. And the fools all cheer and celebrate that

As for me I will do everything in my power, and all the grace I can receive, to seek and enter the narrow gate.


It’s naieve to think it will stop there. …

The movement has been lying to us for the last 45 years. Yesterday during his homily, a priest on EWTN leaned over close to the microphone and said “They are lying. I repeat: They are lying.”

When discussing this same sex marriage ruling, I’ve heard the arguments that this hurts the right of children…

What is the apologetic way of arguing this?


  1. Obviously same sex couples cannot reproduce


  1. This must only apply to adopting, correct?

Is the right of children to know A mother and father or THEIR mother and father. The other side will say that because of single parenthood and adoption that no rights of children are harmed by the ruling.

So how do you argue apologetically that this ruling hurts the right of children.

My libertarian argument goes like this:

The best way to protect religious freedom and the institution of marriage is to prevent the government from defining a marriage in the first place. It should be allowed to recognize contracts between two people for tax purposes and other practicalities and that’s it.

When they decide what marriage is, they are taking the place of God. It leads to a host of problems. What will stop them from forcing religious organizations to conduct gay weddings in the name of non-discrimination? If they have no ability to define a marriage, they cannot impose their wrong definition on religions. We wouldn’t accept the government defining other sacraments and then ordering us to follow their definition.

So yes, this would allow gays to hold their own ceremonies and be legally treated like a married couple. But it wouldn’t be an official declaration and recognition of it as a marriage; religions can say it isn’t one and refuse to perform a wedding ceremony without being hit with a discrimination lawsuit. It should make the gays happy, since they’d be treated just like everyone else under the law, assuming equality is really their goal.

Some will claim that this doesn’t protect marriage. I don’t believe that at all because it doesn’t recognize reality. Gay marriage was always going to be recognized by the government. It was only a matter of time. Now we have a much worse problem because we insisted on a state definition of a sacrament, which is now distorted. The best way to protect marriage is to take away the government’s ability to define it wrongly, normalize that wrong definition, and punish people for not accepting it.

If you are looking for a word or phrase that is a neat come-back and/or fits on a bumper sticker, forget it. It doesn’t exist because family law has gone through 4,000 years of evolution and fills volumes of legal books that won’t convince someone who thinks he knows everything.

It was a mistake for the pro traditional marriage side to get suckered into justifying the status quo when the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change. The next time you hear someone ask, “Why not?”, your response should be, “Prove it.” :sad_yes:

Just say, “if your Dad was one, you wouldn’t be here today.” Then duck.

It takes two of the right kind to bring children into this world and not two of the same kind. If we all go that route, the answer is obvious what effect this will have. And if it is legal, then why can’t we all go the same route? And then there will be no children for anyone to adopt. It is litterally going to kill us.

That is exactly what is wrong with it. It is going against the law of survival. And there are indications of articles written that the more it is done the more it spreads.

Is mankind going insane?

Well put. I can understand Catholics who feel that this is “giving in” - but a complete separation of the civil & religious is now the only way to protect the very religious freedom they cherish…

But we know it won’t end there. Government has already stepped over the line.

Well said.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit