Government Licenses Not Needed for Marriage Abolish the license and gain more freedom6 min read
As seen printed in the Albuquerque Journal.
I’m what you might call a “conservative Christian.” Gay marriage is a violation of my religious beliefs, but then again, so is forcing those who don’t share my beliefs to conform to a law that my holy book says is impossible for anyone to obey.
I’m actually on neither side of this issue.
You see I oppose marriage licenses altogether as I believe in the right of adults to associate with whomever they choose and as long as that association is voluntary, no one has a right to interfere with that relationship.
1) To the traditional marriage crowd, I say this:
The marriage license is not a Christian marriage.
A Christian marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man, a woman and God.
A marriage license is a temporal contract between you, your spouse, and the state – and God can be a witness if you choose (I’m sure He appreciates the consolation).
The marriage license is not a biblical requirement for Christians to uphold the sanctity of this covenant. It is little more than our golden calf. There is no need to idolize it.
If we want to protect our religious belief, the only option is to abolish the marriage license altogether. We don’t need the government’s permission to enter into a covenant with God.
2) To the gay marriage crowd, I say this:
The marriage license is a relatively new phenomenon in American history. It was first introduced because the government didn’t like interracial marriage, and so required that interracial couples ask the government permission before getting married, and the government would either approve their relationship or deny it.
If approved, they received a license.
Black’s law dictionary defines a license as a permission. The marriage license is not a bastion of freedom, but a tool of oppression.
True equality means not having to ask the government permission to exercise your rights. If you want to protect your right to your relationship, the only option is to abolish the marriage license altogether.
The government has no authority to grant permission to voluntary adult relationships, and despite their having asserted themselves to the contrary.
One side of this debate is fighting for the freedom to believe as they want. The other side is fighting for the freedom to live as they want.
Both sides are fighting for freedom – we cannot successfully do that when what we’re arguing over is a tool of oppression.
Instead of begging for the government’s permission, why don’t we work together and rid ourselves of the requirement to get permission for something where the government has no business being.
The only “protected class” should be human beings. “Christian rights” should not be held higher than “gay rights” and visa versa – primarily because there is no difference between them. Our common ground is freedom – that’s what makes us American, that’s what should unite us.
Thanks for reading my post! Add your thoughts and comments by contacting me below, or you can interact with me and my patrons by becoming a premium member at patreon.com/kerrybaldwin.
In lieu of a comments section
I welcome and encourage your thoughts, comments, and questions through email.
Praxeology comes from the Greek; it means the study of deed, or action. It's actually a broad discipline where human action is understood deductively. This leads to conclusions that are a priori, or self-evident. Today, praxeology is most often associated with...
The term ‘black market’ has a negative connotation to it and with relatively good reason. It’s often associated with transactions relating to illicit drug use, firearms sales, and prostitution. However, the negative implication of the black market is due to its being “unregulated’ by the government. It exists outside the law and therefore it must be the law that has the black market unsafe safe. While it’s true that government regulation of the market influences the operation of the black market, it’s not true that the government keeps us safe through regulation.
In a libertarian debate with John Stossel, Johnson said that "religious rights" are a "black hole" and that a Jew should have to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding. You can see his full statements here: So what gives? I thought libertarians were all about freedom to do...