On Tuesday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill which would end government licensing of marriages. Rep. Todd Russ (R-Cordell) introduced the bill to relieve county court clerks of their duty to officiate marriage ceremonies, as some clerks have moral objections to same-sex marriage. However, under the proposed legislation, citizens no longer need clerks for their marriages.
Those who wish to be married would instead file “certificates of marriage” or file affidavits of common law marriage with the clerks, thereby putting the responsibility for officiating the ceremony on judges or religious figures. Therefore, heterosexual and homosexual marriages would be treated the same under the law. However, polygamous and incestuous marriages would remain prohibited.
This is a development that should excite libertarians. While we wish to promote equal rights for gay Americans under the law, we also shudder at the thought of government forcing its morals upon those who have religious aversions to homosexuality. Our position, though easily the most ideologically pure of the bunch, confounds both liberals and conservatives.
Many liberal Democrats wish to grant gay Americans the right to marry, but they also wish to punish all of those who disagree with such a policy. In common liberal thought, bakers and photographers should face the iron fist of the law if they refuse to consent to participation in such marriages.
Meanwhile, plenty of conservative Republicans wish to enforce their own moral agenda through the law, and prohibit gay Americans from marriage. However, they decry such encroachments upon liberty as when Evangelical Christians who are engaged in commerce are made to violate their consciences.
Libertarians, meanwhile, wish that government would just get out of the business of enforcing what is right and wrong. Each of us in the liberty movement has our own personal beliefs as to what is moral. However, to truly understand the concept of liberty, one must never think to use coercion in an attempt to change minds.
Objections by liberal groups to Rep. Russ’s bill make one wonder how genuine their beliefs are in equal rights for gay Americans. Based on their criticisms of the legislation, it would appear that they are more focused upon government entering itself into the private sphere and making citizens do what it feels is “right.”
In a statement that is difficult to comprehend, Rep. Emily Virgin (D-Norman) argued that if the Supreme Court upholds state laws that ban gay marriage, Russ’s bill would end up making same-sex marriages legal in Oklahoma. While it is unclear why that would even be problematic, this is likely false, as Oklahoma’s ban is a constitutional amendment, which would supersede Russ’s bill.
Leftist group Freedom Oklahoma has also spoken against the bill, with its executive director Troy Stevenson saying that, “This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law. The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed ‘marriage certificates.’ This legislation will only result in mass confusion from clerks’ offices to courtrooms around the nation — while putting Oklahoma families at risk.”
This is also unfounded, as there is no reason to believe that the federal government and other states would not recognize the private marriage certificates issued in Oklahoma.
As libertarians, we are constantly looking for ways to get government out of our lives. Steps to privatize marriage are one of the most simple ways in which this can be done. By doing so, we can grant more liberty to our most personal associations while granting freedom to all parties involved in such a transaction.
