In Defense of Liberty. A Treatise.

A question that has always swept through my mind like a great brush fire, and that has never been answered to this writer’s intellectual satisfaction, is how does homosexual marriage infringe upon another individual's natural rights?

An argument from quarters in opposition to same- sex marriage has centered on the rather curious proposition that homosexual marriage infringes upon the individual’s religious liberty, i.e. his inalienable right to practice the religion that his conscience dictates.

As if two same-sex individuals, exchanging their vows in the Unitarian church next door to another individual’s Catholic Church, as he attends Sabbath services, in some manner, shape, or form infringes upon his ability to worship freely as he so chooses.

His house of worship could not be constitutionally, or morally, compelled to wed homosexuals, so this fear is heretofore unfounded.

Another common argument that those in opposition often fall back upon is the 'slippery slope' paradigm.
This argument often begins with the thesis:"If we give the right to homosexuals to marry (as if rights were ours to dispense like pieces of candy), then individuals will marry animals, or engage in polygamy.

The fact that such a distortion makes a mockery of the centuries old natural rights tradition, does not even dawn on those proposing this line of argumentation.

Natural rights are not about homosexual acts, lude public spectacles, or Romanesque orgies.

Such intentional fallacies disgrace the memory of courageous individuals such as Sidney, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Gordon, Trenchard, and many other brave souls, all whom advanced natural rights to their own peril, and in some cases, gave their lives for the sacred truth.

Liberty is not for one man to define. The Deity is the first and final judge.

As for those of mere flesh and bone, we are to utilize reason as our guide when formulating a framework for Liberty. Will we make errors? Yes, certainly. History shows us this clearly enough.

However, we conduct our best efforts in good faith, attempting to, but never quite able to, fully realize those words enshrined in our nation's sacred text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

A government that grants moral sanction to no marriage, and lawful recognition to all consensual marriages, is a government that at long last lives up to our sacred creed, and allows all individuals to pursue the destiny that will grant them the greatest happiness, while respecting the equal and inalienable rights of those individuals around them.
This should be a starting point upon which to construct a respectful framework for this complex and contentious debate.
This writer has never proposed a federal law for homosexual marriage. I have never proposed a state law, per se.

If one seeks the will of the people, either in favor or in opposition of the position I have offered forth, to be expressed through the ballot box, this would be amenable to me.

With one minor caveat, inalienable rights cannot be stripped or added to by a decree of law, or through the ballot box. Otherwise, they would be less than inalienable.

In this writer’s philosophy, rights are derived from the Deity and are transferred to the individual.

The individual then delegates some of those rights to the government, such as for the common defense etc.

The individual retains those rights unquestionably, even when delegating said rights to the State.

The government's sole legitimate function is the protection of those rights.
For the sake of clarity, this writer is not stating that homosexual marriage is a natural right per se, however, I am arguing that the individual has the right to self-ownership, or individual autonomy within the limit drawn around him/her by the equal rights of others.

The government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual. It has no other legitimate moral authority, sanction, nor function.

In the Lockean sense, every individual as a moral agent is "free, equal, and independent".

We may indeed make errors of moral judgment, but ownership of our own lives means that society must limit its interference to moral suasion, not coercion.

The government is coercion by its very definition.

Society, by means of the State, has no legitimate moral authority to violate the natural right of self-ownership, nor infringe upon the free will of the individual.

This is the 'Liberty' found in the sacred sentence: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
A government that lawfully recognizes private marriage "contracts" between consenting adults is neither a threat, nor subversion, to Liberty.
Rather, it is Liberty lived.




Ryan P. Christiano. Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.