The Independent Voice of Southern Methodist University Since 1915

The Daily Campus

The Daily Campus

The Independent Voice of Southern Methodist University Since 1915

The Daily Campus

The Independent Voice of Southern Methodist University Since 1915

The Daily Campus

Instagram

Gay marriage only a competition for minority votes

Face-Off: Libertarian opinion

Libertarianism is a view that I think everyone would fundamentally believe if they were to fully understand it.

The basic framework is this: every individual owns the products of their labor and is responsible for the consequences of their actions, while at the same time having the intrinsic ability to determine ones own actions. I would say that that is an extended interpretation of the phrase “property rights.”

Furthermore, government should not interfere with any of these processes. The only time government should involve itself is when such action is requested, such as when an individual or private organization in some way harms another.

I own my mind, and the products of my mind. Who is someone to say, “no, you are mentally challenged (or just I don’t like you) and therefore you’re not allowed rights over what your mind produces?”

If the other party was an individual or private organization, I could simply sue them. What, then am I supposed to do if that other party is instead one (or all) of our many governments?

Let’s take this a step further and apply it to today’s subject. What type of system have our predecessors derived where a “free” individual does not have the rights to every product of his or her mind?

If I were to, in the future, decide that myself and my hypothetical same-sex partner were to live together in the most binding, constructive, and loving of unions, how can a government not recognize that?

We would still be together. We would still be sharing expenses, and otherwise supporting and loving each other. The only difference is that our union would not be recognized by my government, therefore theoretically negated into non-existence. We might as well, by definition, be considered outlaws.

Now that you know the liberty-minded perspective, let’s examine the current situation and try to understand why so many individuals are still forced to be outlaws.

Mainstream Democrats promote homosexual rights for the same reasons as Libertarians, yet they continually fail because they do not entirely grasp the rights of private organizations.

That is, Democrats commonly fight against churches while attempting to pass legislation that would bring equality to LGBT individuals. Libertarians support the right of private individuals and organizations to discriminate, as that is the very basis of freedom in this country.

This function is the same as your ability to discriminate between white and wheat bread. You always have the choice and it hurts no one. However, governmental discrimination causes true injustice because those discriminated against have no where else to go.

Republicans, on the other hand, generally insist that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral and should be prevented. While I do not share in these moral sentiments, there are many people that morally object to homosexuality while agreeing that such individuals deserve equal rights for the very same reason that they themselves have those rights.

Religion should have nothing to do with governmental policy, and in the same fashion government should never “regulate” any religion, for they are private organizations.

In the same fashion, churches should always be allowed to choose such things as the demographic of their membership for the same reason that a restaurant can choose who it serves.

So where are we now? We’re stuck with two parties in power, neither of which realize that this issue has nothing to do with religion, but with freedom and liberty – the very basis of our country.

Sean Ian Linsley is a freshman at SMU. He is a member of SMU’s chapter of University Libertarians. Linsley can be reached for comments or questions at [email protected].

More to Discover