I’m going to say this plain: libertarian gay marriage is about equal rights and equal rules. That’s why I support gay marriage under civil law, even when my personal beliefs don’t line up with every choice people make.
I don’t run on hate. Hate is lazy, it’s corrosive, and it makes people easy to control. I’ve watched families split and friendships die over politics, religion, and sex. That’s not “principle.” That’s wasted life.
I’ve got gay family members. I’ve got transgender kids. I’ve also got strong opinions about how I want to live in my own home. Those things can all be true at the same time.
My thoughts from 2016
Quick takeaways before we get into it
-
Libertarian gay marriage means the state treats consenting adults the same, even when I disagree with their choices.
-
Government shouldn’t be the marriage police, but as long as it is, equal protection has to mean something.
-
I don’t support “special victim” laws. I support one standard: assault is assault, fraud is fraud, theft is theft.
-
Health realities are real. Talking about HIV risk is not hate, it’s reality and prevention.
[Internal link: insert relevant Disruptarian post about personal liberty and voluntary association]
1) Gay people are not my enemy, and neither are you
I’m using blunt language because life is blunt. But hear me clearly: gay people are not my enemy. My enemy is anybody who wants to use the state as a weapon, whether they’re waving a rainbow flag, a Bible, or a party banner.
The whole point of libertarian gay marriage is that I don’t get to run your life, and you don’t get to run mine.
That means you can build your home the way you want, and I can build mine the way I want. It also means we don’t smear each other as monsters just because we disagree.
Disagreement is normal. Hate is optional.
2) Liberty first, always, even when it’s uncomfortable
I’ve been speaking my mind on hard topics for over two decades. And I’ve learned something the hard way: if your “principles” only apply to people you like, you don’t have principles. You have a club.
So yes, I defend rights for people I disagree with. That is the backbone of libertarian gay marriage. Rights aren’t a reward for ideological obedience. Rights are boundaries around state power.
If the government can deny marriage to one group today, it can deny it to another group tomorrow. It can deny it to you. It can deny it to your kids.
That’s why I’m allergic to moral crusades that use laws as a blunt object.
3) Prop 8 was government overreach, and I said so in 2008
Back in 2008, California’s Proposition 8 lit up the country. People acted like the government was going to “save” marriage by writing one more line into the constitution.
That’s not saving anything. That’s politicians playing house with your life.
Prop 8 was an overreach because it used state power to block consenting adults from a civil contract, and to roll back gay marriage in California.
For the record, here’s the official title and summary from California’s archived voter guide, not some meme screenshot: https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm Voter Information Guide
My words from 2008 on the topic of gay rights, long before gay marriage was even legal
https://www.youtube.com/@xcannabiscom/search?query=gay%20marriage
4) The 14th Amendment matters, because equal protection is the whole ball game
The 14th Amendment isn’t a magic spell that solves every argument, but it does set a floor: the government can’t give one set of citizens “full rights” and hand another set “watered down rights” with a grin.
You can read the text at the National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
That’s why I keep coming back to the same sentence: a right is a right. Not a favor. Not a privilege. Not a permission slip.
And yes, courts have applied that logic to marriage.
5) Obergefell is the law of the land, and pretending otherwise is a trap
In 2015, the Supreme Court held that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. That decision is Obergefell v. Hodges: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/06/26/obergefellhodgesopinion.pdf Department of Justice
You can argue about the reasoning. You can argue about the history. That’s America.
But here’s the practical reality: same-sex marriage is a settled civil institution for millions of people. When politicians play games with that, they aren’t “defending tradition.” They are lighting other people’s lives on fire for applause.
And if you’re the kind of official who wants to deny services because you “disagree,” then you’re telling the world you don’t believe in equal treatment. You believe in power.
6) Even in 2025, people keep trying to relitigate it, and the Court said “no”
If you want a quick update since the older debates, here’s one that matters.
On November 10, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to take a case tied to Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses after Obergefell. The court didn’t use it as a vehicle to revisit same-sex marriage. They turned it away: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-50eb4ad421911696e742d8c4fb4962fd AP News
That doesn’t mean the political pressure disappears. It means the “overturn it tomorrow” crowd keeps running into the wall of legal reality.
7) My line in the sand: equal rights, not special privileges
Now we get to the part where everybody starts yelling.
I support equal treatment. I do not support special legal status. I don’t want one rulebook for gays, one rulebook for straights, one rulebook for anybody.
That’s where hate crime laws come in.
If you punch somebody, you punched somebody. If you rob somebody, you robbed somebody. The act is the crime.
When you add sentence enhancements based on identity categories, you’re not just punishing violence. You’re punishing thoughts and motives. And that’s where governments get addicted, because it gives prosecutors a new political lever.
Plenty of people disagree with me on this, and I get why. Some argue hate crime enhancements reflect broader social harm or intimidation of a whole group.
I’m still not sold.
I want the same standard for everyone. That’s the cleanest version of equality I know.
8) “I don’t approve” isn’t the same thing as hate
I’m an ordained minister. That means I take vows seriously. It also means I’m not going to pretend my beliefs evaporate because someone on the internet demands it.
Here’s the distinction that gets people twisted: I can disagree with choices and still defend rights. That’s the point of libertarian gay marriage.
I don’t have to approve of every bedroom decision in America to say the government should not criminalize consensual adults, deny them contracts, or treat them like second-class citizens.
Hate is wishing harm.
Disagreement is just disagreement.
And if we can’t tell the difference anymore, that’s a bigger cultural problem than who’s kissing who.
[Video: Disruptarian Radio clip discussing “Hate Is Unproductive” | Note: Adds voice and context, and keeps readers on the page longer]
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkVeFOgmni8
9) My personal history shaped my views, but it didn’t make me a hater
When I was young, I saw some dark stuff. Abuse. Manipulation. Predatory behavior. It happens in every community, and it wrecks people.
Some of what I saw involved people who were LGBTQ. That fact influenced my instinctive caution. I won’t lie about that.
But I also refuse to paint a whole category of human beings with one brush. That’s not justice. That’s laziness.
Even when I was homeless in Seattle, I lived with gay and bisexual friends. We watched each other’s backs. We shared food. We shared couches. We shared the kind of rough honesty you only learn when life strips you down to the studs.
Those men and women were not caricatures. They were people.
That’s why, when I talk about libertarian gay marriage, I’m not talking about slogans. I’m talking about real humans trying to build stability.
10) The CDC data is real: talk about risk without turning it into hate
Let’s talk about the health side without losing our minds.
The CDC has been clear for years that gay and bisexual men, and other men who report male-to-male sexual contact, are disproportionately affected by HIV in the United States. That’s not an insult. That’s public health reality: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/gay-bisexual-men.html CDC
And in CDC’s 2025 update on diagnoses, the agency reports that a large share of diagnoses among men are attributed to male-to-male sexual contact: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/hiv-diagnoses-deaths-and-prevalence-2025.html CDC
So what do I do with that information?
I don’t use it to shame people. I use it to push stability.
If two adults love each other and want to build a life, I’m going to encourage commitment, monogamy if that’s their thing, routine testing, and getting educated about prevention. I’m not your doctor. I’m just not interested in pretending risk doesn’t exist.
Talking about risk is not hate. It’s honesty.
11) Marriage is a stabilizer, and stability is underrated
This is where my “don’t live like I do” crowd gets surprised. I’m still saying gay marriage should be legal.
I’m pro marriage. Not because I worship the state’s paperwork, but because stable commitments make people less desperate and more grounded.
That’s true for straight couples.
That’s true for gay couples. Gay marriage can be a stabilizer too.
And yes, it’s true even when I disagree with some choices that surround modern sexuality.
Libertarian gay marriage isn’t me “endorsing a lifestyle.” It’s me saying: if you’re going to build a household, build it strong. Stop living like everything is temporary. Temporary people get temporary outcomes.
What I’d change if the state got out of marriage entirely
If you want the pure libertarian version, here it is: the state shouldn’t be in marriage at all. It should recognize contracts and child custody obligations, and then stay out of the ceremony.
Let churches, synagogues, mosques, private clubs, and families do their thing. Let people choose their communities.
If the state is going to issue licenses and attach benefits, then equal access is the only non-corrupt option. That’s libertarian gay marriage in the real world.
[Internal link: insert relevant Disruptarian post about limiting government power and civil liberties]
“Victim culture” is what actually burns me
What really burns me isn’t sexual orientation. It’s the victim mindset that’s become a currency.
I’ve had people lie about me, slander me, and try to ruin my reputation because I wouldn’t recite their script. They write themselves as the hero in an oppression fantasy and cast anyone who disagrees as the villain.
Meanwhile, I’ve never assaulted anyone. I’ve never used my beliefs to deny someone a job, a place to live, or a chance at happiness.
I’m not trying to control you.
I’m trying to keep the state from controlling all of us.
That’s why I keep coming back to libertarian gay marriage: rights for people I disagree with is the price of my own freedom.
The Respect for Marriage Act is another backstop people should understand
A lot of folks missed this in the noise, but it matters.
In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which provides statutory recognition for marriages valid under state law and requires recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages across states. The official bill text and summary are on Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404 Congress.gov
You can dislike Congress and still appreciate a backstop that makes it harder for politicians to yank the rug out overnight.
Where I draw the line on gay marriage debates: no compelled speech, no forced celebration
Here’s the deal. I can defend gay marriage as a civil right and still reject the idea that the government gets to force private citizens to mouth slogans they don’t believe.
Freedom of association matters. Freedom of speech matters. If you can’t say “no,” then your “yes” is meaningless.
So when the fight shifts from “Can two adults get married?” to “Will you be punished if you won’t celebrate it?” that’s where a lot of people lose their minds.
My view is consistent with the same logic behind gay marriage itself: the state should not be in the business of coercing conscience.
That means:
-
Government clerks do their job, because the job belongs to the public.
-
Churches decide their sacraments, because the church does not belong to the state.
-
Private citizens can disagree, because disagreement is not violence.
If you want to persuade people that gay marriage is normal, you don’t do it with threats. You do it by being a decent neighbor.
That’s not weakness. That’s a smarter kind of strength.
[Image: A “Free Speech” sign held beside a marriage license, both slightly weathered | ALT: gay marriage rights and free speech can coexist]
How I talk about this with my own family
Because I’ve got people I love on different sides of this, I try to keep it simple.
I tell my kids: your body is yours, your life is yours, and your choices have consequences. Don’t demand applause. Don’t demand hate. Be honest.
I tell my gay relatives: I’m not your enemy. I won’t sabotage your rights. I’m not interested in humiliating you. I do expect the same respect back.
And I tell the activists, on any side: stop trying to conscript the government into your personal moral battles. That road ends with somebody else’s boot on your neck.
Practical boundaries that keep liberty alive
Here’s the middle ground that actually works in real life:
-
Adults can marry who they want under civil law.
-
Religious institutions can define religious marriage how they want.
-
Private people can associate, or not associate, based on their values.
-
Violence and harassment get punished, period.
-
Nobody gets a special legal halo.
That’s my libertarian gay marriage framework in five lines.
[Image: Close-up of a marriage license on a worn wooden table beside a pocket Constitution | ALT: libertarian gay marriage is about equal protection under the law]
FAQ: libertarian gay marriage, hate crime laws, and equal protection
Do libertarians have to support gay marriage?
No one “has to” support anything. But if you believe in limited government and equal rights, libertarian gay marriage is the consistent position for civil law.
Isn’t supporting gay marriage the same as approving of it?
Not even close. Civil rights aren’t the same thing as moral approval. You can disagree and still defend equal treatment.
Are hate crime laws unconstitutional?
Courts have upheld various hate crime laws, so I’m not making a courtroom prediction. I’m making a liberty argument: punishing identical acts differently based on identity is a dangerous habit for the state.
Why mention HIV at all?
Because reality exists. The CDC’s own data shows disproportionate impact among gay and bisexual men, and prevention starts with honesty. CDC+1
Will you officiate a same-sex wedding?
Yes. If you want a civil ceremony, I’ll do it. No charge. I’ve offered that to people in my own family, and I’m not backing away from it.
[Image: Two sets of hands exchanging rings in a simple courthouse ceremony | ALT: libertarian gay marriage ceremony focused on commitment, not politics]
My closing thought, because I’m not here to babysit anybody’s feelings
Hate is poison. It destroys lives, families, and freedom.
But disagreement isn’t hate. Criticism isn’t violence. Saying “I don’t support your choices” doesn’t mean “I want to harm you.”
I believe in liberty. That means protecting the rights of people I don’t agree with. That means standing up for fairness even when it’s uncomfortable.
So if you’re gay, straight, bi, trans, or something else entirely, live your life. Just don’t lie about mine.
If you want to get married, hit me up. If it’s a gay marriage ceremony, I’ll still do your wedding. No charge.
Sources:
-
[CDC HIV Surveillance Report, 2011 | https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_hiv_surveillance_report_vol_23.pdf]
-
[Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/]
-
[Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/]
-
[14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution | https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment]
-
[Video: Hate Is Unproductive | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkVeFOgmni8]
- My archive of my history on the topic (and other topics) can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/@veracitylife
- I have a lot in common about this topic, with the group of people that is growing in the LGB community called “Normal Gays”, reference:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Normal+gays
Spun Web Technology SMART SEO
