Libertarians Can Be Christians

I am a libertarian and also a Christian. Many if not most libertarians I speak to are also Christians.

Many Christians do not support gay marriage. I also do not support gay marriage but I realize that marriage licenses were first used in this country to stop whites and blacks from intermarrying. George Washington did not have a marriage license. Was he living in sin? I personally don’t want the government telling me what is acceptable or giving me permission to do something that God has already gave me a right to do.

My parents had a marriage license and when I was about five months old my father left us. That marriage license was nothing but a waste of money. It is also common to hear about how gays will go to hell and I am not doubting that but we very seldom hear people condemn fornication or adultery this aggressively but the Bible tells us that they are both sins.

Another argument is that God will destroy America if gays live together remember Sodom. Yes I do remember Sodom and if we read the whole story it tells us in Genesis 18:33 that it would not have been destroyed if only ten righteous people could be found in the city.

If you have a right from God to do something you don’t need a license. In the day of judgment God will decide who is correct and who is incorrect not the government or the president who are supporters of the United Nations.

Free speech is also something libertarians love and we support you talking about your religious beliefs in public because the public square is a free speech zone and you don’t have to have permission from anyone to say what is on your mind even if it offends someone.

In closing I would like to remind everyone that the first amendment does not create a separation of Church and state but stops congress from passing any laws establishing religion. I am against the federal governments involvement in education where there is a public funding of the religious belief in Evolution.

45 Comments
  1. Jake, I’m not a Christian, per se, but I think there shouldn’t be a wall of separation either… a sheet of paper will suffice. We have to do a balancing act, keeping government and religion (ALL of them) just that far apart. Not quite secularism, not at all theocratic.

    Having said that, I’m also not in favor of gay marriage, and consider myself “99.9995% pro-life”. Just my 42 cents’ worth.

  2. And… Libertarians can be atheists! As a Libertarian Atheist (Man, talk about a lost cause… I could never run for office!) my perspective is, obviously, much different than yours when it comes to inherent rights and your beliefs on homosexuals. But, our political philosophies agree…

    Just curious Jake, you mention that the First Amendment “does not create a separation of Church and state but stops congress from passing any laws establishing religion.” Uh… right. I’m not sure why this was brought up. Why did you throw this in at the end of the post?

  3. Mike,

    I placed that in the post becuase many Christians (at least where I live) are very concerned about laws banning them from free speech. In Canada it is a crime or somepeople are trying to make it a crime to speak against homosexuality because it is “Hate speech.” In California the same thing was tried a few years back and near Kansas City Missouri there were local laws banning signs in yards and the signs they went after were religious signs.

    This was a message that you don’t have to vote for the Republicans we Libertarians will not take your rights away.

  4. I’ll have to chime in for myself…..libertarians can be ANYTHING!

    I’m a Deist, not accepting the word of any revealed religion, but that’s MY choice that’s right for me and no one else. It’s not my business to tell folk my way is the only way.

  5. “libertarians can be ANYTHING!”

    I agree. I try to reach out to different groups on different issues. As Mike Horn pointed out

    “my perspective is, obviously, much different than yours when it comes to inherent rights and your beliefs on homosexuals. But, our political philosophies agree…”

    But we all come together with the same political philosophy, the government works for the people and the people have rights they are born with.

  6. Peter,

    Personally I don’t support it. I also do not support anyone obtaining a marriage license because you have a right to live with whomever you wish and don’t need a license to do something you have a right to do.

    If two homosexuals live together it is none of my business or the governments but I don’t have to support what they are doing.

  7. Jake, in regards to gay marriage (but let’s simplify that to “gay relationships” since he has now clarified that he is against the legalized/licensed aspect of marriage), says:

    Personally I don’t support it.

    Why not?

  8. It is against my religious beliefs. Romans 1:26-27 Genesis 1: 27-28 And personally I am not attracted to males only females (and only certain good looking females)

    I will never try to stop gays from living together or their relationships because it is none of my business but personally someone can have beliefs like me and be a libertarian.

    But as far as sin goes I don’t think homosexuality is as bad as adultery, rape, lying, or theft crimes where others are hurt.

  9. Jake says:

    Romans 1:26-27 Genesis 1: 27-28

    When I ask “Why not?” I am asking what your reason is, not what someone else says or what some book says. I want to know how you have come to this conclusion. That is, I’m not interested in what chapter so-and-so of your adjutant says or what you simply “believe”, I want to know how you have constructed your view.

    After all, you go on to say…

    But as far as sin goes I don’t think homosexuality is as bad as adultery, rape, lying, or theft crimes where others are hurt.

    …which implies that you don’t believe homosexuality hurts others. So if there is no harm, then why (i.e. your reason) would you not support two people who love each other regardless of their genitalia and what is it that makes it “bad“?

  10. In order to continue on with life men and women have to have children. Gays cannot have children with each other. It is my opinion the penis and vagina were created for sex. If you create something than you have control over it. God created sex for the purpose of giving birth to children that is not to say I think it is wrong to have sex for other purposes but that is the intent.

    My personal belief is that we all came from sex and children cannot develop without heterosexual sex.

    I am going to eat now I will try and post a full reply and tell you where I developed my personal view very soon.

  11. Jake says:

    I am going to eat now I will try and post a full reply and tell you where I developed my personal view very soon.

    Good, as your last post did nothing to address my questions.

    Most importantly, you’ve stated that although homosexuality is not rape, adultery, lying, or theft, it is still “bad“.

    I would very much like to understand why it is “bad”. If you could address this statement, it would be much appreciated.

  12. In my view it is bad in your view it is not bad. Such as some people would view drinking as bad I don’t but other people are free to have their opinions such as in this debate. For one I think homosexuality is sick and I would never partake in it the same way with smoking or chewing. They are things I view as bad but others may not.

    Another example is prostitution. I would say it is morally wrong (from where I derive morality the Bible) but it is up to each individual to decide their own morality. It is also my view God will decide what is wrong in the end.

    Maybe bad is not the best fitting word here maybe moral is better.

    I guess you want to know why I think it is morally wrong other than my religious beliefs. I have already stated why I think men and women have the body parts they do, another reason I am attracted only to good looking women, and it is my personal view of bad, you may personaly view drinking as bad or the Amish probably view driving a car as bad because it is their view they don’t try and force it on anyone it is their belief.

  13. Another thing is that I don’t support someone smoking or doing drugs because I don’t view them as good but it is not my job or the governments to stop them because it is their body. You don’t have to support something if you don’t care what others do.

  14. Jake says:

    In my view it is bad in your view it is not bad.

    I have not stated any view.

    people are free to have their opinions

    Of course. I am not questioning your freedom to have your opinion. I’m questioning how you arrived at such an opinion.

    For one I think homosexuality is sick and I would never partake in it the same way with smoking or chewing.

    Smoking and chewing have obvious side effects. Those effects can be pointed out in a debate. Such habits often have health effects. Can you please explain your analogy of homosexuality with smoking. I am baffled as to how you can compare a same-gender sexual act with chewing or smoking tobacco.

    (from where I derive morality the Bible)

    Why not derive it from your own reasoning and from your capacity for compassion? Why derive your ethical standards from a book?

    another reason I am attracted only to good looking women

    So you base your morality on what fancies you? So because you are heterosexual, it is immoral to be homosexual?

    Another thing is that I don’t support…

    I’m quite clear on what you do and do not support in regards to legalization. My question is your conscience support. How you express your inner beliefs with others when you communicate. Jake, what kind of world do you expect to create when – although you don’t stop your homosexual neighbors from living together – you look at them as “immoral” and with disdain? What kind of world will you create if you have children and “teach” them that although you don’t think they should be stopped, Suzy and Jenna next next door are “sick” and perverse?

    Yes Jake, you are free to have your “opinions” and “beliefs”, but I plead you to consider the social ramifications of those beliefs regardless of your libertarian political stance. And although I have no issues with the bible (in fact I think it to be an extraordinary text), I also plead to you to put it down and think for yourself when rationalizing your moral views.

    I’m out for a couple of days. Take care.

  15. Jake, do you sincerely believe the Christian Bible is the Word of God, or “inspired” word for that matter? You do know people voted on what would be included in the Bible right? You do know that certain canons were excluded right? Doesn’t the Bible also suggest that this world is around 6,000 yrs. old? I could go on and on. Have you ever questioned the contents and/or origins of the Bible itself Jake?

    For the record, I consider myself a Deist like Tim. I just can’t get on board with organized religion anymore. I was raised Catholic, went to CCD, but have personally come to the conclusion that it is a complete farce. Just my 2 cents.

  16. Peter,

    If it were me, I’d be glad Jake doesn’t think “they should be stopped”, because that’s the mentality of those who DO think they should be stopped… morality at the threat of gunpoint. Nasty concept.

    I once had a supposed “Christian” tell me, upon hearing that my sons’ mother and I had never been married, that I had a “bastard child”. It pissed me off to no end at the moment, but learned pretty soon that it doesn’t matter what people think of how my child came to be. I just don’t care anymore if someone does that. They’re stupid for believing that, and no amount of convincing or legislation can reverse stupidity.

  17. Jake, you refer to certain portions of the Bible to defend your positions on homosexuality as sinful activity, but many of these chapters cited by yourself (and others) are used with new translations of the Bible, as opposed to using older translations (King James version, for example). Many scholars disagree if the particular verses actually refer to homosexual activity!

    In other words, be careful about citing the Bible as a source for taking a stance on homosexuality, because (in my opinion) it’s probably been misinterpreted!

  18. Hi, I am a Christian and I’m a newbie when it comes to Libertarianism. Your article sparked some thought on this issue that I had never delved into before.

    1. God is the only one who can decide whether or not 2 people are married, not the government.
    2. The Bible only recognizes 1 type of marriage and that is between a man and a woman.
    3. If 2 people are married before God and He accepts this as a marriage it doesn’t matter whether you have a piece of paper from the government endorsing your marriage or not, you are still married before God.
    4. Just because the government endorses your marriage doesn’t make you married, only God can do this.
    5. Gay marriage cannot be a real marriage because God doesn’t recognize this type of bond, Even if the government gives a gay couple a marriage license.

    Thanks for your article, it has really made me think this through.
    Greg Thomas

  19. Wow, you guys have been busy. I am in Thailand and have been without a connection for a few days. That said, I hope you will forgive me if my skimming the comments here leads me to restate an ealier comment.

    I believe that no government can give a couple- heterosexual or gay- the “right” to marry. Unfortunately, the government is involved. I live in Texas and without that “piece of paper” I might have to fight my husband’s family for OUR property upon his death. Without that “piece of paper” I would risk his family (all doctors) trying to usurp my role as the person responsible for medical decisions in the event he is unable to make them. Lest my inlaws think I am picking on them, I must say that my husband would likely get the same from my family.

    Perhaps what we should do is join together, gay and straight, to get the government out of our beds- period. Then, if your belief is in a god, you can answer your maker. What an idea! It should satisfy those of every religious or sexual orientation. Though, if homosexuality is not picked on anymore, I think we will find that even those libertarian Christians will seek to get the government involved again.

  20. Michelle,

    No government should ever be involved in sex I don’t care if homosexuals are not picked on again. Rights come from people the government cannot grant rights so if two homosexuals want to live together then fine. I am disapointed you would say something like that, that christian libertarians would seek to get the government involved.

    I will never ask for permission to do something I have a right to do such as carry a weapon or live with a someone.
    Did you get your permit to go to church? No why not you are telling me that no one reading this blog goes to church or are you telling me no one reading this blog is stupid enough to ask permission for something they have a right to do. I realize there are laws that make refusing to get a marriage license difficult but I cannot ask permission to do something I have a right to do.

    Stay safe in Thailand and good luck.

  21. The government, in the form of a marriage permit, determines how we are to live our lives right down to our employer sponsored health insurance. I am lucky, I work for a damn fine company- shoot, we even give our gays and unwed mothers healthcare coverage- even though it is not legally required. (TIC)
    There will always be those, cloaked in perceived righteousness that wish to tell others how to live their lives. Those same people will use democracy and majority rule to impose their beliefs. I do not dare ask you to give up your belief that homosexuality is wrong, but, as an individual focused on individual rights, you must see that my argument lies in your statement:
    “If you have a right from God to do something you don’t need a license.”
    I only half joked that my family, or my husband’s (at our deaths) would rip the surviving spouse at the seam. But, that license, instead of common sense and common law is all that protects us. And there lies the inequity. If I loved Jane, instead of Anil, Jane would have less representation in law upon my death. Now, consider the fact that Jane and I cannot reproduce, and therefore create a beneficiary that would be recognized by LAW as an heir. Where does our benefit go? Any private agreement would be torn apart by an overzealous probate court. (At least in this political climate) You see, the union would not be recognized- LEGALLY.
    The only fair and ethical thing would be to abolish the marriage license for everyone. Then we would have a level playing field. You could not discount anyone’s right to benefit or property because there would not be a law that was different (and discriminatory). The problem, Jake, is that nobody wants to make things fair- they want to capitalize on the things that drive us apart. To make things right would drain a revenue source, and the pigs have become accustomed to their feed.

  22. Well after a 2-day hiatus, I was hoping to return to read Jake’s reasoned defense of his disdain toward homosexuality. I guess not. Let’s move on then, shall we?

    Jake says:

    I am against the federal governments involvement in education where there is a public funding of the religious belief in Evolution.

    Could you please explain to me Jake, when it was that evolution became a “religious belief”? I must have missed that. I think this is important. I too, am not in favor of federal money being spent on religious education. Therefore, I think it important for us to discuss how you reasoned that evolution is a “religious belief”. Because if you can rationalize this perspective, I will have to agree with you and support you 100%.

    And another question for you. Do you think federal money should be spent on educating children about “intelligent design”? If yes, why? If no, why?

  23. Peter,

    Religion in my view does not have to be something you worship it can be a philosophy or a belief. I am using the my dictionary and the definition of religion can be many things.

    Congress does not have the power granted in Article 1, Section 8 to establish education so I could care less what they teach it is unconstitutional and wrong. So the short answer is I would feel no better about it if they taught intelligent design. It also would be a violation of the first amendment to teach any religious belief such as Christianity, inteligent design, Islam, or evolution because congress cannot establish religion. Congress doesn’t have the power granted to them by the Constitution.

    Do you agree?

  24. Again,

    Regardless of what congress has or has not the power to do (let’s think larger than the U.S. shall we?), it seems absurd to me to approve the spending of public funds to promote religious education.

    However, I am still baffled as to how you equate evolution with christianity, islam, or any other organized religion. You lump evolution in with religion so again I ask…

    When did evolution become a “religious belief” and how do you justify conflating it with the beliefs of christianity and islam?

  25. No public money should ever be spend funding religious education!

    People who believe in Evolution do not neccessarily worship but they do have a belief system. I will agree now after review that it is not a religion but it is a belief system often shoved down the throats of elementary students when the parents might not want their children learing about all the different beliefs until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves.

  26. Jake says:

    People who believe in Evolution do not neccessarily worship but they do have a belief system.

    Jake, do you believe in gravity? You can’t see it. You can’t prove it. Sure, there may be lots of evidence for it, but you never know. The scientists have been “shoving gravity down your throat” since you were an infant. Should funding be stopped for schools who propagate “belief” in gravity?

    …parents might not want their children learing about all the different beliefs until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves.

    Why not? The more potentially legitimate views children can be exposed to the better. Some parents just keep their children in a cognitive black box as long as possible and feed them, for example, the bible as “truth”. I understand if you are saying some children are not old enough to engage properly in a topic like, say, religion. But when the child begins to ask questions, you throw hinduism, buddhism, christianity, islam, atheism – all that you can – at them. And discuss. Juxtapose, compare. Take the kid to a mosque. A church. A temple. A synagogue. Read all sorts of texts. Crack open the bible, the koran, the tipitaka, the vedas, the talmud, etc. Do it all. Just don’t dare tell them what their religion is. That is for them to decide. And if they are smart, they’ll thank you for all the exposure and then choose none of them. They will walk alone.

    A religious mind has nothing whatsoever to do with believing in religion.

  27. I shall digress. I see no reason why one has to abandon a religious belief system to be a libertarian.

    I am not defending or opposing the points I am making, only asking probing questions.

    1. Marriage licenses were established by the government, right or wrong. Do we ignore that they exist or that some good purpose is served? What about other licenses such as driver’s licenses, electrical contractor’s licenses or any other licenses issued by the government? What about a license to carry a concealed weapon?

    2. The argument is made that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and not dictate morality. Where is the cutoff point or is there one? Is incest, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, bigamy, polygamy, or any other sex act or aspiration off limits? If one believes the age of consent should be lowered, how low? Is it to 12, 10 or 6 years old?

    3. Are there any taboos in society and if so, what are they based upon? Is the root from religious teachings or from some other source?

    4. How “free” should we be? Should we be free enough to make whatever decisions we want to make based upon our own personal desires? Are the so called “victimless” crimes really without victims? Is the consumption of any substance to the point that a father does not support his children really a “victimless” crime or are the children the victims?

    5. Is suicide acceptable, moral and should not be considered a crime? Who has to clean up the mess and dispose of the body? Who is responsible of taking care of the children after this occurs? Is it the government or do we just turn them out on the street?

    6. Did our founding fathers, many whom were diests, envision a society void of any moral compass such as religious teachings to guide us? If not, what must our guides be? Humanism? Atheism? No belief system and anything goes?

  28. Julian, I will answer question 2 because I specifically said in an earlier post that the government should stay our of our beds.

    Obviously incest, bestiality and pedophilia are crimes. Sexual acts of this nature generally have a participant who is either unable/ too immature to agree to participate. I say generally because in some cases of incest the parties involved are very mutual in their desire for the relationship. Rightfully, the acts you describe deserved to be tried in court as crimes. But this can be argued without using the word “morality” or bringing any god into it. It is quite simply a crime against person or property. As far as the age of consent, let’s just say I knew what I was doing at 16.

  29. Michelle,

    I agree. They are crimes against property or people and don’t need to bring God into it. As for the age of consent as long as they are not mentally incapable of making the decision (mental problems) then I see nothing wrong with the age being 16. It doesn’t mean they will make the best decisions but they are responsible for their actions.

    Julian,

    You bring up some good questions. The following are my beliefs as a libertarian but I am sure many people will disagree.

    Drives license are unneeded in my opinion because you have a right to travel. The logic is that the roads would be dangerous if people didn’t have licenses but they forget the roads are dangerous and we have all lost friends on them. As for tickets and speed limits I see no problem with them as a measure of safety for eveyone except for seatbelt tickets which in reality is just another tax.

    Private organizations such as consumer reports keep the need for licenses on business down. We must have local licenses or regulations for the time being for certain jobs that could injure people.

    The second amendment doesn’t mention anything about a license (ask permission) it mentions my right to keep and bear arms. You don’t have to ask permission from anyone but if you are on private property must ask permission.

    If you have a child you are responsible for him or her and should have to pay money for them. Something for the states and local governments to decide.

    You have really made me think on number five, I will try and get back to you with an opinion.

    Number six I am currently looking into and have been studying for over a year now.

    As you can see I am not an anarchist but think most control should be up to the state and local governments.

    Thanks for the questions I hope others will try and answer them with their opinions.

  30. Michelle

    Bestiality is not a crime in some states. Washington State permits it. Should it be a crime in that state?

  31. You must have done some “googling” for that one. As I am not an attorney, I can only give my opinion. In a sexual realm, anything that is done in a non-consensual manner should be considered theft. Just because Washington has no law against bestiality does not make the act lawful. Unless the mongoose or whichever animal that may be the object of the sicko’s obsession is screaming, “Yes, yes, yes!” it is not an act done with consent. If all participating parties cannot articulate consent, it is theft. Here is where your age of consent question comes to play, and again, I (and I am sure, we) know what we were doing as teens.

  32. “George Washington did not have a marriage license…”

    ~ http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

    “It is against MY religious beliefs.”

    ~ Many other peoples also, but not All religions

    Are we to have the Government base its laws on only the Christian morals?

    “In order to continue on with life men and women have to have children. Gays cannot have children with each other…”

    ~ I do not see how this has anything to do with the marriage issue. Would you enact a law that would prohibit heterosexual men and women who choose not to have or physically cannot have children the right to be married?

    “It is my opinion the penis and vagina were created for sex.”

    ~ Did God really provide this for recreational activity or do you mean the creator provided us with the ability to procreate? Some would say recreational sexual activity without the intent to procreate is a sin.

  33. Rev. C. Snyder,

    Thanks for your comment.

    “Would you enact a law that would prohibit heterosexual men and women who choose not to have or physically cannot have children the right to be married?”

    I don’t believe the government is granted anywhere in the Constitution the privilege to regulate marriage. In my opinion it is between them and God not between them and the state, no law would I enact.

    “Did God really provide this for recreational activity or do you mean the creator provided us with the ability to procreate? Some would say recreational sexual activity without the intent to procreate is a sin.”

    The ability to have children. I don’t believe sex is wrong for purposes other to have children as long as it is marriage as mentioned in the Bible but I don’t think the government should regulate it.

    What do you think?

  34. Welcome Rev. Your comment about recreational sex is a hoot. I realize that you qualified it with “some would say” but it is still funny. I was previously married and have two kiddos. I did not want to start again with diapers. I married a never married man with no children- A man that is happier loving my kiddos than spreading his seed. We have no intention to procreate and if not for recreational sex, our bed would be boring. Instead of dragging the comforter from the floor, we would be fighting over it.
    How exciting is that?

  35. It seems that many people have forgotten what “marriage” really is all about. Last month I married a young couple who stood before me and their family to vow their love and devotion for each other. The discussion of sexual activity or procreation was not spoken anywhere in the service.

    It’s all about Love… Not Lust or procreation. It is about spending the rest of you life (however long or short that might be) with another soul that you just don’t want to live without.

    Marriage should not be granted by a government it should only be a union defined by ones own faith. Restricting a Pastor from uniting any couple is restricting him/her from practicing their religious beliefs. I thought that was one of the reasons why this country was created.

    Our government should only provide Civil Union Cert. to those who wish to be considered legally married in the eyes of the state. Leave it to the individual church to decide the marriage definition per their morals.

  36. “What do you think?”

    ~ Like the funny bone, the creator gave us many things that are useful and enjoyable.

    I think I am glad that I was born when I was born. In the views of todays adolescents what we considered sexual activity is only a kiss to them (no thanks to Monica).

    Sexuality is only a small part( well maybe not small…) of the human make up. I see nothing wrong with expressing this between two intelligent consenting ADULTS(for procreation or not / married or not)

    “as long as it is marriage ”

    ~ Till then? Self gratification? Would that not be Sexual activity and also a sin to spill seed?

  37. I was married in Clark County, Nevada and even in that “den of iniquity” my vows didn’t mention sex.

    Seriously, it is nice to hear a man of the cloth speak rationally about love the way you did.

    “Marriage should not be granted by a government it should only be a union defined by ones own faith. Restricting a Pastor from uniting any couple is restricting him/her from practicing their religious beliefs. I thought that was one of the reasons why this country was created.”

    Rev., you seem to be one of the few rational religious people we have.

  38. “It looks as though you and I agree on this issue.”

    Yes and No…

    We both might agree that the government should let the church define marriage. But, If approached by a same sex couple who desire to be married and who I feel love and are truly committed to each other, I would want the ability (that right other faiths have to practice their religion)to “Marry” them under my faiths laws.

    As I understand some state laws within the USA, this is not possible.

  39. Thank you for the email and inviting me to review and respond to this thread.

    God Bless to ALL and Happy Holidays to ALL

  40. Do you believe it is ok with God for gays to live together and would you marry them (if the church were to define marriage)?

  41. “Do you believe it is OK with God for gays to live together and would you marry them (if the church were to define marriage)?”

    ~ Scenario: Two “heterosexual women” desire to live their life together as a married couple and will do so “without any” sexual contact with each other. The “emotional” bond that they have is no different than a bond between a heterosexual man and heterosexual woman with the same desire.

    Now that we have taken the sexual act out of the environment, and understand that marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples “that want to procreate”… Why should these two women(who are not committing a sin)not be allowed to pledge their love and lives via matrimony?

    Yes, I would marry them. I think it is OK for any two people to live as a married couple. I will leave the judgment of sin up to the creator.