Second, I do not think there is anything at all inconsistent with libertarianism in turning to the courts to enforce a right, including the right of equal protection. Indeed, the protection of such rights against more powerful factions that may dominate the legislature or the executive is one of the core purposes of the judiciary in American government. See the following three posts for more on this:
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/05/obligatory-post-on-ca-marriage-equality.html
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/05/conservatives-show-their-disdain-for.html
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/05/one-more-post-on-judicial-activism.html

As for whether gays and lesbians should seek to enforce this type of ruling on a national scale, I suspect this will not become a realistic possibility for another ten to twenty years (about the same period of time, mind you, as between Lopez and Loving). To be sure, I personally would have no problem with the SCOTUS ruling in favor of allowing gay marriage at any time and firmly believe this to be the proper libertarian position. But realistically, I don’t see any way this happens until the point where gay marriage is accepted in all but a handful of particularly homophobic states.

As for a Constitutional Amendment, I see no way that would ever happen. The only possibility for a constitutional amendment on this issue comes from the anti-gay marriage forces. For the pro-gay marriage side to pass a Constitutional Amendment would require a set of circumstances that is about impossible. Specifically, it would require that they get a Constitutional amendment passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress AND 2/3 of the state legislatures. In order to get that kind of support for a Constitutional amendment, they would first have to win marriage equality in at least 2/3 of the states – and probably far more than that. And all those votes would have to take place in a pretty short period since at that point it would only be a matter of time before either the last holdouts changed their laws or the SCOTUS issued a Loving-type decision.

During my freshman year of college, I had the privlidge of meeting a young man who later became a good friend of mine. He was active in civil war recreation groups and fought for the south. I was puzzled by this, I being educated by the public school system in the north and he being black. He explained his position in these reenactments was out of respect for his great, great uncle who had also fought for the south.

As it turns out his uncle (sorry, I can’t seem to recall the name) was a freed slave. He apparently bought his freedom and that of his wife and children over the course a decade by selling half his rations of food every day. He amassed nearly $300 and was on good terms with his master who granted their freedom and let him keep the money. There may have been some political pressure at that time, I can’t speak to his master’s motives for doing so. He moved north and settled his family in New York as a free man. Several year later, the civil war broke out and he and one of his sons chose to return and fight for the confederacy! Why?

He was a man who took his freedom very seriously. He saw it not as a birth right or a privilege, but as a responsibility to uphold and perpetuate a free society. While he could not read or write, he paid some of his fellow soldiers to keep a journal for him, and I’ve had opportunity to read portions of it, scribbled in the handwriting of several different men. Whether they took some liberties in the editorial process, we’ll never know, but it tells a compelling story none the less.

He speaks of “the day when men of color can have a voice”. To spite their stance against slavery, the northern abolitionist movement at the time had no intention of allowing a black vote, it was a laughable notion. However, in the southern states that were already moving towards abolition, there was a significantly greater percentage of blacks in local communities, and anyone who could convince their local governments to acknowledge black votes would win by a landslide in any future election. In the south, he had a slim, but still greater opportunity for greater freedom.

A victory for the south could have spelled a resurgence in slavery, but he realized the sovereignty of the state created a more flexible and ultimately more free lifestyle for the people than one (nearly) universal movement towards the lesser of two evils.

He was a simple man, known to me only by a proxy of simple men, speaking from a time to which my generation can lend no context. Still, it inspired me to question some of the beliefs I’ve been handed by modern academia, and set me on the path of Libertarianism, long before I knew such a movement existed.

Here was a man who believed that freedom is not something that can be given, earned, bought, or won. Uhm points out a perception amongst some that “The end justifies the means”. Freedom isn’t the “End”, it IS the “Means”. It can not be granted or awarded, it is the method by which we peruse a just society and prosperous life.

Getting back to the topic…

Tactics used by these Gay and Lesbian groups threaten to rob us of our freedom to choose the society we live in. They claim they’re “Liberating” themselves, while trying to establish a precedent that can only strip them of their liberties.

I believe (and many historians agree), had the south won the war, full abolition would have been reached, black voting rights would have been sooner instituted, and the overall welfare of the black community would be far greater today. Instead, we took a “one-size-fits-all” approach and spent the following century trying to make up for it’s inequities.

The gay and lesbian community should learn from this. Fight the battles you can win and use those victories to establish acceptance on a larger scale. If you are justified in your fight, don’t compromise one freedom for another, fight for the absolute or nothing. That is Liberty. True freedom can never be won, but acceptance can be. Forcing compliance to your ideal through litigation will ultimately hurt everyone, yourselves included. While freedom can’t be won, it sure as hell can be lost, and you don’t want to be responsible for that.

I agree with what you’re saying, and I’d hope that the gay and lesbian groups would be willing to work to find common ground and let this be decided in the states. Ultimately, the feds aren’t supposed to be weighing in on this issue, so demanding that the feds dictate terms to all the states on this issue makes the pro-gay marriage groups almost as bad as the anti-gay marriage sections (I say “almost” because I believe that the G & L rights groups are still correct on this issue, despite their often regrettable approach to dealing with it).

I am for gay marriage, determined on a state-by-state basis. However I understand and share the resentment felt by many. While I don’t believe the government should have the ability to extend or deny the benefits of citizenship, including the right to marry who you want on the basis of who you choose, It’s hard to side with some of these Gay and Lesbian rights groups who have historically pushed some insane legislation on the federal level. The efforts of many of these groups go against every principal of libertarianism, if not in the ideals they push, definitely in the methods used to further their agenda.

However, to stand on principal, you must sometimes become your enemy’s advocate.

Ofcourse, while I can stand for legalizing it in states where the public vote allows, I doubt that will be good enough for these groups. They’ll want what they always want, a full constitutional amendment and a sweeping supreme court ruling over all states that validates their cause everywhere.

So we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. How do we fight for their rights as citizens while fighting against their methods? I think the ultimate path to acceptance would be for them to appeal to the concerns of libertarians. Many conservatives have been on a mass exodus from the GOP in favor of the libertarian party, and are quite open the allowance for gay marriage. They have traditionally voted along party lines, picking candidates against it on the basis of other issues. Now there is room for conservative minded voters to weigh in on this issue specifically and to their favor. However it seems so ingrained in the minds of the gay and lesbian movement that we are the enemy, I sincerely doubt any attempt at compromise could ever be made.

However I have come across arguments by libertarians that express that “the ends justify the means.”

Then they’re not libertarians…either that or they’re extremely shallow ones. To achieve the society that we want, the means we use are just as important if we want the changes to be lasting.

You really wouldn’t want to change it. Once the federal government weighs in on the issue through the law, on either side, you’ll create the same problems. The Constitution doesn’t give the feds the right to define marriage for the states nor do I think there should be an amendment to do so. The issue should be left up to the states…and right now it appears they’re moving in the right direction.

Marriage is controlled by state, not federal law.

Ron Paul was tarred and feathered for his support for federalism. He was one of those Confederate-fascist Libertarians from what I’ve read. Everyone knows without the Federal Government’s interference we would have Jim Crow laws and West Virginians would be water curing Muslims in kiddie pools! :-)

I think federalism is a lost cause.

Coincidentially, California was among the first states whose Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws. That is in 1948. It took the rest of the country 20 years to catch up.

people inject myriad other rhetorical, moral or ethical viewpoints on marraige, but Federal income taxation is the magna mater of definition of marraige before the Federal govt, like so many other things.