Republicans have made gay marriage a hot political topic this election, with talk of a constitutional amendment to define marriage. I favor gay marriage laws at the state-by-state level. However, I do not support efforts to force private employers to provide spousal benefits to gays. Here is why.
Government has the obligation to treat all people equally. That comes from our constitution, which says people have the right to equal protection under the law. However, individuals and private businesses do have the right to discriminate on any basis they choose. That comes from our freedom of association, which is a natural right.
Yes, I know that current anti-discrimination laws violate this last principle. This includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These laws ban discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, color, national origin, age, or disability. I oppose such laws to the extent that they violate the natural right of people to associate freely. To those who support such anti-discrimination laws, I say - your goals may be noble, but you must use persuasion, not government force, in all such social engineering projects. Force will not work, and force is not moral.
Once state governments recognize gay marriage, gays will have the legal protections of inheritance, community property, and divorce rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. This is proper in my view. But gays will not necessarily have equal spousal employment benefits, because employers may not choose to accept this extra expense. This situation will produce political pressure to pass anti-discrimination laws for gays.
I oppose all anti-discrimination laws as they apply to the private sector. Instead, existing anti-discrimination laws should be amended to apply only to the public sector. Properly applied, such laws should be extended to include homosexuals and atheists.
Many progressive employers already provide gay spousal benefits. This trend will continue because it is in an employer’s best interest to hire and retain good employees. Markets provide solutions to social problems, government does not.
Marriage is best defined at the individual state level. For this reason, I oppose efforts by federal judges to compel one state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, and I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage. Ron Paul has more to say about this at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html