Living in a civilized country does not mean that government should have carte blanche in making laws. Laws also do not prevent crime. Laws merely afford the victim a way to pursue retribution against the criminal through a third party who, in theory, will be able to act with a higher level of discernment than those directly affected and clouded by emotion. They also shift force which reduces vigilantism.
Our “civilized society” was founded with the principles of natural law in mind. This is why you see American constitutions written in a manner that strictly limit government authority in an attempt to prevent positive law, which has a strong tendency to become oppressive, except only in the situations which require it be used to protect those natural rights. Laws such as murder, theft, rape, arson, (your example of abolition of slavery) etc. are legitimate laws. However, as I said above, these laws do not prevent crime. If they did we would live in the utopian society that those who favor big government are chasing. An argument can be made for deterrence but it is an unquantifiable metric. Any law that violates these principles is not a proper use of law and should not be tolerated. Laws that violate any one of those basic rights often leads to violations of all the other basic rights.
This brings us to the subject at hand; gay marriage. Let’s start with a scenario from the mafia golden age. Local shop owners were often forced to pay a portion of their profits every so often to the local Capo. Every week or month one of the Capo’s soldiers would show up to collect what was theirs, what they had a “right” too. They were being told that this was the cost of all the benefits (e.g. protection) they received from being in the community under the guard of that Capo. Then, every one up the chain Soldiers, Capo, Underboss, and Don got their cut of the action based on the established pay table. Shop owners would even receive “breaks” in the event that they got married, had a kid, death in the family etc. Clearly, this is a violation of property rights. What real legitimate authority do these groups of men have that takes this from the realm of theft to necessary, legitimate, and proper?
(Please do not misconstrue this as me being against all forms of taxation)
Now, give those same men a government title, spread that protection fee through all of society to each citizen, and all of the sudden these shakedowns and skimming off the top move from the theft realm to one that is proper and legitimate? Government entered the business of marriage because in order to provide tax breaks and other benefits they had to recognize the act of being married. Hence a government proffered benefit. The government’s violation of property rights has now led to a violation of the ability for two people to freely enter a contract regarding inheritance rights, end of life rights, bereavement rights, etc. Now each side is trying to use the rule of force to push their version of morality on others. This then leads to additional violations of liberty all around as well as the oppression of the losing side because freedom of association is now limited in scope and bastardized.
Had government not been stealing portions of property people would not have lobbied for government to recognize their union and give them breaks (benefits) for being married, having children, etc. Those who wanted to enter a contract and have a religious ceremony could have done so. Those who wanted to have a contract and secular ceremony celebrating their union could have done so. Likely, they would both refer to it as marriage.
Yes, you would still have bakers refusing to bake cakes, pastors refusing to officiate, photographers refusing to photograph etc., but those individuals would have to accept the economic repercussions of their choices. And in some instances, in some locations, they may even thrive because of their bigotry. But nothing is preventing individuals from moving to a location that is more accepting of their lifestyle or more appropriately, mind their own business, don't judge, and don’t care.
Freedom isn’t always pretty and it isn’t all cookies and ice cream. You have to take the bad with the good and let society adjust accordingly. If you do not and instead choose to chase utopia you end up lobbying government to enforce your view on others and oppression will assuredly ensue over time.
Government is truly the only benefactor in the current state of affairs regardless of which side wins this argument. They continue to steal property, they will continue to seize power, they will continue to dictate behaviours, and they will continue to dictate the decisions of others. Politicians will continue to use the dissension to gain votes, money, power, and position. Every time we ask government to step in and settle a matter we are giving them more power to dictate that specific facet of our lives.
The war on drugs is another example of government benefitting while no one else in society really does. It is also an example of people using government to control the behaviours of minorities they did not like. The Chinese and opium, cocaine and black men, marijuana and Mexicans were all root causes of drug laws. Through the war on drugs police forces have increased substantially in size, scope, and authority. They’ve been better outfitted with weapons (militarization), and they’ve seen substantial increases in money. Governments, local, state, and federal have started spying on the public in order to capture these people and stop them from using. Politicians have used it as part of a platform to gain support, votes, and funding. Drug laws haven’t prevented users from using. There is nothing out there that shows it has saved any lives. However, we do know privacy is being violated, we know the police have targeted groups culturally prone to using, we know people have lost their lives, we know people have been jailed, and we know that a whole lot of money is made and spent through search, confiscation, and seizure.
So as I said; in my view the problem here is not the actions of individuals or society. The problem here begins with an overactive government and the dissent and infighting are a symptom of said government and it’s illegitimate laws.
