The most common argument in favor of gay marriage is an appeal to the belief that any two adult individuals who love each other should be able to get married. I have no issue with this argument except for the use of the number “two.” I believe that the number “two” should be replaced with the variable n, where n denotes any positive integer greater than or equal to two. To clarify, I want bisexual polygamy to be legal.
In an ideal world, the government would not be in the marriage domain, but the vast majority of voters seem to have no issue with the government’s role in marriage. This is why most libertarians argue for the legalization of gay marriage instead of for the abolition of government involvement in marriage. I do not believe that vouching for gay marriage adequately conveys the libertarian belief that consenting adults should be able to engage in any type of relationship they desire. Vouching for gay marriage is a step in the right direction, but it feels analogous to arguing for a slightly lower tariff on steel imports when one could instead be arguing for completely free trade.
Libertarians often describe their beliefs as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in order to indicate that their beliefs are part-Democrat and part-Republican. This description is inaccurate as it does not convey just how much more socially liberal we are than the Democrats and just how much more fiscally conservative we are than the Republicans. Enthusiastically expressing support for “fringe” viewpoints like the right of a man to be married to a woman who is married to a man who identifies as a woman serve to show those who are stuck in the two party binary just how close-minded their political ideologies are.
Next time you hear Democrats talk about how open-minded they are because of their belief in the legalization of gay marriage, ask them about their view on bisexual polygamy. If they are against it, then they clearly have no basis for claiming that they are socially liberal. If they are for it, then point out that their party officially only advocates for gay civil unions–not even marriage–and that their interest in defending civil liberties is better served through libertarianism.
I look forward to the day when we can laugh at the idiocy of the two person marriage limit at the wedding of Michael to Jane to Daniel to Bob to Sarah who was previously Stephen.