Some are observing that evangelicals are conspicuous in the Tea Party movement, raising the Question of whether it is simply the religious right in disguise. This is obviously false and a tactic to attach the unpopularity of Christians to the popular movement for fiscal freedom and responsibility. Libertarians are attracted to the Tea Party because it is orthogonal to social issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Christians, who do hold to social conservativism find that they cobeligerate with some non-Christians on fiscal conservativism. 

Further, it seems that Christians have become even more unpopular due to demographic changes and a new attitude to same sex marriage. Traditional Christian opposition to SSM is now perceived to be the new racism, condemning people who are they way they are by nature. As much as Christians observe that there are differences between sex and race and that, profound as it is, no one is a homosexual by nature, still no one is listening to their arguments and usually result to blank stares as rebuttals. 

But I want to argue that there is a libertarian argument against same sex marriage. The basic idea is that same sex marriage is an instance of illegitimate intrusion by the state and interest groups into the social customs freely embraced by a community. As a free association of rational agents, a community has a prima facie right to ordain for itself customs and social practices to shape their lives. Communities pick their social practices according to their nature and purpose and they have right to protect the significance of those practices from uninvited interference. In short, the defense of traditional marriage is as an extension of the freedom to live as one chooses. 

When Governor Cuomo succeeded in passing same sex marriage in New York, he attributed the passing to being a Progressive state. This nakedly suggests a perogative by the state to active change things according to its own cultural agenda. The libertarian reaction one expects here illustrates the force of the libertarian version of the defense of traditional marriage. 

An objection to this is that objecting to same sex marriage seems to go against the right to live like one wants. However, it only limits that right by forbidding people from using it as a justification to interfere with other peoples’ chosen lifestyle. But this arguably exactly the effect and point of same sex legislation. The benefits it secures for gays could be secured by other arrangements without rendering meaningless the traditional understanding of marriage – as realized by the nature of marital commitment between men and women and as fixed in reference by communities that preserve the practice. Further, gay marriage has arguable drawbacks which make it prudent for gays to seek alternatives. 

Gays are certainly free to adopt social practices that fit their conditions and purposes that take up logical space alongside of traditional marriage as practiced already, so there is no inequality between gays and non-gays with respect to the right to have practices that belong to ones own community and to not have them redefined or tweaked by those outside or the state. All communities have a proprietary right to their own practices. The fact that there have been no such alternative practices by gay communities (as far as I know – to be honest) would not change the fact that this right exists. 

The state is not to determine for the people the meaning of their customs, practices, and arrangements but rather must so compose the law ad to respect these as prior facts when such facts are consistent with the natural regime of prior liberty rights equally possessed by all. The imposition of sane sex marriage is one way the state interferes with those communities that accept the traditional sense of marriage.  It thus violates this test. 

So perhaps there is more than just the seperability social issues from fiscal ones that illustrates the compatibility between Christians and libertarians. The social issue of marriage is a libertarian issue.