Laurence M. Vance postulates that after same sex-marriage was recognized by the state, its supporters should also (logically and morally) support polygamy.
We can separate this matter into two different issues: the state recognition issue and the sexual morality issue.
With Vance being a conservative libertarian, the question is: which does he oppose, even hate the most? That the state recognizes any marriage; or that it recognizes types of marriage that Vance culturally opposes, such as gay marriage and polygamy? The vigor with which some conservative libertarians attack same sex marriage (and as a consequence the possibility of state recognized polygamy), almost seems to imply that the types of marriage is more of a problem than the state recognizing any marriage at all.
After all, where has this discussion been before gay lives have been added to the states’ marriage business? Where was the outcry every time a heterosexual couple was getting a state-recognized marriage?
It is definitely the case that the state ought not to stick its nose into anyone’s marriage business, from a libertarian point of view. And it is also the case that people with certain cultural agendas are using the state’s recognition of other types of marriage to impose those cultural agendas on the unwilling (through discrimination lawsuits and such). These are worrisome issues.
But from the libertarian perspective, it is also definitely the case that there is indeed no logical nor moral problem whatever with polygamy. Self-ownership and the right of adult people to voluntarily engage in any type of behavior or relationship is as libertarian as it gets, and sometimes i wonder just how “libertarian” some libertarians really are. So the question is: why would a libertarian talk mockingly of the state next recognizing polygamy, or same-sex marriage advocates next advocating polygamy, if the polygamy itself is not the problem?
Sometimes i wish libertarians would make clear whether they are speaking as libertarians, or as the conservative moral crusaders they seem to be.
The Individualist 