I asked Grok to write this draft article for me, using this prompt:

Write a draft article as if by Stephan Kinsella (me) systematically laying out my perspective on the libertarian aspects of and case for gay marriage. Consult the attached documents [Legal Foundations of a Free Society: Core Chapters—Theory; “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” as it contains an overview of libertarian principles] and the following links. Make it as long as necessary, and include in the article any relevant links and references, as hyperlinks or footnotes. Title the article “Kinsella on Libertarianism and Gay Marriage”.

• The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage
• https://stephankinsella.com/2004/02/gay-marriage/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2024/03/libertarian-answer-man-promise-and-marriage-contracts/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2010/08/california-gay-marriage-law-overturned/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2010/01/is-gay-marriage-a-constitutional-right/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2009/07/mcelroy-and-peron-on-gay-marriage/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2006/11/second-thoughts-on-gay-marriage/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2006/06/the-libertarian-view-on-gay-marriage/
• https://stephankinsella.com/2004/02/gay-marriage/

Here is what Grok came up with ( have not edited or reviewed it or approved it yet).

Kinsella on Libertarianism and Gay Marriage

By Stephan Kinsella

Introduction

The debate over gay marriage has been a contentious issue in modern political discourse, often framed as a clash between traditional values and progressive demands for equality. From a libertarian perspective, however, the issue is not primarily about morality, tradition, or even equality, but about the fundamental principles of individual liberty, property rights, and the role of the state. As a libertarian legal theorist, I have consistently argued that the state should have no role in regulating marriage, whether between same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Marriage, at its core, is a private arrangement—a contractual relationship between consenting adults—that should be free from state interference. This article systematically lays out the libertarian case for gay marriage, drawing on the principles of self-ownership, property rights, contract theory, and the rejection of state coercion, as articulated in my previous writings and consistent with the broader libertarian framework presented in my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) and other works.

The libertarian perspective on gay marriage is grounded in the non-aggression principle (NAP), the concept of self-ownership, and the title-transfer theory of contract. These principles lead to the conclusion that individuals should be free to enter into any consensual arrangement, including marriage, without requiring state permission or sanction. Furthermore, the state’s involvement in marriage—through licensing, regulation, or the conferral of special privileges—violates the principles of a free society and creates distortions that undermine individual liberty. This article will explore these ideas, address common objections, and consider the implications of a stateless, private-law approach to marriage.

I. Libertarian Principles and Marriage

A. The Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership

Libertarianism, as I have outlined in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023, ch. 2), is fundamentally about respecting individual rights, which are rooted in the concept of self-ownership. Each person owns their own body and is thus entitled to control it free from aggression—defined as the unconsented use of another’s body or property (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 2, p. 12). The non-aggression principle, a cornerstone of libertarian thought, prohibits the initiation of force against others and implies that individuals should be free to make their own choices, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Marriage, whether between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, is a voluntary association between consenting adults. From a libertarian perspective, there is no justification for prohibiting or restricting such arrangements, as they involve no aggression or violation of anyone’s property rights. Denying gay couples the right to marry—whether by state law or social coercion—would constitute an unjust restriction on their liberty to form consensual relationships. As I wrote in 2009, “If two gay people want to get married, this is a purely voluntary, non-aggressive act, and it is no one’s business but their own” (Kinsella 2009).

B. Marriage as a Contract

In libertarian legal theory, contracts are voluntary agreements that transfer title to property or services between parties (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 9). Marriage, at its essence, is a private contract—an agreement between individuals to share certain aspects of their lives, property, or responsibilities. As I have argued, “marriage is, or ought to be, a private contractual matter” (Kinsella 2006). The state’s role in defining, licensing, or regulating marriage is an unwarranted intrusion into private affairs. Just as individuals can form business partnerships or cohabitation agreements without state approval, they should be free to enter into marriage contracts without needing a state-issued license.

The title-transfer theory of contract, which I have developed based on the work of Murray Rothbard and others (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 9; Kinsella 2024b), holds that contracts are enforceable because they involve the transfer of property titles, either immediately or conditionally. In the context of marriage, the contract might involve mutual promises to share property, provide mutual support, or assume certain obligations. These promises are binding only to the extent that they involve property titles or consensual arrangements, and they do not require state sanction to be valid. Thus, gay marriage, like any marriage, is a legitimate exercise of contractual freedom, and the state has no business dictating who can enter into such agreements.

C. The State’s Role in Marriage

The state’s involvement in marriage—through licensing, tax benefits, or legal privileges—distorts the natural, decentralized process of contract formation and undermines individual liberty. As I noted in 2006, “The state has insinuated itself into the institution of marriage, just as it has corrupted other institutions like money, property, and law itself” (Kinsella 2006). Marriage licenses, historically, were a tool of state control, often used to enforce racial or social restrictions (e.g., anti-miscegenation laws) or to regulate family structures. By requiring a license, the state effectively claims authority over a private relationship, which is antithetical to libertarian principles.

Moreover, the state’s conferral of special privileges—such as tax breaks, inheritance rights, or hospital visitation rights—creates a system of artificial incentives and penalties that distorts individual choices. In a free society, such benefits would be determined by private contracts or institutional arrangements, not by state fiat. For example, hospitals could establish their own visitation policies, and individuals could designate beneficiaries through wills or trusts, without needing state-defined “marriage” status (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 23, p. 643).

II. The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage

A. Freedom of Association and Non-Discrimination

From a libertarian perspective, the case for gay marriage is straightforward: individuals have the right to associate freely with others and to form consensual relationships, including marriage. Prohibiting gay marriage violates this fundamental right by imposing state coercion on private relationships. As I wrote in 2004, “The state has no business telling people who they may or may not marry” (Kinsella 2004). Whether the state bans gay marriage outright or refuses to recognize it, such actions constitute aggression against the self-ownership and contractual freedom of the individuals involved.

Some critics argue that allowing gay marriage infringes on the rights of those who oppose it, particularly on religious grounds. However, this objection misunderstands the libertarian position. Recognizing gay marriage does not compel anyone to participate in or approve of such unions. As I noted in 2009, “No one is forced to perform or attend gay weddings, just as no one is forced to marry someone of a different race” (Kinsella 2009). The libertarian case for gay marriage is about removing state barriers to consensual relationships, not about imposing new obligations on others.

B. The Illegitimacy of State Marriage Laws

State marriage laws, whether they prohibit or permit gay marriage, are inherently problematic from a libertarian perspective because they rely on the state’s coercive authority. As I argued in 2010, “The state should simply get out of the marriage business altogether” (Kinsella 2010a). When the state defines marriage—whether as a union between one man and one woman or as inclusive of same-sex couples—it asserts control over a private institution, which violates the principle of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

The 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, was celebrated by many as a victory for equality. However, from a libertarian perspective, this decision was a mixed bag. While it removed state prohibitions on gay marriage, it reinforced the state’s role as the arbiter of marriage by mandating that all states recognize same-sex unions. A truly libertarian solution would have been to abolish state marriage licensing entirely, allowing individuals to define their relationships through private contracts (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 23, p. 643).

C. Property Rights and Marriage

Marriage often involves the sharing or transfer of property, such as joint ownership of assets or mutual financial support. In a libertarian framework, these arrangements are governed by the principles of original appropriation, contractual title transfer, and rectification (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 2, pp. 14-15). Gay couples, like any other individuals, have the right to enter into contracts that allocate property or obligations as they see fit. The state’s refusal to recognize such contracts—or its imposition of additional requirements, such as a marriage license—interferes with the free exercise of property rights.

For example, in the absence of state marriage laws, gay couples could use private contracts to establish joint ownership of property, designate inheritance rights, or specify mutual obligations. These contracts would be enforceable in a decentralized legal system, such as the private courts or arbitration systems envisioned in anarcho-capitalist theory (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 3, pp. 39-42). The state’s role in granting special privileges to married couples, such as tax benefits or automatic inheritance rights, creates an artificial hierarchy that favors state-sanctioned relationships over others, which is incompatible with libertarian principles.

III. Addressing Objections

A. Religious and Moral Objections

One common objection to gay marriage is that it violates religious or moral norms. From a libertarian perspective, however, moral or religious beliefs do not justify state coercion. As I have written, “Libertarians are not necessarily in favor of gay marriage qua marriage; they are in favor of the state getting out of the business of telling people who they can marry” (Kinsella 2006). Individuals and religious institutions are free to define marriage according to their own beliefs, but they have no right to impose those beliefs on others through state power.

For example, a church may refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages, just as it may refuse to perform interfaith or interracial marriages. This is a legitimate exercise of freedom of association and property rights. However, using the state to enforce a particular definition of marriage—whether traditional or progressive—violates the rights of others to define their relationships freely.

B. The “Slippery Slope” Argument

Another objection is the “slippery slope” argument: that allowing gay marriage opens the door to other forms of marriage, such as polygamy or even more unconventional arrangements. From a libertarian perspective, this is not a problem. As long as the relationships are consensual and do not involve aggression, individuals should be free to form any type of marital arrangement they choose, whether monogamous, polygamous, or otherwise. As I noted in 2009, “If three or more people want to enter into a polyamorous relationship, that’s their business, provided no one’s rights are violated” (Kinsella 2009).

The slippery slope argument assumes that the state should have the authority to regulate marriage to prevent certain outcomes. Libertarians reject this premise, arguing that the state’s role is to protect individual rights, not to enforce social norms or prevent hypothetical harms.

C. Constitutional and Legal Arguments

Some argue that gay marriage is a constitutional right, as suggested by the Obergefell decision, which relied on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. However, as I have argued, “The Constitution is not a libertarian document” (Kinsella 2010b). While the Obergefell decision may have achieved a desirable outcome by removing state bans on gay marriage, it did so through an expansion of federal power, which libertarians view skeptically. The Constitution’s role is to limit government power, not to grant positive rights or mandate specific social policies (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 21, pp. 551-583).

A libertarian approach would not rely on constitutional arguments but on the principle that the state has no legitimate authority to regulate marriage in the first place. The question of whether gay marriage is a “constitutional right” is irrelevant if the state’s role in marriage is illegitimate to begin with.

IV. Marriage in a Stateless Society

In a stateless, anarcho-capitalist society, marriage would be entirely a matter of private contract, free from state interference. As I have argued, “In a free society, marriage would be handled by private institutions—churches, private registries, or other organizations—without the need for state licenses” (Kinsella 2010a). Individuals could define the terms of their marriage through contracts, specifying property rights, mutual obligations, or other arrangements. Disputes would be resolved through private arbitration or courts, based on the principles of self-ownership and property rights (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 13, pp. 293-351).

In such a society, the distinction between gay and straight marriage would be irrelevant, as the state would not be in the business of defining or recognizing marriage. Couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, could form relationships according to their own preferences, and private institutions could choose whether to recognize or solemnize those relationships. This decentralized approach would maximize individual freedom and allow for a diversity of arrangements, reflecting the varied preferences and values of a free society.

V. Practical Implications and Historical Context

The libertarian case for gay marriage is not about endorsing any particular lifestyle but about defending the right of individuals to live as they choose, free from state coercion. Historically, libertarians have been early supporters of gay rights, including marriage, because of their commitment to individual liberty. For example, Wendy McElroy and David Peron, as noted in my 2009 post, were vocal advocates for gay marriage from a libertarian perspective, emphasizing the importance of freedom of association and contract (Kinsella 2009).

The state’s involvement in marriage has often been a tool of oppression, as seen in anti-miscegenation laws or restrictions on gay marriage. By removing the state from the equation, libertarians aim to create a society where all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, can form relationships on their own terms. This aligns with the broader libertarian project of dismantling state monopolies and restoring decentralized, voluntary institutions (Kinsella 2023a, ch. 3, pp. 39-42).

VI. Conclusion

The libertarian case for gay marriage rests on the principles of self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, and the title-transfer theory of contract. Individuals have the right to form consensual relationships, including marriage, without state interference. The state’s role in licensing, regulating, or defining marriage—whether to prohibit or mandate gay marriage—violates these principles and undermines individual liberty. In a free society, marriage would be a private contractual matter, governed by the preferences of the individuals involved and enforced through decentralized legal systems.

The debate over gay marriage highlights the broader problem of state involvement in private life. By advocating for the complete separation of marriage and state, libertarians offer a consistent and principled solution that respects the rights of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation. As I have argued, “The libertarian position is not about promoting gay marriage but about promoting freedom” (Kinsella 2006). This freedom includes the right to marry, to form contracts, and to live one’s life without the coercive hand of the state.