The REAL gay marriage issue
Posted by LeoRizzuti 11 years, 3 months ago to Culture
Libertarians need to clarify their stance on gay marriage to be more consistent with their other stances. It is not that Libertarians should be for government sanctioning of gay marriage, but that government should have no say so in who marries whom. It is a private contract between two individuals and should be seen as such. Of course, if you go back to the militant gay marriage proponents with that they will not support it, because to them it is not really about being free to marry whomever you would like, but to be able to derive government benefits from your relationship. Not a Libertarian ideal at all.
I support the idea of homosexual people (or any other people for that matter) being free to marry whomever they want. Why should I care as long as their choices do not affect me? But that is the whole point, it should NOT AFFECT ME. Marriage should not be an avenue to gaining more government benefits, or else it becomes something that the taxpayers should have a voice in. If you truly want the freedom to marry whomever you want, then fight to get the government out if the whole thing. Otherwise you appear to simply be looking for another way to suck on the government teat.
I support the idea of homosexual people (or any other people for that matter) being free to marry whomever they want. Why should I care as long as their choices do not affect me? But that is the whole point, it should NOT AFFECT ME. Marriage should not be an avenue to gaining more government benefits, or else it becomes something that the taxpayers should have a voice in. If you truly want the freedom to marry whomever you want, then fight to get the government out if the whole thing. Otherwise you appear to simply be looking for another way to suck on the government teat.
Previous comments...
The other point is that this is a slippery slope… I’ve brought this up many time with many friends and each and every time they disagree and tell me it’s not the same. It is totally the same and we really can’t do anything about it if we toe the libertarian line on the issue. If marriage is legal between same sex couples then we have to allow polygamy; that’s going to through a wrench into the whole works.
The argument that if we allow two men to marry will lead to polygamy is simply fear mongering
The single biggest point I agree with most is that Government should have never been in the business telling people who they can or who they cannot marry but they have been so how do we fix it. It becomes even more difficult when the Government associated wealth with marital status, i.e. tax breaks.
I personally think the solution to this whole mess is to convert everyone’s marriage into a civil union and get the Government out of the business of picking winner and losers. If you want to be married, you go to your church; this wouldn’t prohibit gays from marring as I’m sure some church will do it.
Mitch
that at least rules out some unions
There is no communist conspiracy and saying there is hides the issue. This is 2013. not 1960.
In its original intent the federal government was a republic, with most government officials appointed directly or indirectly by state governments with the one exception being the house of representative.
Even in the case of the house it was not a popular vote (IE representative Democracy), it was a share holders vote, with share defined by property ownership.
These controls and balancing measured would have (if left in place) prevented much of the government grab for power as well as most of the programs that the federal government has usurped from the states or the people.
It is in fact or move toward democracy and from a republic that has led to our fall from freedom to a socialist state, to a welfare state, to a totalitarian state and now towards fascism.
Your two possible conclusions are a false dichotomy based on oversimplification of philosophy and psychology.
Atlas Shrugged is about the role of man's mind in existence, not the difference between capitalism and collectivism. (Collectivism and Capitalism aren't even opposites of each other. They are different topics.)
with the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.
We have also subverted knowledge and eschewed freedoms since our founding. just because time passes doesn't mean evil has loses footing at any given time. people in here are acutely aware of losing freedoms in their lifetime. perhaps you have not experienced a loss of freedom. or maybe you have. watching SCOTUS blatantly ignore the document our country was founded on, that helped create a roaring economy and the most powerful nation in the world in under 130 years, unprecedented in human history, is sobering and for many, a call to arms. (big jim you can come in and fix my punctuation :)) Watching the nation's erosion because courts, scholars, legislators and presidents ignore the Constitution is almost impossible
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.
The meaning of General Welfare changed completely in 1936 (United states verses Butler) but before that case (which opened the floodgates for all kinds of government abuse) the phase was a general statement used much as we would use the citizens today. Prior to the 1936 supreme court decision those words had no more power than to say "Protect the citizens"
Until 1936 that simply meant the government had a responsibility to defend from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, and/or insult. Much better wording would be to protect from the initiation of force, and to retaliate with force on those who initiate it. Liberals would have a much harder time warping the meaning of that to something else as they did by the 1936 supreme court case with our current wording.
When you consider the intent it is not only not wrong, but very right that it is in the constitution.
Fredick Douglas on point 1857:
"It may, however, be asked, if the Constitution were so framed that the rights of all the people were naturally protected by it, how happens it that a large part of the people have been held in slavery ever since its adoption? Have the people mistaken the requirements of their own Constitution?
The answer is ready. The Constitution is one thing, its administration is another, and, in this instance, a very different and opposite thing. I am here to vindicate the law, not the administration of the law. It is the written Constitution, not the unwritten Constitution, that is now before us. If, in the whole range of the Constitution, you can find no warrant for slavery, then we may properly claim it for liberty.
Good and wholesome laws are often found dead on the statute book. We may condemn the practice under them and against them, but never the law itself. To condemn the good law with the wicked practice, is to weaken, not to strengthen our testimony."
Oh, both Ovomit and Hillary Clinton are devout followers of Saul Alinsky. You can do your homework and find out who that piece of crap was.
The commies are EVERYWHERE. Whether you like it or not.
2.looking at a period of history and making an analysis is logical and valid. You may disagree with my analysis, it is logical and beneficial to refer to and interpret historical changes
Ayers is now for capitalism because time passed since he bombed and murdered as a COMMUNIST reactionary? President Obama is not the first President esp. since the civil war to systematically and purposefully orchestrate statism, and not likely the last. your point is that somehow with each new year, our knowledge increases and so therefore indoctrination of socialist/communist ideas less influential? finally, if Ayn Rand were alive today you believe that she would have no opinion about the changes in the US since the 80s?
who are you?? way to come in and insult everyone here except one person and have 0 points to your name. I'd at least like to build a little cred first
I did not know Libertarians were so intolerant of differences of opinion.
For those of you who believe the myth of Evolution: Homosexuality does not promote the survival of the species - in fact just the opposite. Thus, according to nature, Homosexuality is a bad mutation and should not be promoted nor encouraged in the species homo sapien. No homo sexuality among homo sapiens! The Law of Nature clearly tells us that homosexuality is immoral, and, therefore should be considered illegal.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a women. Consequently, the government has a right to control and enforce such a contract as it has the right to control and enforce any contract.
Nevertheless, it is clear that homosexuality is against the Law of God, Romans 1:26-32. To tolerate something that is contrary to the will of God is to invite the wrath of God. The warning signs are in the Law of Nature. The final judgement is in the Law of God. Be Wary
I understand that there are complicating factors when speaking of the "gay community" and marriage, first and foremost a culture that has been rife with promiscuity and violence (which is also rampant in the "heterosexual community", but whatever), and that specific diseases are more abundant there. I do not see a correlation between that fact and it effecting me personally. The black population has a higher instance of sickle cell anemia, should that bar them from marriage?
A little aside for a moment: can we PLEASE get over the separation of Americans into groups? I think someone else said it in another comment, we are ALL Americans. It is the left that wants to split us into little collections, first and foremost because it is then easier to pit us against each other. Don't fall into their trap. Respect for the individual starts with recognition that that person IS an individual, not a unit within a group.
Sorry about that, back to my original statement. I personally hold to the idea that marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. But where did that belief come from? My faith as a Christian (and several thousand years of history). If that is the case, what right do I have to force my articles of faith on you? Even with history on my side (which is an admittedly weak argument, since historically, polygamy was seen as normal in marriages. I assume that you are not in favor of that.) America is a unique situation in comparison to the rest of history. We were established as a beacon of freedom in a world that had none. Those freedoms should extend to marriage for all groups, and the only true way to secure those freedoms is to get the government out of the marriage business. I don't expect my laptop to be a very effective microwave oven, it wasn't designed for that purpose. Stop trying to get the government to do things that it wasn't designed for.
Last thing. To say that government has a "right" to determine who can marry whom is giving a lot of power over my personal decisions to an entity that, frankly, I don't even trust with my mail these days. Government has no "right" to do most of what it does these days, and we need to stop empowering it to have control over us (unless, of course, you enjoy living in a totalitarian state, in which case ROCK ON! Feel free to leave at any time, though.) The whole issue has been approached from the wrong angle, and intentionally so for the reasons stated stated in my original post. To ask the government to step in and state that homosexuality should be "illegal" because it goes against what you believe and what you see as the "laws of nature" is to ultimately say that we are government property, that our actions, whether genetically driven or driven from our free will, are subject to being deemed illegal by a State that has no authority to do so. I am for freeing my fellow man from the bonds of an onerous government, not adding more chains to his burden.
Congratulations, you have people pulling out the "Bible thumper" criticism. You have effectively lost your opportunity to be an example to others (which is how Christ wanted us to teach), and made yourself out to look like a fool. Great marketing of yourself.
1. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that all Truth derives from it.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that all salvation is through Him and Him alone.
3. That the Bible is factually accurate, including from creation onwards,
4. That Christ shall return and that He will reign, and that we shall see those who do not accept salvation destroyed.
5. That you should judge not, lest ye shall be judged,
6. That God created us with free will.
7. That no where in God's Word will you find an instance where I am were admonished to force anyone to believe what I believe.
Please do not take it upon yourself to lecture me, nor decide what I think based upon your narrowness of thought. Fortunately, my faith is strong enough that your words have not been enough to convince me that I am wrong and that people like you encompass the entirety of the Body of Christ. Good luck spreading your seeds into a field that you have made infertile.
Morality lies, ultimately and as always, with the individual.