That is my stand -- #NeverHillary #NeverTrump. You do what you want.

Re: "A true objectivist would suggest that instead of including homosexual couples in the special circumstances created by the law those laws would be eliminated."
I agree, and I have stated so elsewhere on this thread. You didn't suggest that in your previous post, so I had no way of knowing your position on the issue. My position is that until such special circumstances are eliminated, they should be available to all couples.

Re: "My point wasn't to engage in an argument "
Your post was in response to my post, and since this is a forum for discussion and debate, I assumed you wished to participate in the online conversation and were open to responses.

My point wasn't to engage in an argument it was to illustrate the thinking behind the creation of the laws that benefit married couples and by extension their families. When the laws were written they weren't meant to be exclusionary to homosexual couples since there wasn't a mechanism for them to get married neither civil nor religious and since same sex couples can't biologically reproduce there would be no point of promoting same sex marriage. A true objectivist would suggest that instead of including homosexual couples in the special circumstances created by the law those laws would be eliminated therefore everyone would be equal under the law and married couples homosexual or not would be subjected to the consequences or benefits of their economic realities based on the results of their decisions just like single people.

Does extending these “special circumstances” to gay couples make society any less stable? Does extending these “special circumstances” to gay couples interfere with promoting “a stable economically beneficial climate in which to raise a family”? Remember, we’re talking about legal privileges such as tax status, inheritance, spousal social security benefits, immunity from testimony against a spouse, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, and decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated. How does it “benefit society” to give these privileges to traditional couples while denying them to gay couples?

The special circumstances created by marriage law recognized that the family is the foundation of a stable society and were designed to promote support a stable economically beneficial climate in which to raise a family.

Re: “Before one may argue discrimination, one MUST prove equality of circumstance.”

Must one really? I’m finding very little in Constitutional law or case law that relates to this phrase. The little that I have found is mostly concerned with racial issues such as affirmative action. Ideologically, the phrase typically is used in support of socialism and the welfare state.

In all the legal cases I have been able to find that deal with this issue, there was a direct relationship between the laws in question and the circumstances alleged to be unequal. In addition, the validity of such laws hinged on whether they mitigated the inequality or created and maintained it. In the case of school segregation, the issue was equal access to education, and the segregation laws created the inequality that denied equal access to African-Americans. In the case of affirmative action, the law was defended as an effort to mitigate the inequality of circumstance allegedly created by past discrimination. One may agree or disagree with affirmative action (I disagree with it), but there was a tight connection between the affirmative action laws themselves and the inequalities of circumstance they were designed to rectify.

This connection is totally missing in the marriage laws of Kentucky and several other states. In multiple ways, the issuance of marriage licenses by these states confers a privileged legal status on married couples in areas that have nothing to do with anatomy, sexual orientation, personal commitment or any of the other issues you bring up. As I pointed out earlier, these include tax status, inheritance, spousal social security benefits, immunity from testimony against a spouse, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, and decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated.

The following quotation is on point:

“The law is plainly part of people’s circumstances, and circumstances are plainly unequal when the law forbids some to lead the lives they think best for them only because others disagree.” – Equal Freedom, edited by Stephan Darwall, University of Michigan Press, 1995.

If marriage licenses did not fundamentally alter the legal status of married couples, it would be relatively trivial whether or not gay couples had access to them. However, in today’s legal, social and cultural environment, the ability to obtain such a license is a vital means of securing their equality of circumstance.

You shouldn't sign a pledge if you aren't going to follow through on it, just saying.

I really wish the Libertarian was stronger.

And what is the excuse for Hillary??? maybe being married to a world famous political star who is famous for even more than his adultery, or maybe the highly suspect crooked Clinton foundation with uncounted millions of foreign donations or maybe it is her girlish charm and mellifluous speaking voice. If the sloths in charge? of the Republicans hadn't been such cocky jerks, they may have had a different candidate.... As of now Trump has trumped...get used to it. Vote for Hillary if it makes you all moist with revenge satisfying but quit the infantile hate crying, it's time to take a stand.

His fame did. People are fools for fame. He is a liberal, NY Democrat, and he does NOT belong on the Republican ticket.

Olduglycarl...That's my point...don't just drop out and not be counted. If you know of a candidate you prefer,,rock on.. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is ugly. Trump has trumped much more so far this year than has the queen..she has overcame no obstacles from any group except the F B I,

As I stated above, to the Constitutionalists, next time pay attention. Trump not only defeated his democrat opposition but also the Republican naysayers. I would doubt that Hillary defeated any opposition to win the nod..Sanders was a put up shill, crash test dummy to avoid the appearance of too much confidence by running no opposition to the queen. It's possible most voters missed how much Trump has trumped so far...his money did not buy this as opposed to the highly suspect Clinton foundation.Trump or Obama #3...take a stand..fight back.

Most anyone here could run...provided we were good little boys and girls when we were little boys and girls. I will not vote for evil any more, regardless of the degree. I'll vote Johnson.
It's likely neither T or H will get to 270 unless one cheats better than the other.

That last point is just silly, Rand told him, the vote would not go. The best of the best tried and failed to find anything there. And I read His wifes commentary in opposition to those that want to rule the world for themselves.
As for arm twisting...not a fan of that kind of politics. That's how we got into this mess...mob tactics. That's what marxist do.

Yes and no. The "elite" supported the "establishment." But Trump was a "star" of sorts, so the media picked on him, as did some of the people. He was well known. And, then the Democrats helped him get in by voting for him in the "open" primaries. The "elite" hate Cruz and did not want him to win. They know he will spoil their game against the people. They would rather have seen Trump win than Cruz. Now We the People have a mess and no good choices. Shame on us for not supporting the only strong Constitutionalist.

I tried, but couldn't...the only bright light is Pence but that probably won't be enough...being a liberal all his life, I don't think his progressive tendencies, his tyrannical tendencies will give way to the constitution.
Like I said, he chooses the worst of friends and confidants...most, the very people most of us want to see go and would never do business with. It just doesn't feel right, and I try and listen to my gut feelings. (not emotions).
No convincing ah ha moment to speak of an awakening on his part, no humility, no self inspection.
If I had to guess, and it's just a guess, he is more self interested in global contacts than about saving the republic.

I'm not even that impressed with Johnson.
The only promising but in all probability not, is hiltery goes to jail.

bsudell... you are right, but, no one is forcing anyone down your throat. The reason Trump ended up as the Republican candidate is because the "Elite" spent all their time ignoring him while they tried to block him but did not positively endorse or help any of the others. There were some good candidates on that debate stage and all the "Wise men" in their stupidity and disdain of America, said, "He can never make it" at least 5000 times.
The GOP Shot themselves and all of us in the feet with their arrogance. Hillary and Obama won't beat us...we gave up the fight ourselves.

Next time, if ever, pay attention.

Olduglycarl.... I will eagerly vote for such a person if you give me his.her name . Otherwise, I stand by my lesser-of 2 evils method. I refuse to Not Vote..
If the idiots see there are 150 million voters? out there and not just 50 million, they will be more afraid of being watched and exposed.

All the WRONG crap...never created value or solved a real problem in his life...he and palosive are the dumbest of all the parasitical humanoids in the kakistocracy. Most are just plain retarded.

The alternative is a Conscious Human Being with an integrated mind...for a change.

Disagree. We have to stand AGAINST the GOP, who are forcing these idiots down our throat. Let them know that we will NOT vote for them. Trump was NEVER a Republican. Just because he switched parties and said he's a Republican (or believes in the Republican principles) does not mean that he is. He's a liberal, NY Democrat. I will NOT vote for that. If you want to vote Democrat, go ahead. Your choice. But, I will let the GOP know that we want Constitutionalists. I will write in Ted Cruz, the only Reagan-like candidate, the only Constitutionalist. That is who I believe in.

You simply got him wrong, you haven't watched in the past year or so or your listening to the wrong people.
If your worried about the demoncraps and partisanship then you are refusing to acknowledge the problem of how we got here and how it has effected republicans..ie, big government establishment and fear of telling it like it is.
Progressiveism, socialism, communism and establishmentism is the problem, failing to go by the constitution is the problem, having the ethical and moral guts to address the problems they created is the problem.

bsudell... And just what is the alternative??? more Obama P C B S??? It's time to make some stand other than suicide, America is stronger than what has been on display for the last 8 years of bad government,,,the alleged "Leaders" have failed miserably except for showing how not to do it..I I think Trump is a better gamble than Clinton because he has the nerve to defy the entrenched, corrupt incompetent bureaucrats who do nothing but force their distorted vengeful hatred of America through P C nonsense and anti American anger,. The worst Trump could do would be to get has immature ass impeached and there will be plenty trying to do that.. He has a far better success story than Clinton who has been hiding in her husband's shadow for all their life together. She would be some forgotten, disagreeable shrew hiding in some political staff job in some obscure department of Malcontent if she hadn't been sharp enough to marry Bill. God bless Bill for taking her off our hands.