Posted on 02/05/2013 5:29:33 PM PST by fractionated
The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Britain, indicating that the bill is assured of passage as it moves through further legislative stages....
After a six-hour debate, the Commons vote was 400 to 175 for the bill. It will have to pass in the House of Lords, where delaying tactics by opponents are possible, but Mr. Cameron has said that he plans to have the bill enacted into law sometime this summer.....
A day after the newly confirmed archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, took office saying that he shared the Church of England’s opposition to same-sex marriage, three cabinet officials said in a letter published in The Daily Telegraph that the new legislation was “the right thing to do at the right time.”
“Marriage has evolved over time,” the letter said. “We believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution.”
The three ministers — George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Home Secretary Theresa May — also asked whether it was “any longer acceptable to exclude people from marriage simply because they love someone of the same sex.”
Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, had said on Monday that he would urge his 255 legislators in the 649-member body to vote with him.
“I’ll be voting for equal marriage for a very simple reason: I don’t think that the person you love should determine the rights you have,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It seems to me the institution and society can benefit with the state’s involvement, or they can be harmed.
Either way, how does one keep many from being conditioned that the state defines marriage in the first place? To the state, marriage is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks it is. If it recognizes the instititution, it needs a definition, and how else does it come up with one, at least in the modern era? I mean I think that’s why so many have accepted ‘gay marriage’, it was possible for the state to approve it, so it must be possible.
On the good side, you make a good point about the children, in my opinion. The other side would say ‘but old folks get marrried and there is adoption and surrogates or whatever.’ Which I think isn’t a very good argument considering that if the state did what it was supposed to do many would benefit, the fringe cases don’t impede that. In a perfect world.
On the bad side, if the state is involved, how do you stop from being punished when you disagree with whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time? They need a way to punish those who will never buy into it, and the state is that stick. That’s why supporting ‘gay marriage’ is so stupid for the big party libertarians: statists and homosexualists punishing those who will never agree with them as concerns marriage with the power of the state is what the ‘gay marriage’ debate is all about, something they say they are against generally.
Freegards
Pedophiles are next on that slippery slope
If America is becoming more libertarian, shouldn’t we see a movement towards more limited government? Or are you just grinding your funny little axe again?
pedo’s are next
moral decay is NOT evolution
There is absolutely no argument against the fact that America is becoming more libertarian, some parts of the libertarian agenda are easier to attain than other parts, unfortunately, the easier parts, those that they share with their leftist brothers, are the easiest to attain, and they make conservative economics impossible, that is the lie behind libertarianism.
Look at libertarians desire for totally open borders and banning the Border patrol and the INS, they argue that if you end all the social programs, then their open borders agenda makes total sense.
Which half of the libertarian immigration agenda is most likely to succeed, and which half will NEVER happen?
Rinse and repeat for homosexualizing the military and gay marriage, polygamy, even more abortion “rights”, even more of the homosexual agenda, even elimination or lowering of consent laws. etc. etc. etc.
Sure, libertarians are on the front lines, defending pedophilia.
It seems the statists equate small govt with pedophilia, homosexuality, polygamy, etc. etc. etc.
The reality is that libertarianism has an agenda, and that agenda has advanced incredibly over the last 50 years.
Libertarians are an incredibly dishonest bunch and will lie about most of what they stand for and fight for, and believe in, in an effort to always shape their cultish arguments for whichever audience they are speaking to.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Yes. They certainly will be.
Too sadly true.
True libertarians support pedophilia, but they would change the name and just call it liberty, and explain that the people who created the nation were for it.
“Libertarian purists, however, don’t plan to be locked in the attic like a crazy aunt. Case in point: last month’s child-porn-gate.
The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.”
bump
Even a forum I was a part of was full of liberturdians wanting it to be “decriminalized”.
But its happening, slowly, because of the media, Hollyweird and government schools.
No longer ‘Great’ is Britain.
Libertarians do not reject conservatism because we disagree about economics.
Your assertions about ‘True libertarians’ are irresponsible, reckless, and defamatory.
I reject libertarianism because it is utopian and unrealistic
Get real, huge swaths of the libertarian agenda has come to be, I never said anything about all of it.
All of it CAN’T pass, because it is childish, contradictory nonsense, open borders, drugs, the homosexual agenda, porn and the collapse of society brings in and creates MORE anti-conservative voters, not fewer, so conservatism loses ground while the hard left portions of libertarianism advance like a raging river.
I’m not cherry picking anything, I am pointing out where libertarians succeed.
Maybe, but it’s not the enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.