Posted on 06/26/2013 12:54:49 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
The Libertarian Party applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that discriminates against non-heterosexual marriages.
The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971.
(Excerpt) Read more at lp.org ...
“Christian”??? You think only Christians aren’t on the homo agenda bandwagon?
But, as I read this bizarre opinion, Texas (or PA, or any number of other States with MUST ISSUE) might be able to force nationwide compliance with MUST ISSUE by allowing you to marry (or legally adopt) your guns.
Why not?
There is no slippery slope here: Once you allow homosexuals to marry, you are already all the way down the slope.
Reynolds vs the United States explains why Marriage doesn’t fall into this bin.
Reynolds argues that the marriage definition in the united states dates to the colonial period prior to the constitution. the definition - then as now, was one man and one woman, and most importantly, that the federal government had the authority in their jurisdiction to defend the definition of marriage.
They, like with Habeaus Corpus and Trial by Jury do not have the ability to change what these terms mean. But they do have an obligation to protect them within their jurisdiction.
This is why states like Utah could not pass polygamy laws. and the same ruling shuts down MA and all the other sodomite states. It also bars changing the definition.
Read the case.
WELL SAID!
Thank you.
Marriage has been legally recognized for millenia. You want history overturned, apparently. As well as natural law and common sense.
If someone doesn’t agree with the LP platform in several particulars, they should call themselves something other than “libertarian”. The LP is pro open borders, abortion, the homo agenda, no holds barred porn, all drugs and prostitution legalized. If someone does NOT agree with those, why call yourself libertarian?
Make a new descriptive name. Or admit you agree with their platform and be honest about it.
There is a fine line between being a libertarian and being a libertine.
The "term" you are looking for is "Conservatarian" and as Jeff Foxworthy sez, "I 'R' one...!"
Make a new descriptive name....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see a lot of social libs calling themselves Constitutionalists. As if the Framers would identify with these crackpots today.
I don’t care what a (L)lib calls themselves actually. As long as they don’t call themselves a conservative.
fools live to regret the folly they sow
A conservative doesn’t wnat open borders, abortion or the homo agenda. So...?
THere is no line between being a libertarian and being a libertine, if a libertarian agrees with the Libertarian Party.
But many so-called Conservatives on this sight will look the other way when "their side" tramples all over the Constitution and violates their oath.
A Conservatarian believes it is not the Governments place to tell us how to live it is the governments place to protect and defend the Constitution. "We the People" can handle the rest via 'Non-Federal" means...
The Fed-Gov has no business sticking its nose into marriage in ANY SHAPE OR FORM INCLUDING MARITAL STATUS FOR TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY!
Yet many Conservatives on this site applauded DOMA!
When you give the government power over something you are bound to get screwed!
I’m (mostly) a Libertarian and I don’t really understand the position they’re taking here. From the viewpoint of limiting government involvement in peoples’ lives, doesn’t this decision just mean gays will have to go to Mother Government and ask for a license to get married now the same way straights do? Shouldn’t the idea be to get the federal government *out* of marriage and give it back to the churches where it belongs?
I’m may not be religious personally, but I know that a vow made before God is infinitely more important than an approving piece of government stationary.
For that reason I’ve never understood why *gays* want gay marriage. A piece of paper is meaningless. The legal commitments can all be done without the government stamp of approval.
“they hold that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals”
We have individual and not collective rights. Homosexual men as individuals are not barred from marrying women. This is terrible reasoning. Doesn’t matter what SCOTUS comes down and says about discrimination - there is no ‘right to be married to the partner of your choosing’.
You’re correct here. If you can be discriminated against, I can’t see how the regulations surrounding polygamy or incest can be restricted.
Libertarians will probably have more of their stinking meth parties to celebrate the ignorant decision resulting from their notorious dishonesty and bureaucratic grasp on the pile of debt used for sponsoring it.
With all due respect FredZarguna, the federal government has no constituional authority to amend the Constitution. Only the Article V majority of states can ratify an amendment to the Constitution to do what you mentioned.
Well, you certainly are living up to your screen name.
MD: A Conservative wants the people who take the oath of office to actually mean it.
lj: Yes indeed.
MD: But many so-called Conservatives on this sight will look the other way when “their side” tramples all over the Constitution and violates their oath.
lj: Am I to understand that not legalizing two men marrying each other tramples over the Constitution?
MD: A Conservatarian believes it is not the Governments place to tell us how to live it is the governments place to protect and defend the Constitution. “We the People” can handle the rest via ‘Non-Federal” means...
lj: By “How to live” I assume you mean “Keep sodomy legal”? And how about states making laws about, for instance, sodomy, since the issue at hand is sodomy?
MD: The Fed-Gov has no business sticking its nose into marriage in ANY SHAPE OR FORM INCLUDING MARITAL STATUS FOR TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY!
lj: Ahem, if the homosexual perverts wouldn’t shove same sex “marriage” constantly every which way they can, this woulde never have been an issue. And marital status has been recognized as a legal state for millenia, you want that overturned after countless millenia? Apparently you do.
MD: Yet many Conservatives on this site applauded DOMA!
lj: That was merely to protect the natural family - IOW a husband and wife being “married” - from the onslaughts of homosexuals. I guess you have a problem with that and would prefer, apparently, to allow homosexuals to destroy the very definition and meaning of marriage and family. Okay, I guess I understand you.
MD: When you give the government power over something you are bound to get screwed!
lj: The defininition of “marriage” has been the saem since the beginning of time. I guess you don’t like that definition. Since you are angry that people are upset that the homosexuals want to change it to mean “any two people of the same sex who want to share sodomy can be called married. This is about the power of homosexuals and their leftist brethren, not hte power of government per se. That is another topic although related. We are being governed by a few freaks in black robes at this point.
There is no difference, conservatives are conservative, and libertarians oppose conservatism on social issues.
The Idiot Party.
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.