Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12
Yes and if they follow the logic on their rule 1.3 government would be out of the marriage business not granting it to more

this goest to the lefts concept of postive and negtive right..

The libertarian position rule 1.3 is a classic libertarian negative right statement, government keep it nose out of this thing.

But Marriage is bit of positive right, the government gives you something, they license you and you get some privilege with that license

A libertarian should be for shrinking or eliminating a so called positive right not expanding a government positive right grant of privilege

35 posted on 01/21/2014 9:59:44 PM PST by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: tophat9000

You aren’t going to end legal marriage in America, so why waste time talking about it in our time of crisis when we need to fight a political battle to preserve America?

In 1790-1890-1990- you could always have whatever kind of “marriage” you wanted with your partner, but to be legal, it had to conform to law.

In 1780 and 1794, and 1798, etc, when the feds were passing federal law on marriage benefits, they had to recognize your marriage as legal, it couldn’t just be whatever you wanted it to be.

Actually it could be, but it wasn’t legal.

If you don’t care if your marriage is recognized by government and the courts and law, then do what you want.


51 posted on 01/21/2014 10:43:26 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson