The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.
Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.
I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.
Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.
Wrong; -- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.
Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective. Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?
Weird rant my boyo.. -- What do you think you've proved?
That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)
Wrong again, as with your other unfounded accusations. You're getting your examples from the characters in Libertarian, rat parties, not from libertarians. The Libertarian party does not contain conservatives, nor is it a place where you'll find many logical thinkers.
Marriage is a word with an ancient definition. Libertarians know damn well that the meaning of words is essential. Just like you're mounting an assault on the meaning of the word libertarian, leftists and other illogal morons are mounting an assault on the meaning of marriage.
"That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)"
Libertarians are not libertines. The Constitution says what it does in plain English. The meaning of words to libertarians is essential, they are rational folks.
In the case of Roe, the SCOTUS made a bogus ruling. The State laws were in fact proper under both the Constitution and under libertarian theory. They were properly enacted laws, that protected the right to life. You obviously missed my previous posts. I explicitly said, that under libertarian theory, the only justification for govm't is to protect life and individual rights. The baby is an individual life. No one else has the right to kill it, including ma.
SCOTUS justified it's action by redefining words. The 4th Amend protects the right to privacy by requiring a specific procedure for searches. The right to privacy does not negate law. Should a proper warrant be issued and evidence for a crime be uncovered, the evidence can be used to prosecute. The fact that the right to privacy existed and was subject to due process violation does not mean that the law was, or could be invalidated.
The SCOTUS redefined the word "privacy", so that it now means "willed behavior", instead of simply "the right to keep matters hidden". They created an open set of behaviors which now can not be restricted by legislation. The first behavior was abortion, the hiring of a professional to kill and dispose of the unborn. Sodomy now acompanies abortion in that set. Hell will freeze over before they add income tax evasion to the set.
The other step they made was to give their own arbitrary definition and conditions for when life begins. That is legislation, which under the Constitution is left to the people, under the 9th and 10th and the States under the 10th and to the feds by Amendment, not to the fed courts. The libertarian recognizes this as plain as day.
The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.
Not true. The Constitution & its Bill of Rights "prohibited" some of the powers of States. [see the 10th]
Unenumerated rights [like marriage] could be reasonably regulated under common law police powers, tempered by the 'Law of the Land', -- IE, - bearing in mind Constitutional protections of individual rights.
Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.
Bull. -- You've simply invented a 'libertarian boogie man'. Get a grip.
I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.
Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.
See the above about State 'police powers'. Reasonable laws can be written in these areas by reasonable people, laws that protect the young without intruding on individual liberty. Trial by jury is essential in enforcing this type of law.
-- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.
Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective.
Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?
You have an exaggerated view of "State powers", inho. -- States were bound by Article VI to support the "Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
Weird rant on marriage my boyo..
-- What do you think you've proved?
That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)
Dream on. I only see your empty rhetoric about tar baby 'libertines'.