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.
I can only go by what I've seen from Libertarians on a few other boards, and by their party platform, which reads to me as an open endorsement of the homosexual agenda's UnConstitutional plan to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation via Judicial fiat.
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.
Maybe libertines are coopting the Libertarian label then?
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.
I agree with what you are saying. Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Roe was the proper Constitutional opinion. Social issues were not ment to be dictated by an all-powerful centralized authority, be it the Judiciary or the Federal Government. Back to the marriage issue however, I've seen libertarians support the judicial redefinition of marriage, despite the fact that it is entirely a usurpation of Constitutional authority. No reading of the Constitution could support SCOTUS inventing a new right to redefine marriage.