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

To: ghostmonkey
You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.

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'.

207 posted on 05/04/2006 4:45:04 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
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.

No reading of the Constitution can be logically sustained that invents a new right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by judicial fiat.

Bull. -- You've simply invented a 'libertarian boogie man'. Get a grip.

I've seen libertarians on other boards do this. The LP platform does it as well. It's not a "boogie man".

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.

Since 18 is your limit, let's say that a State wanted to make any sexual act committed by or with someone under the age of 18 a crime. Is that permissable?

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. --"

Nothing in article VI creates a right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by fiat.

Dream on. I only see your empty rhetoric about tar baby 'libertines'.

Read the LP platform.

211 posted on 05/04/2006 5:09:39 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | 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