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.
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.
Irrational reply, since no one is inventing "a new right".
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 boogy 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".
Your anecdotes and the 'platform' add up to nothing in actual "force" being applied. Get real.
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.
. 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?
"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.
-- 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. --"
Nothing in article VI creates a right to impose a mockery of marriage on the entire nation by fiat.
Nothing in my comment said it did.
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'.
Read the LP platform.
Get lost till you come up with some new lines.
Retreating to ad hominem (a trademark of you I hear) will not help you. There is no irrational reply, because someone is inventing a new "right". The new "right" is redefinition of marriage. A "right" that does not exist in the Constitution.
"Any" act? -- Due process of law does not allow fiat criminalization [prohibitions] to be written & enforced. -- Governments simply lack the dictatorial power to prohibit non-violent acts under our constitutional system.
Your talking in circles now. You pulled out the "consenting adults" line. When called on that, you set 18 as the limit. Now, when pressed, you want to invent more restrictions. If what other libertarians on this thread are telling me is true, then perhaps you are one of the libertines that has co-opted the libertarian label??
Nothing in my comment said it did.
Well then, I'm not sure exactly what your comment was in response to.
Get lost till you come up with some new lines.
Sorry bud, I ain't goin nowhere. Read the LP platform. It clearly supports the Homosexual Agenda's attempt to usurp the Constitution.