Posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:13 AM PDT by presidio9
Two recent developments have returned same-sex marriages to center stage. At one pole lies the conservative effort to steer a Family Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriages, through Congress; and at the other, the implementation of the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health, which requires equal treatment for same-sex marriages.
These two parallel episodes offer powerful evidence of an unhappy wedge between the majoritarian and libertarian wings of conservative legal thought. Generally -- and here the illiberal FMA is a jarring exception -- conservatives insist that most important structural questions in the U.S. should be decided through the democratic political processes, in the separate states. The libertarian wing regards democratic government as an imperfect means in service of the larger end of personal liberty, and thus strongly pushes the guarantees of individual rights to their logical conclusion. Both sides struggle to accommodate the rival impulse: All majoritarians recognize some limitations on government. All libertarians recognize that there are some inherently political decisions that no personal rights can trump. But how to draw the balance?
Conservatives regard the Goodridge decision as unprincipled meddling of the worst sort. After all, current canons of constitutional interpretation require judicial deference to legislation. The courts must uphold any statute, however unwise, as long as a rational basis can be discerned. But after Lawrence v. Texas last year, in which the Supreme Court struck down a longstanding Texas antisodomy law, social conservatives are right to ask why -- if such laws are struck down as unconstitutional -- the prohibitions on same-sex marriages won't be next on its agenda, notwithstanding the Court's own disclaimers on this explosive question.
Constitutional libertarians hold that the state must always put forward some strong justification to limit the freedom of association of ordinary individuals. Those justifications might include stopping pollution and cartels, but they cannot include the offense that the majority takes to practices they regard as contrary to public morals. Their remedy is to refrain from participation in the practices they dislike, not to stop others from doing as they please.
When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No proponent of gay marriage wants to ban traditional marriage, or to burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays. All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of association that are held by other people. Let the state argue that gay marriages are a health risk, and the answer is that anything that encourages monogamy has the opposite effect. Any principled burden of justification for the ban is not met.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I'd be just as irritated if the US govm't, by virtue of chance election of a majority of perverts(dem), or by judicial fiat, changed, or modified the definition of energy to fit their idiot purposes. Perversion of an accurate description of reality is evil, as per, "thou shalt not lie".
I am getting sick and tired of having to accommodate the homosexuals in this country just so they can look at themselves in the mirror. Wanting to bugger your own kind is biology gone awry, and a taste for the abnormal, it's nothing to base policy on. Good grief, am I fed up with the homosexual community's myriad and ever expanding insecurities.
According to the rules of logic, a single exception defeats a universal generalization.
If you wish to explicitly admit that your argument is not based on logic, then of course there will be no further point in pointing out such exceptions.
Why do you suppose the gov't recognizes the institution of marriage at all?
Invalid argument. Military defense is a legitimate function of government. Social engineering is not. Advocacy of government funding for illegitimate functions belongs in the DUmpster, not here.
Social engineering? Who's the one advocating gay marriage here?
We're talking about preserving the ideals of the Judeo-Christian culture that make the freedom you enjoy possible. Already, marriage is in bad shape in this country. The divorce rate is high, children are born out of wedlock, and the nation suffers because of it. Everyone in America knows someone that has suffered because the institution of marriage has been weakened.
Look at countries that relax their laws on marriage. Their divorces increase, as do their illigitimacy rates. It is pushing them to decline and decay. We need to be pushing in the opposite direction, and making marriage more special, and more protected, not cheaper and more frivolous.
I realize that Libertarians don't care, because to them the individual is all, but it's an irresponsible attitude. If we can't defend marriage, then our culture will not remain viable.
Some people who use the word "anarchist" don't seem to know the meaning of it... they usually use it to describe libertarians, thus the confusion as to its use.
Just an observation...
Like Medved actually knows anything about the LP... he just regurgitates anti-third-party talking points.
Well ... the "true" or should I say "pure" libertarian is an anarchist, no? Yes, I do know what an American Libertarian is - I fit closer to that side than to the Republican.
But by today's standards, an anarchist is actually a communist in denial. (Red Ananrchists) They really believe that if they destroy capitalism and freedom, there will be no govt to bother them - boy will they be surprised!
No, because no "pure" libertarian would advocate having NO government at all, which is the nutshell essence of anarchy.
Funny, though, I didn't peg you as fitting closer to that side. Gut reaction. My apologies if they're warranted.
As one of my sig-files goes ....
"Libertarianism without Conservatism is anarchy. Conservatism without Libertarianism is fascism."
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."
-- Thomas Sowell
I'm more of a P.J. O'Rourke fan, but that's a good quote.
Except for Bill Buckley, most of the rest of the grumpy, bluenosed conservatives just don't move my mental muscles.
And I must be an outcast - I wouldn't do Ann Coulter if she had a freshly-baked meatloaf and mashed 'taters on the dinner table.
Yep -- that's what it's called when men with guns take money from Peter to give it to Paul because the government prefers Paul's habits.
You're busted, and might as well fess up.
I am advocating nothing, except that the government remove itself from one of its interferences in society.
Really, there are so many such interferences that to advocate the end of any one of them is about as radical as removing one speck of mud from a pigsty.
This is a rather snotty comment. I'm sure you aren't naive enough to believe that there is only one kind of government. If you meant 'government in a free society' that's what you should have stated. No reason to get your panties in a bunch with me because you failed to be clear.
This is a perfect test case. About a week ago I was suspended for 7 days for saying the precise phrase you just used. I will now alert the moderators and hit the abuse button to see if there is any consistency in policy at free Republic.
Just for the record, before I made that innocent comment, I was personally attacked and called a racist and a mysoginist. I am neither. The poster who called me those names was allowed to move along with no sanction whatsoever. This should be interesting, but I'm not expecting much so I wouldn't worry about getting banned or suspended.
I guess it's ok to say that, depending on who you are. Go figure.
I thought politically incorrect speech was a good thing...
It helps to have certain attitudes and favor certain politicians if you want to have free reign to violate posting guidelines while banishing your foes.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.