Posted on 08/07/2004 5:15:32 PM PDT by ru4liberty
C-Span1
Here's a free clue from another Libertarian. Marriage, like other socioreligious customs, is for culture and religion to decide, not government. The more we let governent mess with marriage, the more it moves from being a "shared value" to a set of rules invented by bureaucrats.
You mean the pro-life girl who was otherwise sympathetic to the libertarian ideology? I'm very confident that there is a very long line.
Stossel was great. He ought to run for national office.
Isn't same-sex marriage a construct of LIBERALism?
I wish the FF's had addressed this when they wrote the Constitution... then we wouldn't have to deal with it now.
My state, Missouri, just passed a proposal to define marriage in our state constitution.
The liberals demanded that it be on the primary ballot, not the general; their reasoning was that it was unfair to get more voters to the general with this proposal.
What they REALLY wanted was what they got: They knew it would pass, and now we'll be subjected to three months of "Oh, look at those backwards Missouri hillbillies, telling us how to run our marriages!"
I'm predicting it's started somewhere already.
I think that's oversimplifying, but there are elements in common. It certainly involves hijacking the state to exert social change.
I wish the FF's had addressed this when they wrote the Constitution... then we wouldn't have to deal with it now.
I think there are things that should never be addressed by the government. They addressed the issue of religion by leaving it out. That wasn't an accident.
I don't mind Wiccans marrying pigeons, as long as my stamp of approval isn't lodged on file in the county seat in the form of a civic certificate.
The statists who will to enforce their unshared morals through the power of government, with their attempt to erradicate the values that established a need for marriage in the first place, are the real threat. If the Founding Fathers didn't address it it was because no mere Constitution can withstand such a threat.
Saw it. He was great.
You have a point(s). I'll have to digest this for a bit. Thanks.
They did. It's called natural law, or the 'law of Nature and nature's God' in the Declaration of Independence.
Homosexuality is against the laws of nature.
You would think with such a high rate of death from doing well, unnatural things they would have figured that out.
Ahh, but married, man'n'woman couples can do some of those,
well, unnatural things too, y'know...
Sorry, had to point that out.
On another note... I talked to a divorce attorney about gay marriage, and he's against it... because he's got enough of a caseload with heterosexual divorces. You'd think a lawyer would salivate at the prospect of more work.
Read the DEATH OF COMMON SENSE by Philip K Howard. If you are as old as I am you will remember when most lived by the law of Common Sense. Long since shattered by rules and regulations of the myriad agencies in the Federal Government!! The unintended consequences of LIBERALISM and the do gooders of America.
If private sexual activity is deemed personal, then why have government involved in sanctifying a religious act. I don't care if you're a polygamous Morman, Muslim or any other. As long as both partners are free to make the decision and of age...
And no welfare state is involved.
DK
Some people just don't get it, do they?
Thanks for applying some of the Golden Nectar of Knowledge to this wound, DK.
You know I have my flame retardant pants on...right?
DK
Besides, I'm not a libertarian (maybe), just don't like the stupid stuff.
Thanks!
Didn't know why the teratogen stuff happened, but it makes sense. I'm sure you heard of what happened in Brazil. Thalidomide made a comeback. Drs. would prescribe it to post menopausal women (rich), and they would either give it or their help would steal it. Thalidomide babies are back in Brazil.
DK
Dude, I wasn't flaming you. We're maybe not on the same page, but we're on the same library shelf.
And NOBODY should like the stupid stuff. Unfortunately, we have an entire city full of nimrods who think it's their mission to care for us, cradle-to-grave.
Yours was not even close to a flame, we agree on this I believe. Getting involved in someone's sex lives when you are not invited, makes you a crashing boor, or worse.
But if people are being so rude and obnoxious that it bothers the horses...
It's the welfare state that is the root of why I can't be libertarian in nature.
Most of the libertarian ideals cannot be attempted without massively reforming our "Safety" nets. Just like Europe, we are becoming civilized at the price of our liberty. And its being done just like the frog in the pot. He would not stand to be put in a hot pot, but if the pot was nice, and then heated up slowly...
Just like us and freedoms.
DK
Historically, government's involvement in marriage has been largely economic: politicians bribe us by handing out tax breaks and other economic perks to married people. I think this is the primary reason for this sudden interest in gay marriage.
Instead of vainly trying to control who gets married, government should concentrate on unraveling its economic involvement in marriage. For the religious out there, this will set your faith free.
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.