Judicial activism is used to INCREASE the power, scope and authority of government. Strking down laws that keep improper power in the hands of government is NOT judicial ACTIVISM. It is the judiciary doing its proper job. ANYTHING which decreases the size and scope of goernment at all levels is jake with me. EVEN IF it decriminalizes a behavior of which I might disapprove. Because at THAT point, it becomes the business of SOCIETY to express disapproval, as distinct from government. SHUNNING is a common method.
Also bear in mind that neither you, I, nor anyone else has ANY right to be, or even a reasonable expectation of being, free from offensive or distasteful sights, sounds or behavior. Thus it behooves us to develop a thick skin with respect to such things or spend all our time shunning those whose behavior offends us.
Also, your animal thing is just plain wrong. We can own, ride, go hunting with, kill and eat, etcetera, our animals; however, it IS reasonable and proper to prohibit sexual relations between people and animals. Since "marriage" almost always involves sexual congress, that can also be prohibited inter species.
I think libertarians are usually sincere, but I think you badly underestimate the cunningness and the tactics used by liberals.
####ANYTHING which decreases the size and scope of goernment at all levels is jake with me.####
That's a nice general statement and IN GENERAL I agree with you, but I'm sure you don't mean it literally.
####Also bear in mind that neither you, I, nor anyone else has ANY right to be, or even a reasonable expectation of being, free from offensive or distasteful sights, sounds or behavior. Thus it behooves us to develop a thick skin with respect to such things or spend all our time shunning those whose behavior offends us.####
I won't argue with you on that since I'm a strong supporter of free speech, but I'm sure you know your statement can't be absolute.
####Also, your animal thing is just plain wrong. We can own, ride, go hunting with, kill and eat, etcetera, our animals; however, it IS reasonable and proper to prohibit sexual relations between people and animals. Since "marriage" almost always involves sexual congress, that can also be prohibited inter species.####
You're underestimating liberals again. If liberals operated using logic, we wouldn't be having this huge debate right now over gay "marriage" and we wouldn't be having to amend our state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Not so long ago, everyone would have agreed that two men can't marry one another, because marriage requires a man and a woman. States didn't bother to define marriage in their state constitutions because common sense once told everyone that two people of the same sex can't marry. Then one day we woke up and found a few loonies howling for gay "marriage". Then a little later we woke up and found that a strategy was in place to use the court system to force gay "marriage" on the entire country. And then we saw gay "marriage" forced on the state of Massachusetts by their judiciary.
So when you say it's reasonable to prohibit "marriage" and sex between humans and animals, I agree with you. Most people agree with you. But that same thing could have been said for homosexual "marriage" and sex for the entirety of our history as a nation until fairly recently. But now we have a vocal and well-positioned minority demanding gay "marriage", and they may well succeed in using federal power to force it on the people of America against our will. And one of the precedents they'll use is Lawrence, which you libertarians all applauded at the time, but which we conservatives warned would, in the long run, lead to a net increase in government power. The bottom line is that your logical arguments against human-animal "marriage" will be tossed aside with impunity if that becomes a liberal cause a decade or two from now.
Your definition of rights isn't the same as liberals' definition of rights. How many libertarians are judges in the United States? Not many I'd wager. How many are liberals? A ton of them. So when you see these rulings coming down such as Lawrence and this North Carolina cohabitation ruling, that at first seem "libertarian", remember that they probably aren't, and that already there are forces at work which will turn that ruling into a net increase in government power. What starts as a seemingly reasonable request to mind our own business regarding other peoples' conduct can quickly become a requirement that we subsidize the conduct in question, that we be banned from "discriminating" against the conduct (even on our own property), that criticism of the conduct be stifled in public discourse, that private organizations be stripped of their right to exclude the conduct in question, etc.
And thus these seemingly libertarian rulings lead to more government in the long run, which explains the mystery of why leftists supported Lawrence and support other similar rulings.
Would you support passage of a law banning housing discrimination against cohabitors. This law would, for example, forbid a Christian landlord from refusing to rent an apartment he owns to a "shacking up" couple. Also, suppose a private organization refuses to admit people who are cohabiting because the group's by-laws teach that such behavior is immoral. Should such a group be banned from using public facilities unless they change their policy to one of acceptance of cohabitation?