[Aetius]

"Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican...social intolerance..."

Its one thing for libertarians to hold socially liberal views, but its quite another to parrot leftwing rhetoric in describing the other side of such issues.

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by "social intolerance", but I'm guessing they mean gay marriage. If so, it is downright sad that libertarians would accept and lend credence to such deliberate distortions of social conservatism, and to the Left's attempt to cast the preservation of what has always been, and what has no need of change, as the bad, or 'intolerant' position. How exactly is it 'intolerant' to spearhead the movement to remove this issue from the Courts, and to let the people decide?

That's my major issue with many socially-liberal libertarians. If you favor gay marriage, abortion rights, etc, then fine, but do the honorable thing and make the case for them w/o casting negative aspersions on social conservatives (who just happen to represent the views of the overall population in many cases), and do so w/o making the ridiculous, insulting argument that your socially liberal views are somehow enshrined in the Constitution, and thus above and beyond us small-minded rubes.

[Darkwolf377]

If we narrowly lose the house, stand by for a flurry of "not OUR fault, it's the Republicans for not living up to our ideals" posts.

[CWOJackson]

"Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry."

Remind me again...just how are they conserative?

[cripplecreek]

I thought libertarians liked going directly to the people for the decisions in the form of referendum votes. In the case of gay marriage it was handily defeated by the people of my state.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Anti-gay marriage, pro-life, GOP-voting libertarian here, checking in.

[freepatriot32]

ping

[mugs99]

If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win.

The Republican Party is the minority party. Republicans can't win elections without the libertarian vote.

insulting argument that your socially liberal views are somehow enshrined in the Constitution, and thus above and beyond us small-minded rubes.

This shows why libertarians are breaking with the RP. You consider defending the Constitutional restrictions against federal government intrusion into our lives "insulting".

We all are free or none of us are.
.

[xpertskir]

I am a libertarian. My feeling on marriage is that the state should have NOTHING to do with it. Remove marriage licenses and the legal(tax and otherwise) ramifications of being married. Marriage is a religious institution and should be governed by the religious body that is preforming the union. There should be NO legislative definition of any facet of marriage at all let alone who can be married. I could really care less if the church of Star Trek wants to marry a human and a Klingon or if the Episcopalians wanna marry a couple of gay people.

This is just one of MANY cases in which the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong has caused unnecessary heartache.

[WhiteGuy]

I'm guessing they mean gay marriage.


Stop guessing, you're probably way-off.

Isn't it possible that libertarian-leaning Americans simply place a higher value on the fiscal responsiblity of our elected officails and far less value on the attempted micro-management of free citizens lives?

geuss at whatever makes you feel good, and tell yourself that any other point of view is wrong..........

[DesScorp]

"At some 13 percent of the electorate"

That's blatant crap. They have nowhere near that many people.

[RedStateRocker]

"If you favor gay marriage, abortion rights, etc, then fine, but do the honorable thing and make the case for them"...

Respectfully, I believe that the case for ANY restriction of individual actions can only be made on the basis of those actions having an effect on someone else against their will. IOW even if 99 percent of the people consider something foul and disgusting, that, alone, is not a good enough reason for it to be made illegal.

The constitution explicitly gives all rights to the states that it does not, itself, enumerate. I don't see where, in the constitution, defining marriage or making substances illegal are authorities given to the fedgov.

I know people who are just as disgusted with the idea of other people owning guns, and just as strident about preventing same, as I or any other freeper could be about male/male paring. And in some cities those anti gunners are an absolute majority. The beauty AND 'horror' of our constitution, in its most libertarian possible interpretation, is that the degree of reprehension felt by ANY party not DIRECTLY, PHYSICALLY affected by said situation simply does not matter. IF gays bug you, move to Montana; if guns bug you move to San Francisco:-).

Just my .02 - there is a difference, often missed on this board, between being broadminded and just not caring. *I* don't CARE about homosexuals. "Broadminded" people are concerned with 'equality', tolerance, diversity. Others, like me, just don't CARE. Like someone else's choice of religion - I don't want to know. Abortion is nearly always the wedge issue for Libertarians; the watershed being, of course, is it person or a lump of cells; persons deserve the full protection of the state, you can do anything you want to with a clump of cells.