Posted on 06/13/2010 2:38:39 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws.
Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights — this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
My Constitution says the states and the people decide anything not given to the federal government.
So why is Cato taking an anti-libertarian position?
Ya know, folks, I like Cato working with John Stossel and pushing the ideas of Milton Friedman...but when they team up with liberals to endorse judicial activism from judges, it just makes me sick.
I'll keep donating to the Heritage Foundation, and maybe the Acton Institute.
This false claim is soooo old. Everyone has the same rights. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Everyone is equal under that definition. I can't marry someone of the same sex as myself, nor can I marry multiple people, nor can I marry an animal or whatever else someone might want to desire to change the definition to.
The debate isn't an equal rights issue, it's about allowing anyone who wishes to change the definition of words and institutions that have been in place for thousands of years across almost every culture. If the definition of marriage is going to be changed who gets to saw what it's going to be? If every possible permutation of association will be recognized as marriage then there is no such thing as marriage.
Just the other day there was an article about some guy in Japan who married his pillow. Again, who gets to decide that definitions will be changed and if so what they'll be changed to? And if they are changed, why not keep changing them every 6 months to add new permutations?
When gay couples can breed without help from a turkey baster or stand in Vagina, I will agree to gay marriagfe.
Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity.
By allowing this purposeful distortion of meaning we already partially lose the argument as we have allowed dishonest people to frame the debate.
Government embraces marriage because it tends to secure stable homes for nurturing the children that the couples’ copulation produces.
There is no basis to embrace homosexual pretend-marriages because such homes are never stable and such coupling can never produce children.
It is easy to figure this out. In fact, it is obvious to all.
John Podesta!! Give me a break.
OK so two of the same sex can marry? Why not 2 siblings, multiple partners, a man and a goat? Once we remove the definition of marriage everythings fair game and only a judge’s opinion determines what’s legit.
Then why does one need a license to exercise that right? One does not need a license to exercise a right.
Once again, if the pro same sex “marriage” people can explain how two people of the same sex can join together as husband and wife, I will also support it as well. Until such time as this can be demonstrated, it is not possible for it to exist.
Throughout history, many--- I daresay, most --- gay people married. Oscar Wilde was married to Constance Lloyd, and they had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886). The Episocopal bishop in New Hampshire, the Rev. Gene Robinson, was married and likewise had two children with his wife. New Jersey governor Jim McGreeey married twice and had children with both of his wives, before he famously announced he was gay.
Has any gay person ever been discriminated against and forbidden by law to marry?
If it's ever happened, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
It is the same problem, Libertarians has no moral sense.
Right - the debate is not about ‘equality’ it is about ‘reality.’ Two people of the same sex cannot join together as husband and wife - that requires one person to be a man and the other to be a woman. It has nothing to do with “hate” or “discrimination” - it is just the reality.
I’m no Bible thumper but I think I’ll put my trust in 5000+ years of Judeo/Christian religion and civilization. Rather than what some anally fixated idiots just cooked up. Gays of 30 years ago where not so bold and in yo face.
So no to gay marriage and no on drug legalization...they seem to go together
Cato (and for that matter Heritage) also support “Road Pricing” where government tracks your driving and then sends you a bill for using their roads, based on where you drove, how far you drove, and when you drove - beginning the moment you leave your driveway. I suppose they’d be ok if the charges also factored in what you drove, how much you made, how many kids you have...
I TOTALLY fail to see why they have such a big problem with the gas tax and want to replace it with a tracking system that Orwell could only dream of.
He sites Loving but people are born black, white, or whatever. There exists no genetic evidence that people are born gay. If a gay gene were to exist, given the availability of abortion in this day and age, would queers immediately become pro-life?
That doesn’t sound libertarian to me.
Cato just jumped the shark.
There aren’t enough letters in the word “BINGO” to express how strongly I agree.
It’s as silly as saying a man is denied equal rights as a woman because he’s barred from the women’s bathroom.
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.