Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
On Thursday night's "Stossel Show," which airs on the Fox Business channel, Brian Brown was unable to convince host John Stossel or his libertarian guest (and nationally syndicated columnist) David Harsanyi that civil marriage for gays and lesbians harms, or even changes, marriage between heterosexual couples.
In fact, Harsanyi's suggestion that the marriage debate could be solved if the U.S. decided either to privatize all schools or all marriage contracts was treated as a more legitimate idea by Stossel and Stossel's audience....
"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be -- gay or not," Harsanyi said....
Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."
Stossel's live studio audience erupted in laughter at this comment, and Stossel replied: "I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...
When the devotees of Ron Paul say this in forums and things, I've always noticed that the homosexual activists stand up and cheer.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why that is.
No, they can't. The Constitution makes no mention of marriage. The federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. That is why you need a constitutional amendment. Not for clarification purposes, but to avoid trampling on the document that you claim to be protecting. We needed a constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. I'm sure the prohibitionists would have argued that the destruction of the populace through alcohol abuse justifies an end-run around the constitution. I'm unconvinced. I do see homosexual marriage as a more serious threat to the union than alcohol use, obviously, but I don't support exceptions to the rules. The Tenth Amendment has to mean something.
“...next stop is outlawing divorce and remarriage...”
More like requiring those faiths that always have disregarded divorce to recognize it, as well as to force acceptance of remarriage after gubberment sanctioned divorce. The bottom line is that they want the state’s take on marriage to be supreme, no matter what some faiths say about it.
Freegards
Perhaps you could take a moment and explain it?
It seems to me that homosexuals are looking for a state enforced mandate to force others to accept them as normal. "Look, I'm married, and I'm normal, and if you disagree, the state will punish you!" This angle of attack would be neutralized if the state no longer had a role in the marriage business. Who cares if the Church of the Crossed Swords issued a marriage license to Gary and Bruce? If the State isn't going to kick my ass for shrugging at it as inconsequential, then what do I care?
The Great Society discouraged marriage through moronic incentives. How’d that work out for liberty, justice and the American way?
Those who seek to challenge the proposition that the states have the right to regulate marriage are being fundamentally dishonest. Yes, citizens of the various states have individual rights. That does not mean that some citizens enjoy special rights above and beyond all other citizens, however. It is the state's responsibility to protect our liberty. It is not the state's responsibility to assent to various lifestyle choices.
Sorry but no. You are missing the point entirely. You are promoting a certain behavior and rewarding those that engage in that behavior with financial goodies. That is a recipe for disaster. This allows the government to social engineer.
The state can offer a marriage contract that allows a man and woman to be married and no legal problem arises from such. It is when you reward that behavior with government goodies is when the problem starts.
True; the government messes up any institution it gets entangled with — which makes it all the more puzzling that some “conservatives” are trying to entangle it into marriage.
Makes me wonder how we got drug prohibition without one?
Possibly so that there was nothing to repeal after the inevitable failure and no way to stop the 'war on drugs' which has brought us so many surveillance and reporting laws.
Who says politicians don't learn from their 'mistakes'...
That would be a simple and elegant solution to the whole problem.
The catch is that it doesn't give politicians an opportunity to grandstand and divert attention from their ineptitude at managing the government, so they want no part of it.
How do you propose to do this? Community property and children to be specific?
Or at least that was how it was supposed to work. Now federal government has all powers and is only (and just barely) limited in its usurpations by the bill of rights. States routinely usurp power and are only occasionally limited by their own constitutions.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a particularly depressing example of both Federal and (many) States usurpations of power.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
The protection of property rights is the fundamental bedrock of all institutions. To dismiss it, even by implication, bespeaks profound ignorance of the basis for civilized life.
It just goes to show that state involvement generally destroys everything it touches. This is a benefit as far as the military goes, because we want to destroy whatever we touch. ;-)
When the state tries to meddle with the individual building blocks of society, it invariably creates dependency, unfairness and ruin. Worse, it creates the perception that doling out candy is the role of the government, which makes citizens swing at it like kids chasing a pinata. They all try and hit it harder and harder, getting more and more goodies to drop. Which has led us to where we are now.
We can close the thread now. We have a winner! (Well stated!)
That is as big a non sequitur as I can remember seeing. congrats.
Free Republic, where even the conservatives are liberals.
Sorry but no doesn't cut it. How does marriage law treat anybody any differently than anybody else when anybody can avail themselves of marriage if they meet the requirements of any states law?
Whether tax law treats married couples differently from single people is a separate issue for marriage law. Do you think tax incentives are unconstitutional or just a bad idea? Because I'd agree it's a bad idea but they certainly are not unconstitutional.
Good stuff!
Is there a record for the longest post?
I think you might have a contender! :)
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.