Posted on 02/27/2013 3:12:39 PM PST by ColdOne
Dittoes
If you are not socially conservative then you are no real conservative.
Period.
From Wiki — “Twice married, Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women.”
Our culture is so far gone that many consider him a conservative.
That is a question of process, not substance, so the libertarian position would likely be neutral on that particular question, in a sense. I say in a sense, because the broader libertarian position on same-sex "marriage" would be that neither judges nor voters should decide, because, for the most part, government should not decide who can marry; it should be left to individuals/churches/etc. (Not arguing for that position, just speculating what it would be)
Exactly. I could not agree more.
The government or church authority has always decided what marriage is, and the US government got involved in the 1860s when a new religious cult introduced polygamy, and got large enough that intervention was called for.
Today, we don't want Islam, or Mormonism, or atheists, or the church of NAMBLA defining marriage.
Welcome to the Constitution.
As to the process of getting judges to declare who can and cannot be married, the greatest damage that has been done to the fabric of this nation has been accomplished by judges. The solons who handed down the Dredd Scott decision all but started the Civil War. And the judges who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision started the culture wars.
If I were a libertarian, I would think thrice before going to the Supreme Court to accomplish cultural objectives which have been lost in the Court of Public Opinion.
Get real. “The State” has always had laws on marriage going back thousands of years. You figure you can just toss them. These laws were reasonable and just until it came to the present day gay agitators who will be happy with what you have to say on this.
Governments here exceed their bounds and do all kinds of meddling. But defining marriage as between a man and a woman and issue a legally binding license is a very basic duty of gov’t here and worldwide
It is the breakdown of the traditional family that is the number one cause of the growth of the Federal Leviathan. Government has become the “parent.”
Of course, I understand that the Constitution establishes the procedural framework for who should make these sorts of decisions, and how. All I was saying is that libertarianism, as a governing philosophy, generally has more to say about what government should and should not do, than it does about the process of how government should make decisions.
Where’s a chair?
I don't know what the current libertarian position is on contracts but it used to be that people understand you look to the courts to enforce contracts and you look to the law (both common law and statutory law) to determine how a contract should be enforced. Common law is built up thru the courts and statutory law is created by legislatures. So, yes the gov't is involved in marriages and it is hard to see how it could be any other way than it is.
I'm getting old though so maybe things have changed in the past decade or so.
Yes. This should have been included in the Constitution same as clauses stating that water is wet and the sky is blue. When The Constitution was written there was zero doubt what constituted marriage so why would it be included? Maybe today everything is up for grabs, but not back then
The one thing that the majority of African Americans and Hispanics voted for correctly... so sad.
Religions also draw up marriage contract, some terms need to be set or its a free for all like we have today with the gays and other wackos. With all kinds of free lancers and wise guys who think they can do a better job inventing the wheel
Here is the Jewish marriage contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah Which among other things sets out the responsibilities of the husband and protects the wife
Noam Chomsky is a left libertarian
Clint Eastwood is a right libertarian
“A libertarian is a liberal who wants a tax cut”
The key word is contract. Either religious courts or civil courts end up having to enforce it. So no matter what you do, some third party authority ends up having to enforce its provisions.
No surprise. The new plutocracy imposes the pathologies more common its own members on all Americans and forces all Americans to pay the costs of those pathologies.
As for Libertarianism, it’s much like feminism. Each Libertarian claims to be for or against whatever will help with infiltration, disruptions of conservative discussions and with recruiting bandwagons of dupes to insult and defame real conservatives. Most of them are descended more recently from other countries, hopped from the northeastern states to the west coast, and now oozing all over our country to soil it with European religion, culture and more than one kind of balkanization.
I'm wondering the same thing.
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.