Posted on 09/30/2013 9:24:47 AM PDT by shego
During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped "libertarians" at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat's "What is Seen and Unseen," a favorite among libertarians.
Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.
Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters....
We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values." Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that 41 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are libertarian today.
Two separate data sources, Gallup and ANES, show the same trend: that libertarian views are at the highest point in a decade....
Of course, as I've have noted previously, not all these libertarians self-identify as such and many don't know the word. But even that seems to be changing, and it's not just Ted Cruz.
Sen. Rand Paul calls himself a "libertarian-leaning Republican." Glenn Beck now considers himself libertarian, saying "I'm a lot closer to Penn Jillette than I am to Chuck Hagel." Matt Drudge recently tweeted his frustration with Republicans on Syria, saying it's now "authoritarian vs. libertarian." According to FreedomWorks' poll, only 10 percent of Republicans "don't know" the word libertarian, compared to 27 percent nationally.
The data confirm that libertarian views may well have reached a tipping point in the Republican Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Ron Paul once ran as a Libertarian for president, and got perhaps 5% of the vote.
Why do libertarians think that people are interested in their internal, weird, fantasies?
You want to end marriage period, people can use the word any way that they want is what you just described.
There is no movement to end legal marriage (recognized by govt.) and there won't be and can't be, marriage is always defined by a common authority, be it Rome, Greece, the Apache tribal leaders, Sharia law, the Roman Catholic church when they had total power, there is always legal marriage.
As far as your fantasy, that already exists, you can call anything marriage in your church or club or cult, that has ALWAYS EXISTED and still does, it just doesn't get recognized by the rest of society and in law when it applies, for instance in the military.
The founding fathers, the Continental Congress made law regarding legal marriage at the federal level and never stopped enforcing those laws.
Government isn't in your bedroom, try to be more honest.
People have to make political decisions and laws, libertarian and liberals won't homosexual equality in the military and in federal law and gay marriage recognized by the military and federal employment and immigration.
Conservatives agree with the first 233 years of our history and federal law on those issues.
My recollection is that marriage is considered a religious sacrament.
You seem to not know that.
The federal government, the founding fathers, the Continental Congress and then the regular Congress when the Constitution was ratified, all knew that marriage had to be legally decided on and recognized in the military, just as they decided that homosexuals could not serve, no crime is prosecuted until it is discovered. Do you really think that homosexuals are invisible and don’t make mistakes? George Washington himself sentenced discovered homosexuals, it was the law.
You seem baffled about how George Washington could have sufficient evidence to punish homosexuals, I don’t get your concept that no one can catch out someone’s sexual activities.
Don’t you realize that happens all the time?
I also don’t get what you want from it, it doesn’t seem very libertarian of you to be supporting returning to the same laws regarding gays in the military that I and George Washington support/ed of any gay found out, being punished and removed from service and today that their legal gay marriages not be recognized by the military.
During WWII Eisenhower heard a rumor that there were lesbians in his WAC command element. He told the female commander of that unit to make a list of them. She said that her name would be the first on the list. Her typist said that she would be typing the list, and that her name would be first on the list. Eisenhower said never mind.
Generally, after the fighting is over, the Army changes the rules, and people who didn't fight use charges of homosexuality as an excuse to remove some of those who did. Its a form of career defense for REMFs or Fobbits.
LOL, the agenda really comes out.
You sure must have been in a different military during the Vietnam war than me and all the other vets on this forum who were serving during the war.
This claim that the American military used to "recruited and admired" gays is a keeper, I guess you don't remember the use of it to beat the draft.
You win the medal for the goofiest claim for homosexualizing the military.
"""during the Vietnam War, some men pretended to be gay in order to avoid the draft"""
"""By the 1970s, a gay service member who had not committed any homosexual acts while in service generally received a general discharge, while those found to have engaged in homosexual conduct more often received undesirable discharges. Gay service members received a disproportionate percentage of undesirable discharges issued."""
Your religion, cult, or social club, or you and your dog can have whatever marriage ceremony you choose, it just doesn't have to be recognized outside of your group and in the law.
Thomas Jefferson who of course obtained a marriage license and as an attorney sometimes dealt in divorce law, felt that it was a negative thing when the Roman empire became so weak in the 5th century that the then all powerful Roman Catholic church took over marriage law in the areas that they could, of course in America there is no one Mosque or religion to decide for the people what marriage is and to force the military to accept it as legal.
I'm not saying there can't be evidence — I'm asking how you propose to keep homosexuals out of the military by law: are they supposed to self report? Is Recruiter/Enlistment-officer K going to even know if the enlistee is homosexual? HOW? Again, if the enlistee keeps his pants on, how is "the law" going to know he's a homosexual?
Would not going out and getting girls with the guys, or not going to strip clubs be evidence enough? Because I didn't do that in the Army -- because (a) I don't care to go to a strip club, and (b) because I do want to honor my God's strictures on marriage, meaning within the confines of marriage -- but, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone from leveling the charge that I'm homosexual because, [obviously] by my actions, I'm not into girls.
And, again, I don't think Law is the proper place to address the issue. In the end it's addressing a symptom, not addressing the problem, of issues of the heart.
We agree completely here. That is why, rather than pervert the religious sacrament of marriage to comport with government concerns on control, I suggest an alternative legal term of art "Civil Union" whereby government defines, and controls the meaning. For most people, marriage would also be a civil union, but by having a separate term, there would not have to be a government decision on which marriages were, or were not in line with the current legal definition of civil union.
The important part, marriage, would be outside of government control.
In all honesty I'd call that rape, not homosexuality.
I believe rape ought to garner the death penalty (as should murder).
The biggest problems I have with Ansel are these:
PS - Thanks for the clarifications on Washington's situations.
It was the law for centuries until a few months ago.
People apply for the military, they have to answer questions, during the 30 plus years of the draft answering yes kept you out of the draft.
Being caught out meant dishonorable discharge.
Besides, your position is what, that you want to continue the 1950s discrimination against gays in the military and not recognize their legal state marriages?
This endless posting to try and find out what you are saying or what your true political position on the issue is, is so typical of libertarians, it is just gibberish and wanderings and fantasies, try to get to the meat.
Laws have to be made regarding homosexuals in the military, do you support the libertarian position or are you against it and want to maintain the centuries old discrimination laws?
And there it is; you confirm my suspicion that you have no regard for the Fifth Amendment.
There was an Allan Sherman song which ran in part
Walk around the floor kinda nice and loose/Tell ‘em your fiancée’s name is Bruce
Then things go the usual way,
Your draft card comes back “1A”.
In particular, the medical corps, nurse corps, and medical service corps recruited homosexuals.
We define libertarians as those who favor “smaller government” and think government should not promote “traditional values.”
The second part of that statement is exactly why libertine-arianism is not supported by millions of people, nor the founding fathers of our country. The only way to “not promote ‘traditional values’” is to legalize all vice, which interestingly enough is a major part of the Libertarian Party Platform.
No; you just dismiss any answer you don't like... or ask for explanation (again, and again, and again — trying to get some words they say that you can jump on and say "ah-ha!").
People apply for the military, they have to answer questions, during the 30 plus years of the draft answering yes kept you out of the draft.
Being caught out meant dishonorable discharge.
Repeating myself:
Would not going out and getting girls with the guys, or not going to strip clubs be evidence enough? Because I didn't do that in the Army -- because (a) I don't care to go to a strip club, and (b) because I do want to honor my God's strictures on marriage, meaning within the confines of marriage -- but, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone from leveling the charge that I'm homosexual because, [obviously] by my actions, I'm not into girls.
The Libertarian Party wants open borders even more than the Dems.
There was also a play that I saw when I was in about a fellow getting his draft physical.
He was trying (not very well) to act effeminate. The inspecting doctor said “very good, we have special units for men like you.”
It took more than protestations of homosexuality to avoid the draft.
The “Libertarian” Party is about as small-l libertarian as the Pope is a bear.
Marriage has been recognized a s legal status for thousands of years.
People who pretend it is only marriage if there is a religious aspect to it and that the gov should "get out of" marriage are tacitly (or more than tacitly) supporting queer "marriage".
No sale.
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.