you wrote:
"Some do, some don't. Big deal."
ah, and here lies the problem. The 'some do' and the 'some don't' camp......in fact it is a big deal but that's for another discussion.
[regarding, if memory serves, the homosexual marriage issue and the Libertarian Party's ambivalence on the subject]
There is difference of opinion on this subject between Democrats within the Democratic Party, even though the party proper has hesitantly supported it. There is also difference of opinion, believe it or not, within the Republican Party... you are familiar I assume with the Log Cabin Republicans? [see PS below] They are not alone in feeling a bit uncomfortable with their fellow minimal-government conservatives embracing the notion of more government involvement in this sacred and personal sphere of decision-making.
The Libertarian Party therefore is not the sole repository of the "Some do, some don't" demographic, but there's no denying that, with a party whose idealogical base is all about individuality, Libertarians are probably more prone to disagreement amongst themselves than any other political party on the map, and God bless em for it. Just look at the party proper's position on abortion: officially the party is "pro-choice" (but does not in any way support the public funding of abortions) yet every official declaration I've ever seen comes with a caveat that there are significant numbers of LPers who do NOT recognize this "right", and for clearly delineated "libertarian" reasons. There will always be impassioned, animated difference of opinion between thinking people... at least I hope so.
PS: Now, granted, not all Log Cabiners support legally recognized same-sex marriage, but clearly it is an issue of some import to those conservative Americans whose life partners are of the same gender, just as it is to the more visible rainbow-flag-waving "liberal" Americans in the same predicament. I have trouble seeing why it's such a pulse-pounding potboiler on either side... I mean, MY heterosexual marriage is in no way threatened by Mick and Mike tying the knot, nor by Sue and Sally. On the other hand, why someone would put so much stock in having their life-commitment recognized by the gub'mint is kind of beyond me as well. It strikes me as a deliberately polarizing subject that once again serves the Powers That Be by keeping otherwise like-minded freedom lovers focused on their minor differences instead of concentrating their energy on real reform. The old "divide and conquer" campaign... somehow we keep falling for it.
There is little I don't agree with you concerning opinions expressed here by you. Having read your comments on the Democrat party and the Republican party vs libertarians and the differences held in each, I still believe the two main parties are able to come close enough to a concensus to have a unity. The issues have become deeply polarized that it takes very little to hold a constituent to one or the other party. Libertarians operate outside of that box. Not that that is a bad thing but it does present a problem in getting them elected.
I do want to respond to an opinion you expressed on another post. #164 I believe.
You said:
"The best idea I've heard so far is also (unsurprisingly) the most radical: why don't we simply get government out of the marriage business entirely? Discontinue the notion of "legally recognized" (ie government sanctioned) marriage in favor of a simplified legal contract regarding property, etc. and leave the "matrimony" aspect to whatever religious or social organizations currently endow the REAL marriage anyway. Your church can still refuse to marry Laura and Lisa, while my church may opt to... as far as the government is concerned, two citizens have entered into a contract, THAT'S IT. Stay out of our lives. For a religious person, it is the blessing of the Almighty that makes the marriage, not the godless State. That piece of paper from the Justice of the Peace is just that. The social phenomenon of marriage (whether religious or not) is what defines it, not some bureaucratic file number.
I have heard this argument before. Some conservatives give this one too. I don't agree it.
You diminish our nation's role in recognizing marriage as valuable and worthy to a 'notion'. As though 'government sanctioned' is a bad thing. WE are the government aren't we? We should be sanctioning and promoting healthy and time honored institutions such as marriage. You would like to reduce the government's role and reduce it to legalities and properties and such-- making us even more secular than we already are. As though acknowledging God is a bad thing. It was alright for our founding fathers to acknowledge God back in the 1700's but it is no longer acceptable to do so now. When a nation acknowledges God and honors Him with laws that are respecting to His commands--it will be a blessed nation. Why do we have laws concerning murder and stealing? Do you think it because from the birth of this nation they wanted to hold onto libertarian philosophies or rather could it be that murder and stealing and the like go against God's will and commands. Likewise, marriage was created by God Himself and so our government upholds marriage between a man and a woman because this is God will and command. Or would it be that we should mearly acknowledge Him with our words and let our deeds go as we please? There is purpose and meaning that runs deep when a nation collectively acknowledges marriage consisting of one man and one woman. To set ones ideals, contrary to God's, above our Almighty God is arrogant and not suggested. ;)
It is not libertarian philosophy and theories that will bring this nation back where it should be. The answer lies in humbling ourselves before a God we used to acknowledge.