Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[dross]

I said, "Those of you who would vote to continue costly foreign wars against guerrilla forces are voting for LCG." I didn't specify which wars. Though in the ones of which you speak, we're trading essential liberty for temporary & illusory security, IMO. Something I believe to be rather unwise.

If you truly believe that our government has not grown in both wasteful girth & controlling power because of Iraqistan, then I'm not even sure how to continue the discussion.

I don't believe the prosecution of the wars themselves has caused that, some of the other measures here domestically might be in that category.

The only argument to me about a war is its necessity. WWII caused the government to grow, yet we still had to fight that war.

Government will use any excuse to grow and give itself more power, that's the nature of government. That's why you don't want to use it for very much. You only unleash it when it becomes absolutely necessary. Otherwise it leashes and unleashes you, which is where we are now.

Yet, to me, we still had to fight those wars.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

If people are for less and smaller Govt, wouldnt it make sense to not allow Gays to have they're way? Arent they pushing for more laws? Arent they asking for more?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If people are for less and smaller Govt, wouldnt it make sense to not allow Gays to have they're way? Arent they pushing for more laws? Arent they asking for more?

They are, in fact, asking to more deeply entrench the state-sponsored marriage system. Regardless of who puts which or how many body parts into which orifices, state-sponsored marriage is wholly unnecessary & should be done away with. When so many marriages fail anyways, its foolish to insist that they are much of a glue for our society. Emasculation is a bigger issue, methinks.

 

[Joe Williams]

I can't help but be struck by the fact that conservatives were right. A few years back when the left started pushing to legalize gay marriage, conservatives said they were trying to destroy the institution of marriage, and were roundly ridiculed for saying so.

Now here we are a few years later... and the left isn't even remotely shy about calling for the outright elimination of legal marriage from our society.

Wonder what moral and legal institutions they will target after they've gotten their way with marriage?

 

[mrjarrell]

I can't help but be struck by the fact that conservatives were right. A few years back when the left started pushing to legalize gay marriage, conservatives said they were trying to destroy the institution of marriage, and were roundly ridiculed for saying so.

Now here we are a few years later... and the left isn't even remotely shy about calling for the outright elimination of legal marriage from our society.

Wonder what moral and legal institutions they will target after they've gotten their way with marriage?

Joe, why should marriage be between anyone but you, your wife and a preacher (if that's your bag)? Are you so enamoured of the state that you really want them involved in marriage? Oh, wait. It's Thursday.

State sanctioned marriage isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. That's why some folks are all for making sure that the government treats all citizens equally where government marriage is concerned. While I'd rather state sanctioned marriage were done away with, I'll take forcing the state to treat all citizens equally before the law till that day.

 

[dross]

I can't help but be struck by the fact that conservatives were right. A few years back when the left started pushing to legalize gay marriage, conservatives said they were trying to destroy the institution of marriage, and were roundly ridiculed for saying so.

Now here we are a few years later... and the left isn't even remotely shy about calling for the outright elimination of legal marriage from our society.

Wonder what moral and legal institutions they will target after they've gotten their way with marriage?

I don't often get called "the left" but okay.

I think marriage as an institution is a lot stronger between two individuals than it is made so by the law.

When my wife and I got married, we took everyone to Mexico with us and got married on the beach. Not wanting to jump through the hoops, we signed papers at the county a couple of months before. We considered ourselves married when we pledged our vows before our loved ones in Mexico.

As I said at the time, my word is more binding than the legal document I signed.

I don't want to weaken the institution of marriage, I want to strengthen it by getting the government out of it. And, I don't want the government deciding which of it's citizens choices that do no harm to others are acceptable or not acceptable.

For me, it's about equality under the law. If that makes me a leftie, well, what can I say.

 

[photoshooter]

Amendment XIV Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[awatarius]

I can't help but be struck by the fact that conservatives were right. A few years back when the left started pushing to legalize gay marriage, conservatives said they were trying to destroy the institution of marriage, and were roundly ridiculed for saying so.

Now here we are a few years later... and the left isn't even remotely shy about calling for the outright elimination of legal marriage from our society.

Wonder what moral and legal institutions they will target after they've gotten their way with marriage?

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know? I don't know what you are talking about with people wanting to throw out marriage, they want marriage equality. That's all.. anything else is just an extreme opinion that isn't shared by most. Get the govt out... that's one idea. And you bet your pants that they were ridiculed for having a really silly idea based on religion that should have NO baring on the law.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Pocketman]

Is it really about "marriage" or all the associated legal ramifications, such as taxes, property rights, etc.?

 

[mrjarrell]

Is it really about "marriage" or all the associated legal ramifications, such as taxes, property rights, etc.?

Both. But if you get government out of the equation, for everyone, the latter goes away, too. Then those could be handled by contracts and mutual agreement.

 

[Garb]

Both. But if you get government out of the equation, for everyone, the latter goes away, too. Then those could be handled by contracts and mutual agreement.

Well said. My parents are staunch Republicans, (nothing wrong with that, I just disagree strongly with them) and they say that marriage should be regulated by the government because the government has the responsibility to discourage sexual promiscuity, and legally protect people who enter into a bad marriage without thinking. I debate with them on this issue quite a lot, and they continue to say the same thing. I am not bashing my parents on any level, nor trying to disrespect them, I just don't understand what the hell is up with the idea that the government should protect us from ourselves. You want legal protection in marriage? Write a contract and get it notarized yourself. By regulating it, the government is destroying marriage, not protecting it.

 

[Pocketman]

Both. But if you get government out of the equation, for everyone, the latter goes away, too. Then those could be handled by contracts and mutual agreement.

How can we have a binding contract without having the government involved?

 

[Garb]

How can we have a binding contract without having the government involved?

You can't, but at least it's up to the individual whether or not the government is involved. Currently, we don't have a choice in the matter.

 

[dross]

How can we have a binding contract without having the government involved?

We may have a problem here between the anarchists and the libertarians, but to me the only government involvement is in the enforcement of the contract should it come under dispute. This is the same as any other contract in areas not regulated by the government.

 

[Garb]

We may have a problem here between the anarchists and the libertarians, but to me the only government involvement is in the enforcement of the contract should it come under dispute. This is the same as any other contract in areas not regulated by the government.

There are anarchists on here?!

 

[mrjarrell]

How can we have a binding contract without having the government involved?

Just off the top of my head, I'd say you can do it the way many corporations already do it, through binding arbitration. A third party, (non-governmental) acts as your go between. Shoot, if you have a contract with a phone company, cable or other entity the chances are good that you've agreed to binding arbitration rather than a court of law for most disagreements. It's really rather common and requires no government.

 

[photoshooter]

Those who want to deny gays the "right" to marry often seek to do so because gayness probably offends them at a moral level.

Those who support gay "marriage" usually just want equal treatment under the law for gay couples. (yes, there are zealots at both ends of the spectrum that just want to cause trouble).

For example: Next of kin laws.

If you're married, your spouse is your next of kin. (heterosexual couples only)

If you're shackin-up (hetero or straight), then your closest blood relative is your next of kin.

If a gay couple is denied the ability to "marry" then their state's laws may exclude them from NoK benefits that Hetero Married Couples are allowed.

Inheritance can be taken care of through a will. But other issues are not currently set up for just a legal contract. Some issues in NoK are set by state statute.

EG: equal treatment in areas such as sharing benefits (health insurance for family members) as well as NoK rights for visitation at the hospital are often excluded.

A gay person could be denied the ability to see their life-partner of 30-years, if that partner is on their deathbed in a hospital. But a hetero couple, married for less than month would not have that issue. The marriage license often grants them privileges that gays just don't have due to legal codes about who can be "Next of Kin"

 

[Joe Williams]

Just off the top of my head, I'd say you can do it the way many corporations already do it, through binding arbitration. A third party, (non-governmental) acts as your go between. Shoot, if you have a contract with a phone company, cable or other entity the chances are good that you've agreed to binding arbitration rather than a court of law for most disagreements. It's really rather common and requires no government.

And what do you do when one party decides they aren't going to abide by the results of the "binding" arbitration?

 

[Garb]

And what do you do when one party decides they aren't going to abide by the results of the "binding" arbitration?

Leave them and/or take them to civil court. Pretty simple IMO.

 

[Joe Williams]

Leave them and/or take them to civil court. Pretty simple IMO.

Oh... so you do support government interference?