ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Mailvox: Why I am not a Libertarian

This is only one of the many reasons. The Libertarian Party is the only one that can make the Republican Party look smart. With a number of massive issues where both major parties diverge from the mainstream consensus, such as the banks, health care, and immigration, naturally the Libertarian Party ticket is determined to commit suicide on the issue of "gay marriage" according to the email I received from the Johnson-Gray campaign.
Gray said, "Unlike Mitt Romney or President Obama, Governor Johnson and I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right. People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.
This is a Libertarian Party that can't even win the support of influential libertarians. And that is a sign of a party that is going absolutely nowhere. Where, I wonder, is the right to marriage found in the Constitution? And how could it be in there given that the Constitution predates marriage licenses?

Labels: ,

118 Comments:

Anonymous Ras Al Ghul August 04, 2012 1:26 PM  

The should just have taken the stand that the government should have nothing to do with marriage period, by either sanction or regulation.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus August 04, 2012 1:39 PM  

Gays already have the exact same marital "rights" as straights.

Any gay man can marry any woman who'll have him, and any lesbian can marry any man who'll put up with her.

Therefore, gays have the exact same options in terms of potential marital partners, and therefore already enjoy equality before the law on this matter.

Their particular preference matters for absolutely nothing. If preference counted, Jennifer Lopez would have about ten million husbands.

Blogger IM2L844 August 04, 2012 1:42 PM  

So, the government should not require any group to sanction same sex marriage and it should also not sanction the rights of any group to discriminate against same sex marriage.

Is this a schizophrenic position or is it just me.

Anonymous Weak August 04, 2012 1:47 PM  

Seriously? Who really cares about this? Does anyone really care? We have zillion dollar deficits, an EPR below 60% & falling fast, and banksters running wilde. Yet we want to waste time on this distraction?

Let the gays have this so they will shut up. We should be focusing on real issues.

Anonymous castricv August 04, 2012 1:50 PM  

Why is there such a disconnect in our society between reality and pc fantasy? People really are stupid. Marriage is a religious institution. As such if churches do not want to marry 2 gays or 2 goats or a seal and Seal, then that is their right. Government cannot be in the business of marriage as it has no standing to do so. The ONLY debate that should be discussed by civilized people is whether 2 non-traditional adult people of sound mind and body can join resources legally for tax purposes, hospital visits, estates etc.

All this hogwash lately is a way for tv to continue to keep everyone in a state of fury and watching the damm tv. At this point I don't care if 2 fags want to join their bank accounts and file jointly for taxes (for that matter I say let friends do it too, screw the IRS), but under no universe of sanity can the government make religious organizations perform a religious ceremony to inelligible particpants under its religious codes. Why anyone who clearly don't follow these religious codes would want to be regonized by that same relgion is trivial to the point of being wholly revealing.

It's not about marriage, it's about being in your face until you give up the fight and your world changes.

The Chik -Fil A controversy should serve to show us all where our low to middle IQ people really are on both sides. Do you really think a kiss in or having a ton of families eat chicken for a day does anything other than give the news free topics and Chik-Fila huge profits? Your heart might be in the right place, but you are accomplishing nothing.

Anonymous cryan ryan August 04, 2012 1:56 PM  

A platform of legalized prostitution, gambling, pornography, and open borders will not gain much traction anywhere for long.

As always, the winning party will be that which promises the most free stuff to the most irresponsible people, and caters to single women. (but I repeat myself)

Anonymous castricv August 04, 2012 1:56 PM  

Weak -- this IS the "real" issue. Conceding this is not like saying to your ex take the house, I'm done with you and walking away. This is like saying take the house and then a week later you get a lifetime bill of child support and then alimony. Soon old videos or your schlong are on youtube and half your friends now think you are a child molester.....Oh yeah and you're the bad guy.

Conservatives and decent people in this country have been "letting them have this" for 50 years and look at the abyss we are in now.

Brother, I can assure you this is not about the right to marry for people who really don't want to get married anyway. It is about destroying the Christian and European foundations of your country until you are bred out or submit to utter tyranny of the prole.

Anonymous Red August 04, 2012 1:58 PM  

"Let the gays have this so they will shut up. "

Nah. Next step will be forcing Gay marriages in churches, then making any negative remark about gays a crime, and finally the banning of any book that anything bad about gays.

Anonymous Red August 04, 2012 1:59 PM  

Both the Libertarians and the GOP exist for one reason: They heard enemies of the state into groups that are ineffective and ultimately controlled by the state. It's about making potential enemies part of the system without any real power to make them impotent.

Anonymous stevev August 04, 2012 1:59 PM  

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Nothing else deserves the name.
I'm also gay. I don't believe in same-sex marriage, which obviously puts me at odds with the majority of my gay friends.
To most gay people I know, allowing society to tell them what they can and cannot do in the public sphere is tantamount to the creation of second class status for them.
This allows them to feel they are being marginalized. It allows them to feel solidarity with other real minorities.
I have given up trying to get them to think rationally about the topic. Solidarity with the gay marriage addenda is a litmus test, a test I fail miserably.

Anonymous Rally August 04, 2012 2:00 PM  

"Let the gays have this so they will shut up. We should be focusing on real issues"

I would agree with this if it actually made them shut up. But that's not how it works. As soon as they win this, they'll think up something else to complain about. It will be something that to this point no liberal has ever felt a need to support, but once the activists bring it up they'll still use it as evidence of hate and bigotry among all those who don't support it.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein August 04, 2012 2:01 PM  

Very good (and often overlooked) point, Titus Q. Cincinnatus .


Also, while it is true that the LP is the Sheldon Cooper of political parties...it is still a bit of a stretch to say that the LP makes the GOP "look smart."

Anonymous stevev August 04, 2012 2:04 PM  

agenda, not addenda. Damned autocorrect.

Anonymous paradox August 04, 2012 2:09 PM  

The Libertarian stance on the gay marriage issue is unprincipled hypocrisy. Judge Andrew Napolitano ridiculously even tries to use the 1967 Supreme court decision, on international marriage, to support his gay marriage agenda. What amounts to using the Federal government to force gay marriage on states that do not want it. That view also gives the Federal government power over marriage, something the Constitution does not. Ron Paul is the only one correctly pointing out that gay marriage is a states' rights issue.

That court case also states, a state can not tell someone who to choose as a mate, what Napolitano claims is key in the ruling. How is frakking someone of the same sex, choosing a mate? It's total hypocrisy on Napolitano's part and a logical error. The Libertarians are no different than the GOP or Democrats. They will use government to force their views on Americans too.

Anonymous paradox August 04, 2012 2:11 PM  

correction international should be interracial marriage

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box August 04, 2012 2:19 PM  

The LP has taken the bullshit-issue bait - and scuttled themselves.
All those idiots ever talk about is Dopers' Rights & Fagits' Rights, and ...with the totally predictable result of complete marginalization!

Blogger IncorrectlyRight August 04, 2012 2:23 PM  

stevev,

It's very interesting and rare that a committed homosexual supports traditional marriage. But I have to ask, how do you rationalize with your gay friends? What do you say to them, regarding the issue?

Blogger IM2L844 August 04, 2012 2:25 PM  

Let the gays have this...

This issue, as with all other issues in the pantheon of morally relativistic liberal ideology, is just another gateway issue on the legislative path to Utopia.

Anonymous zen0 August 04, 2012 2:27 PM  


Moshe Feiglin, who heads the Jewish Leadership faction within Likud and challenges Binyamin Netanyahu's leadership of the party, issued a statement on homosexuality on his Facebook page, in a reaction to Thursday's "gay pride" parade in Jerusalem.
"Homosexuality has long ceased to be a sexual deviation, belonging to individuals and their private lives, which no one wants to interfere with," he wrote. "They came out of the closet a long time ago and are now the spearhead of the 'post-' culture. We are dealing with the undermining of the family unit, which is the basic building block of every national society."
"Throughout history," Feiglin explained, "from Rome to Europe in our day, the approval and spread of homosexuality presaged the decline of nations and cultures. If one reads the Torah portion 'Noah' – this comes as no surprise."
"The organizers of a pride parade do not wish to gain rights. They strive to force homosexuality as a culture upon the public sphere."
"A minority has no right to take over public assets. Let the marchers kindly go back to their individual closets. And let them do it without whining, because no one interferes with their affairs in there. Let them give up their attempts at takeovers, and leave the public sphere to normal people."
Feiglin added in an additional post: "I have no problem with homosexuals, most of whom are, most likely, good and talented people and no one wants to interfere in their private lives. I have a problem with homosexuality as a culture. This culture subverts the status of the family. And without the family there is no nation, and without a nation there is no civilization."

Anonymous Porter August 04, 2012 2:27 PM  

Let the gays have this so they will shut up.

1964: And let the blacks have this “civil rights” legislation so they will shut up once and for all.

Anonymous paradox August 04, 2012 2:41 PM  

It's not just the gay marriage issue with the Libertarian Party. The Current, militant atheist groupies of the LP, like Adam Kokesh, claim that, the only true Libertarian is an atheist one. That faction is growing and the LP Facebook page is covered with them. All they ever do is attack Christianity, make bold internet bravado statements about using their guns to defend gay marriage.

That faction should be know as Luciferian Libertarian wing, Luciferian in they believe they are their own hedonistic god, with free reign.

Blogger wrf3 August 04, 2012 2:42 PM  

Ras Al Ghul wrote: The should just have taken the stand that the government should have nothing to do with marriage period, by either sanction or regulation.

It's made the government's position every time someone asks a judge to settle property disposition or determine custody at divorce proceedings.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic August 04, 2012 2:51 PM  

Agree with Ras. How does a libertarian justify state involvement with marriage in any way?

A traditionalist justifies state regulation of marriage by pointing out that the state has a strong interest in the continuation of the society through reproduction and a strong interest in the welfare of children.

A liberal justifies state regulation of marriage by pointing out that somebody's feelings will be hurt if they can't marry their leatherman gym teacher.

A libertarian ought to argue that marriage is a social custom and a religious sacrament, and government has no business meddling in it at all. All the purposes currently served by marriage law could be replaced by contracts.

Blogger Jeff D August 04, 2012 2:51 PM  

And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.

There is, of course, no discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry. They don't even ask if you are gay.

Anonymous tiarosa August 04, 2012 2:53 PM  

If only an American politician had the cojones to say what Moshe Feiglin said. Of course he would be raked over the coals for the phrase "normal people."

Those who ate at Chick-fil-a on Wednesday were supporting the First Amendment right of free speech more than protesting homosexuals.

Anonymous Nah August 04, 2012 2:56 PM  

"Let the gays have this so they will shut up."

Screw that. Give them nothing, and when they whine and complain, mock them.

Anonymous Randall August 04, 2012 2:57 PM  

Maybe Gary Johnson is trying to do more harm to Obama than to Romney by pandering to social liberals instead of social conservatives.

Anonymous Mr. Tzu August 04, 2012 3:03 PM  

The ONLY debate that should be discussed by civilized people is whether 2 non-traditional adult people of sound mind and body can join resources legally for tax purposes, hospital visits, estates etc.

Why only 2?

My formulation is removing government from marriage entirely. Repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment, voting a strictly male endeavor. What remains are tax issues remedied, again, by repeal.

But as these are pie in the sky dreams, adjacent to Rorschaching cloud formation, I can only wait for the pending collapse and reformation into United Aztlan.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic August 04, 2012 3:06 PM  

Let the gays have this so they will shut up. We should be focusing on real issues.

You are vastly underestimating the power of this issue as a wedge in other, very important issues. Gay rights are being used as a weapon to attack the Catholic Church, and will be used increasingly so in the coming decades. Don't be surprised if 20 years from now, the church is outlawed in America and its remaining defenders thrown in gulags. Its position on homosexuality gives the liberals a chance to do what they really want to do: outlaw Christianity.

Moreover, the advance of gay marriage makes it even harder to restore other aspects of marriage that are necessary to the survival of Western civilization, like correcting the evils of no-fault divorce and the male-eviscerating divorce courts. As J. D. Unwin points out in "Sex and Culture", once a civilization loses monogamy or polygamy and returns to lekking, it collapses into barbarism in about three generations (cf. any black US inner city). The gay marriage battle is partly about preserving sexual license in general, e.g. women's right to fuck the alpha.

Anonymous Noah B. August 04, 2012 3:10 PM  

For the left, expanding gay marriage is about expanding government benefits like Social Security and promoting homosexual culture.

It seems to me that the best approach is to get government out of marriage entirely. Marriage should be a function of the Church, not the state. Let people decide for themselves who to associate with.

Anonymous paradox August 04, 2012 3:12 PM  

Johnny Caustic August 04, 2012 3:06 PM

Gay rights are being used as a weapon to attack the Catholic Church


You do realize the CEO of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy is protestant... just sayin'... It's an attack on Christianity in general.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2012 3:18 PM  

Libertarians are also terribly confused when it comes to supporting State-created corporate monstrosities like Wal-Mart. They delude themselves corporations are free market.

They also confused about open borders, not realizing they destroy countries.

Anonymous Rantor August 04, 2012 3:19 PM  

So we give them gay marriage... now they want to adopt children... OK, now in California they want to allow children to have more than two parents (two lesbian mothers and a sperm donor father I guess). SOon you'll have three gays who insist on getting married. If it is all covered by the imagined right to privacy, than why not. The Mormons can regain polygamy and President Underoos can take credit for that.

I have just decided that I want Mitt for President. I want to be able to talk about President Underoos for four years. Much better than Bamster or O or Obamanation... I am so tired of this twit. The new guy might not be much better, but he'll be different and the liberal comedians are going to have a great time. They have been a little hands off with O. But they'll be all over the rich, Mormon president with magic underwear and a disabled wife. You know they will go there.

Blogger tz August 04, 2012 3:27 PM  

I left decades ago. The last straw was the $100 MILLION fine imposed on the nuremburg.org website for drawing an X through the picture of an abortionist when they were killed. At the same time they were sending me scary emails about some obscure anti-kiddie-porn on the web bill some senator was proposing that probably wouldn't get to committee.

Excessive fines? Web censorship? Destruction of free speech? The LP won't oppose it if it seeks to ban anti-abortion speech.

Things are so bad that it requires extreme stupidity to not engage the debate in areas where 60-90% of americans disagree with the bifactional ruling party.

Johnson could have said the state has no business defining religion (and riff the HHS mandate), and who is or is not considered "married" and on what terms was until recent history the business of the church, private contract, or at worst the locality. He could also go after the corporate oligarch welfare queens.

I think God is having his revenge upon America. Barring something causing Capt. U from withdrawing his name from nomination (just as the convention opens leaving Ron Paul as the only one with enough states/delegates left to be entered), we are in for years of deserved, self-inflicted terrors.

Anonymous Noah B. August 04, 2012 3:39 PM  

Honestly, I think Romney would be in a position to do much more damage than Obama. Whatever collectivist policy he proposes, the only counterattacks from the Democrats will be to complain that it does not go far enough, and they will still vote for it. Only a few principled Republicans in the House and Senate would be willing to stand up against their own party and vote against further encroachment on freedom.

Think Patriot Act, Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare, invading Iraq, No Child Left Behind, and TARP.

Blogger Joe Doakes August 04, 2012 3:47 PM  

Ras Al Ghul nailed it.

Get government out of the bedroom - completely.

Anonymous Salt August 04, 2012 4:14 PM  

Get government out of the bedroom - completely.

Better yet, stick a condom on it to protect us simple citizens then tell it to go screw itself.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. August 04, 2012 4:34 PM  

.... the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness........that's in the constitution right?

Anonymous Rantor August 04, 2012 5:02 PM  

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... it is in the Declaration of Independence. Not in the Constitution.

The Constitution is to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure these blessings of liberty

You didn't listen to enough of those educational videos on ABC did you?

Blogger rcocean August 04, 2012 5:19 PM  

"Give them Gay Marriage and they'll shut up"

No, give them Gay marriage and they WILL NOT shut up, they'll just move on to the next extreme position. Because the ULTIMATE goal is NOT Gay marriage.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 04, 2012 5:21 PM  

"It's made the government's position every time someone asks a judge to settle property disposition or determine custody at divorce proceedings."

This is how Christian's have brought this upon themselves, by tolerating those who use these secular proceedings to establish or settle these matters. If they were excommunicated, shunned, or even given a well deserved tongue lashing in public it might help, but that horse ran out of the barn a long time ago and I'm at a loss at how to bring it back.

Blogger rcocean August 04, 2012 5:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rcocean August 04, 2012 5:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Mutly August 04, 2012 5:28 PM  

ditto.
sigh...
I swear they only exist to give the Gay Mustacho talking points anymore.

Blogger Good Will August 04, 2012 5:50 PM  

IncorrectlyRight August 04, 2012 2:23 PM
stevev,

It's very interesting and rare that a committed homosexual supports traditional marriage. But I have to ask, how do you rationalize with your gay friends? What do you say to them, regarding the issue?


Not all people who have same-sex attraction (SSA) want to have gay sex or believe in gay marriage. In fact, many "gay" people define heterosexual marriage as the only "real" marriage that counts.

Having SSA is a lot like a man being attracted to one's neighbor's wife or pubescent teenage girls. It may be "natural", but that doesn't make it "right". Nor does that justify acting upon those impulses.

You can be "gay" (be attracted to the same sex) and still support heterosexual marriage, fidelity and chastity.

Here's one guy's story of how that works.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-navigating-the-labyrinth-surrounding-homosexual-desire

Blogger Good Will August 04, 2012 6:00 PM  

Noah B. August 04, 2012 3:39 PM
Honestly, I think Romney would be in a position to do much more damage than Obama. Whatever collectivist policy he proposes, the only counterattacks from the Democrats will be to complain that it does not go far enough, and they will still vote for it. Only a few principled Republicans in the House and Senate would be willing to stand up against their own party and vote against further encroachment on freedom.

Think Patriot Act, Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare, invading Iraq, No Child Left Behind, and TARP.


The truth is, Mormons are a very conservative bunch, by and large, and Mitt will hear not end of it from that side of the fence -- believe me, a CRY will go up from the LDS Church against him if he ever proposes doing something STUPID as POTUS.

It may not turn out so bad (even if Mitt is a "fake" conservative).

Anonymous VD August 04, 2012 6:05 PM  

It may not turn out so bad (even if Mitt is a "fake" conservative).

Romney will be worse than Obama, just as Bush the Younger was worse than Clinton.

Anonymous Rantor August 04, 2012 6:27 PM  

@Good Will: Where is the cry from the Mormon Church going out against Harry Reid? Yeah they have tried to reign in that evil jackal ... not that I have a strong opinion about this. THat Hatch dude is evil too, partnering with Kennedy to do all kinds of stupid stuff.

We'll see how far the church goes in making President Underoos heel.

Anonymous Rantor August 04, 2012 6:29 PM  

Yes Vox, it will be worse, but it will be a different worse, and there will be a transition pause of nothingness while Prez Underoos gets things reorganized.

And the Comedy channel will be better than ever.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box August 04, 2012 7:03 PM  

You are vastly underestimating the power of this issue as a wedge in other, very important issues. Gay rights are being used as a weapon to attack the Catholic Church, and will be used increasingly so in the coming decades. Don't be surprised if 20 years from now, the church is outlawed in America and its remaining defenders thrown in gulags. Its position on homosexuality gives the liberals a chance to do what they really want to do: outlaw Christianity.

Moreover, the advance of gay marriage makes it even harder to restore other aspects of marriage that are necessary to the survival of Western civilization, like correcting the evils of no-fault divorce and the male-eviscerating divorce courts. As J. D. Unwin points out in "Sex and Culture", once a civilization loses monogamy or polygamy and returns to lekking, it collapses into barbarism in about three generations (cf. any black US inner city). The gay marriage battle is partly about preserving sexual license in general, e.g. women's right to fuck the alpha.

Since it's more than evident the Papist LIARarchy is largely pederast sodomite, you can take their "official position on homosexuality" with the grain of salt it deserves.
Just like three-gods, life after death and salvation by altruism, it is their typical assertion of "for me, but not for ye".

Anonymous Salt August 04, 2012 7:32 PM  

Romney will be worse than Obama, just as Bush the Younger was worse than Clinton.

Liberalism is here to stay. It's modern Conservatism that needs to die. Can't kill it if it's not on the chopping block.

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 04, 2012 7:34 PM  

As long as a party needs votes to wield power, it must agree with any large group that threatens to withdraw its support. The less popular party may stick with its principles, but if it does not attract a majority it will not be able to hold onto power.

For this reason I think the country should be serviced by many competing subcontractors who are judged by results. And they should be hired by managers who must also show results.

Marx said a change of quantity causes a change of quality. Maybe we've grown too big for the system.

Anonymous HollowdMan August 04, 2012 7:47 PM  

For the sake of correct logic, would it not be correct that since the constitution does not discuss marriage, then those rights are reserved to the people or States, and is thus protected? Or is that torturing the meaning of "protected"?

Anonymous III August 04, 2012 9:37 PM  

The powers not delegated to the United States (Washington D.C./federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Absolutely not is it protected. What part don't you understand? Some states may recognize it, some may not. The federal government has no say... ANYWHERE... concerning marriage. And NO... this does NOT fall under the commerce clause.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 04, 2012 10:10 PM  

I have been accused of being a Libertarian many times and each time I consider it the same as being called an egg-sucking dog. It is an insult to any patriot to be called a Libertarian. There is no nationalism in the Libertarian creed. I have no idea WHY they bother to run for public office while insisting that borders should not exist and government can do nothing positive. Do they seek public office in order to make sure the government does nothing???

Anonymous DonReynolds August 04, 2012 10:40 PM  

On the subject of gay marriage being forced onto churches, I should mention that no religious marriage is required at all. The county judge and the justices of the peace perform marriages all the time, sometimes standing in the hall of the courthouse.

If anyone is forcing gay marriage upon the churches, it is the ultra liberal clergy of the mainline churches, who have been at the forefront of "gay rights". This is not something that will bubble up from the congregations. Blame the flamin clergy.....they are the social radicals. Heck, even the Southern Baptist Convention has started leading their flocks in that direction with their positions on illegal immigration (thanks, Mike Huckabee). Do I need to mention the Bishops Letter to the Roman Catholic faithful? (No, it did not originate in Rome.) How about the radically Marxist nuns, who have been involving themselves in politics for decades? How many Episcopalian churches are actually left, that have not shifted their loyalty to an African bishop in order to slow the radicalization of their individual churches?

Anonymous Vidad August 04, 2012 10:44 PM  

I used to be registered Libertarian... no longer. I got over that when it became obvious that the party was made up a bunch of autists.

In fact, I really have no allegiance to this nation or any party. I lean Anarcho-capitalist, though I think that system is unworkable.

Monarchy would be preferable to anything remotely democratic. We never should've left England and created this abominable monstrosity.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 04, 2012 10:44 PM  

Mere pandering.

I wasn't aware that Mancow has a Saturday night show on fox. Gary appeared to discuss a variety of issues. I couldn't stand to watch long enough to hear if Gary mentioned his stance on the LP and gay marriage. I was overall disinterested in Mancow and his complaining about the top ten cities with the highest crime rates are ran by dems. As if its news or something...

In the end GM is a total diversion from the growing unemployment and the grooming of the youth to be nothing but check collectors.


It will be hilarious when the DNC's shin-dig takes place in Charlotte. NC like 30 other states rejected GM. However, GM will eventually become mainstream yet the people will remain ignorant to banking and economics.

Speaking of which, cass sunstein is leaving the current admin and will return to Harrrvard to teach behavioral economics and open some kind of nonthink tank.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 04, 2012 10:48 PM  

Would anyone else suggest that an ORomney admin will induce austerity measures?

Anonymous The other skeptic August 04, 2012 11:20 PM  

Article fails to understand that gun crime is so high in the Philippines because gun ownership is so low

Anonymous The OASF August 04, 2012 11:23 PM  

The US Fiddle goobermint's policies toward Wall Street have actually been stringently Libertarian. Totally hands off. And as it turns out The Market does not confront the pharisees, heal the sick and lame or sacrifice its life for humanity.

Well, imagine that.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 04, 2012 11:54 PM  

The OASF, your statement displays the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A libertarian policy would be to have let the banks fail and prosecute any wall street executives for committing fraud and other crimes.

Anonymous Jack Amok August 05, 2012 12:24 AM  

Some people are in favor of legalizing drugs because they are libertarians, and some people are Libertarians because they are in favor of legalizing drugs.

There is a difference between the two. A big one

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 12:39 AM  

Look, when our ancestors gave the state the authority to regulate marriage, they pretty much guaranteed this. Gays should be allowed the same legal rights as everyone else. If there weren't statutory benefits to being legally married, this wouldn't be an issue. Either eliminate those or you have to allow everyone to partake of them. And no, gays aren't allowed the same rights as everyone else. They can't marry the person they love, I can. That argument is beyond stupid.

Blogger Jehu August 05, 2012 12:40 AM  

Vox,
Bush the Younger was worse than Clinton on a lot of things because he was a 'true believer' on a lot of issues. Clinton was an appetite in a suit. Obama is also a 'true believer' on quite a few issues. Romney strikes me as closer to Clinton in that regard. Honestly a fairly straightforward whore is the best that our political system can produce right now.

Anonymous VD August 05, 2012 2:45 AM  

They can't marry the person they love, I can. That argument is beyond stupid.

Yes, your argument certainly is quite stupid. Do you love your mother, Rip? Can you marry her? How about your sister? How about the girl you love who is married to someone else, can you marry her?

Marriage is a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. That is why gay marriage cannot exist, no matter what the government does with its laws. You can call a fish a cheetah, but that doesn't actually make it one.

Anonymous VD August 05, 2012 2:46 AM  

Romney strikes me as closer to Clinton in that regard. Honestly a fairly straightforward whore is the best that our political system can produce right now.

Romney is a true believer in the banks....

Blogger cardo August 05, 2012 3:03 AM  

O.T.: 27 Amazing Things Baby Boomers Have Done for Humanity.

I think this deserve a post of its own.

Blogger Jehu August 05, 2012 3:15 AM  

VD,
Everyone with a realistic shot at the presidency is a true believer in the banks. Hell, that's probably true until you get back to Silent Cal. The problem with the banks won't be solved without tar, feathers, lamp posts, and short ropes. Clinton would generally back down when his policies got too unpopular. Romney would likely be similar. Obama and Bush the Younger have their first instinct to double down.

Anonymous Stilicho August 05, 2012 6:32 AM  

Clinton would generally back down when his policies got too unpopular. Romney would likely be similar.

Romney's unpopular positions (gun control, abortion, Romneycare, bank bailouts, etc.) are strongly supported by the Democratic Party and some RINO's. Why on earrth would he back down when he's likely to win passage of any such bill that he backs?

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2012 6:43 AM  

“...and scuttled themselves”

Just like the GOP scuttled themselves by making Romney the ‘only’ choice? Obama wins, big-soc-gov wins. Romney wins, big-soc-gov wins. How many more times does sort of thing have to happen, in every 'democracy', every time there is any vote about anything, for this to penetrate?

Clearly these type of actions are-were taken by highly intelligent people in full cognisance of ALL the significant consequences. They are ALL for Global Socialism, IN PRACTICE. It is ALL a big game of pretend-pandering: i.e. LIARS playing at lying.

Every group that has influence is placing themselves in such a way that their One Goal is advanced: that they are on conflict with each other, with temporary gains going to the victor (as per those who ‘vote’ for them), is a false perception – they are ALL in it for one thing only: the very-long-term power of Global Socialism in their hands.

The alternative is that they are every-one extremely stupid, have no idea what they are doing from day to day, and do not care to preserve what they (really) have (which is NOT linked to being a member of their 'party': politics is all about buddies taking care of buddies, not about party-vs-party). Oh, and that there are 'some' honest politicians, 'implying' that only a low-level of dishonesty can be existent. Thinking all that IS beyond stupid.

-CB

Anonymous Rantor August 05, 2012 7:11 AM  

@ Anonymous,

I keep wanting to take my life savings and spend the next two years running for Congress on an honesty platform. We'll tell people the truth and let them monitor all campaign meetings and activities via webcam. Our opposition will even get to know what we plan to say and do. Ads will be carefully fact checked and we will avoid hyperbole. I'll even post the first two pages of my tax returns for the last ten years, along with all my school transcripts, birth certificate and college examinations.

The campaign will be for cutting the budget, reforming taxes, ridding the nation of excess law and regulation, stop propping up the banks, mark-to-market, prosecuting Corzine and other corrupt bankers, returning all programs not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the states, clear preference for traditional families, pro-life, etc. All donors will be listed on the web site and campaign transactions posted regularly.

Since it is Sunday, I could put links to my church up so that anyone who wants to can listen to the sermons I am hearing...

So does anyone out there think someone that open and honest can win? Or will I just lose my money?

Maybe I could get the Koch brothers to pay for this??? Hell I could put donor logos on my polo shirts or jackets...

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 8:31 AM  

VD, sometimes you really stoop to some pretty ridiculous arguments. I don't even fundamentally disagree with you on this, other than the fact that marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state. It's obvious I wasn't talking about marrying my mother or whatever other stupid shit you want to obfuscate with. Arguing that gay people have the same legal rights as straight people with respect to marriage is stupid. They don't. Now, either get the state out of marriage altogether and allow it to once again be a matter between the people involved and the church, or stop bitching.

Good grief, I expected better of you.

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 8:37 AM  

If there weren't statutory benefits to being legally married, this wouldn't be an issue. Either eliminate those or you have to allow everyone to partake of them.

Yes, let's eliminate all tax disparities (Head of Household, disabilities, income brackets, claiming dependents and dozens of others) or let everyone partake of them. It's just not fair that I don't get the same tax breaks as a paraplegic Head of Household with 9 children living below the poverty line. JUST NOT FAIR!!!

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 8:37 AM  

Oh, and if you're going to define marriage as a contractual agreement, then yeah, you can redefine what that contract entails anytime the governing authority decides to do so. In other words, whomever you give the authority to regulate marriage from a legal, contractual perspective can define what marriage is. So, while you can bitch and piss and moan about it, the reality is that once that authority was freely given to the state and taken away from the church, this was inevitable.

Anything the state can do for you, it can do to you, and all that.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 8:41 AM  

@IM2L844

Yeah, we should absolutely get rid of all those tax incentives. While I realize that you're being sarcastic, I am not. If there is going to be an income tax it should be paid the same by everyone. Why the hell should I pay for some irresponsible moron with 9 kids living below the poverty line?

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 8:55 AM  

While I realize that you're being sarcastic, I am not.

I'm not either. I'm all for a consumption based tax system. The point is that the time and energy wasted focusing on changing marriage laws would be much better spent trying to change the tax laws. I think you could get a lot more people behind that cause.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 9:07 AM  

Oh, I don't disagree with you on that at all, and I don't think it's politically smart for the LP to waste a second focusing on this issue. I'm just arguing from a philosophical standpoint. You can't give the state the authority to regulate something and then pitch a fit when those that are legally discriminated by the way they are being regulated attempt to change it. Once you give the state any power, it is subject to change by those that have the authority to do so.

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 9:22 AM  

Legally discriminated? How a person chooses to get their rocks off doesn't a priori qualify them for any particular legal status at all.

Anonymous duckman August 05, 2012 9:47 AM  

Weak August 04, 2012 1:47 PM Seriously? Who really cares about this? Does anyone really care? We have zillion dollar deficits, an EPR below 60% & falling fast, and banksters running wilde. Yet we want to waste time on this distraction?

Let the gays have this so they will shut up. We should be focusing on real issues.


The issue from the standpoint of the homosexuals is not marriage; it's victimhood. Victimhood has become what is important in our society. Blacks point to slavery, Jews to the holocaust, feminists to whatever is hurting their feelings at the moment. Gays are looking to trump all of them by being able to say: "We have been the oppressed more and longer than anybody. We just now gained the right to marry. Blah, blah, we are victims; blah, blah, blah."

Ironically, the only reason victims get a hearing in this world is because of the Judeo-Christian basis of western civilization. That is, the old Mosaic Law's emphasis on not oppressing the widow, orphan, and foreigner. Somehow that sense of fairness to the weak has been translated into victimhood as a virtue, something it clearly is not.

Anonymous Robert in Arabia August 05, 2012 10:04 AM  

"There are parts of the brain that light up and signal sympathy when we
see people in pain or being punished. Psychological studies have been
set up in which the brains of subjects were scanned while they watched
the punishment of people who had cheated in a game. The sympathy
circuits in women’s brains lit up; those in men did not. Men appear to
lose their instinctive sympathy for pain when they think it is deserved,
whereas women remain sympathetic. "

Which proves women should never be permitted to take charge of
institutions especially educational and especially not a country.

I believe it has been the gradual politically orchestrated emancipation
of women (out of which the 1960s Womens' Liberation Movement emerged)
over the course of the latter part of the 19th century and the whole of
the 20th which has spelt the near death of Western civilization today.

Perhaps there is something praiseworthy to be said about certain aspects of Sharia Law after all. http://www.amren.com/features/2012/07/pathological-altruism/


There's also the parasite theory. In the first case, a parasite infects an ant which causes it to engage in suicidal activity:

Dicrocoelium dendriticum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Yet another parasite which causes self-destructive behavior in humans:

http://www.reuters.com/article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/06/us-parasite-tied-to-self-harm-suicide-at-idUSBRE8650YL20120706

Anonymous No_LimitBubba™ August 05, 2012 10:19 AM  

My grandmother always said that the changing of social mores was like the motion of a pendulum.

We may very well look back at this Chick-Fil-A thing as the precise moment that the pendulum ceased its leftward climb and started to fall back toward the center.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 10:33 AM  

@IM2L844

It does when the state legally classifies such things for taxing and other purposes.

Anonymous aero August 05, 2012 11:00 AM  

Marriages is a church Matter. The government doesn't need to be Involved In any church.
The IRS tax codes are more anti family. The wealth of a family or its size, is none of the government business. The government is destroying the generational bond of the family with their tax codes. It is the government that has one generation paying for the other generation through there entitlement programs.

It was the churches that wanted government marriage licenses thinking it would increase membership

It is the churches that want the charity tax codes thinking it would increase donations.

Why would anybody support the churches that wants to make laws that regulate ones behavior?

Why would anybody want to support or attend a church that condones bad behavior?

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves laughing at are stupid asses.

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 11:22 AM  

@Rip

You're confused. The argument, at it's foundation, is that moral relativism deserves to be taken seriously and sanctioned by the government and Christian organizations alike. It doesn't. It simply isn't a logically tenable position.

The two consistent criticisms coming out of the gay community are that Christians are judgmental and think their position is the only one that is correct.

First, the criticism that Christians are judgmental is itself profoundly judgmental. Secondly, why on earth would anyone hold to a position they didn't believe was correct. Does the gay community believe their position is the correct one? You see? If you continue down this path of reasoning, it becomes clear that moral relativism is self defeating.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 11:55 AM  

Who's arguing moral relativism? I'm simply stating that one should never give the state any authority. Otherwise, this is what you get. Arguing morality in the face of the state is like VD's attempt to parse semantics with my initial post, which is akin to winning the special olympics - in the end, you're still retarded.

Anonymous VD August 05, 2012 12:09 PM  

Arguing that gay people have the same legal rights as straight people with respect to marriage is stupid. They don't.

Yes, they most certainly do. And you have to be either dishonest or a complete moron to claim otherwise. You are dancing around the undeniable fact that homosexual man has precisely the same rights that a normally oriented man does. Neither one of them can marry a man. Neither one of them can marry a sheep either.

It doesn't matter that the gay man might want to marry the man but not the sheep where as the normal man doesn't want to marry either.

Do you seriously wish to deny that men who sexually prefer sheep have the same rights that other men do? Because that is precisely the equivalent of what you are trying to do here.

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2012 12:18 PM  

No Gore Vidal post?

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 12:32 PM  

@Rip

First you said:
"Gays should be allowed the same legal rights as everyone else."

Then you said:
" I'm simply stating that one should never give the state any authority."

How do you propose that the state give "the same legal rights" to gays as everyone else without giving them the authority to grant those illegitimately presupposed legal rights? And why should gays "be allowed the same legal rights as everyone else" in the first place if you are not wanting the government to officially sanction a morally relativistic position that gays believe should be on equal footing with the moral absolutist's position.

Pretending this isn't fundamentally about moral relativism vs. moral absolutism is absurd.

Anonymous Mr. Hammerhead August 05, 2012 1:12 PM  

The jig is up for faggots. Level-headed people are starting to realize that it's the conscientious objectors to homo weddings who are the ones being truly demonized and marginalized. This whole Chick-fil-A brouhaha has been an unmitigated disaster for the gay lobby and shows how disconnected it is from normal society.

Blogger Jamie-R August 05, 2012 1:48 PM  

A big problem with this 'culture war' or whatever they want to call it, is that a Christian who runs a business answered a question stating a belief. Then gays attacked, and their allies attacked, and the war was launched with a wtf for those who didn't know it was full frontal warfare. Now the defence is underway. The left should realise that politics is a battle of moralities, you can go after Christians, sure, they are taught not to do violence as a measure to expand the faith, but we are entitled a f**king self-defence, even Jesus teaches that!

Blogger Jamie-R August 05, 2012 2:01 PM  

Once again, Jon Stewart ran to the defence with his sartorial leftist wit, talking about buttered buns and a big cock in the middle. Oh yes, Jon, thank you, oh wait you changed your name cause you were too scared to practice your beliefs in America with a Jewish name hey, so why hammer people for their beliefs out of a moral-guided belief? Isn't that what they did to Jews?

Vox, if you use him again for anything, I will have to fly over to Euro-f**k-land and squash you with my goon farts.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:17 PM  

Ok VD, you want to play stupid, silly games of semantics. You're purposefully ignoring the real issue, of course, because you don't agree with homosexuality. Hell, neither do I, but that's not the point and I'm reasonably sure (though you could be as stupid as you're sounding right now) that you know full well the point I'm making.

But hey, this is why I generally refrain from arguing with people. MPAI, and all that.

Yes, that means you, when you let your emotions dictate.

This is why I'm not a statist, you all end up looking like morons when the state decides to potentially allow something you disagree with.

I find it hilarious that so many people tend to revert to the beastiality argument, yet you know damned well that animals aren't people.

No, they can't marry sheep, given that sheep aren't people, why should they be able to? Of course, if you'd stop acting like a child and address the issue logically you'd understand that, but, as with free trade, you're stuck on stupid in that you want to give the state a power it should never have had in the first place, then you want to whine like a fiddler's bitch when it turns on you.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:26 PM  

@IM2L844

Arguing that the state is in any fashion a beacon of morality is absurd. I'm only stating that since you've collectively given the state the authority to do a thing, you shouldn't bitch when those that are legally discriminated against try to change that thing. Get the government out of marriage and let it go back to where it belongs.

Hell, when I was a religious man, I always assumed that the tool that the devil used to implement his control over the world was the state. Even now, when I'm neither a religious person nor an atheist (I'm basically an "I don't give a shit-ist"), it's still pretty clear that the state is nothing more than an instrument of evil.

But I suppose that as long as it furthers the ends that you all find acceptable, that's ok. Just stop bitching when it turns on you. Because it will. 100% of the time.

Blogger Spacebunny August 05, 2012 2:27 PM  

Rip dear, you still haven't shown how gays do not have the same rights as normal people with regards to marriage. You made an assertion, now back it up with something resembling evidence and not just emotional posturing. Gays are asking for special rights. Specifically, they are asking for the right to marry someone of the same sex, this is demonstrably not the same right that normal people have with regards to marriage (they are allowed to marry certain people, not just any person, of the opposite sex) or they wouldn't need to state it, would they? Try not to be so slow in the future. So, answer this simple question - are gays legally allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? If they answer is yes, then they have the exact same rights with regard to marriage that every other person has.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:29 PM  

Actually I shouldn't be surprised. Most men are sheep, given the appropriate situation.

Blogger Jamie-R August 05, 2012 2:36 PM  

I like how the term 'equality' is being used. If it was really about equality, no excuses would be used, either side, equality! So let's talk about the racial disparity in paying taxes. We'll sort a lot out in equality terms when that is resolved, cause work costs people time, and some people cost workers time.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:39 PM  

Well, it's certainly my fault for stating this in terms of rights in the first place, given than rights aren't something that ever flow from government. But if you and your husband want to continue to play this silly game - you're right, no one at present can marry someone of the same sex and have the same legal "benefits" as those of us who are normally oriented. But sheep and mothers aside, most of us are legally allowed to marry the person we wish to marry. Gays are NEVER allowed this. Keep ignoring the point and focusing on semantics if you wish, those that already agree with you will, those that don't, won't. And it will not matter in any case, because the day you willfully gave the state the power to determine what a marriage is, is the day you lost.

Seriously, I would have thought both of you would know better than to ever give this type of power to the state.

Blogger Spacebunny August 05, 2012 2:46 PM  

Rip dear, you need to put on your big girl panties and join us at the grown up table. Now, where has Vox or myself ever stated that we believed marriage should ever have been in the purvey of the state to begin with? That's right dear we haven't, and neither have most of the people who regularly comment here. However, having a discussion about the actual state of things as opposed to what the ideal is, is what this conversation is about. And by the by dear, your statement of "most of us are legally allowed..." shows that others are not - who are these others and why should they not have the right to marry who they like?

Blogger Jamie-R August 05, 2012 2:47 PM  

Rip, you are here for the retarded. They need a champion. You are that person. Someone comes along to this blog, they don't like reason, logic, forget that they don't like language, words, that's where you come in. Just go away, the material world calls, here is an illusion of text, like the bible.

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:58 PM  

Like I said, doll, keep dancing around the real issue. I may have made a mistake by taking VDs assertion that "marriage is a contract between a man and a woman" to mean that the arbiter of said contract was the state. If I did so, I apologize.

BTW, I'm not the one arguing against allowing people to legally marry whomever they choose. That would be you. Why should I tell you why they shouldn't be allowed to do something by an entity that I do not believe has any business in this?

Anonymous Rip August 05, 2012 2:59 PM  

Spacebunny - whom do you believe should regulate marriage?

Blogger Spacebunny August 05, 2012 3:06 PM  

That would be you.

Really? Where did I make that argument, and do be specific.

Why should I tell you why they shouldn't be allowed to do something by an entity that I do not believe has any business in this?

A) because you were asked a direct question and more importantly B) because you are the one arguing that a specific group should be given the right - it is immaterial to the question whether or not you believe an entity (in this case the state) should have the ability to grant said right or not.

Blogger Spacebunny August 05, 2012 3:10 PM  

By the way dear, the only dancing here is you (I'm fairly certain you are used to dancing alone). You first asserted that gays "should be given the same rights as everyone else" and then attempt to claim that you don't think the state should grant any rights with regards to marriage. Do you seriously not see how retarded you sound?

Anonymous The OASF August 05, 2012 3:25 PM  

"FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 04, 2012 11:54 PM

The OASF, your statement displays the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A libertarian policy would be to have let the banks fail and prosecute any wall street executives for committing fraud and other crimes."

It's ok, I understand that you have no clue about the context of the financial crisis, or grammar and comprehension for that matter. 1.) The financial sector was just about completely deregulated, in a fine "L"ibertarian tradition, and 2.) The inevitable failure of the banks is a function of the natural laws of the Universe, regulations or not. Further neo-Libertarian policy (e.g. bailouts) is trying to support the deregulated system.

Libertarianism is applied by the establishment when it suits an agenda just like the GOP magically discovers Constitutionalism when it helps mask a sinister goal. e.g. collecting Census data is clearly unconstitutional! Especially economic data! It's a matter of national security, you see.

Blogger IM2L844 August 05, 2012 4:06 PM  

Rip, nowhere did I ever come close to even suggesting the government was a beacon of morality. In theory the government can't legislate morality, but in reality they try and do it all the time - usually at the behest of one special interest group or another and usually couched in the more politically correct terminology of "justice" and "equality".

This isn't subtle, nuanced, complicated or nebulous. You're the one doing the dancing around a very simple and straight forward issue. You keep going back and forth on making two issues into one issue and then back into two issues again. The issue of wanting the state out of our business is settled. We all want that, but it isn't the reality of the situation and we have every right to piss and moan about the government legislating morality under the pretense of equal rights for a special interest group that doesn't deserve to have any legal standing of any kind whatsoever.

I have the legal right to discriminate against all sorts of people and entire classes of people if they are not a protected class of people under the law. There is no evidence that people with abnormal sexual orientations should be a legally protected class of people, but you, Tiny Dancer, would have the government pass legislation to remove my right to discriminate against them. Who is equivocating here?

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2012 5:19 PM  

Rip,

You are full of it.

Here is reality.

Iowa Merged Code - Iowa Legislature

section 595 Domestic Relationships



595.2 Gender — age.
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.
2. Additionally, a marriage between a male and a female is valid only if each is eighteen years of age or older. However, if either or both of the parties have not attained that age, the marriage may be valid under the circumstances prescribed in this section.
3. If either party to a marriage falsely represents the party's self to be eighteen years of age or older at or before the time the marriage is solemnized, the marriage is valid unless the person who falsely represented their age chooses to void the marriage by making their true age known and verified by a birth certificate or other legal evidence of age in an annulment proceeding initiated at any time before the person reaches their eighteenth birthday.



595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage shall be valid.

This is just a sample.

But, you get the idea. There are legally necessary limits on who can marry and who can not. Surely you are not in favor of the state (or the church for that matter) allowing minors to marry their fathers or old perverts like yourself buying teenage brides, right?

Sections 597 Husband and Wife

Section 598 DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Section 600 ADOPTION

Section 600B PATERNITY AND OBLIGATION FOR SUPPORT




There is a necessity for law to determine these kinds of issues.

You may hate the state, but claiming that by making marriage something only within the purview of the church is comical.

Are you going to have the church set up a legal review board to determine child custody and adoption rules and paternity?

The problem with you utopian libertarians is that you can't comprehend the fact that there are multitudes of people in the world who do not want the church to be a legal system for them or anybody else.

The church can not and should not become a replacement for civil government. I do not want my church evolving into a judicial system.

The purpose of the church is to establish and strengthen mans relationship to God. This is a vertical relationship, the Creator to His creation.

The purpose of the state (civil government) is to regulate and strengthen mans relationship to his fellow man. This is a horizontal relationship between beings who were created equal.

Oh and just so you know, the rules for the horizontal relationship must be in agreement with the rules established by the Creator.

The Creator says don't bugger your neighbor, then the civil government does not have the authority to authorize that act.


farmer Tom

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2012 5:22 PM  

Oh and read the code for yourself.

They have rules for all kinds of things related tot he marriage contract.

Iowa Code



farmer Tom

Anonymous Josh August 05, 2012 5:54 PM  

The purpose of the state (civil government) is to regulate and strengthen mans relationship to his fellow man.

No, the purpose of the state is to protect property rights and contracts.

Blogger Jamie-R August 05, 2012 6:09 PM  

whom do you believe should regulate marriage?

Ask me cunt. Unlike Dan Cathy I am ready to fight this war. Let's fight equality, in all its forms. White people have been waiting for this. The question is if victim strategy from the 19th century is allowed. If so the Irish also want to compete. Apart from that, you tell those scat freaks they need to line up behind the negroes and the jews.

Anonymous Godfrey August 05, 2012 7:09 PM  

This is why I gave up on the Libertarian – or is it now the Libertine? – Party. If the Republican Party is the Stupid Party, then the Libertarian Party is the Stupider Party. This level of stupidity is so hard to fathom I begin to wonder if it is the result of some ingenious plot to destroy the Party.

This issue is so easy. The government SHOULD NOT be involved in marriage AT ALL. That’s the real libertarian position. Johnson/Gray are nothing but petty frauds.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 05, 2012 10:43 PM  

The OASF, the financial sector was no completely deregulated. The only regulation that was eliminated was the one that separated investment banking from commercial banking. I wasn't for that because deposit insurance wasn't eliminated also, maintaining a serious moral hazard.

If you can't understand that bailouts are the opposite of a libertarian policy, you are a complete and utter idiot.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box August 06, 2012 3:57 AM  

Libertarians also have the key flaw of no political depth perception whatever - they are much too honest and objective & lack the deceit and treachery of their Establishment/VeldtSchtaat Party opponents.
Hell, even Lincoln knew he couldn't tell all til he was in office & capable of starting the War on America - which continues to this day!

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews August 06, 2012 4:34 AM  

I read a while back that all laws were really legislating morality at some level. I can't make the whole argument, but I cannot think of an exception now. The key question is whose morality.

Mandating acceptance of something like this topic also forces others to provide benefits. That point is rarely mentioned.

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic August 06, 2012 11:20 AM  

The State regulates marriage because the State runs the courts. Period. So if you're asking what business the State has in marriage, the answer is, because people ask the State for permission to adopt, settle a property or probate dispute, or get somebody to pay alimony or child support.

Replace the State with whatever social structure you want: Amish village, Hebrew township, Muslim caliphate, whatever. Somebody somewhere is going to decide which sexual unions will have legal validity and which won't. In a secular democracy, the State gets to decide. Get rid of the State, and a council of elders, the bishops, the imams will decide it. And the libertarians will still be whining.

Anonymous The OASF August 07, 2012 8:56 PM  

"The OASF, the financial sector was no completely deregulated."

That so? And how many bankers have gone to jail for their dirty deeds? How many inside traders or financial gurus have been tarred and feathered. Are default credit swaps, Libor interest rates and high frequency/volume trading the product of a partially regulated system?

And no, the silly diversion arrest of Martha Stewart and the razing of Madoff's ponzi scheme don't count.

As far as the bailouts go... again... you have serious reading comprehension issues. The establishment mixes and matches its policies with the worst of all ideologies, hence my point. I never said the bailouts were "L"ibertarian in policy... but were implemented after the fact to prop up a failed system whose architects clearly drew from "L"ibertarian intellectual hogwash to create it. And actually, if you look even casually at the real causes of America's economic collapse... the slime of mainstream Libertarianism oozes out of them like a juicy pimple ready to pop.

Blogger Spacebunny August 08, 2012 2:06 AM  

Still dancing and you haven't answered the question dear - try again.

Blogger Spacebunny August 09, 2012 1:22 AM  

And they will keep being deleted until you answer my question.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts