Posted on 07/19/2004 6:03:47 AM PDT by Undertow
Badnarik applauds Senate rejection of GOP-led measure to ban gay marriage
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Senate did the right thing on Wednesday by rejecting a proposal to ban gay marriage, says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, because the government has no business further interfering in what should be a purely religious or civil ceremony.
"When two people say 'I do,' the government has no business saying: 'Oh no you don't!'" Badnarik says. "Politicians don't get to decide whose baby can get baptized, who can receive Holy Communion or who can get bar mitzvahed -- and they shouldn't get to decide who gets married, either."
The measure to allow a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage, supported by President Bush and most Republicans, failed in the U.S. Senate, getting just 48 of the 60 necessary votes. The drive to amend the Constitution -- and thereby override state court rulings allowing gay marriage -- was sparked by a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that said gay couples have a right to wed.
Libertarians applaud the Senate vote because decisions about marriage are far too important to be left in the hands of the government.
"Marriage should be decided by individuals or by churches and other voluntary, civil organizations -- and certainly not by politicians posturing for votes in an election year," Badnarik says. "The institution of marriage is a building block of a civilized society, which is exactly why we have to keep the destructive hand of government away from it."
Government involvement in marriage had an ugly beginning, Badnarik noted.
"The only reason that marriage licenses even exist is that state and local governments once mandated them as a way to enforce laws against interracial marriage," he said. "In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as they can be denied to gay couples today."
As long as any governmental group -- federal, state or local -- controls marriage, controversy will erupt, Badnarik pointed out, because politicians will always have something to gain by favoring one group over another.
The Libertarian solution: Turn decisions on marriage over to "a higher authority" -- namely, churches, other voluntary organizations and individuals.
"Just as the Catholic Church has historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some religious groups refuse to bless gay unions," he said.
"Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"
Losertarians
More blather form the vile libertine crowd. This debate is simply over whether the acutrements of marriage shall accrue to same sex couples. Nothing will prevent them from 'marrying' in some reprobate church.
When I got married 30 years ago in Cook County, Illinois, we both were required to take a blood test, and if the results came back a certain way, we would not be allowed to be married.
No libertarian addressed their concerns over the intrusive nature of a blood test, which has to be one of the intrusive things you can ask someone to do.
But when it comes to homosexuality, the libertarians have coniption fits at the thought of governmental involvement.
In this regard, they are just trying to be PC. What a bunch of losers.
"Both those who support and those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"
---
If they are not getting married in the govt's eyes, then whose are they? Obviously not gods eyes. So if they are getting married to have the govt give them rights, then why cant the govt decide who does and doesnt get married? The article said that it should be left up to the church's to decide who gets married, I believe that it already has been left up to a higher person, and he has already answered.
Yo, Einstein! What do you think "civil marriage" means?
Religous groups ? Individuals ? Do these idiot libertarians understand that we do not live in a world of villages where people spend all their lives in one place and antisocial behavior can be controlled by fear of ostracism or disgrace ?
-"In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples..."-
Yes, you shallow anarchist - for opposite-sex couples!!
"Each individual will be free to choose. Isn't that what America's all about?"
Not with "compassionate conservatism", which favors gov't intrusion into private lives.
Libertarians: love gays, terrorists, and abortion.
Republicans: burn black churches, anti-immigrants and hate minorities.
That's comparing apples to oranges or, in language libertarians might understand, apples to pot. (Holy communion has nothing to do with rights of inheritance or property rights, for starters.)
The only difference being that what I said was straight from the LP platform, while what you said are the worst kind of race-baiting lies. Typical of libertarians.
The only difference being that what I said was straight from the LP platform, while what you said are the worst kind of race-baiting lies. Typical of libertarians.
Then obviously, you fear giving fellow Americans the right to live their own lives. Typical of Republicans.
But Mr. Bad that isn't libertine enough. What if I want to marry my dog? Shouldn't that count too?
(Now a more consistent position would be to stop all government recognition of marriage of WHATEVER kind. Few people want that, but it is more in tune with fundamental libertarian ideals.)
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.