Posted on 05/19/2011 1:31:15 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
The Libertarian Party of Minnesota has taken a position on the proposal to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the voters of Minnesota. I am taking the time to rebut this paragraph because this kind of argument has become all too common, even among those who have every desire and intention to expand the scope of government. You might think this would give Libertarians pause, but, that is another story.
Here is what the LPMN has to say:
The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve. Government has no business restricting or interfering with marriage. This ban would create a caste system by dividing society into two classes: those who are permitted to marry, and those who are not.
Let’s start at the beginning:
The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Actually, affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not affect anyone’s ability to “live as they choose.” It affects people’s qualifications for the rights and responsibilities associated with a social and public institution. Same sex couples can live together, invest and spend money together, probably share parenting, and of course, do anything they want in their bedrooms.
(Excerpt) Read more at ruthblog.org ...
I think some libertarians are just closet socialists. Is it a coincidence that they’re always looking to socialist European designer family experiments to implement here?
That is a reference to history for state intervention in marriage, but it goes back much further than that. I guess I will do my own research, but God-given institutions seem to me to be mainly the province of the Church, not the government. I’ve never understood why atheists marry. It makes no sense at all to me. As marriage has become more of a civil matter than a religious matter, marriage has suffered as an institution, at least in my humble opinion.
I think there is a problem with that line of reasoning. It has to do with the size and scope of government. Libertarians and socialists appear to be polar opposites when it comes to that rather crucial issue, no?
The natural law is the basis for our republic.
Children have a right to be brought up according to nature, not perversion.
The Incoherent Libertarian Position on ___________.
Good for all social issues.
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.