Posted on 06/15/2011 2:22:25 PM PDT by Syncro
GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT!
June 15, 2011I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)
They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.
"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions.
It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.
But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.
Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:
"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."
If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)
Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?Read More »
One would think that an author would appreciate librarians!
What, is she down on the Dewey Decimal System too?
Ann raises some definitely arguable questions that help crystallize the justifications for laws regarding marriage. I happen to agree with her. The issue that ignited her rant against libertarians was ‘gay marriage’. This is only an issue because homosexual activists have forced it by demanding (and occasionally receiving) legal authorization for two people of the same sex to marry, a concept that didn’t exist when marriage laws were enacted even if those practicing homosexual behaviors, did. That it exists, today, is problematic for most conservatives. Ann’s position that libertarians sidestep the controversy by claiming the government has no business having anything to do with marriage seems reasonable, unlike her fixation on New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Ann seems desperate to see Christie, a conservative on fiscal matters but relatively liberal on social issues, make a run for the GOP nomination for president, which I consider a foolish idea and one that seems odd for an intelligent, politically and socially conservative woman such as Ann Coulter.
And she excerpts her columns now, on her own site!
She shows no fear lol
...Didn't mind the "book talk" as she is on to promote her newest but the Chris Christie BS is too much, especially when he keeps saying he is not running.Bingo!
DEMONIC, yes!
CHRIS CHRISTIE, not so much!
Ever the extremist, her.
She was corrected quite well by RonDog in this post:
Thanks RonDog!
To: Syncro
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in...Well, Ann **almost** has it right!That SHOULD, of course. read:
I consider all Republican debates time-fillers untilThere! Fixed it!!New JerseyALASKA Gov.Chris ChristieSARAH PALIN jumps in...MUCH BETTER!
Sometimes Ann REALLY irritates me. Sometimes she REALLY makes me laugh. THIS is one of the times she made me LAUGH!
The feds have placed their tentacles into every aspect of Americans lives.
Laws stacked on top of laws on top of regulation on top of laws.
So many taxing entities throughout all levels of government sucking the juice of life outta our economy and livelihoods.
Ron Paul says a bunch stuff I don't necessarily agree with, but he is the closest candidate to true constitutionalism as one can get.
Problem is, we've moved so far from the original mandates and limitations of the constitution, most Americans don't even recognize liberty as intended by the framers.
We have millions of citizens who hold dual citizenship with divided loyalties...that's if they hold any loyalty to the U.S. at all.
Sorry, but I'm absolutely fed up with the same ol politicians spewing a bunch of regurgitated nonsense for the American electorate to just swallow up and lick their fingers like a piece of greasy Kentucky Fried Chicken.
When will we ever wake up and smell the damn coffee?
I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?
Well-put on all counts.
Read later
But there are more obtuse Americans than there are gay Americans, so courts are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract.
Ann is right. The reason government licenses marriage is to streamline that common and contract law you refer to so that the courts aren't clogged up with "obtuse" Americans. It is a cheap and efficient legal convenience.
Not licensing it doesn't actually get the government out of marriage. You're just shifting the legal activity to the courts (and feeding the lawyers).
Ann, stop waterskiing near sharks.
Your books are great, and generally I'm a Coulter dittohead, but not this time.
All of the legal "problems" you raise to the "loss" of government marriage are straw men, and you know it.
As a lawyer, you are well aware that there's this thing called a "contract."
All we need is the acknowledgement by the government - through laws that compel it - that it must honor any marriage contract drafted between two people. That contract can be standardized, or not, an can address all of the issues you brought up.
You also know that government marriages are relatively new, and that most geneology in this country has to search church marriage documents past a certain historical time - like before WWII.
And as for whether two people want to be married by their tennis instructor, I guess that's none of your business, is it? You can denounce them, and your church can denounce them, and together you can refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their marriage. Fine, knock yourself out.
But the contract between them is valid under the law.
And guess what? You don't have to give a damn about what they think of you, either.
Natural Rights - they're not just a good idea, they're the law.
Do they get to choose their weapons, mud or jello?
I assume the solution is some sort of state issued legal unions for hetero and homosexuals. If there has to be change, this would be the best route, IMO
Hmmm, they probably do like in bookstores...
Its also why gay activists don't want government out of the marriage business and don't just do a basic "sign a will/and give the partner power of attorney".
Some libertarians have proposed only allowed civil unions (recognized by the government) for straight and gay folks, while leaving "marriage" itself to whatever religious institution there is.
Gay activists are opposed to that too, they want the benefits of marriage and also the laziness of avoiding the issues of contract law and courts.
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.
