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 »
Fixed it.
That is what a marriage license is; a state issued license recognizing the legal validity of a union.
Trying to take the government out of marriage is literally not possible since courts are an arm of the government.
I’m against recognizing gay marriage as a legal union because it think it opens the door to polygamy and even adult incest with it’s consenting adults bilge. Marriage is not about individuals, it is about civilization built through the biological family unit. Screw with that and you can stick a fork in Western Civilization.
Coulter hit the nail on the head on why I’m now a recovering Ron Paul supporter. This viewpoint infects almost everything Paul thinks (not that all his views are wrong, many of them are right, particularly economically). Just like liberals think corporations are the problem with everything, when they are really the solution, libertarians believe that the state is the problem with absolutely everything, even to the point of anarchism for many of the more doctrinaire libertarians (Ron Paul might be among them, I don’t know for sure on that count).
BTW, sane libertarians, like sane liberals, are conservatives who have been duped.
We don't need a moderate President, we need a Conservative President!
Government is too damn big, too damn intrusive, too damn expensive.”
YES!
And defining marriage between one man and one woman, as it has been done for millenia is NOT the problem, its the solution. Strong families are like antibodies for cultural dissolution and are a preventative to massive Govt.
All big Govt schemes involve the Govt REPLACING families. Comunists, nazis, leftist communes, etc. ALL replaced parental direction with Govt indoctrination.
Which is why destruction of families and family values is a biggies with the Left. Easier to shape minds with pesky parents out of the way. Easier to redefine values when you destroy moral values in law.
Libertarian chicken-s*** attitude on families and marriage is a big gift to the Left.
Bravo to Ann Coulter for pointing this out.
” 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.” Maybe, but this agenda of upending marriage has NOTHING to do with upholding the Constitution. Hurting traditional marriage will hurt the Constitution.
Wrong. A license is the state assuming the authority over the existence of the union.
Under Natural Rights, the state doesn't have the authority to create, maintain or dissolve a marriage union. All it can do is accept the existence of the marriage contract between two human beings - a marriage contract made by them, not the state. If - and only if - that marriage contract violates a law somewhere, then, and only then, can the state challenge it's validity, and only to the extent that the law is violated.
What people don't understand is that the power of marriage doesn't exist in the state. It doesn't exist, and it never will. Because marriage is solely between human beings, before God, based on love. Under natural rights, those issues not not exist as powers of the state, and never can, and never will, because the state is, by definition, not human.
We live in a time when Americans have forgotten about natural rights - even conservatives. When they do think of them, they think they're some sort of way to organize rights the state should agree to. They are not. They are much, much bigger than that. They are an acknowledgement, by the Founders, that there are things that the state simply does not include, because it does not include it. Fish do not include bananas. Rain does not include computer source code. Automobiles do not include earthquake faults.
The state does not include marriage. Human beings alone, and the love they have for each other that backs their pledge to each other before God (or whatever they hold holy), is the power of marriage.
Giving the state the power of marriage is the abandonment of our very humanity itself.
Period.
I question anyone’s legitimacy who refers to themselves as a dittohead when showing their appreciation of anyone.
Natural rights? Yep, it's NOT natural for homosexuals to be married unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's why it is a "natural" law.
No, they want to destroy the Institution of Marriage by polluting it with their perversionistic "life" (read death) style.
Yes it is. But it is NOT a marriage.
I don’t suppose you’d care to make any comments about my arguments, would you?
” All of the legal “problems” you raise to the “loss” of government marriage are straw men, and you know it. “
Broken homes are not a strawman, but a top source of juvenile social pathology.
“You also know that government marriages are relatively new”
Wrong. Marriages have been defined in law since ancient times, including the laws of Justinian in 550AD.
Such ignorance and misstatement of law and history has led you far astray.
“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 “
We have that today, so what is so objectionable about the status quo, a status quo defined in law for 1500 years?
The urge to destroy a standard, moral understanding of marriage serves what end? No end really, except further fraying of the social fabric, already already quite frayed by the last generational trends in ‘defining deviancy down’.
“Natural Rights - they’re not just a good idea, they’re the law.” LOL, reread your Locke, then, on the relations of parents and children, etc. Marriage is an institution, not a right, and one designed to protect children’s rights from abuse of parents, while giving parents rights to direct children. The Left has for 50 years tried to undermine that traditional relationship, and clueless Libertarians swallow dumb and incorrect arguments in giving away the store.
There is no ‘right’ to polygamy. there is no right marry just anyone you want (not your sister, not your uncle, not 3 guys names Bob, and not your goldfish). Nor is there a ‘right’ to destroy the definition of marriage in law.
Homosexual judges might try to change the rules, but there is no justifiable right to back up those rule changes, just judicial fiat and the pressure from activists hellbent on an agenda that is at odds with protecting what’s good about marriage.
Coulter is right. Abolition of marriage is kooky idea based on misreading history, law and philosophy. gay marriage is a bad idea, but this idea is 10X worse.
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.”
That’s what they say.
What people HEAR is: “Hey, I am totally unrealistically clueless about our real culture and how the real world works.”
She is putting out valid questions, you answer to one of them is "red herring"
OK
Private health care companies aren't allowed to make their own decisions anymore. Obama's guys are in charge.
Any other dumb questions Ms. Coulter comments, Mr. Lurker?
She’s pushing that Muslim-loving cap-and-tax RINO Christie.
I’ve lost any respect I’ve had for her over that. She was a Romneybot before, too.
I don’t get this love affair with Christie.
And I’ve never understood the “war” on drugs. I say if someone wants to walk into a drug store and admits he’s addicted, sell him a needle full of smack. And tax the crap out of it so that anyone who wants treatment can get it.
Now, HERE FOME THE FLAMES!
Great job on that straw man, Ann, Great JOB!
Now go talk to Stossel or Boortz.
Oh, you won’t, will you?
You obviously didn’t watch the interview with Christie last night on CNN. If you did, YOU’d be pushing him, too.
He’s the real deal. Unfortunately, as he himself says, he’s not ready, yet.
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.