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 »
Yup. Just like my signature!
Sure. Good luck with them getting anyone to place their kid with them. They'd last about a week in a free marketplace.
She is putting out valid questions, you answer to one of them is "red herring"
Actually they're really stupid questions and ones that Ms. Coulter should already know the answers to. All of her wild eyed concerns could be handled in the free market, and she knows it. But she makes millions tossing out boob bait for bubbas. I don't grudge her that.
Private health care companies aren't allowed to make their own decisions anymore. Obama's guys are in charge.
So remove Obama's guys and let insurance companies decide what kind of policies they will or will not right. There's that pesky "freedom" thing again.
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Has he come out with a position against the mosque on ground zero, you know the islamic community giving the finger to the USA?
Did he reinforce his position against cap and tax, which he was for but now is against?
Did he mention that it was a mistake to appoint an islamic judge from a mosque run by an an Imam who was a member of the Hamas terrorist organization? The judge wants to institute sharia law, I'm sure it will be easier from a position as a judge.
Did he say he changed his mind about NOT deporting Mohammed Qatanani, a muslim brotherhood guy?
No, I don't want Christie as President.
Plus he passed over a Tea Party candidate, bad mouthed her, and supported GOPer Mike Castle, who lost.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chris_Christie.htm
On 13 issues: “No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.”
... and the nag he rode in on.
Gee you think so?
Did you really think she wanted the answers, or was she putting the questions out there for people to ponder?
she makes millions tossing out boob bait for bubbas
Well, gee didn't you see the hook? (you are a good test subject)
Attacking Coulter and me sure helps, Freedom Fighter.
And....She has utter contempt for those defending Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.
Are they filtering her columns with their Interwebs access?
No-fault divorce and bad "family law" (which is actually anti-family) in America has done as much to create broken homes as anything. GOVERNMENT has probably done more to create broken homes than any other single entity.
The "marriage" of two people of the same sex is an abomination, but the answer is to allow people to freely, peacefully, discriminate against open homosexuality as easily as they can now discriminate in favor of it. Refuse to rent to "married" gay couples, refuse to do business with them, ostracize them peacefully in every way IF YOU CHOOSE, in business and in your private life. Most people would do just that, if they could. But the way it is today, you get in trouble with the law if you exercise that God-given right. And Romney, whom Coulter once enthusiastically supported, WAS ALL FOR THAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT, one that would punish people for free, peaceful, discrimination against open homosexuality in their workplaces, schools, civic organizations, communities, etc.
Broken homes ARE a strawman in this discussion -- Talisker is right. Less government PROMOTES MORE MORALITY. More government, no matter how well intended, restricts people from making moral choices in how they discriminate freely and peacefully against what they consider immoral and the government doesn't.
Coulter is just like a liberal in her automatic dismissal of libertarianism -- she, like Romney, is a Republican statist, and big government is fine as long as it's her kind of big government.
I expect the one Libertarian "friend" she's talking about is Larry Elder, though he switched parties to Republican some time ago. I wonder what she thinks of libertarians Thomas Sowell (he's said he identifies more with libertarians than the Republican party) and Walter Williams? I wonder what she thinks of Reagan's telling Reason magazine in 1975: "... I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism ... I can't say that that I agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say .... But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Which she acknowledges in that anyone can enter into private contracts without throwing out the entire system. But the system in place has a whole lot of law attached to it.
Talisker wrote: “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.”
This is not factually correct. I’ve personally reviewed marriage records dating back to the 1830s and 1840s in county courthouses of states west of the Mississippi River; some of the marriages were conducted by ministers and others by judges or justices of the peace, but they were routinely recorded in the courthouse and a series of state-required questions were asked and answered in writing about consent of the parents for marriages under the age of 18 (which used to be fairly common).
You would be able to find much older records in our older states. In areas where there was a functioning local government, marriages have been registered in America since colonial times. Ministers and churches also kept their own records, and sometimes those records are in better shape than civil records especally in backwoods areas where intinerant Baptist or Methodist preachers were traveling through towns and holding church services perhaps once a month and the closest courthouse was much too far to reach to register the marriage, but marriage has most emphatically been regulated by the government for most of American history.
You are, however, correct if you’re talking about pre-Reformation Europe. By declaring that marriage was not a sacrament, Protestant doctrine removed marriage from control of the church and put it into the hands of the state. Some Protestant countries (England included) routinely had the minister act on behalf of the state in conducting marriages; others had the official marriage ceremony conducted by civil authorities followed by a prayer service in the church building.
I happen to believe the Protestant Reformation was correct on this point that marriage is properly governed by the state and not by the church. You may disagree, but that is not the Anglo-American legal history.
Most of which should be repealed. Coulter should know better. She's not dumb by any means.
Yep, looks like I caught a big one.
That pretty much sums up what I hear when folks propose these hair brain schemes of stupidity.
I always ask the same question, and never get the answer.
Why, not create your own institution ?
This never gets a real answer, from anyone.
FWIW, I debated this with someone else, who was in favor of gay marriage, I asked him to give me one reason why gay marriage is okay, but polygamy (or polyandry) is not with one catch, tell me one reason, that has NOT been used against gay marriage.........Failing that, he called me a bigot.........lol
Sorry I disagree. When God instituted marriage, He WAS the government. Since then, whatever community or culture man has instituted, whomever or whatever the governing authority also controlled the rules regarding the legality or validity of marriage, whether secular or religious or both (in a theocracy).
You yourself admit the marriage contract must abide by whatever laws regarding marriage exist. If a contract is governed by the law, then it is subject to the authority that made that law. A marriage license is just an inexpensive legal shortcut, instead of hiring lawyers to draw up the papers, you buy the basic license from city hall.
A marriage license is a state issued license recognizing the legal validity of a union because it meets or fulfills the laws regarding such union; otherwise they would refuse to issue the license.
The state has both the right and duty to regulate contracts, marriage is a contract, it’s that simple.
Well said!
If she tried to toss this crap at Ron Paul, he would answer her fake ‘questions’ faster than you can say “skinny Romney-loving neocon.” Not at all surprised to see she did nothing but trot out tired, old insults instead of make logical arguments. Gotta love her when she’s on the right side, but when she’s wrong, she’s really got nothing but insults and intimations to sling. She so reminds me of Antonin Scalia here. They’re both very often on the side of the Constitution and history, but when they are wrong and skate away from it, gosh, they are REALLY wrong.
Funniest was the canard that if we did it Paul’s way, siblings could all go out and marry one another, because it almost actually happened ONCE accidentally in Britain a few years ago and the couple only found out after the couple took the government-mandated blood test for marriage. This obviously incredibly terrifying possibility must be prevented from ever occurring. And since it is so high-priority and important to Ann, because right now most states don’t require blood tests or cross-checking birth certificates before marriage, how will she propose we change things to prevent this terrible thing? Will Ann be advocating for a requirement that the federal government administer blood tests prior to any prospective marriage, or just to adopted kids? Or is she just up for requiring a federal registry of DNA and birth certificates? Just so we know where we start with our work toward the future of establishing a crack federal incest prevention agency along the lines of the FBI and DEA.
[wipes tear from eye]
That was a beautiful post BTTT.
The constitution is the guiding document, nowhere in the constitution does it address gay marriage.
Using this logic, one could dream up any sort of argument to justify government intrusion into peoples lives.
Now, should we pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one woman....YES. This would be a constitutional process in which to amend the law of the land...I'm all for it.
But until then, follow the dedgum Constitution and stop this ever growing beast called the federal government.
Wow, that must have been some interview to get your mind closed to anything that wasn't in it.
Best to widen your sperspective instead of just watchng CNN.
If you can't debate it here on the public forum DON'T send me FR mail with ridiculous statements that just show that you are in denial
That's weak.
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.