Skip to comments.‘Gay Marriage,’ Libertarians, and Civil Rights
Posted on 06/27/2011 8:51:44 AM PDT by madprof98
Gay marriage in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition. But as Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and others argued during the days before the fateful vote on June 24, the state of New York does not have such competence, and the assertion that it does casts an ominous shadow over the future.
Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Even on this site, homo-activists have been signing up as FReepers to harass other Freepers by FReepmail.
Whose stupid, big-brother idea was it to let our government into the marriage business?
Spoken like a true libertarian. Weigel has it exactly right: “The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution.”
I guess "we just want to be left alone" is a one-way street. Big surprise there.
What NY and other states have done is change the meaning of the words, and insists that everyone accept it. I used this analogy with my wife: You can throw right-handed or left-handed, but you cannot say that you are throwing right-handed when you use your left hand. But now, NY says that everyone throws right-handed even when they use their left hand.
I'm a Constitutional libertarian who is pro-life and against gay marriage. In that context, I don't see how either of those positions conflicts with classical liberalism, or libertarianism as it is called in these times.
I know Ron Paul is pro-life. I wonder what his stance on gay marriage is?
I just get the occasional RonPaulite sending me crap.
Once you get Govt’ into the marriage business. You get this.
Well, I guess you have a point, but the only reason the government was "in the marriage business" was because at, once upon a time (a) marriage was universally defined as a contract between one man and one woman, and (b) such contracts were universally understood to be beneficial to society and, therefore, welcomed and protected by the State.
Throw out (a) and (b) becomes nonsensical and frightening.
Even on this site, homo-activists have been signing up as FReepers to harass other Freepers by FReepmail.
And I shrug them off. All I care is that it’s just more of the regular crybabies. They don’t last long on this site anyways. The one thing that works is to not give them more attention than they deserve. Just because they can get on FreeRepublic doesn’t mean that FreeRepublic will stop. Just because some guys can lewdly disrupt Saint Patrick’s Cathedral doesn’t mean Church shuts down, and just because people can infiltrate various organizations by being “in the closet” doesn’t mean we’re suddenly going to shut down.
Nice article so far as it goes. But Weigel neglects (or chooses not) to power all eight cylineers on the libertarian aspect of the gay *rights* movement success. If rights, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, come from God, where does the freedom or right to contradict God’s (and Nature’s) laws come from? Does the libertarian bother to define “rights” or “unalienable rights? Does he discriminate between government-endowed “rights” and those defined, but not endowed, by our Founders? Does the libertarian actually mean “privilege” when he says “right”? And how is the government-grant of any privilege to any group consistent with libertarian philosophy?
No more calls; we have a winner.
And in the end, you will get hardly any marriage at all.. Just look at the Netherlands, their marriage rates dropped significantly for hetersexuals after they passed gay marriage.. They ended up with even a bigger problem with out of wedlock births and thus increase in the welfare state. Again, the people who gave us no fault divorce, abortion on demand, etc give us another social problem that will cost us severley in name of equality?
TO say “Gay Marriage” is so say a square circle, its nonsense. This is called Post Modern hermeneutics. You change the meaning of a word to win an argument. Marriage went from Man-Woman-coupling-child-family, to “its about love and hospital rights” So its change the meaning of a word that all of the sudden creates victims, then the Government steps in with a solution. that goes against normalcy and history.
The NY Times has a long feature on the relationship between former NY governor Mario Cuomo and presumptive 2010 gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo that includes quotes like "Hes thick skulled; he wont listen to me. Tell him what to do" (supposedly what Mario told a consultant about Andrew) and "There was this sense of rivalry Andrew seemed to feel that his dad talked a good game but that he, Andrew, got things done" (someone who worked under Andrew Cuomo at HUD). But what's interesting is how the 1977 mayoral campaign comes into play.
Back in 1977, Mario Cuomo was battling Ed Koch for the NYC mayorship, and there were nasty campaign posters saying "Vote For Cuomo, Not The Homo." When Andrew Cuomo was running for attorney general in 2006 (after his failed 2002 gubernatorial run and divorce from Kerry Kennedy), the NY Times reports, "Mario approached George Arzt, a former press secretary to Mr. Koch, at the Regency Hotel in New York and told him, Id like to patch things up with Ed, Mr. Arzt recalled. I asked him what he had in mind. And he said, Could Ed endorse Andrew?" Which Koch did do.
Koch, for his part, told Esquire, "The signs said, VOTE FOR CUOMO, NOT THE HOMO. Andrew says he didn't do it, and I believe him. Mario says he thinks he now knows who did it. I was very angry at the time. Primary races always end in anger. They're different than the general election: They're like a civil war it's brother against brother. But I've forgiven them. I'm eighty-five now, and grudges take your energy away. I've forgiven them all."
Legalize Gay Marriage - Vote Homo Not Cuomo <<--- UTube Ad
The already circus-like race for New York governor just went from one ring to three.
Independent Kristin Davis, the former New York madam, is now calling out Democrat Andrew Cuomo for not taking a stronger stance for gay rights.
Its outrageous that New York has not legalized same-sex marriage, Davis says in a new ad. Andrew Cuomo says he supports it, but when the marriage equality bill was before the Senate, he was asked to call three undecided Democratic senators and declined. A vote for me sends a strong message to Cuomo: we demand gay marriage now.
She ends the ad with a catchy phrase: Vote homo, not Cuomo:
According to CBS News, the line is a play off a campaign slogan used by some supporters of Andrews father Mario in the 1977 New York mayoral election against Ed Koch: Vote for Cuomo, not the homo. The reference was meant to advance rumors about Kochs sexuality.
from a left wing political site the evening of the big celebration:
Andrew Cuomo 2016 speculation heating up Politico ^ | 06/26/11
With his successful push to pass a gay marriage law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo overnight became a national contender, putting down a major marker among the liberal party base that dominates the primaries.
Most politicians, including most Democrats, have been afraid of this issue. Andrew is the first national figure ever to embrace it so enthusiastically, said Richard Socarides, the president of Equality Matters and a former Clinton White House adviser. Clearly, this establishes him as the most important progressive leader of our party, setting him up very well for 2016.
Come 2016, Cuomo is the only one who will be able to say I delivered for you before everyone else realized it was politically popular, and that will be an invaluable asset, Socarides said, adding, it also has the benefit of being true.
Cuomo supporters already have fanned the flames privately of his prospects on the national stage: Rumors of his White House ambitions started circulating in New York even before he was elected last year by one of the largest margins in state history some of them date to the days when he was managing his fathers own multiple flirtations with a national run. ..........
Of the early potential Democratic contenders, Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley says he supports gay marriage but stopped short of making a major push for the legislation earlier in the year, while Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is opposed. Hillary Clinton, if she runs, would still have her commitment to civil unions but not gay marriage from the 2008 race hanging over her and at least until the end of next year, when shes said shell be done at the State Department, she wont be able to make any new comments on the issue.
It gives him an authenticity and a strength with progressives that will provide a real base not just gays, but progressives in general. Other people can say theyre for same sex marriage, he got it done, said Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum. I think it will always now be a hallmark of his political persona.
Cuomos push on gay marriage wasnt in a vacuum it came at the end of a tough legislative session when New York progressives were forced to swallow major budget cuts, tough on unions rhetoric and a refusal to even consider renewing the states expired millionaires tax.
Thats part of the persona hes crafting too, as Cuomo sets himself up as a governor whos pushed the party to the left on social issues and toward the center-right on economic issues. Its a message with both primary and general election appeal, though being so far out-front on gay marriage could be a problem in a November national election.
Hes created a profile that I think would make him a very effective candidate, Shrum said. Hes right on the social issues, and he will be even more right by 2016 than he is now in terms of Democratic primary voters, and in terms of the country, frankly. Hes created a profile of economic stewardship in a very difficult period that is very strong, hes managed to deal with unions without getting into the kind of destructive confrontations that people like Scott Walker have.
Joe Trippi, the former Howard Dean and John Edwards adviser, said its not too early to start the 2016 clock and, pointing to Michael Dukakis in 1988, noted theres a precedent for an ethnic Northeast governor appealing to Democrats far away from home.
I understand 2016s a long way off, and who knows where things will be then, but certainly, he has to be somebody that the party looks to for leadership once you get past Obamas reelection, Trippi said. Hes putting his stamp on what kind of party he thinks the Democrats should be.
Keep right on pointing there.
For as long as the United States has been independent, the states have defined who can get married; there are different age and consaguinity rules in different states, and many states had restrictions on interracial marriage until the 1960s.
Palter...that is a very interesting link. Brings to light why homosexuals will indeed go after the church next on the marriage issue...and why they wanted it made “law” first.
I am now listening to his sermon...On the rule of law basically gone to pot in the USA....this Pastor is unafraid to speak candidly.
Well from another poster link...it appears that the Gov. became involved at a time there were intermarriages between whites and blacks...because it was not acceptable then, they required the "state's permission to marry...thus a license giving them permission to marry. So.....why does one have to be licensed in the first place when God is the one who instituted Marriage?...so then Marriages can be performed by A pAstor or clergy without the states "permission"...licensing.
And all of these laws restricted marriage, but did not change the definition of marriage. What is going on now is a complete redefinition of marriage.
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.