Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NOM’s Brown laughed at on ‘Stossel Show’ for argument against marriage equality
American Independent ^ | 8/19/11 | Sofia Resnick

Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by HerbieHoover

On Thursday night's "Stossel Show," which airs on the Fox Business channel, Brian Brown was unable to convince host John Stossel or his libertarian guest (and nationally syndicated columnist) David Harsanyi that civil marriage for gays and lesbians harms, or even changes, marriage between heterosexual couples.

In fact, Harsanyi's suggestion that the marriage debate could be solved if the U.S. decided either to privatize all schools or all marriage contracts was treated as a more legitimate idea by Stossel and Stossel's audience....

"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be -- gay or not," Harsanyi said....

Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."

Stossel's live studio audience erupted in laughter at this comment, and Stossel replied: "I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; biggovernment; gaymarriage; government; homosexualagenda; liberaltrolls; libertarians; marriage; moralabsolutes; nationalorg4marriage; stossel; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last
Excellent points about getting the government out of the way.

Certainly, we do NOT want the state getting anywhere near deciding what is true and good and beautiful, as this nitwit Brown suggests. Perhaps "Brown" is a reference to the shirt color worn by folks who agree with him that the state ought to make this sort of decisions....

1 posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:14 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

I don’t see anything about marriage ‘equality’ in my Bible. I do, however, see marriage as exclusive between men and women.


2 posted on 08/22/2011 10:25:20 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (You're either in or in the way. "Primary" is a VERB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful.
Take a look at public housing in any city in America. "Good and beautiful" they are not.
3 posted on 08/22/2011 10:28:59 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

Do you support the right of states to determine for THEMSELVES what marriage laws they will have, or do you support the federal government coming in an mandating gay marriage on them in the name of liberty?


4 posted on 08/22/2011 10:30:12 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

It’s incoherent to talk about states having “rights”. Only individuals have rights.


5 posted on 08/22/2011 10:32:00 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Excellent points about getting the government out of the way.

I love Stossel, he points out how Libertarians would destroy anything that closely resembles a civilized society

PaulTards this is why he will never win. Lyndon Laurouche had a better chance.

6 posted on 08/22/2011 10:33:53 AM PDT by itsahoot (--I will still vote for Sarah Palin, even if she doesn't run--Face it Where I live no (R) can win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
"I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...

There is a difference between "deciding" and recognizing.

7 posted on 08/22/2011 10:34:40 AM PDT by Tribune7 (If you demand perfection you will wind up with leftist Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

i don’t want the Feds OR the individual states telling me anything about my beliefs.

i want the goverment of all levels, out of my life, as much as possible.

i don’t care if gays can sign a legally binding contract, that is similar to a marriage vow. simply contract law.

i care what my church says. if it marries gays, then i find a new church.

same thing with the school. voucher for ALL. the PARENT selects the school they want, that teaches the way they want. sure, FAR from perfect. but much better than now!


8 posted on 08/22/2011 10:37:16 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
It’s incoherent to talk about states having “rights”. Only individuals have rights

What the hell are you talking about? Are you honestly telling me that states don't have rights? They have the rights to enact legislation dealing with areas in with the feds have no jurisdiction, which is 95% of areas. Of course individuals have rights. In keeping with the spirit of this article, if a state wanted to legalize murder of homosexuals, for example, the feds would have to step in an intervene. States are not allowed to do things that violate the inherent human rights of their citizens. A state deciding that it wants to define marriage and exclude homosexual couples from that definition is not interfering with their fundamental rights. The homosexual couples have the right to do what they want in their own household, they have the right to own property, they have the right to vote, etc. If you think that gay marriage is included as a fundamental right then you're a liberal in my opinion, HERBIE. If you want to get your state out of the marriage business, then fine. But you don't have the right to force other states to get themselves out of the marriage business by using the force of the federal government. Currently, all 50 states recognize the value of their governments being involved in marriage.

9 posted on 08/22/2011 10:37:40 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

While I certainly agree that I don’t want the state deciding what’s good and beautiful, the fact is that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It doesn’t and can’t exist and should never be allowed to exist. “Gay marriage” does indeed harm the institution and sacrament of marriage.

Marriage is intended to foster the relationship between a man and a woman in the in the procreation and rearing of children. The fact that a couple may be infertile or choose not to have children, or even adopt, doesn’t change that fact. Two fully functioning individuals of the same sex can’t procreate. They may be loving people, may even be good parents, but to call any relationship they have a marriage IS destructive. In fact I think it is intended to be destructive by gay marriage advocates.\

A society may choose to sanction a homosexual relationship but it should never be called marriage and should not be equated with it.


10 posted on 08/22/2011 10:37:44 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

Yeah, except it won’t happen that way. The government will “get out” of the marriage business but will still end up forcing religious institutions to solemnize these same-sex marriages.


11 posted on 08/22/2011 10:39:49 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

I don not believe that the government should have any role in marriage other than making sure that the children of such relationships are supported if they dissolve.

There should be no such thing as a “wedding license” issued by the state.


12 posted on 08/22/2011 10:40:53 AM PDT by Grunthor (In order; Palin, Perry, None of the rest matter 'til the general)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

I’m with Stossel on this one. Marriage is a socio-religious construct that governments should be involved in to the least extent possible. The more we diminish the governmental ‘footprint’ in marriage, the more the great marriage debate simply goes away.

What ‘private’ marriage would mean is that each church, culture, etc. Sets its own standard.


13 posted on 08/22/2011 10:41:41 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

“I don’t see anything about marriage ‘equality’ in my Bible.”

Neither do I but seeing as we don’t live in a theocracy....


14 posted on 08/22/2011 10:42:00 AM PDT by Grunthor (In order; Palin, Perry, None of the rest matter 'til the general)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

Dear God, you have no clue what the U.S. Constitution says, do you? Google it and read the 10th amendment.


15 posted on 08/22/2011 10:44:40 AM PDT by Grunthor (In order; Palin, Perry, None of the rest matter 'til the general)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

The government decides what is good as an essential function - that is what criminal and civil law do. The issue is the scope and content.


16 posted on 08/22/2011 10:45:42 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
"The State" did not create marriage the state merely enforced the terms of what the people themselves had already created. Men and women were forming permanent marital associations long before there was a "State."

Homosexuality was recognized as perverted before the "State" ever came into being: for example, the American Indian knew them as distorted and made them dress as women and live outside the village. The early Romans made it a crime and when their morals collapsed accepted it.

Libertarianism is a weird quasi religious cult which when followed to its logical conclusion embraces-inter alia- cosmopolitanism and is against love of country. It is a variant of Marxism in that it elevates ownership of the means of production as an explanation and as a goal. The only material difference of libertarianism from Marxism being who shall hold title to property.

17 posted on 08/22/2011 10:47:09 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

Keep in mind people once thought marrying a cousin was a joke that only occurred in parts of the country. Mormons were chided for taking more than one wife. And now, we have mentally deranged vectors of disease obsessed with acts of rimming and felching telling others that the consumption of fecal material is another form of normal? Male homos are about the most disgusting perverts on the planet. The sodomites are no more close to normal than was their icon Michael Jackson.


18 posted on 08/22/2011 10:49:02 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
"...you have no clue what the U.S. Constitution says, do you? Google it and read the 10th amendment.

Except for the small problem that he's right. States have powers. Individuals have rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

19 posted on 08/22/2011 10:50:53 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
When I got married in Virginia they had a place to put your “race”. I put “human” and my fiance left it blank. A “helpful” clerk looked at the two of us and put in “Caucasian”.

This was, no doubt, the exact mechanism that got Mr. Loving arrested on the night of his honeymoon for marrying his pregnant (black) girlfriend. By the morality I was raised with, this would be known as “doing the right thing”. By the morality of Virginia in the 60’s it was a crime.

The State of Virginia recognized and legislated marriage such that two people of different ‘races’ could not get married.

State involvement in marriage has a long and not very illustrious history. I would rather, as with most things, that they kept their involvement to a minimum or an absence.

JMHO.

20 posted on 08/22/2011 10:51:08 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

Thanks for the Post.


21 posted on 08/22/2011 10:51:23 AM PDT by Dryman (Define Natural Born Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

That’s true. But it seems to me, at least in recent times, that the recognizing has only hurt the institution. It has become just another lousy contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the gov’t says so, at least for many. Now the state will not stop at benignly recognizing marriage, to many people the state actually defines it for them. And the statists and homosexualists love that, because it means many will accept whatever the gubberment puts forth as marriage, even impossibilities like “gay marriage”. That the state defines marriage in the minds of many gives the statists and homosexualists tremendous control of the culture. They especially love that the state has the power to punish if folks don’t accept their ever mutating version of marriage.

Freegards


22 posted on 08/22/2011 10:51:23 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."

Idiot. The state should keep us from stabbing each other or violating voluntary contracts, and aside from that it should stay the heck out of the way.

There is ZERO reason for any non-statist to want the gov't licensing and approving sexual relationships of any kind.

23 posted on 08/22/2011 10:52:37 AM PDT by Sloth (If a tax break counts as "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should be a "deposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Classic example of why libertarian ideology fails and fails badly. They can't even say that two sodomites should not be considered the equivalent of a married couple in the eyes of the state.

Libertarianism = epic fail.
24 posted on 08/22/2011 10:57:03 AM PDT by Antoninus (Nothing that offends God can possibly be a legitimate right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
I think Libertarian are way off there own philosophy in regards to Gay marriage

A true Libertarian thinker would start with the question why is government involved in any kind of marriage?

Libertarian...government should be issues you a marriage license????????????????? why what reason

Is marriage Government license of your sex life? no...

Is marriage Government license of your religious commitment? no... Is marriage Government license of your legal commitment with others ? no...

Marriage is a Government license grating a legal privilege for want reason should Government do that?...

The only aspect of marriage that give Government a justification to grating a legal privilege with a marriage license is reproduction..

Reproduction is a necessary for a society so legal form and legal struchure for people "making new citizan" is necessary for breeder and there children

Libertarian... Government license of marriage? for what reason should goverment be involved ....

One....reproduction...a legal statues for a possible child

25 posted on 08/22/2011 10:57:34 AM PDT by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
"I don’t see anything about marriage ‘equality’ in my Bible. I do, however, see marriage as exclusive between men and women."

Yep, and once government got its nose under the tent with marriage it was just a matter of time before the institution would be subverted by the government.

This should be a lesson learned for all of us. Keep Government out of everything except what is in the Constitution. Social engineering is wrong no matter if its to promote Conservative Ideals or Progressive ones!

26 posted on 08/22/2011 10:57:34 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy; HerbieHoover
HerbieHoover:
It’s incoherent to talk about states having “rights”. Only individuals have rights
10thAmendmentGuy:
What the hell are you talking about? Are you honestly telling me that states don't have rights?
Wow, tenth, one would expect better of one with the name you chose.

States have powers granted them by free citizens. Go reread the tenth amendment you've named yourself after; "powers", not "rights"...
27 posted on 08/22/2011 10:58:18 AM PDT by Peet (Cogito ergo dubito.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

Libertarians are just as dangerous to the survival of this free republic as Liberals.

Marriage is what marriage is, and has always been. A union between one man and one woman. Government can either acknowledge this fact of human nature and act in accord with it, to its own enrichment and security, or they can enter into the realm of unreality and pay the inevitable destructive consequences for that delusion.


28 posted on 08/22/2011 10:58:29 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (In the long run spritzing perfume on the rotting elephant really won't make that much difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator

We have a homosexsual promoting his brand of deviance here. He/It is a new poster and previous postings indicates his/its purpose is to promote his brand of deviance.


29 posted on 08/22/2011 10:59:12 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

newflash, unless you have public recording of marriage it is an invitation to fraud and bigamy.

This is what happened in the past before we had public records.

Also marriage is about children and the future of society. It is not about poping an orgasm or mere “love”. There is and never has been a love test in marriage. That is a delusion of the propaganda industry.


30 posted on 08/22/2011 10:59:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
The government decides what is good as an essential function - that is what criminal and civil law do. The issue is the scope and content.

Exactly. The problem is not that the government decides, it's that we have corrupt scoundrels running our government. And THAT is because we as a nation have become corrupt.

If your culture is corrupt, your government will be corrupt no matter what form it takes.
31 posted on 08/22/2011 10:59:28 AM PDT by Antoninus (Nothing that offends God can possibly be a legitimate right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

The civil marriage contract is the legal, social and economic bedrock of our civilization.

For our government to pretend this isn’t so is national suicide.


32 posted on 08/22/2011 11:01:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (In the long run spritzing perfume on the rotting elephant really won't make that much difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

If you broaden the definition of marriage to between two men or two women, who are you to prohibit the marriage of a brother and sister or or a father and his daughter? Why are you being prejudiced against a man who wants to have 2 or 3 or even 4 wives?

No, let’s just leave it where it has been for thousands of years.


33 posted on 08/22/2011 11:01:29 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Photobucket
34 posted on 08/22/2011 11:01:39 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
newflash, unless you have public recording of marriage it is an invitation to fraud and bigamy. This is what happened in the past before we had public records. Also marriage is about children and the future of society. It is not about poping an orgasm or mere “love”. There is and never has been a love test in marriage. That is a delusion of the propaganda industry.

Outstanding post.

Libertarianism is a polite way of saying "anarchy". It is the old hippie mantra of "If it feels good, do it" made into a political ideology.
35 posted on 08/22/2011 11:02:38 AM PDT by Antoninus (Nothing that offends God can possibly be a legitimate right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
There is ZERO reason for any non-statist to want the gov't licensing and approving sexual relationships of any kind.

Oh horsecrap. There is ample reason for a state to encourage marriage in a welfare society. When welfare is dissolved then get back to me from Libtopia.

36 posted on 08/22/2011 11:03:23 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; savagesusie; massmike; little jeremiah

Please comment on what little herbie has to offer. He is marketing his deviance and needs a bit of normalizing. Neo


37 posted on 08/22/2011 11:05:14 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peet
You're just arguing semantics. What I meant by states having rights is that they have the RIGHT to enact legislation in many different areas, because it is the federal government that is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The states are free to enact any legislation that does not run afoul of constitutional principles. As I mentioned above, a state would not have the right to enact legislation calling for the death penalty for homosexuals in my opinion. A state OBVIOUSLY has the right, however, to criminalize sodomy with a more minor penalty if it so chooses. Before Lawrence v. Texas, most states had voluntarily repealed their sodomy laws. The Supreme Court stepped on the rights of the states when it struck down sodomy laws across the board. But when it comes to the issue of marriage, that is an issue that has always been left to states, and states are to deal with it as they see fit. As one candidate said, New York has gay marriage, and Texas doesn't. Your talk about getting the government out of marriage is little more than cover for your not-so-secret agenda.

"Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice."

-Thomas Sowell

Why is that, Herbie? Why do you want to make it everyone's business?

38 posted on 08/22/2011 11:06:40 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Pure political garbage, newbie. If gays were required to join the military, they'd scream discrimination and launch a new, neverending protest movement. If they were required to marry, same thing. The same group that for decades mocked and delighted in trashing "normality" are now demanding to be called normal and embraced.

Its all politics.

Take your sorry ass back to DU loser.

39 posted on 08/22/2011 11:07:36 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Rights come from God, not from man-made institutions. I think it is self-evident that God did NOT give homosexuals the right to marry and raise a family...seems he left out the body parts and capabilities for that.

The gay ‘rights’ movement is an attempt by man to overrule God. It will fail, but we don’t need our government fighting on their side.


40 posted on 08/22/2011 11:09:09 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerbieHoover
Certainly, we do NOT want the state getting anywhere near deciding what is true and good and beautiful, as this nitwit Brown suggests. Perhaps "Brown" is a reference to the shirt color worn by folks who agree with him that the state ought to make this sort of decisions....

Perhaps brown is the color of your brain, as in shit for....

As I said above there are many reasons for states to encourage marriage in a welfare state, not the least of which is the current state of affairs in urban America where the state DISCOURAGED marriage with Great Society policies that destroyed the urban family and turned the USA into the Food Stamp States of America.

41 posted on 08/22/2011 11:10:38 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"The civil marriage contract is the legal, social and economic bedrock of our civilization.

OK but never said it wasn't, the problem arrises when the government starts passing out goodies BECAUSE of Marriage. Better tax rates, Social Security Benefits etc...

Once that was in play then the "equal under the law" aspect is in play.

42 posted on 08/22/2011 11:10:53 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Durus
Except for the small problem that he's right. States have powers. Individuals have rights. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

As I said to the other guy making a big deal about this, you are dealing in SEMANTICS. The federeal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The states hold the majority of the power in this country, or at least that's the way it is supposed to be. Don't pervert what I'm saying and try to infer from my mention of states' rights that I think states are superior to the people and that the people's rights are subservient to those of the state. It is the opposite, but that is OBVIOUS. The people exercise their wishes through their elected state legislatures and executive. The states have broad power to enact legislation.

43 posted on 08/22/2011 11:11:47 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Neither do I but seeing as we don’t live in a theocracy....

The civil marriage contract has been part of the government of this country throughout its history.

Even the Congress has involved itself in the protection of this most fundamental and important of human institutions. Four states were only allowed into the Union if they would forever foreswear plural marriage, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah and Idaho.

Are you claiming that we've been living all this time in a "theocracy," instead of a constitutional republic?

44 posted on 08/22/2011 11:12:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (In the long run spritzing perfume on the rotting elephant really won't make that much difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy
Do you support the right of states to determine for THEMSELVES what marriage laws they will have, or do you support the federal government coming in an mandating gay marriage on them in the name of liberty?

There's lots of issues that are best left to the states. This is not one of them. What if a couple got married in Massachusates and moved to Texas? Are they still married?

This is a bit of a different issue than setting local tax rates or speed limits, things that don't really matter once you cross a state boundary.

45 posted on 08/22/2011 11:12:58 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Outstanding post.

Libertarianism is a polite way of saying "anarchy". It is the old hippie mantra of "If it feels good, do it" made into a political ideology.

Way too broad of a brush. I am a small-l libertarian and I do not support the comments made by the original poster in this thread. The idea behind libertarianism is that you should be able to do what you want to do as long as it does not harm someone else. It is easy to apply this argument to smoking a joint in your own home. That harms no one. As Thomas Sowell said, homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. Now they seek to impose their sexual mores on the rest of society, and it is HARDLY a libertarian position to let them do this.

46 posted on 08/22/2011 11:16:11 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

Neither the general government nor the state governments have the “right,” the “jurisdiction,” or the “power” to overturn the Natural Law.

They can try. But the result will be exactly the same as for every other group of men who tried to do so throughout history.

Reality and right can be very harsh when you put yourself on the wrong side of it.


47 posted on 08/22/2011 11:20:11 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (In the long run spritzing perfume on the rotting elephant really won't make that much difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
There's lots of issues that are best left to the states. This is not one of them. What if a couple got married in Massachusates and moved to Texas? Are they still married?

This is a bit of a different issue than setting local tax rates or speed limits, things that don't really matter once you cross a state boundary.

Um, what is your solution? I don't support the idea of forcing states to recognize homosexual marriages from other states through the Full Faith and Credit clause. States are not required to recognize gun permits from other states. Why should they be required to recognize homosexual marriage licenses? And if you say that we'll get a federal constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide, it would never pass. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. The priority should be ensuring that the 44 states that don't currently allow homosexual marriage are not forced to allow it by the 6 that do. The states that don't allow homosexual marriage should not be forced to recognize it through a Supreme Court decision based on faulty constitutional principles.

48 posted on 08/22/2011 11:20:48 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Once that was in play then the "equal under the law" aspect is in play.

Nobody is banned from marriage because of their sexual proclivities. Everybody can marry as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex that meets the age and familial requirements. That is the definition of equal under the law.

49 posted on 08/22/2011 11:21:26 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The post to which I responded said nothing of “civil marriage,” Congress, or a constitutional republic. The post to which I responded referred only to the Bible.

To leave out that context in your response to me is at best an unfair tactic, at worst it’s flat out dishonest.


50 posted on 08/22/2011 11:26:22 AM PDT by Grunthor (In order; Palin, Perry, None of the rest matter 'til the general)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson