Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
Why is it that libertarians always seem more concerned about legalizing drugs than virtually any other issue? Here we have a thread about gay marriage, but the libertarians have hijacked it into yet another drug legalization thread.
There is something seriously wrong with people who are fixated on drug legalization to the apparent exclusion of all else. Seriously. With the entire world teetering on economic ruin and cultural Marxists running roughshod over everything that is good, holy, and pure, libertarians seem more concerned about the right to smoke dope?!?!
As for gay marriage, it’s only a small step on the path toward something far worse. Remember. It wasn’t that long ago when the issues were consenting adults and privacy in the bedroom. Now it’s gay marriage. Next comes the trampling of free speech and free association rights.
Have a religious or natural law objection to homosexuality? Tough. Your children will be told it’s perfectly normal, and you’ll be called a hater. If you want to do business, you’ll be forced to treat homosexual couples the same as everyone else or be sued and bankrupted. Eventually even churches will be attacked. Oh, they MIGHT let individuals believe homosexuality is sinful, but don’t dare express that view in public or you’ll be guilty of hate crimes!
The end goal is not gay marriage. It’s the elimination of any and all restraints on sexual behavior, the normalization of every perversion (how dare we say any sex is perverse!), and the silencing or ruination of anyone who dares hold a contrary position.
So what do you say about it? You keep dodging the question and say you want all of the federal benefits that come with marriage (the extra exemption, the lower tax rates, etc.) to go away. I agree with you -- I want a low flat tax until we can shrink the federal government down to size. But that doesn't take away the problem that the Supreme Court isn't going away, and they are going to force homosexual marriage onto the states unless we get a constitutional amendment. You may be right that we won't succeed in doing it -- in fact, the odds are probably against us. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, however.
You keep going on and on about benefits and getting the government out of it, so let's boil this down to basics: I agree with getting rid of the favorable federal benefits (mostly tax-related) that come with marriage and replacing it with a flat tax. Now what? Now will you support defining marriage in the constitution as between one man and one woman? You see, friend, this isn't a debate about keeping the gays away from the federal goodies. This is a matter of keeping the gays from pushing gay marriage on all 50 states.
I don’t consider myself a capital-L libertarian but I care about the Drug War at the federal level because it is an assault on the constitution and on our liberties. I care about the Drug War at the state level because it is also an assault on our liberties. This country is letting illegal aliens stream into this country (and we are probably going to give them amnesty) while the federal government paraplegics and the people that are helping them in jail for using marijuana that their STATE has given them legal permission to use. Do you not see a problem with that? Do you not see how that is immoral? What do you think of a society that allows homosexuals to adopt in the majority of states yet treats people who are using drugs for their pain as criminals? I think it is disgusting.
>> Brown argued. “The state should support what is true and good and beautiful....”
WTF does the state know about beauty? Seriously, Brown?
Defer to the state at your peril, Brown. Keep the damn state out of the marriage business.
Mad Dawgg: “...they would have nipped in the bud any move by the Fedgov to become involved in anything to do with Marriage. They would have left such issues to the States.”
Perhaps, but then again, back then they didn’t have a SCOTUS willing to impose gay marriage nationwide. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the only reason why this conservative (me) supports a marriage amendment. I’m entirely content to leave it to the states as you wrote, but that’s simply not possible. To argue differently is disingenuous. Gay marriage is going to be imposed on us all, probably by a 5 to 4 decision. I can even tell you in advance how individual justices will rule. Anyone think Kagan or Sotomayor, for example, are going to vote against gay marriage? LOL!
It’s coming, and the only legitimate defense against it is, unfortunately, non-federalist in nature...a traditional marriage amendment. Conservatives are not the bad guys here, my FRiend. We’re on defense and only responding in kind. There is no “truce” on social issues. The left is in a full on frontal assault!
It looks like you and I agree. The SCOTUS will almost certainly impose gay marriage on all the states. I’m all for federalism, but I don’t see how we get there from here. I don’t remember anyone talking about constitutional marriage amendments 30 years ago. Why? Because no one thought it possible that we’d be where we are today.
I really don’t know any other practical solution to what the left intends. Even if we manage to win the congress and presidency, we still have to contend with the courts, and they are literally chock full of “social justice” adjudicators! I’m for impeachment on a large scale, but I consider it highly unlikely.
This is an out and out culture war. One side equates the battle for gay rights with the civil rights movement. The other side sees homosexuality as dysfunctional and sinful. If one truly believes homophobia is the same as racism, then one will (and should) do everything possible to stamp it out. Racism, true racism, is evil and should be resisted.
What about the freedom to believe homosexuality is wrong? If homophobia is like racism, then you will only be allowed to believe what you want in private. If you express your views about homosexuality in a public forum, be prepared to have the government unleashed on you. You’ll be sued, you’ll be tried, and you’ll be bankrupted if possible. Even worse, you’re own children will told you’re an evil hater who deserves it!
Even worse, some naive dupes on our side refuse to see where this is leading. They want us to declare a truce on social issues. THERE IS NO TRUCE! The left is not content to let us live free you idiots!
(that last part was not directed at you 10th guy...)
I agree the federal government only has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states and between the US and other nations. It has no authority to regulate things that are not commerce, like growing your own, or interstate, like commerce that does not cross a given state’s borders. Anyone can read the US Constitution and see it spelled out in black and white for themselves. Of course, that matters not if government simply seizes powers not delegated to it. How we roll that back remains to be seen.
The Fed Gov has power to do jack squat with Amendments. Tis the states who can propose and Ratify (PASS) Amendments. Congress can only propose amendments> Until you understand that basic Concept we can't go further because you are in effect denying reality.
"You can talk all you want about getting the federal government OUT of the marriage business, but the Supreme Court is still going to impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states.
And the only reason they will be able to is because the FedGOV got into marriage by way of handing out goodies such \as better tax rates and Social Security Benefits.
We are on the verge of revamping both systems we have a chance to fix the issue you on the other hand wish to double down on a bet that is already lost.
Once we start down the road of Constitutional Amendments on Marriage you will set in stone the issue. The last time such was tried those who wanted to abolish drinking created the most unlawful era ever in this country's history. And then the amendment was repealed and now Alcohol is a multibillion dollar industry.
Why did this happen? Simple because the government tried to legislate behavior.
Ask yourself this question Why do you believe The Supreme Court would rule that Non Gay Marriage State would have to recognize gay Marriage State's Marriage License?
OK fine. You have your Constitutional Amendment. One Man One woman. Period.
What are you prepared to do when Steve and Bob Get married (for real) in a big Prime Time TV special in the Church of "We don't Care What the Fed Gov sez"?
“Gay marriage is going to be imposed on us all, probably by a 5 to 4 decision.”
If it isn’t done by our black robed masters, it will eventually be done by popular vote, if the trend keeps going like it has been. The trend among the general population has been towards thinking “gay marriage” is possible. I think this is because many have been conditioned to think that marriage originates from and is defined by the state, so they accept anything the state says is marriage, even impossibilities like “gay marriage”. If the trend continues, eventually they will start winning “gay marriage” victories in popular elections. Of course, I suppose the trend could reverse, like abortion has in the past few years.
“...a traditional marriage amendment.”
The time to pass that was 10+ years ago. It would be really rough to do now. I’m not sure that all the pro-marriage amendments passed by the States would even pass again if they were to be voted on today. The majority would, but by less, I reckon. Some states would be very, very close.
Freegards
Libertarians, from my limited experience with them, seem to discount what they can’t enumerate. I say ‘a generation of kids will be killed or seriously injured if all drugs become legal’, to which they reply ‘that’s the short term cost of it, and the net economic benefit is still positive.’
????
I still haven’t heard any response to my retort, which is, “How do you keep these new liberated libertines from construing that legalization is VASTLY DIFFERENT from societal acceptance? What’s society’s guarantee that all this new freedom isn’t going to end up infringing the freedom of others in new, vastly more expensive ways? In other words, are you guys going to police your own poop-outs that couldn’t handle their high?”
Just because its legal for mom to smoke rock and turn tricks out of her house while her 11 year old daughter is watching TV in the other room is now LEGAL, that doesn’t make it SOCIETALLY BENEFICIAL. I get less free under that scenario. The national interests are not advanced.
But, you can’t count that, and thus it doesn’t count.
“Whether that 11 year old chooses to use that experience to decide she’s not going to be that way is up to her. How do you know its going to screw her up.”
It’s a fair question. I’m not being facetious either.
You could decide you want to set up an experiment designed to answer the question. The irony is that any ethicist will tell you that conducting such an experiment would violate basic principles of scientific ethics. You’d have to conduct such a test on human subjects, and there is a substantial likelihood it could cause injury to them. Yet this is EXACTLY what these libertarians propose. “Change the law and let’s see what happens. You’re no expert!”
And yet still, the central argument of the libertarian remains, and it is absolutely unassailable:
“If the ability for a woman, and ONLY a woman, to kill her own baby is not just legal, but a right guaranteed in the constitution, then why is it that the use of ANY substance by a consenting adult is illegal? Moreover, why is it that a soldier can fight and die, but can’t legally have a beer anywhere in the US? Why, furthermore, is any sexual act performed by two consenting adults illegal?”
In short, “If I can legally kill a baby, what other act is more egregious in the eyes of the law or detrimental to the benefit of the state, and how dare any authority to declare any other acts less egregious to be illegal among consenting adults?”
It would be easy for the more cynical among us to come to the conclusion that since Roe v Wade was arguably the very first evidence of the power of women in politics, womens involvement in politics hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster, save Margaret Thatcher’s. Roe v Wade was such horrible law (set aside the morality of it - SCOTUS squinted and saw constitutional protection for infanticide in the Constitution, and cut off the ability for each state to make their own call on an extremely controversial practice).
Bottom line: Women’s first crack at proving that their involvement in politics would truly make the world a better place was to institute something so reprehensible and divisive that it rivals slavery in that regard. In fact, at least the slaves were alive, and slaves could be freed.
What I love about the arguments people have in favor of gay marriage is the arrogance. They assume somehow that marriage, a religious institution, is something on which they’d have any legitimate standing. God created it. He wrote the rules. He even fixed the plumbing. You can’t shoot sperm into an anal cavity and conceive a human being (yet). Once they’ve cured AIDS, they’ll get right on that I suppose.
Marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. When you marry, you sign a document issued by the State Secretary of State’s office incorporating the two of you in a legal arrangement.
The state piggy-backed their legal construct on to the back of God’s religious sacrament.
The easiest fix is to just tell people: “You wanna shack up and comingle your assets along with your fluids, exchange durable power of attorney and form a corporation. We aren’t going to subsidize it, however, until you make it so that you can contribute new native citizens.”
“But what about the good government freebies married folk get?”
My take is Marriage is a construct for children, not for adults. You marry in order to provide the infrastructure to have children and raise them in a way that they will provide similar and ongoing benefits to the community, state, and nation. This is why we piggy-backed onto God’s institution - it was the very best vehicle we could find that would guarantee the state could protect its vital interests for the long term.
What exactly does gay marriage buy the state? Can you have children? No. Can a man fill the role of wife and mother as well as a woman can in the life of a child, on average? No. Can a woman fill the role of husband and father the way a man can? No. Will the union result in the lowest possible cost of contributing to the community, state, and national replacement rate? Definitely not.
Should the taxpayer subsidize an institution which if it lasts will end up being a net economic and military burden on the society it supports, and not contribute anything by way of new members to it? Hell no.
The Russians and the Japanese are both paying young people to marry and have kids. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that if you can’t produce new citizens at something slightly above the replacement rate, you are not going to make it as a nation.
Libertarians, frankly, don’t care. There may be earnest ones who actually believe that for every freedom there’s a countervailing responsibility that must be met. Most of the others want to light a spliff at pachouli-stench-fest-in-the-park without being hassled by the pigs. The rest are essentially to varying degress anarchists.
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.