OH! Libertarians....? Nevermind....
in before the zot, too sensible to be tolerated
Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.
Agreed, as I like to say, we need more Barry Goldwater and less Barry Soetoro.
As long as 'personal lives' are tied to legal issues such as taxation, it is not a 'personal' or even 'social' issue. Many gay people now get married in private ceremonies that have nothing to do with government recognition. The Unitarian church performs these regularly. It is when they demand that the legal definition of marriage be changed that it is no longer a personal matter. The definition has spanned almost all cultures, religions (it isn't just a 'Bible thing' as many put it) and nationalities. It is a recognized legal definition. The Constitution does give Congress the authority to ensure equal application of legal issues (Article 1, Section 8 to 'define standards for weights and measures', legal definitions used in contracts and laws fall under 'measures'). Coulter is right. The law doesn't prevent gay people from getting married, it just defines who they can marry if it is to be a legally recognized marriage contract. It is blind to if someone is gay or straight. The legal definition is a partnership between two people of the opposite sex, who aren't already married, who are not close relatives, and who have reached a minimum age. That is a uniform definition of that legal term that is recognized almost everywhere.
I don’t particularly like Libertarians. I just like to say that I have to bump into them at two sites mainly, The Blaze and youtube. They have some difference with me on defense, war on terror and on drugs. I don’t agree with them. So despite every attempt, I just don’t know how the differences can be bridged.
Notice drugs and homos goes hand-in-hand here.
..and I will say that Stossel is falling for the same problem of associating small l libertarian philosophy with big L Libertarian Party. I believe it was William F Buckley who said something along the lines of ‘there is very little libertarian about the Libertarian party’.
It is much of what Ayn Rand complained about the Libertarian Party. She called them the ‘hippies of the right’ who ‘traded rationalism for whims and capitalism for anarchy’. The Libertarian party has always had the problem of trading rationalism for whims. They get hung up on two or three fringe issues (pot for example) and it always seems to be the big base for their arguments. Even Reason Magazine which used to be a strong supporter of small l libertarian values has of late, been almost solely focused on the big L Libertarian Pot issue as if that somehow is the make or break definition of liberty.
EXCEPT he is wrong. It DOES matter what marriage is. I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.
But it DOES matter that marriage has a specific definition: the union between a man and a woman. It is the only workable family unit that assures continuation of the species and of any society. It offers a model of a family unit that works, not for the benefit of the couple but for the benefit of the children. That it is not perfect does not change its desirability. That heterosexulas abandon their marrages on whims, only proves the strength of the institution as a device to raise and comfort children.
Homosexuals do not get to change that.
Not having gay marriage IS gubmint staying out of our “personal lives.” Or at least refusing to further intrude upon it, which is what gay marruage fans want. Libertarians are usually more honest about this sort of thing. Either you see a compelling state interest in creating special legal status for gay couples just like we have for heterosexual couples, though I have absolutely no idea what that’d be, or you don’t. In any case creating gay marriage would be inviting more gubmint in, not limiting it.
I agree about prohibition. Unlike the absence of gay marriage it is an intrusion into aspects of our lives which are none of the state’s business.
Where the chasm will never be bridged is between those who believe any kind of activity between consenting adults is to be allowed and those who believe, like I do, there are limits to tolerance. I tolerate a lot of activity, but I don't approve of it. And nobody can force me to tolerate things I don't want to tolerate i.e. homosexual "marriage", bestiality, polygamy, pedophiles. But if Stossel believes homosexuality is irrelevant to today's youth, then he's not paying attention. The NFL players beg to differ.
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
Amen! I like what John MacArthur has been saying lately: legislating Christian behavior on non-Christians is casting your pearls before swine and trusting government over God.
Why does anyone take this woman seriously?
If 'stay out of my personal life' means appropriating something less than 60% of my labor and resources - let go of their claim of 60% of my LIFE - then I'm all down with the libertarians.
But the silly, completely inconsequential issue of gay marriage makes a mockery of the subject of government intrusion into our lives. Its a twisted little distraction.
The problem with libertarians is that they overemphasize the rights of the individual to the detriment of the society, which is the opposite of the progressives, who see the individualistic point of view as a detriment to social development.
There has to be a balance between our rights and our responsibilities, and there is a difference between liberty and license. While many of our founders where not Christian, they realized that the Judeo-Christian foundation was necessary starting point for our country, as it had a balance between the rights of the individual along with their responsibility to their fellow man. Both progressives and libertarians work to undermine this foundation of this Republic.
“If Republicans were smart, they’d listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too. “
IMHO, the contention that young people want government to stay out of their lives in a lie. They want free tuition, they want the government to mandate their parents pay for their health insurance and birth control, to not allow you to smoke, or eat animal products, or develop your property if it endangers the environment, or hire whomever you want, and a host of other things. They are like all other people. They are zealous in support of what they believe in.
Very few have even heard of a serious discussion of the idea that the Feds should have less say in our lives.
The left knows what they are doing when they call themselves libertarians.
Here is the libertarian position on the concept of having a border.
“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
A Libertarian is just a Democrat who doesn’t want to pay his own taxes.
This reasonable, sane commentary cannot be posted on Free Republic.
Entertaining thought.
“I am against big guberment so legalize gay marriage and pot and illegals,
but you can keep all those gubment programs going, they dont bother me, in fact I kind of like the student loans.”