IL GOP Chair throws full support behind same-sex marriage

[tsai3904]

The momentum continues to build for same sex marriage in Illinois.

On Wednesday, Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, said he was putting his "full support" behind marriage equality legislation pending in Springfield.

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way," Brady said. "Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value - that the law should treat all citizens equally."

"Importantly, the pending legislation would protect the freedom of religion," Brady added. "No church or religious organization would ever be required to perform a union with which it disagrees."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/01/republican_party_chair_in_illinois_throws_full_sup port_behind_same-sex_marriage_in_illinois.html

[cbrons]

That idiot better work extremely hard tomorrow and the next few days to fight the gun-grabbing scum here that are trying to literally pass a very broad-sweeping gun ban here.

[angelatc]

Illinois Republicans are essentially Democrats. No surprise here.

[Occam's Banana]

More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way.

So, let's see ... "government should not stand in their way" apparently means that government should:

1) be sole grantor of permission to the involved parties to enter into a "lifelong commitment to each other"
2) dictate the particular rights, responsibilities & obligations of each party entering into aforesaid commitment
3) forbid any dissolution of aforesaid commitment except under terms specified by the government (to wit: "no-fault divorce", etc.)
4) grant or withhold certain special priveleges (with respect to taxation, for example) according to participation (or lack thereof) in aforesaid commitment
5) prevent the parties to aforesaid commitment from establishing any enforceable rights, responsibilities & obligations outside the purview of government approval
6) determine and/or proscribe the exact nature and details of the private relationships entered into between both parties to the aforesaid commitment on the one hand and any other 3rd parties (such as insurance companies, etc.) on the other hand

OK. Got it. (Gee, doesn't it sound swell not to have government stand in the way of stuff?)

[BSU kid]

Easiest thing to do would be to support voluntary associations as Ron has campaigned for, but once again we just get more government and bureaucracy. Oh well, I don't live in Illinois.

[bolil]

It seems to me that the benefits of a state recognized marriage are far outweighed by the lingering obligations people encounter when they seek to destroy said marriages.

[TheTexan]

Probably just a distraction to get the gun grabs passed

[pochy1776]

Trying Not to comment anything that could get me banned....................................

[jkob]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.

[Kregisen]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.

Agreed...even though it is my belief that homosexuality is immoral, it is also my belief that denying this marriage (that government shouldn't be involved with anyway...but since they wanted blacks and whites to stop marrying each other ~ 100 years ago they got involved) to some adults while recognizing others is not very moral either.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way,"


Just LOL. More like "Hey, maybe it's time for us to get in on some of that."

[CPUd]

Washington (CNN) – Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady resigned Tuesday, citing a handful of reasons including an ongoing struggle with several members of the state GOP over his support for same-sex marriage.

"There were several reasons," why he decided to step down, Brady said in a telephone interview with CNN. "I've been going at it hard for six years, I need to focus on my family, and obviously I had lost the support of the state Central Committee because of my position on gay marriage."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/illinois-gop-chair-resigns-cites-support-for-same-sex-marriage-as-a-reason


Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yKKd9YhTnw

[PaleoPaul]

Unless he's a neo-con, it's tragic that he resigned.

[Brett85]

Republicans in Illinois are big RINO's. Just look at Mark Kirk.

[brushfire]

Unless he's a neo-con, it's tragic that he resigned.

Its much like how you hear someone who uses racial slurs... "Oh I know some white people who I call...<expletive>"
Well, in IL we have democrats we call republicans. There is, quite often, very little distinction between the parties. In fact, the entire ILGA is run by just a couple of people - that cascades throughout the entire state. I'd even argue that these rats control a lot of Washington too...

[WhistlinDave]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.


Agreed...even though it is my belief that homosexuality is immoral, it is also my belief that denying this marriage (that government shouldn't be involved with anyway...but since they wanted blacks and whites to stop marrying each other ~ 100 years ago they got involved) to some adults while recognizing others is not very moral either.

Agree with you both. (Except the homosexuality is immoral part. That's not my place to decide.)

Saying "I don't care what people do but we need to get government out of marriage entirely, not make it possible for gays to get married" is the equivalent of saying,

"Gee Uncle Bob, it sucks that you're in jail for possession of 2 pounds of marijuana, but even though that's wrong, I can't help you get out, because what I really need to do is work on ending the entire war on drugs."

It's a bullshit reason to support government limitations on freedom. And I say bullshit because everybody knows getting government entirely out of marriage is probably never going to happen, or at least probably not in our lifetimes.

If you don't like gay people, and think they should have less freedom than you do, just come out and say it. Don't hide behind the purist libertarian ideal. (That's not directed at you two that I quoted, obviously.)

[Christian Liberty]

@WhistlinDave- This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages." They have every right to call it what they want, and I wish government would step entirely out of the way, but I still support a culturally conservative moral opposition to it, and would try to persuade people to agree with me that "Gay Marriage" is immoral and not a thing. As such, I would actually rather them say "Marriage is only between a mand and a woman" than to have them say "Marriage can be between two men or two women."

That's my cultural conservative side. I don't want government involved at all, but if they HAVE to get involved, I'd rather them support my personal opinion than to support the opposite thereof.

I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I wouldn't support a law saying "Drugs are good for you and everyone should be encouraged to smoke crack." Granted, I think it should be LEGAL, but I don't want the government encouraging it. That's how I feel about SSM. Granted, I support tax breaks, because everyone should get tax breaks just for being alive, that's just saying government can't steal as much. Give that to anyone. Adoption should be privatized as much as possible, as should hospitals. I don't know exactly what rights marriage gives so I can't say at the top of my head what should and shouldn't apply, but considering that getting government out won't happen, I support strong civil unions that give as closely to the same rights (Or at least, "The same rights... as long as they can be reconciled with the NAP) as possible. That way its legally equivalent but the government isn't saying I'm morally equivalent.

If you think I'm wrong on this one, that's fine. Personally, I think its a wedge issue that's stupid to spend so much time over. I WISH that the only problem with this country was that SSM was recognized everywhere. A country where that was the only issue would be a million times better than the country we have right now. I don't pick who I vote for based on that. But if I were a policymaker, that's what I'd lobby for. Getting government out as an ideal, strong civil unions as a backup plan.

[WhistlinDave]

@WhistlinDave- This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages." They have every right to call it what they want, and I wish government would step entirely out of the way, but I still support a culturally conservative moral opposition to it, and would try to persuade people to agree with me that "Gay Marriage" is immoral and not a thing. As such, I would actually rather them say "Marriage is only between a mand and a woman" than to have them say "Marriage can be between two men or two women."

That's my cultural conservative side. I don't want government involved at all, but if they HAVE to get involved, I'd rather them support my personal opinion than to support the opposite thereof.

I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I wouldn't support a law saying "Drugs are good for you and everyone should be encouraged to smoke crack." Granted, I think it should be LEGAL, but I don't want the government encouraging it. That's how I feel about SSM. Granted, I support tax breaks, because everyone should get tax breaks just for being alive, that's just saying government can't steal as much. Give that to anyone. Adoption should be privatized as much as possible, as should hospitals. I don't know exactly what rights marriage gives so I can't say at the top of my head what should and shouldn't apply, but considering that getting government out won't happen, I support strong civil unions that give as closely to the same rights (Or at least, "The same rights... as long as they can be reconciled with the NAP) as possible. That way its legally equivalent but the government isn't saying I'm morally equivalent.

If you think I'm wrong on this one, that's fine. Personally, I think its a wedge issue that's stupid to spend so much time over. I WISH that the only problem with this country was that SSM was recognized everywhere. A country where that was the only issue would be a million times better than the country we have right now. I don't pick who I vote for based on that. But if I were a policymaker, that's what I'd lobby for. Getting government out as an ideal, strong civil unions as a backup plan.

I appreciate your honesty... And I agree it's stupid to spend too much time on it.

But I have a question for you. Let's say I'm wrong, and ten years from now, some massive paradigm shift has happened, and suddenly a Constitutional amendment is passed that says no more wedding licenses, and no more tax benefits or any other legal privileges, and the only involvement left for the government is when the courts have to settle contractual disputes in divorces. So, we have managed to get the government completely out of marriage.

Now, men can marry men, and women can marry women, and there is no government recognition, no state entity saying to anyone "your marriage is valid too." People can just do whatever makes them happy and there's no government involvement telling them they can, or can't, or who they are or aren't allowed to do it with.

So under this hypothetical situation, i.e. government is completely out of marriage, why is that more OK for you, for a guy to walk up to you and say, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," when the government is not involved? Are you going to tell them their marriage is less valid than if the government had issued them a marriage license? If the same couple today walks up to you and says, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," why is that somehow more offensive to your personal beliefs about marriage than under the scenario where the same exact thing happens only without a marriage license because they don't exist any more?

I'm not asking whether government licensing of private relationships is moral, or whether it serves any legitimate purpose. I'm asking about you personally being offended by what other people do because of your personal beliefs. Both situations result in a same sex couple defining their relationship as a valid marriage. Why is one OK, and doesn't offend your personal beliefs, but the other isn't OK?

[WhistlinDave]

Follow up question: Do you think it was OK for me to marry an atheist woman in the drive through window in Las Vegas over 17 years ago, instead of in a church, and to obtain a vasectomy after our first child was a couple years old, ensuring we would never again procreate? Do you think it would be appropriate for the State to say my marriage is not valid because it does not fit the "Biblical" definition of a marriage? Would you support a law that defined my marriage as invalid? (And if so, why is it any business of yours?)

[Christian Liberty]

I appreciate your honesty... And I agree it's stupid to spend too much time on it.

But I have a question for you. Let's say I'm wrong, and ten years from now, some massive paradigm shift has happened, and suddenly a Constitutional amendment is passed that says no more wedding licenses, and no more tax benefits or any other legal privileges, and the only involvement left for the government is when the courts have to settle contractual disputes in divorces. So, we have managed to get the government completely out of marriage.

Now, men can marry men, and women can marry women, and there is no government recognition, no state entity saying to anyone "your marriage is valid too." People can just do whatever makes them happy and there's no government involvement telling them they can, or can't, or who they are or aren't allowed to do it with.

So under this hypothetical situation, i.e. government is completely out of marriage, why is that more OK for you, for a guy to walk up to you and say, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," when the government is not involved? Are you going to tell them their marriage is less valid than if the government had issued them a marriage license? If the same couple today walks up to you and says, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," why is that somehow more offensive to your personal beliefs about marriage than under the scenario where the same exact thing happens only without a marriage license because they don't exist any more?

I'm not asking whether government licensing of private relationships is moral, or whether it serves any legitimate purpose. I'm asking about you personally being offended by what other people do because of your personal beliefs. Both situations result in a same sex couple defining their relationship as a valid marriage. Why is one OK, and doesn't offend your personal beliefs, but the other isn't OK?

Fair question and fair enough.

Its still offensive to me, but I don't have a right not to be offended. And honestly, I don't think their marriage is legitimate. Granted, I don't think I have a right (Morally speaking, I do have a LEGAL right to do this) to be a total jerk, and I don't think that doing so would be in keeping with the golden rule, but I still don't agree with it. But they have every right to say it. I'd probably be nice, but if a fundamentalist wants to insult them and call them fing f*** or something, he would have a right to do that as well. I wouldn't condone that kind of jerkish behavior, but in a free society, as long as you don't violate the NAP or threaten to do so, you have a right to do whatever you want. I'm not as much of a hardcore about this as some of the ancaps, but I definitely hold to it as a principle as much as possible, and offensive speech certainly is NOT an exception to this.

On the other hand, when government, who claims to speak for everyone, claims that marriage can be between a man and another man, and wants to tax me to, among other things, to socially engineer people to believe that homosexuality (I'm talking about the behavior, not the feelings. I don't think temptation = sin), that bothers me more. Granted, its not my #1 political issue like some Evangelicals, but if I have a say in it, I'm going to say "OK, you as individuals can do whatever the crap you want, but I don't want the state declaring this to be OK."

Its like this. If a private school wants to teach that homosexuality is great, they can do so. I don't like it, but that's their right in a free society.

On the other hand, if a PUBLIC school was doing this, I'd be seriously upset, and because of my personal views, more so than I would be if they taught that it was immoral.

The most libertarian policy, of course, is not any kind of law saying public schools should or should not teach this. It is to abolish public schools and public funding for public schools. The second most libertarian option is school vouchers (At least IMO school vouchers is better than a straight up public school system, although not ideal), and little to no government involvement in what is taught. If we are forced to take the third most libertarian option, where public schools do not exist, it would be the most libertarian policy to have the schools NOT socially engineer either way. They shouldn't support OR oppose homosexuality. They should just shut up about it.

But what if all those options fail? What if the school MUST decide whether to promote or oppose homosexuality? Well then, and this is my opinion, not a libertarian principle, but for me, them promoting my opinion is less bad than them promoting the opinion I do not agree with.

Do I support public schools teaching that homosexuality is immoral? No. I oppose public schools or public funding for schools. If need be (I don't agree, but I'd settle for it) government should give school vouchers to send kids to private schools and still have nothing more to do with it. Butat the level of the individual school, I'd STILL advocate for it to be either taught that it is immoral, or at least not discussed.

But if I HAVE to decide on a government policy, I'm going to prefer the government to advocate the morality I agree with rather than the morality I don't.

Same thing with SSM. I don't want government involved in marriage. But if they are already declaring that they have the right to define marriage (A right they should not have) I'm going to support them doing it the way I prefer.

Does that make sense? People can do what they want in a free society. I accept the NAP. But if government is going to promote certain lifestyles, against my insisting that they should stay out of it altogether, given the choice I'd rather they promote the lifestyles that I agree with.

Does that at least make sense, even if you don't agree?

[Christian Liberty]

Follow up question: Do you think it was OK for me to marry an atheist woman in the drive through window in Las Vegas over 17 years ago, instead of in a church,

"OK"? Well, I don't know. If you yourself are an atheist, it makes no difference to me. Martin Luther correctly taught (Note: I do NOT get my theology from Martin Luther specifically, I'm just saying I agree with him on this particular point. I could dig for scriptures to support it but its late right now) that marriage is not a sacrament, but an institution for believers and unbelievers alike. I suspect, however, that unbelievers wouldn't/shouldn't marry in church. So where are you going to do it? Whatever. It doesn't matter to me.

If, on the other hand, you are a Christian, I would say it is wrong for you to marry an atheist. Its late, I'll dig for the scripture later if you want, but Paul (Since someone got confused last time, I'm talking about the BIBLICAL Paul, not "Ron Paul") said Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. On the other hand, Paul says that if you are ALREADY married to an unbeliever, you should not terminate the marriage unless your partner insists. So while such a marriage should not occur, the Bible also says that if it does occur, it is a legitimate institution. Homosexuality, on the other hand (Again, the ACTIONS that come thereof, romancing/"marrying"/sleeping with members of the same sex) is a sin in EVERY situation, and so its impossible to reconcile that with the marriage being binding in any sense. In short, Christian/Atheist marriage shouldn't occur, but it is not denotatively impossible. Gay marriage is denotatively impossible.


and to obtain a vasectomy after our first child was a couple years old, ensuring we would never again procreate?

I don't think its really moral to permanently cut off the chance for procreation like that, I don't think contraception is wrong (Unless it causes an abortion) but I do think that its immoral to permanently rule out the possibility of having a kid, in addition to it being a form of self-mutilation, it ensures that if God calls you to have a kid later, you are UNABLE to obey. On the other hand, having a vasectomy doesn't change the definition of marriage. Being a thief is immoral, but it doesn't mean thieves can't be married, its a completely separate issue. Men can't be married to each other (As I understand, since the time of Moses it is also impossible for close relatives to marry each other, denotatively.)


Do you think it would be appropriate for the State to say my marriage is not valid because it does not fit the "Biblical" definition of a marriage? Would you support a law that defined my marriage as invalid? (And if so, why is it any business of yours?)

I don't want them to say its invalid. I don't want government to say "Marriage is between a man and a woman." I'd vote against that too (Or possibly not vote at all, since the ballot doesn't really have my preferred option.) I don't want them to come in and say "You can't do this." I just don't want them to put their stamp of approval on it.

For the record, since I didn't mention this before, in the short term I want to decentralize the issue to the states. While I don't support New York's recognition of gay marriage (While I do agree with California's recognition of civil unions) I don't want the Federal Government to tell any state what to do.

[WhistlinDave]

Fair question and fair enough.

Its still offensive to me, but I don't have a right not to be offended. And honestly, I don't think their marriage is legitimate. Granted, I don't think I have a right (Morally speaking, I do have a LEGAL right to do this) to be a total jerk, and I don't think that doing so would be in keeping with the golden rule, but I still don't agree with it. But they have every right to say it. I'd probably be nice, but if a fundamentalist wants to insult them and call them fing f*** or something, he would have a right to do that as well. I wouldn't condone that kind of jerkish behavior, but in a free society, as long as you don't violate the NAP or threaten to do so, you have a right to do whatever you want. I'm not as much of a hardcore about this as some of the ancaps, but I definitely hold to it as a principle as much as possible, and offensive speech certainly is NOT an exception to this.

On the other hand, when government, who claims to speak for everyone, claims that marriage can be between a man and another man, and wants to tax me to, among other things, to socially engineer people to believe that homosexuality (I'm talking about the behavior, not the feelings. I don't think temptation = sin), that bothers me more. Granted, its not my #1 political issue like some Evangelicals, but if I have a say in it, I'm going to say "OK, you as individuals can do whatever the crap you want, but I don't want the state declaring this to be OK."

Its like this. If a private school wants to teach that homosexuality is great, they can do so. I don't like it, but that's their right in a free society.

On the other hand, if a PUBLIC school was doing this, I'd be seriously upset, and because of my personal views, more so than I would be if they taught that it was immoral.

The most libertarian policy, of course, is not any kind of law saying public schools should or should not teach this. It is to abolish public schools and public funding for public schools. The second most libertarian option is school vouchers (At least IMO school vouchers is better than a straight up public school system, although not ideal), and little to no government involvement in what is taught. If we are forced to take the third most libertarian option, where public schools do not exist, it would be the most libertarian policy to have the schools NOT socially engineer either way. They shouldn't support OR oppose homosexuality. They should just shut up about it.

But what if all those options fail? What if the school MUST decide whether to promote or oppose homosexuality? Well then, and this is my opinion, not a libertarian principle, but for me, them promoting my opinion is less bad than them promoting the opinion I do not agree with.

Do I support public schools teaching that homosexuality is immoral? No. I oppose public schools or public funding for schools. If need be (I don't agree, but I'd settle for it) government should give school vouchers to send kids to private schools and still have nothing more to do with it. Butat the level of the individual school, I'd STILL advocate for it to be either taught that it is immoral, or at least not discussed.

But if I HAVE to decide on a government policy, I'm going to prefer the government to advocate the morality I agree with rather than the morality I don't.

Same thing with SSM. I don't want government involved in marriage. But if they are already declaring that they have the right to define marriage (A right they should not have) I'm going to support them doing it the way I prefer.

Does that make sense? People can do what they want in a free society. I accept the NAP. But if government is going to promote certain lifestyles, against my insisting that they should stay out of it altogether, given the choice I'd rather they promote the lifestyles that I agree with.

Does that at least make sense, even if you don't agree?

It does make sense, but you're right, I don't agree.

First, I support your right to be offended by anything that offends you. And if someone wants to call people names, as long as they're not committing violence or encouraging it from others, people should be free to say whatever they want. I personally don't like to see people calling black people n****** or gay people f****** and I will be the first to tell them they're being an asshole, but I'm not going to tell them they don't have a right to say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want, and I will promptly call them an asshole because that's how freedom of speech works.

So you don't want other people defining their own marriage in a way that you personally don't agree with, and you don't want the government allowing other people to define their own marriage in a way you don't agree with. I can understand that. But now I have another question for you.

Suppose in 50 years, Islam has spread so much, there's a state where 51% of the voters are Muslim. Now, these Muslims manage to pass a law defining a marriage as only valid when it's a Muslim marriage performed according to the specifications in the Qu'Ran. Because, they will be happy to tell you, the Qu'Ran is the one true word of God, the only real Holy Scripture there is.

So, the Muslim majority passes a law that instantly renders all Christian marriages, and all other non-Muslim marriages invalid in the eyes of the law and the government. They are doing this for the good of the children, to ensure a moral society in which children are not taught immoral teachings that probably come from Satan. Keep in mind it's not a question of freedom, it's a question of what is proper and moral, and if they're going to have the government define marriage, then they prefer that it is defined in a way that agrees with their morals and their scriptures. So here's the question:

Do you think it should be OK for this type of law to be passed by the Muslims, if a majority of the people all agree and vote that the government should define marriage for everyone in this manner, and render invalid any marriage that does not strictly follow the mandates in the Qu'Ran? Do you think doing so is consistent with freedom of religion?

[WhistlinDave]

"OK"? Well, I don't know. If you yourself are an atheist, it makes no difference to me. Martin Luther correctly taught (Note: I do NOT get my theology from Martin Luther specifically, I'm just saying I agree with him on this particular point. I could dig for scriptures to support it but its late right now) that marriage is not a sacrament, but an institution for believers and unbelievers alike. I suspect, however, that unbelievers wouldn't/shouldn't marry in church. So where are you going to do it? Whatever. It doesn't matter to me.

If, on the other hand, you are a Christian, I would say it is wrong for you to marry an atheist. Its late, I'll dig for the scripture later if you want, but Paul (Since someone got confused last time, I'm talking about the BIBLICAL Paul, not "Ron Paul") said Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. On the other hand, Paul says that if you are ALREADY married to an unbeliever, you should not terminate the marriage unless your partner insists. So while such a marriage should not occur, the Bible also says that if it does occur, it is a legitimate institution. Homosexuality, on the other hand (Again, the ACTIONS that come thereof, romancing/"marrying"/sleeping with members of the same sex) is a sin in EVERY situation, and so its impossible to reconcile that with the marriage being binding in any sense. In short, Christian/Atheist marriage shouldn't occur, but it is not denotatively impossible. Gay marriage is denotatively impossible.

I'm not Christian, really not religious at all, but not an atheist either. (I think people sometimes forget there are lots of other choices.)


I don't think its really moral to permanently cut off the chance for procreation like that, I don't think contraception is wrong (Unless it causes an abortion) but I do think that its immoral to permanently rule out the possibility of having a kid, in addition to it being a form of self-mutilation, it ensures that if God calls you to have a kid later, you are UNABLE to obey. On the other hand, having a vasectomy doesn't change the definition of marriage. Being a thief is immoral, but it doesn't mean thieves can't be married, its a completely separate issue. Men can't be married to each other (As I understand, since the time of Moses it is also impossible for close relatives to marry each other, denotatively.)

I don't want them to say its invalid. I don't want government to say "Marriage is between a man and a woman." I'd vote against that too (Or possibly not vote at all, since the ballot doesn't really have my preferred option.) I don't want them to come in and say "You can't do this." I just don't want them to put their stamp of approval on it.

For the record, since I didn't mention this before, in the short term I want to decentralize the issue to the states. While I don't support New York's recognition of gay marriage (While I do agree with California's recognition of civil unions) I don't want the Federal Government to tell any state what to do.

Is someone who has surgery to correct a birth defect mutilating himself? They are surgically changing the way God created them, because they prefer a change, just as I did.

I would be fine with de-centralizing as well, at least until government is all the way out of the marriage business. (But again, I think it's more likely we'll see public schools go away before they stop issuing marriage licenses and giving tax benefits...)

If you say something is "denotatively impossible," aren't you deciding for everyone else how a word can be defined? If I decide to start calling my coffee table a dinner table, do you think you should have the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to? And will my calling my coffee table a dinner table somehow impact the function or durability of your own dinner table? What if I come in your house and tell you from now on, you MUST start calling your dinner table a coffee table? Would you do it just because I told you that is the correct nomenclature and anything else is impossible?

Or do you think it makes more sense to allow people to name their own stuff whatever they feel like naming it?

[The Free Hornet]

This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages."

If by chance you ever go to a bookstore, you might notice one of these dictionary brands:

Oxford English
Webster's
Macmillan
There is no US Government brand dictionary. Not even Black's Law Dictionary. If you have a problem with what words mean, you ought to try influencing the culture yourself rather than insisting government make the defintions in accordance with your prejudices.

Seeing as government has already attempted and failed at redefined of marriage in accordance with your wishes ("To define and protect the institution of marriage. ... the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'." - DOMA text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:)).

It is not that your type wants government to not redefine, rather, you want the status quo of government maintaining involvement in marriage.

[WhistlinDave]

If by chance you ever go to a bookstore, you might notice one of these dictionary brands:

Oxford English
Webster's
Macmillan
There is no US Government brand dictionary. Not even Black's Law Dictionary. If you have a problem with what words mean, you ought to try influencing the culture yourself rather than insisting government make the defintions in accordance with your prejudices.

Seeing as government has already attempted and failed at redefined of marriage in accordance with your wishes ("To define and protect the institution of marriage. ... the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'." - DOMA text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:)).

It is not that your type wants government to not redefine, rather, you want the status quo of government maintaining involvement in marriage.

Well, to be fair, I think FF did make it clear that he prefers government get out of marriage altogether, as you & I and most people here believe. I think he was saying that as long as government still is involved in marriage, then he prefers they define it the way that is consistent with his own moral beliefs.... Not quite the same as saying he wants to maintain the status quo of government involvement. More like, as long as the status quo remains, he wants it to stay "this" way for everyone instead of validating that it's OK for everyone to do "this," "that," or "the other." (Hope that makes sense.)

[Brett85]

Well, to be fair, I think FF did make it clear that he prefers government get out of marriage altogether, as you & I and most people here believe.

No, that's not what The Free Hornet believes. He's a big government liberal who calls himself a libertarian just because he's pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not really even sure why he posts here. He's never made a libertarian argument on any economic issue, foreign policy issue, or anything else. He cares about two issues, keeping it legal to kill babies and expanding the definition of marriage.

[WhistlinDave]

No, that's not what The Free Hornet believes. He's a big government liberal who calls himself a libertarian just because he's pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not really even sure why he posts here. He's never made a libertarian argument on any economic issue, foreign policy issue, or anything else. He cares about two issues, keeping it legal to kill babies and expanding the definition of marriage.

Well I should probably just let him answer whenever he's back online, but I think he uses the term "classical liberal" to describe himself, which is more of a small government civil liberties advocate. I know he (along with a few others) schooled me on the libertarian position on intellectual property a while back, and that discussion was heavily loaded with free market economics. And I'm sure I've seen him comment on plenty of things besides these two issues. I recall another discussion involving the Benson Principle, not sure what the thread topic was.

You two probably butt heads on these two issues, so you mostly encounter posts from him on these two issues, and that leads to the perception it's all he cares about. I think if you were to do a questionnaire with 100 multiple choice questions on it dealing with libertarian positions and give it to all 40,000 members, you'd probably end up with close to 40,000 different versions of libertarianism. Some would be more pure in their libertarian than others, I'm sure, but I guess the point is, to each his own. We're not all going to agree on everything all the time, and if we did, it would make for some pretty boring discussions around here.