How To Stop The Gay Marriage Tidal Wave Before It Is Too Late

[TaftFan]

My RedState diary post.

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2014/01/26/how-to-stop-the-gay-marriage-tidal-wave-before-it-is-too-late/

[56ktarget]

Why do you want to deny people the freedom to marry whoever they like? Are you against liberty or something?

[Petar]

Maybe allowing gay weirdos to participate in marriage is going to be the precise thing to make people realize that marriage should not be such a function of government in the first place.

Besides, as long as it is a function of government, then it's only fair that gay weirdos be allowed to participate as well...

[TaftFan]

Maybe allowing gay weirdos to participate in marriage is going to be the precise thing to make people realize that marriage should not be such a function of government in the first place.

Besides, as long as it is a function of government, then it's only fair that gay weirdos be allowed to participate as well...
When it gets to that point, there will be no chance of getting government out of marriage.

[TaftFan]

Why do you want to deny people the freedom to marry whoever they like? Are you against liberty or something?

How are you not banned yet?

[fr33]

I get what you are saying and do support it but your phrasing is just propaganda. Getting the government out of labeling and licensing relationships as marriage, then people can choose to define their relationships as marriage if they want to use that label. But what you don't seem to understand is that the majority of people interested in stopping gays from marrying don't want that decision to be in the individuals' hands. They want to use the government to approve and deny that label based on their own preference. Licensing of marriage didn't just occur for no reason. It happened because people want to ban others from acting in a way they don't approve of. Why fight such a losing battle if you don't care if gays act like they are married regardless?

[Petar]

When it gets to that point, there will be no chance of getting government out of marriage.

Seems to me that having a government body selectively restricting marriage to a few is even worse than just allowing any stupid gay weirdo to also get married.

Either way, people need to start demanding that government remove itself from the marriage business.

If the catalyst to make that happen will not consist of gay marriage administered by the state, then what form will it take exactly?

[TaftFan]

I get what you are saying and do support it but your phrasing is just propaganda. Getting the government out of labeling and licensing relationships as marriage, then people can choose to define their relationships as marriage if they want to use that label. But what you don't seem to understand is that the majority of people interested in stopping gays from marrying don't want that decision to be in the individuals' hands. They want to use the government to approve and deny that label based on their own preference. Licensing of marriage didn't just occur for no reason. It happened because people want to ban others from acting in a way they don't approve of. Why fight such a losing battle if you don't care if gays act like they are married regardless?
Well, yeah, I am framing it for a socially conservative audience. I understand not all of them connect with the individualist message, which is why I proposed a unity movement between them and libertarians.

[TaftFan]

Seems to me that having a government body selectively restricting marriage to a few is even worse than just allowing any stupid gay weirdo to also get married.

Either way, people need to start demanding that government remove itself from the marriage business.

If the catalyst to make that happen will not consist of gay marriage administered by the state, then what form will it take exactly?

What I am arguing is that social conservatives and libertarians can form a coalition at the state level and convert a state legislature. Others would hopefully follow.

The pressure forcing this to happen is that fact that courts are systematically ruling in favor of gay marriage, so this is the only way to stop it.

[jkob]

I definitely agree about getting the government out of marriage but that doesn't justify the government discriminating against homosexual couples, they're two different issues.

[libertariantexas]

My RedState diary post.

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2014/01/26/how-to-stop-the-gay-marriage-tidal-wave-before-it-is-too-late/

The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but if they insist on controlling it, they should treat everyone equally.

FYI, on the slim chance that you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, you should realize this battle is all over but the mopping up. A certain percentage of Republicans, who choose to continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, haven't figure it out yet.

Use your head, kid. Get on a lifeboat and stop fighting hopeless (and wrong) battles...

[fr33]

Well, yeah, I am framing it for a socially conservative audience. I understand not all of them connect with the individualist message, which is why I proposed a unity movement between them and libertarians.
Call me the negative one but I'll say it again; marriage licensing exists because people want it to exist. Conservatives just as much as liberals.


Hell, just look at this thread: Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support - WTF??? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400081-Kansas-wants-sperm-donor-to-pay-child-support-WTF) You'll find that many here aren't interested in private contracts and instead are willing to use the govt to promote their own morals even if it means doing away with things like adoption and the donation of bodily fluids like sperm or blood. Too many people want to run other peoples lives including many that claim to be part of a liberty movement.

Today the idea of gay marriage is popular and it's going to happen. Tomorrow we could find divorces being banned if the perception changes.

I find it more useful to live my life and be willing to tell these authoritarians, no matter where they come from, to fuck off and get out of my life.

[dillo]

Oh the small government conservatives

If the tenth amendment is important than what justification can you have for the federal government overruling a state that decides to license gay couples?

[DamianTV]

The Rights of Straight People end where the Equal Rights of Gay People begin.

Making one or the other pay or participate in something they do not want to be a party to, now thats a different story. Marriage in and of itself is Simple. But when Govt is introduced, you have Regulations to contend with. Insurance. Property Rights. Etc. Thats the monkey wrench in the system of Marriage that everyone is opposed to, and it comes from Govt, not Gays.

[pcosmar]

When it gets to that point, there will be no chance of getting government out of marriage.

There is no chance of that now. If there was opposition,, people would have been marching in the streets 50 years ago. Long before it became a "gay" issue.

Fact is,, the same people that persecuted the Mormons for Polygamy,, like to have the government bat to beat others with.

[pcosmar]

Well, yeah, I am framing it for a socially conservative audience. \.

CUT The Crap

Social Conservative? Call them Social Controllers,, that is what they are.
The same mindset that pushed Prohibition and Anti-Polygamy Laws.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/images/eugenics/normal/1-50/030-Large-family-honorable-mention-Fitter-Families-Contest-Kansas-State-Free-Fair-Topeka.jpg

http://theaporetic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/fitter1.jpg

Social Controllers..They love registering things and forbidding things they don't approve of.
They love the government bat to beat others with.

The same shit that pushes registration of Guns,, Registration of Cars, Registration of Dogs..
Registration of everything..

Push an issue,, or a bill to get the Government OUT of everyone's life,, ENTIRELY.
Or STFU.

[compromise]

Social conservatives have pretty much lost this battle at this point. The moment Utah fell was the nail in the coffin.

Better to focus on more important issues.

[juleswin]

One thing most conservatives, libertarians and miniarchist agree with on the function of govt is that of enforcing contracts signed between adults. Seeing as all marriage is the contract between 2 or more people(and yes I included polygamy in the mix). Now you can get me to go with govt not enforcing some contract but what I will not tolerate is govt not just enforcing some contracts but forcing people who already have a contract signed into a govt default contract like in the case of the Kansas lesbian couple.

Also when you have gay, single people paying taxes that fund the marriage benefits, you will always find people rightfully complain about it. So if govt doesn't want to get out of marriage, then it should stop giving any kind of favors(tax benefits, subsidies etc) to married couples. Just recognize and enforce the contracts with fees paid by people obtaining the license and nobody 99% of the complaint by gay people will go away.

[libertyvidz]

+rep on your efforts for two reasons. 1) You've got the right approach to the issue of gay marriage and 2) You've figured out that liberty activism on the net = going into hostile territory like "Redstate" and instead of trying to convert them to being non-interventionist on foreign policy, you've trying to help them with an issue important (maybe) to them. I singed up at Redstate just to comment on your post there.

[libertyvidz]

Social conservatives have pretty much lost this battle at this point. The moment Utah fell was the nail in the coffin.

Better to focus on more important issues.

I think you're missing the point of what TaftFan is trying to do. It's not about "stopping gay marriage". It's about building bridges with a needed voter block in the GOP primaries by helping them see how the only possible way to "stop" gay marriage is to start getting the government out of marriage. I mean, that is still an overall goal of libertarianism right? Reduce the government footprint on everything including marriage? Some people here have taken the "Hey, let's help the gays get their equal rights and worry about reducing the role of government later." Well, that's great, if your target audience is liberals. But if your target audience is conservatives, giving them a reason to support your efforts is a good thing whether or not those efforts actually pay off.

[pcosmar]

giving them a reason to support your efforts is a good thing whether or not those efforts actually pay off.

Hatred and prejudice are never "good reasons".

[libertyvidz]

I can't comment yet at RedState (have to wait 24 hours) but this is the comment I plan to make. So far there is only one comment on the article:

californiasquish
• 4 hours ago

−

Well written and interesting diary.

FWIW, I think social conservatives lost this fight at least a decade ago, and "removing government from marriage altogether" is a terrible strategy if stopping gay marriage is the goal. There are already mainstream religions who fully support gay marriage, so if you're retreating to the churches you've already lost. The same day government lets go of marriage is the day Unitarian churches start marrying gay couples from coast to coast.

As I've said in other threads, I welcome that. I think the government should have little say in who I marry. My personal pull is fiscal conservatism over social.

Food for thought, tho. Great diary.


Here is my response to that comment.

Sure, you can't "stop gay marriage" by getting the government out. But you're missing the point. Gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states. No gay couple gets arrested for getting married. The question is, what recognition do other people have to give to their marriage? We already have cases in some states where religious people are being sued for not doing things like baking wedding cakes for gay couples. If we reduce the government footprint on marriage altogether, the individuals are free to decide how they wish to interact with said marriages."

[juleswin]

I think you're missing the point of what TaftFan is trying to do. It's not about "stopping gay marriage". It's about building bridges with a needed voter block in the GOP primaries by helping them see how the only possible way to "stop" gay marriage is to start getting the government out of marriage. I mean, that is still an overall goal of libertarianism right? Reduce the government footprint on everything including marriage? Some people here have taken the "Hey, let's help the gays get their equal rights and worry about reducing the role of government later." Well, that's great, if your target audience is liberals. But if your target audience is conservatives, giving them a reason to support your efforts is a good thing whether or not those efforts actually pay off.

If the goal is to reduce govt footprint on marriage then govt removing a restriction in an institution they have complete monopoly can equally be argued to be reducing govt footprint on marriage.

[libertyvidz]

Hatred and prejudice are never "good reasons".

So you believe that all Christians who don't agree with gay marriage are driven by hatred and prejudice? Because I don't. Not all gay people think that either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3TzpY4-Cs

You brought up polygamy. I agree with you that the government shouldn't put polygamists in prison. Does that mean that I have to accept that that is the "true and correct" definition of marriage? Should my church be forced to rent its facility for a polygamist wedding ceremony if that facility is generally open to doing weddings? Should a Christian university be forced to hire polygamist professors? Why force people to go against their beliefs? I don't think that's the best way to a well adjusted, small government society. I don't feel the force of government should be used either way. Do you disagree?

[libertyvidz]

If the goal is to reduce govt footprint on marriage then govt removing a restriction in an institution they have complete monopoly can equally be argued to be reducing govt footprint on marriage.

Except you've only reduced one restriction. Others still exist. And you're expanding the number of people involved. Your argument is like saying "Well reduce the size of the welfare state by letting illegal immigrants participate in it."

That said, if you're goal is to reach out to liberals, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. TaftFan is trying to reach a different target audience. Are you against helping social conservatives see the benefit of reducing the size of government? Nobody can argue that, for example, privatizing social security, which would reduce the government footprint on marriage, expands the size of government. If you're reaching out to liberals, by all means use the language that will win them over.

Edit: But that you are even engaging in this kind of argument shows the folly of people thinking that arguing at RPF is actually doing something. We waste far too much time trying to convince each other why our particular take on liberty is the "right" one. Why not go over to DailyKos and do there the equivalent of what TaftFan is trying to do at RedState? You can even use gay marriage as your "platform", and make a pro-liberty argument as to whatever it is you want to do. Maybe argue "We can't just let gays get married and leave the polygamists out."

[pcosmar]

You brought up polygamy. I agree with you that the government shouldn't put polygamists in prison. Does that mean that I have to accept that that is the "true and correct" definition of marriage? Should my church be forced to rent its facility for a polygamist wedding ceremony if that facility is generally open to doing weddings? Should a Christian university be forced to hire polygamist professors? Why force people to go against their beliefs? I don't think that's the best way to a well adjusted, small government society. I don't feel the force of government should be used either way. Do you disagree?

I don't thing anyone should be "forced" to do anything. And I don't think the government should give perks to anyone. (Marriage Benefits)
But I do think that the legal status of any marriage should be accepted and respected.

I think the wives of a polygamist should be allowed to visit him in a hospital and recognized as family,, The same with a Gay spouse.

And there is no valid Christian objection to polygamy. It was practiced throughout the bible . and never forbidden.

But that is a side issue.. We are talking about the State,, which is not suppose to give any religious preferences.

I am opposed to registration. Of marriage,, of guns, Cars, dogs. business. everything.

Do away with it,, or accept all equally under the Secular law.

My preference is to wipe the laws off the books.. but that ain't gonna happen as long as the Social Controllers want to Control the lives of others.

[pcosmar]

The focus of the issue
How To Stop The Gay Marriage ?

I don't care about stopping it.. I don't care about it at all. it is irrelevant.

How do we stop Government from being involved? (In almost everything)

[Root]

I don't give a fuck if two men/women want to form intimate relationships with each other, call it marriage or not. What ever makes you happy.

It's all bullshit.

[pcosmar]

I don't give a fuck if two men/women want to form intimate relationships with each other, call it marriage or not. What ever makes you happy.

It's all bullshit.

It is.
And it should not even be an issue..

[juleswin]

Except you've only reduced one restriction. Others still exist. And you're expanding the number of people involved. Your argument is like saying "Well reduce the size of the welfare state by letting illegal immigrants participate in it."

Well, if I came out tomorrow and said I support the idea of forcing white people to pay taxes which go into funding welfare claims but if those same white people happen to meet conditions for it, we should not give it to them. Now would you say opposing this law will mean you want to allow more people into the welfare row and thereby expanding govt spending and function? Ofc the answer is no, the best option is for govt not to be in the welfare business at all.


That said, if you're goal is to reach out to liberals, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. TaftFan is trying to reach a different target audience. Are you against helping social conservatives see the benefit of reducing the size of government? Nobody can argue that, for example, privatizing social security, which would reduce the government footprint on marriage, expands the size of government. If you're reaching out to liberals, by all means use the language that will win them over.

My goal is to reach out to anybody we can win over and for me with conservatives, I try to do it with issues we sorta agree with. This is usually some form of economic issue like foreign aid, central planning by use of FED money printing etc etc and I try to do this while not alienating anyone from the libertarian side. I still commend him for trying, my only problem is that approach he is using to do it

[KCIndy]

Social Controllers..They love registering things and forbidding things they don't approve of.
They love the government bat to beat others with.

The same shit that pushes registration of Guns,, Registration of Cars, Registration of Dogs..
Registration of everything..

Push an issue,, or a bill to get the Government OUT of everyone's life,, ENTIRELY.
Or STFU.



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again"

+Rep if I could.

Social controllers are some of the scariest people on earth.

[Root]

It is.
And it should not even be an issue..
I know. It's ridiculous.

[Origanalist]

+Rep if I could.

Social controllers are some of the scariest people on earth.

I got it for you. I was going to rep that post anyway.

[Root]

+Rep if I could.

Social controllers are some of the scariest people on earth.
Gotcha covered

[Brett85]

Social Conservative? Call them Social Controllers,, that is what they are.
The same mindset that pushed Prohibition and Anti-Polygamy Laws.

Most Democrats in Congress support the drug war as well. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest drug warriors in the entire Congress. Is he a "social conservative?"

[pcosmar]

Most Democrats in Congress support the drug war as well. Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest drug warriors in the entire Congress. Is he a "social conservative?"

A Social Controller. It is not party specific.. Much like Socialism, which is not party specific.

The old Photo I posted referenced an Arther Capper. A Republican. A Social Controller. Likely would be considered a "conservative".

Also a Eugenicist and Social Controller.

[Brett85]

A Social Controller. It is not party specific.. Much like Socialism.

Yeah, I know. But there are social liberals who are just as much "social controllers" or more so than social conservatives.

[pcosmar]

Yeah, I know. But there are social liberals who are just as much "social controllers" or more so than social conservatives.

six of one,, half dozen of the other.

[Origanalist]

I some what sympathize with Taftfan. Prior to when I started posting here and for some time after that I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a way to build a bridge between social conservatives and libertarians in order to advance a smaller government agenda. The truth is there are some social conservatives who understand that using government to enforce their values on others is a deal with the devil, but there are more that absolutely do not.

I have spent years pointing out to them what the very visible consequences of granting government the power to control people are. To no avail. For them it is always "we" win or "they" win. No matter that the entire nation continue it's steady slide into government dependence and lack of personal responsibility. No matter that the people they vote for on "their" side are in many if not most cases indistinguishable from those on the other. "we can't do anything if we don't win......"

I see a steady rise of people who are getting it, but it's like watching grass grow. It sometimes seems mind numbingly slow.

[69360]

My RedState diary post.

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2014/01/26/how-to-stop-the-gay-marriage-tidal-wave-before-it-is-too-late/

Why are you putting so much effort into dictating others morality? Who cares what gays do? Who cares if the feds allow marriage between adults of any race, religion, sexual persuasion or even numbers. How does it affect your daily life? It's nobody's business but theirs.

[Brett85]

I some what sympathize with Taftfan. Prior to when I started posting here and for some time after that I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a way to build a bridge between social conservatives and libertarians in order to advance a smaller government agenda. The truth is there are some social conservatives who understand that using government to enforce their values on others is a deal with the devil, but there are more that absolutely do not.

I have spent years pointing out to them what the very visible consequences of granting government the power to control people are. To no avail. For them it is always "we" win or "they" win. No matter that the entire nation continue it's steady slide into government dependence and lack of personal responsibility. No matter that the people they vote for on "their" side are in many if not most cases indistinguishable from those on the other. "we can't do anything if we don't win......"

I see a steady rise of people who are getting it, but it's like watching grass grow. It sometimes seems mind numbingly slow.

The common ground should be federalism, handling issues like marriage, drugs, and prostitution at the state level and not the federal level. A lot of social conservatives can understand and support the concept of federalism.

[Origanalist]

Why are you putting so much effort into dictating others morality? Who cares what gays do? Who cares if the feds allow marriage between adults of any race, religion, sexual persuasion or even numbers. How does it affect your daily life? It's nobody's business but theirs.

Well, that's kind of the whole point isn't it? Why should the feds be allowed to "allow" us to marry anybody? It's not their concern.

[Brett85]

Why are you putting so much effort into dictating others morality? Who cares what gays do? Who cares if the feds allow marriage between adults of any race, religion, sexual persuasion or even numbers. How does it affect your daily life? It's nobody's business but theirs.

I have to wonder why some of you even supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul even supported the FEDERAL defense of marriage act, introduced the Marriage Protection Act, the We the People Act that would've overturned the kind of court decisions that occurred in Utah, etc.

[Brett85]

I'm not sure what people are complaining about here. Is this not the libertarian position on marriage?


I (and others) are proposing that social conservatives and libertarians unite for a common goal by removing government from marriage altogether. I know libertarians understand why it is beneficial for their goals to have the government out of marriage, so I want to explain to social conservatives why it is best for them too.

[Cleaner44]

I don't thing anyone should be "forced" to do anything. And I don't think the government should give perks to anyone. (Marriage Benefits)
But I do think that the legal status of any marriage should be accepted and respected.

I think the wives of a polygamist should be allowed to visit him in a hospital and recognized as family,, The same with a Gay spouse.

And there is no valid Christian objection to polygamy. It was practiced throughout the bible . and never forbidden.

But that is a side issue.. We are talking about the State,, which is not suppose to give any religious preferences.

I am opposed to registration. Of marriage,, of guns, Cars, dogs. business. everything.

Do away with it,, or accept all equally under the Secular law.

My preference is to wipe the laws off the books.. but that ain't gonna happen as long as the Social Controllers want to Control the lives of others.

I agree! Less government, not more. I am pro-freedom.

[69360]

Well, that's kind of the whole point isn't it? Why should the feds be allowed to "allow" us to marry anybody? It's not their concern.

The feds protecting people's right to do what they choose is generally a good thing.


I have to wonder why some of you even supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul even supported the FEDERAL defense of marriage act, introduced the Marriage Protection Act, the We the People Act that would've overturned the kind of court decisions that occurred in Utah, etc.

So we had to march lockstep with the man? He was the best candidate.


I'm not sure what people are complaining about here. Is this not the libertarian position on marriage?

Get the government out of marriage is generally a code word for not wanting anything but traditional marriage at a state or church level.

[Origanalist]

The feds protecting people's right to do what they choose is generally a good thing.

No, it's not. Because they pick and choose which rights you are allowed to have. Is control over marriage a federal power listed in the constitution?

[JK/SEA]

Social conservatives have pretty much lost this battle at this point. The moment Utah fell was the nail in the coffin.

Better to focus on more important issues.

finally...now we can focus all of our energies on the Abortion issue.....

burp...

[pcosmar]

finally...now we can focus all of our energies on the Abortion issue.....

burp...

Another one that is about control,, and that neither party will do anything about,, Though they will both use it as a Club to enact more government programs.

Remember,, The Abortion Issue (anti-abortion) was used to Sell Obamacare.

It would have never passed if not for a certain Anti-Abortion Democrat. He used the issue,, to get the votes. To Sell the Plan.

[69360]

No, it's not. Because they pick and choose which rights you are allowed to have. Is control over marriage a federal power listed in the constitution?

I'd be fine with an amendment to the constitution allowing any adults to marry.

[Origanalist]

I'd be fine with an amendment to the constitution allowing any adults to marry.

groan..............

[pcosmar]

I'd be fine with an amendment to the constitution allowing any adults to marry.

I would be fine with a federal law outlawing licensing.
Marriage license, Drivers License, Business license, Dog License, Gun license(FFL).
Outlaw license at any and every level of government.

You should not have to ask the government permission for anything.

[Brett85]

Get the government out of marriage is generally a code word for not wanting anything but traditional marriage at a state or church level.

So you want the government to force churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies?

[Feeding the Abscess]

I would be fine with a federal law outlawing licensing.
Marriage license, Drivers License, Business license, Dog License, Gun license(FFL).
Outlaw license at any and every level of government.

You should not have to ask the government permission for anything.

I agree. If the federal government is going to be used for anything, it may as well be used to actually make people free, rather than put restrictions on the choices people can make in their lives.

[LibertyEagle]

I would be fine with a federal law outlawing licensing.
Marriage license, Drivers License, Business license, Dog License, Gun license(FFL).
Outlaw license at any and every level of government.

You should not have to ask the government permission for anything.

I would support that.

[Origanalist]

I would support that.

Yes, this.

[pcosmar]

So you want the government to force churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies?

No one said anything about forcing any churches to marry anyone. It is up to the church to decide who they will or will not marry.
Some churches will.. some will not.

My pastor will not marry anyone who he does not believe are serious about the marriage.. Other churches do the same.

Try to get married in a Catholic church after being divorced.

[pcosmar]

I would support that.

See,, we do agree sometimes. ;)

[MelissaWV]

I was going to chime on this thread, but all the good points were made while I was still laughing over the image of a gay tidal wave.

http://www.glaaforum.org/.a/6a0111686ab237970c01901d193749970b-500wi

[erowe1]

Why do you want to deny people the freedom to marry whoever they like? Are you against liberty or something?

Nobody is doing that.

[pcosmar]

Nobody is doing that.

I would not go that far.

Many of us are not supporting that.

[Origanalist]

I was going to chime on this thread, but all the good points were made while I was still laughing over the image of a gay tidal wave.

I just had to look....

http://image.yaymicro.com/rz_1210x1210/0/3f1/tsunami-tidal-wave-3f1030.jpg

http://www.glaaforum.org/.a/6a0111686ab237970c01901d193749970b-500wi

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/20/article-0-0B419FBE00000578-810_634x421.jpg

[69360]

I would be fine with a federal law outlawing licensing.
Marriage license, Drivers License, Business license, Dog License, Gun license(FFL).
Outlaw license at any and every level of government.

You should not have to ask the government permission for anything.

I don't agree about everything.

If any adults had a constitutional right to marriage, nobody would need to ask permission.

IMO there is a value to society in driver licensing, but not dogs businesses and guns.


So you want the government to force churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies?

No, who said anything about that? That is a religious ceremony. Any adults who want a civil service should be allowed to, churches as a private organization could continue to marry who they want to.

[Snew]

Who gives a shit?

Shouldn't we be trying to stop the tidal wave of tyrannical government and the ever-growing police state, instead?

[Brett85]

No, who said anything about that? That is a religious ceremony. Any adults who want a civil service should be allowed to, churches as a private organization could continue to marry who they want to.

I just wasn't sure why you used the phrase "at the church level." If you had left out those words, your statement would've made sense.


Get the government out of marriage is generally a code word for not wanting anything but traditional marriage at a state or church level.

[erowe1]

Get the government out of marriage is generally a code word for not wanting anything but traditional marriage at a state or church level.

I'm glad you said that. It points to what's really going on. The gay agenda insists on keeping the government involved in marriage, because that's how it can be their tool to use against people who want to have strictly traditional marriage at the church level.

You're absolutely right. Getting the government out of marriage is the position traditional marriage advocates need to unite behind.

[KCIndy]

I would be fine with a federal law outlawing licensing.
Marriage license, Drivers License, Business license, Dog License, Gun license(FFL).
Outlaw license at any and every level of government.

You should not have to ask the government permission for anything.


I agree. If the federal government is going to be used for anything, it may as well be used to actually make people free, rather than put restrictions on the choices people can make in their lives.


I would support that.


Yes, this.


Count me in too.

Freedom for the win!

[69360]

Who gives a shit?

Shouldn't we be trying to stop the tidal wave of tyrannical government and the ever-growing police state, instead?

Yes, it's much more important than who is marrying who. The liberal media pushes divisive issues that affect a small percentage of the population to distract from real problems.

[pcosmar]

I don't agree about everything.


IMO there is a value to society in driver licensing

There was no need for licenses when Horses and buggies were the rule.
People traveled at will,, Hauled Cargo.. transported others for hire,, all without permission.

It was the social controllers,, in opposition to the automobile,, that pushed for licensing.

And there is no value to it,, stupid and inept drivers still get licenses.

As a Bodyman,, I repaired a lot of cars for repeat customers.

[Root]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/431864_312556555541173_900658369_n.jpg

[MelissaWV]

^ Much straighter tidal wave.

[Root]

^ Much straighter tidal wave.
Please don't report me :p

[The Free Hornet]

How are you not banned yet?

Do the bannings continue? These say far more about the banner, than the banned.


Well, yeah, I am framing it for a socially conservative audience. I understand not all of them connect with the individualist message, which is why I proposed a unity movement between them and libertarians.

You are proposing to mix a little poison into good food and suffering the delusion that the meal will still be edible. If you actually believe that which I suspect you don't.

Social conservatives will die off or let go their predjudices at rates faster than they will convert to any liberty movement. The moral majority willl cling on to something else and new, fresh lines in the sand will be drawn as suitable biblical passages are found for support.

[TaftFan]

Why are you putting so much effort into dictating others morality? Who cares what gays do? Who cares if the feds allow marriage between adults of any race, religion, sexual persuasion or even numbers. How does it affect your daily life? It's nobody's business but theirs.

One of the points I made is that nobody is banned from getting married. The whole issue is licensing.

I am against licensing as a libertarian. As a Christian, the homosexual movement does concern me and I feel the gay marriage debate is enabling it greatly.

[The Free Hornet]

The gay agenda insists on keeping the government involved in marriage, because that's how it can be their tool to use against people who want to have strictly traditional marriage at the church level.

Where is your evidence?:


Efforts to change the state’s divorce laws have been repeatedly turned back over the years, even as other states moved to liberalize their matrimonial laws to include some version of no-fault divorce.

Opponents included the Roman Catholic Church, which objects to making divorce easier, as well as some women’s advocates, who feared that no-fault divorce would deprive women — especially poor women who could not afford lengthy litigation — of leverage they needed to obtain fair alimony or child support agreements from husbands seeking to divorce them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16divorce.html?_r=0

If you oppose speedy divorce, is it not because you support government - or the church - as the mediator in the lives of these people for all times?

Imagine the horror of getting married and divorced without the help of a church, blood tests, judge, lawyers, marriage counselors, more lawyers, and did I mention all the money you pay to the lawyers?


You're absolutely right. Getting the government out of marriage is the position traditional marriage advocates need to unite behind.

Yes, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

[Natural Citizen]

My RedState diary post.

http://www.redstate.com/freedomrepublican/2014/01/26/how-to-stop-the-gay-marriage-tidal-wave-before-it-is-too-late/

You're pretty active over there at RedState, huh taft. I've read quite a bit of your stuff. What would you say is the over all response or vibe you get as far as feedback? Legitimate feedback, mind you. I'm not talking about flyby keyboard jockeys.

[TaftFan]

You're pretty active over there at RedState, huh taft. I've read quite a bit of your stuff. What would you say is the over all response or vibe you get as far as feedback? Legitimate feedback, mind you. I'm not talking about flyby keyboard jockeys.

Usually pretty good, except for the mods. Actually they banned me from commenting but forgot to ban my diary. So I changed my diary name and I don't think they have noticed.

I like to think I got Erickson to notice Brannon after I posted about him a couple of times there.

[Brett85]

Usually pretty good, except for the mods. Actually they banned me from commenting but forgot to ban my diary. So I changed my diary name and I don't think they have noticed.

I like to think I got Erickson to notice Brannon after I posted about him a couple of times there.

I've been banned from Red State once and free republic twice. People like you and I are considered to be the moderates or even "statists" of this forum, but ironically we're still far too libertarian to be allowed to post at the red state-free republic type "conservative" web sites.

[69360]

I'm glad you said that. It points to what's really going on. The gay agenda insists on keeping the government involved in marriage, because that's how it can be their tool to use against people who want to have strictly traditional marriage at the church level.


I don't believe that gay people wanted to use government to force churches to marry them.


There was no need for licenses when Horses and buggies were the rule.
People traveled at will,, Hauled Cargo.. transported others for hire,, all without permission.

It was the social controllers,, in opposition to the automobile,, that pushed for licensing.

And there is no value to it,, stupid and inept drivers still get licenses.

As a Bodyman,, I repaired a lot of cars for repeat customers.

I think requiring some training before letting people loose in a 2 ton 100 mph machine against others in the same is a good thing. Having a means of revoking that right when they show they can't handle it is also good. Have you ever seen the horrid road safety in places like China and India? Do you want that here?

[DamianTV]

I don't agree about everything.

If any adults had a constitutional right to marriage, nobody would need to ask permission.

IMO there is a value to society in driver licensing, but not dogs businesses and guns.



No, who said anything about that? That is a religious ceremony. Any adults who want a civil service should be allowed to, churches as a private organization could continue to marry who they want to.

Everyone needs to see the Real Elephant in the room, Govt wants to be the Controller and Issuer of ALL Permissions. It becomes possible in a society with No Rights to anything.

Marriage in its current form is a contract between two people AND the Govt just as a notarized business contract is a contract between two cooperating businesses AND Govt typically.

I might take a particular woman to be my lawfully wedded wife, but I would not take a particular Govt to be involved and regulate our marriage, while others I might tolerate. The Govt we have today only makes most problems worse.

[MelissaWV]

I don't believe that gay people wanted to use government to force churches to marry them.



I think requiring some training before letting people loose in a 2 ton 100 mph machine against others in the same is a good thing. Having a means of revoking that right when they show they can't handle it is also good. Have you ever seen the horrid road safety in places like China and India? Do you want that here?

There is a two-sided fallacy in the latter part of your post.

1. It assumes there would be no training provided, and no incentive to train, without forcing people to pass their drivers' education class and gain a state-sanctioned license. In reality, defensive driving courses and drivers' education classes in school are usually encouraged more by the insurance premium discounts they lead to.

2. It assumes that state-sanctioned licensure actually provides training enough to handle that large, fast, dangerous vehicle. It doesn't. You pointed out China and India. Isn't it strange that a driver's license is, to you, representative of positive, required training, but that China and India are examples of terrible road safety?


Driving licences in India are issued by individual states via their "Regional Transport Authorities/Offices" (RTA/RTO). The common "All India Permit" allows the licensee to drive throughout the country. For obtaining a licence to drive motorcycles with an engine capacity of 50 cc or less, the minimum age is 16. One must be 18 years or older to drive any other type of vehicle.

Drivers have to appear for an oral or written test, depending on the state, to earn a learner's licence, which is valid for 6 months, and enables them to drive a car (LMV) or a motorcycle (MCWG), as long as someone with a permanent licence is present in the vehicle. Drivers then have to pass a driving test to get a permanent licence.


To get a driver's license in China, everyone must take a written test; 90 percent is considered passing. The test consists of 100 questions drawn from a pool of nearly 1,000.

[KCIndy]

There is a two-sided fallacy in the latter part of your post.

1. It assumes there would be no training provided, and no incentive to train, without forcing people to pass their drivers' education class and gain a state-sanctioned license. In reality, defensive driving courses and drivers' education classes in school are usually encouraged more by the insurance premium discounts they lead to.

2. It assumes that state-sanctioned licensure actually provides training enough to handle that large, fast, dangerous vehicle. It doesn't. You pointed out China and India. Isn't it strange that a driver's license is, to you, representative of positive, required training, but that China and India are examples of terrible road safety?


Doggone it, you beat me to it!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/01/17/263064557/how-i-flunked-chinas-driving-test-three-times


How I Flunked China's Driving Test ... Three Times
Recently, I decided to apply for a driver's license in China. Since I already have one from the U.S., the main thing I had to do was pass a computerized test on the rules of the road here. I figured it would be a breeze.

Driving and car ownership have taken off in China. Last year, the country added nearly 18 million drivers. There is so much demand for licenses that I had to wait a month for the first available testing date.

The night before my test, I decided to take a practice one online. There were 100 questions drawn from a pool of nearly 1,000. You had to get 90 correct to pass.

I got a 65 and started to panic. On the way to the testing center the next day, I crammed on my iPad, but still only scored a 77.

[pcosmar]

Have you ever seen the horrid road safety in places like China and India? Do you want that here?

I have seen it here. I see it on a daily basis.

Unfortunately,, insurance companies are enablers,, and have used Government force to increase their profits as well.

The same thing that keep doctors in business that should have been sued out of existence.

but that is another issue.

Driving licenses are revenue generation and control. They are not and never have been a proof of competency.

[pcosmar]

Everyone needs to see the Real Elephant in the room, Govt wants to be the Controller and Issuer of ALL Permissions. It becomes possible in a society with No Rights to anything.

Marriage in its current form is a contract between two people AND the Govt just as a notarized business contract is a contract between two cooperating businesses AND Govt typically.

I might take a particular woman to be my lawfully wedded wife, but I would not take a particular Govt to be involved and regulate our marriage, while others I might tolerate. The Govt we have today only makes most problems worse.

It is always about control.

Marriage Licenses are about control. Regardless of who issues them.

And the Gay Marriage issue is about Government Benefits and Restrictions.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So while there are wars destroying societies and police brutality destroying families, you chose to fight gays. Yup, keep making Republicans look like a walking, talking punchline...

[pcosmar]

Do you want that here?

No License Required.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUHYDtacfsM

Though this is also an example of extreme competency,, though without the license requirement.

though I could have posted this example
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120803-crushed-police-cars-tractor-05.380%3B380%3B7%3B70%3B0.jpg

[DamianTV]

The Rights of All Men END where the Equal Rights of Other Men Begin.

Marriage is no different, yet, so many try to tell people what they can and can not do. The means to do this is the concept of "Higher Authority". The Authority that is in question in this thread is the State. The Rights of the State also End where the Rights of Men Begin. This means they have NO Authority to infringe on a person's Right without the Due Process of Law. Permissions are Licensed and are not subject to the same standards, which means that Permission can be revoked without the Due Process of Law.

Lets tear Marriage apart down to its Individual Components.

Its a Contract between two Individuals, the State, AND the Church. Both the State and Church will try to use the "Higher Authority" concept to infringe on a persons's Rights. When the concept of a Marriage License began, it was for Interracial Marriages only. It did not apply to white marrying white. Oooh, hey lookie! A Cash Cow! Let's make everyone get a License before getting married! Introduce the Church. Its a "foot in the door". The Church would try to require things like "... must consumate their Marriage before God(s)". Once the Church is recognized as having Authority in the Marriage, it includes the Church as part of the Contract. Man, Woman, State, and Church. The Authority is False as the Rights of the Church end where the Rights of the couple begin, and "Higher Authority" is an Excuse.

Are there valid reasons why people shouldnt get married? Sure. But the Couple does not need to be Granted a License for a reason why the two should not be married to be valid enough that the Marriage between them would not be carried out. "If there is any Reason why these two should not be Married, speak NOW or forever hold your peace.". To which, one may reply "Hey! He cant marry her! He has a WIFE in another country already!" Valid Reason enough? Depends on the person carrying out the Ceremony. "Hey! He cant marry her! He still owes me Five Bucks!" Valid Reason enough? Again, up to the person carrying out the Ceremony. It doesnt take a License to prevent the Marriage. However, a License is sought because it is a Permission that can be denied and revoked WITHOUT the Due Process of Law. Church may not seek to control the Individual, but rather the State. Church will claim to have Authority that it does NOT have. Remember that Church is Men controlling other Men. (Men meaning Human).

Problem with the Church is not so much the application of the specific regulation, but the Authority by which they hide behind. "A Man shall not lie with another Man." (Man in this case meaning Male). The statement of demand is a Regulation of the Marriage. It would have absolutely NO POWER unless the Church was granted Authority over the Marriage, thus making the Church a part of the Marital Contract.

Lets look at the Church itself.

Typically, one Church is recognized as having more Authority than other Churches of different Faiths. So how do we handle this? Only recognize the Authority of One Church and ignore all other Churches? Do we say that a Muslim Church has no Authority when in conflict with a Wiccan Church? Each Church is going to have different Rules. Are we expected to allow the couple to pick and choose their Church, or maybe recognize that All Churches do not have Authority over the Marriage? Is that a solution? Or would it cause more problems than it solves? Would it create the Potential for Conflict? Does the Church overreach its Authority? Would the same overreach of Authority conclusion be the same if it were applied to a Different Church?

Two Individuals love each other. Since Marriage is a Contract between the two individuals, the State, and the Church, what if the two individuals that love each other do not want the State to be a part of the Contract? Would it be the State itself? What if One State would be allowed to be a part of the contract, but not another? I now pronounce you Man, Wife, and USSR. They might accept each other, but not the USSR. What if it were announced as Man, Wife, USA, and Catholic Church? What if other groups tried to claim Authority over the Marriage? I now pronouce you Man, Wife, Family, Polynesian Church, Insurance Company, Federal Govt, State Govt, County Govt, City Govt, DMV, IRS, and Employer? Is THAT a Marriage? Would the rest of these tacked on Groups have Valid Authority over the Marriage? Marital Earmarking.

Where do we draw the line in saying who gets to Grant Permission to whom and how they can get married? What lines do we allow for Marriage Restrictions? Are we overstepping our Authority by imposing it on to other Men? Do we need Licenses to DENY people the Permission (no longer a Right) to Marry, or can we Deny the Marriage itself if there is a Valid Reason?

Do we consider the Validity of each Entity involved in the Marriage? "You cant get married, Im still in love with him / her" Might be valid, might not be. Consider the person saying it. A person walks in off of the street that does not know the couple being married. "You cant get married, they didnt give me any change when I begged them for it so I could get me a bottle of whiskey". That statement would not be considered Valid because of the Individual saying it. Its no different than the State saying "You cant get Married, your License is Expired!" IE, "You cant get married, you owe me Five Bucks!".

Do we consider the Validity of Authority in those who are also a part of the Marital Contract? Or maybe we should consider the Validity as being the Mutual Concent of only the two people getting Married.

There is no one easy answer.

[jmdrake]

The focus of the issue
How To Stop The Gay Marriage ?

I don't care about stopping it.. I don't care about it at all. it is irrelevant.

How do we stop Government from being involved? (In almost everything)

Ummmmm....you realize that all the OP has done is taken your position and repackaged it into a way that appeals to social conservatives? Forget your libertarian puritanism for a second. When Ron Paul packaged cutting foreign aid as "Let's stop funding Israel's enemies and allow Israel to defend itself" that didn't make Ron Paul a Zionist.

[PierzStyx]

Why do you want to deny people the freedom to marry whoever they like? Are you against liberty or something?

State control of private relationships is not liberty. Gays are really only placing the shackles tighter around their necks.

[PierzStyx]

Do we consider the Validity of Authority in those who are also a part of the Marital Contract? Or maybe we should consider the Validity as being the Mutual Concent of only the two people getting Married.

There is no one easy answer.

Sure there is. Discard teh foolish idea that the State has any say in marriage, eliminate licensing, and let people control their own relationships.

[jmdrake]

No one said anything about forcing any churches to marry anyone. It is up to the church to decide who they will or will not marry.
Some churches will.. some will not.

My pastor will not marry anyone who he does not believe are serious about the marriage.. Other churches do the same.

Try to get married in a Catholic church after being divorced.

Actually there have already been cases of churches being sued because they didn't rent church owned property to gay couples seeking to get married. Bakers have already been sued for not making gay wedding cakes. I would agree that most gays wouldn't be pricks like that. But there are some people out there of all persuasions, gay, straight, or other, that are always itching for a new way to force themselves on someone else. And then there are some who aren't itching for a fight but just feel slighted when they feel mistreated and believe they should run to the government for a remedy. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating on campus. Retarded on their part for sure. But do you honestly believe that if gay marriage becomes the "law of the land", organizations like BJU won't get eventually get sued by same sex couples? Because I don't.

But again, why are people even arguing? The OP has taken the position that 99% of the people here agree with (getting the government out of marriage altogether) and repackaged it for social conservative ears.

[pcosmar]

Ummmmm....you realize that all the OP has done is taken your position and repackaged it into a way that appeals to social conservatives?

NO he didn't.

He packaged it for bigots.

How To Stop The Gay Marriage Tidal Wave Before It Is Too Late

And I have no interest in Kow Towing to Social Controllers.
Let them wear a swastika and be honest about it. :(

see post #16

[Origanalist]

Actually there have already been cases of churches being sued because they didn't rent church owned property to gay couples seeking to get married. Bakers have already been sued for not making gay wedding cakes. I would agree that most gays wouldn't be pricks like that. But there are some people out there of all persuasions, gay, straight, or other, that are always itching for a new way to force themselves on someone else. And then there are some who aren't itching for a fight but just feel slighted when they feel mistreated and believe they should run to the government for a remedy. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating on campus. Retarded on their part for sure. But do you honestly believe that if gay marriage becomes the "law of the land", organizations like BJU won't get eventually get sued by same sex couples? Because I don't.

But again, why are people even arguing? The OP has taken the position that 99% of the people here agree with (getting the government out of marriage altogether) and repackaged it for social conservative ears.

Hey, RPF's knees jerk just as hard as anybody else's.

[RonPaulMall]

Very good article. I make similar arguments whenever I try to convert socially conservative friends. Stress that marriage is a religious institution and government has no right regulating how Christians can or can not marry. That is between you, your God, and your Church.

[Legend1104]

Evangelical Christians (I am one by the way) need to understand that the true battle is not gay marriage. The true battle is that we have taken the final authority of marriage from God, and we have given the final authority of marriage to the state. The Word says "...what God has put together..." Evangelicals are so obsessed with gay marriage that they don't even realize that the state should have no authority over it at all. If I want to get married and the Bible has no restriction for me and my pastor can find no biblical reason against it then God would allow it, but if the state says "no" then my pastor can't marry me. Does that mean that God is sitting in heaven saying "Well I was going to let you but the government said no, so who am I to object." That is the true evil that should be destroyed. End government licensing of marriage.

[Origanalist]

Evangelical Christians (I am one by the way) need to understand that the true battle is not gay marriage. The true battle is that we have taken the final authority of marriage from God, and we have given the final authority of marriage to the state. The Word says "...what God has put together..." Evangelicals are so obsessed with gay marriage that they don't even realize that the state should have no authority over it at all. If I want to get married and the Bible has no restriction for me and my pastor can find no biblical reason against it then God would allow it, but if the state says "no" then my pastor can't marry me. Does that mean that God is sitting in heaven saying "Well I was going to let you but the government said no, so who am I to object." That is the true evil that should be destroyed. End government licensing of marriage.

Very well put.

[juleswin]

Evangelical Christians (I am one by the way) need to understand that the true battle is not gay marriage. The true battle is that we have taken the final authority of marriage from God, and we have given the final authority of marriage to the state. The Word says "...what God has put together..." Evangelicals are so obsessed with gay marriage that they don't even realize that the state should have no authority over it at all. If I want to get married and the Bible has no restriction for me and my pastor can find no biblical reason against it then God would allow it, but if the state says "no" then my pastor can't marry me. Does that mean that God is sitting in heaven saying "Well I was going to let you but the government said no, so who am I to object." That is the true evil that should be destroyed. End government licensing of marriage.


What he said, this is one way to preach the message of liberty without alienating anyone. I cannot imagine anyone in the right/conservative/libertarian/anarchic bent opposing this

+rep

[jmdrake]

NO he didn't.

He packaged it for bigots.


And I have no interest in Kow Towing to Social Controllers.
Let them wear a swastika and be honest about it. :(

see post #16

:rolleyes: All you've proven is that you believe social conservatives are bigots. Fine. That's your opinion. But that still doesn't change the fact of what I was saying. You are reacting from an emotional rather than a logical perspective. That there are people who read the Bible and, correctly as the Bible is written, assume God doesn't approve of gay marriage bothers you. It doesn't bother me. But more importantly, you, and, TaftFan and just about everybody else here shares the goal of getting the government out of marriage. Quit letting your emotions get in the way of sound goals.

[jmdrake]

Hey, RPF's knees jerk just as hard as anybody else's.

I suppose you're right.

[Brett85]

If the government weren't involved in marriage, how would something like child custody be handled?

[Suzanimal]

If the government weren't involved in marriage, how would something like child custody be handled?

I would guess the same way it's currently handled with unmarried parents.

[speciallyblend]

best way for the gop to die ,stay out of peoples business geez

[pcosmar]

If the government weren't involved in marriage, how would something like child custody be handled?

Sounds a lot like "Who would build the Roads?".

It would be handled by those involved. The Family. The same way it was HANDLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

[Origanalist]

If the government weren't involved in marriage, how would something like child custody be handled?

Sometimes you still surprise me. Is that a serious question?

[DamianTV]

Lets cut out as much crap as we can and try to get to the heart of the matter.

There are powerful groups of people that do not want Gays to get Married because at the root, they feel that being Gay is Immoral.

Not taking either side on this post, so its slightly off topic. Morals are Subjective, and even that is going to be debated. We all apply different Moral Standards to different groups. Note: I dont actually believe these statements, they are intended to show how provocative these standards can be. Whites should be able to marry Whites, while Blacks should only be allowed to marry if given Permission. Different Moral Standards based on something people have no ability to control. Straight People should be allowed to marry other Straight People. Application of Moral Standard in different context. There may exist the ability to choose to be Straight or Gay, or Bi, and there may not. The ability to choose to be Gay or not is also a point that can and is be debated. Also debated is whether or not benig Gay in and of itself is Moral or not. Again, its the Application of the Moral Standard with different context. We might just as well say that it is immoral to be Black, or Brown, or Muslim. And the only way this is possible is with the Subjective Interpretation of Moral Standards.

So for sake of argument, I'll make a list of Reasons and Excuses, both Valid and Invalid (subjectively) for reasons to not be granted Permission to Marry:


Too Young
Insurance
Concent Not Given
Debt
Too Old
Already Married
Immoral based on Sexual Orientation
Prohibited by Employer
Illegal Immigrant
Not Same Race
I Said So
Lack of Concent of Family
Physical Illness
Prohibited by Regulation or Ordinance
Authority of Church
Matters of Nobility / Royalty
Country of Origin
Offensive for ANY Reason
Insanity
Heracy
Virginity
Medical
I dont want MY Children to see that
Criminal Activity
Not Same Religion
He Said She Said...
They Buy the Wrong Brand
Discrimination of Name (kid named Hitler, or Damian)
Unsponsored Marriage
The Marriage Will End Badly
Family Conflict (Romeo and Juliet, Hatfields vs McCoys)
Genetics
Prohibited by Contract with 3rd Party (IE Corporate)



Again, the list includes both VALID and INVALID reasons. Its intended to show the Fallacy of claiming Moral Authority that does not exist. I cant claim that two people should not get married because they eat a flavor of Ice Cream that I do not approve of. And just as Ice Cream is not a Valid Reason, neither is Sexuality.

The TITLE of this thread shows the discrimination against the individuals permission to be granted and Rights Revoked based on their Sexual Orientation because that Sexual Orientation is believed by some to be Offensive. And why else could a persons Sexual Orientation be considered to be Offensive? Choosing what kind of Ice Cream you like is not considered Offensive, but someone elses Sexual Orientation IS Offensive?

So lets examine Offensiveness for just a moment. It is considered Offensive because it is considered to be Immoral, another Subjective Moral Interpretation. The Immorality itself comes from a Religous Bias. Not all religions find Sexual Orientation to be offensive. Some do, some do not. Some people refute ALL religions and ignore their Moral Standards. Each religion, thus, has a diffent set of Moral Standards. Some may be similar, some may be the same, some may be totally different. Problem is, there are a LOT of different Religions, and ALL will try to claim "Moral Authorith" they do not have. Buddhists may treat Marriage and Moral Standards very very differently than a Druidic Moral Standard. Thus, Buddhists would disregard Druidic Marriage Law.

Marriage at its core is a Contract by two concenting parties. All should recognize that they do NOT have Authority to prevent one of your Neighbors from entering into a Verbal Contract with another one of your Neighbors when their agreement does NOT involve you in any way shape or form. "Can I borrow your step ladder? I'll give it right back." If youre not involved, you have NO AUTHORITY to deny these people from entering into that agreement. If you are involved, the Uninvolved have NO AUTHORITY over YOU. It becomes an Contratual Agreement between you and the other party. Not you, the other party, and the 3rd Party, and the 4th, 5th, 17th, and 297th parties.

The problem we have that is in question is whether or not Authority is Valid on the basis of Sexual Orientation.

"Can I borrow your ladder?" Someone runs in and claims "Higher Moral Authority". "No you can NOT borrow that ladder because this / that person is GAY." A Valid Authority would be "No, I can not lend you this ladder, I borrowed it from (you), it is not within my Rights to give to (third party)." A person DOES have Authority when its the Property (a Ladder in this case) that is being negotiated is done so without the Owners concent. A person does NOT have Authority over things they DO NOT OWN. I cant say you cant lend your own property to someone else.

Whats happening is a Claim of False Authority. A person can NOT deny another person the ability to engage in a Mutual Agreement based on the Sexual Orientation of either of the parties involved. You cant lend him your property, he's Gay! That is False Authority. You cant lend him your property, he likes Cookie Dough Ice Cream! Also a False Authority based on a personal preference.

Lets get back to the core.

Being Gay does not make a person Immoral. Being Straight does not make a person Moral. There will be BOTH Immoral and Moral Gays, just as there are Immoral and Moral Straights. The application of a Group does not in any way define whether or not a person is Moral or Immoral. I understand that what is feared is that the tolerance of Gay Marriage will cause a rise in Immoral Behavior, and this simply is not true.

The people that are in charge of setting our Legal Moral Standards (Courts) are themselves VERY IMMORAL. And we're expected to blindly comply with Moral Standards created by Liars, Thieves, and Murderers? Id much rather an Honest Gay Man than a Dishonest Straight Man run this country. But again, I come to the same conclusion: Our problem is NOT from the accused Immorality of being Gay, our real problem is the IMMORALITY of the STATE and all other involved 3rd Parties claiming False Authority.

[Brett85]

Sometimes you still surprise me. Is that a serious question?

I'm not a libertarian. I don't understand the libertarian position on this issue. I became a Ron Paul supporter because of his opposition to the Iraq War, and then started voting for and supporting other libertarian candidates because of their anti war stance. I can't stand the Republicans like Dick Cheney and John Bolton who are so rabidly pro war and pro surveillance state. So I support libertarian candidates even though I don't agree with them on every issue.

[pcosmar]

:rolleyes: All you've proven is that you believe social conservatives are bigots. Fine. That's your opinion. But that still doesn't change the fact of what I was saying. You are reacting from an emotional rather than a logical perspective. That there are people who read the Bible and, correctly as the Bible is written, assume God doesn't approve of gay marriage bothers you. It doesn't bother me. But more importantly, you, and, TaftFan and just about everybody else here shares the goal of getting the government out of marriage. Quit letting your emotions get in the way of sound goals.

It is not my emotions. It is Principles.

And God does not approve of a great many things in this world. He is the judge,, not me nor any self appointed moral crusader.

God does not approve of Gluttony. That won't go over well at a Church dinner.
He does not approve of Usury.. But I don't see a Moral crusade against interest rates. or money changers.

I don't spend my time crusading against peoples sins. That is between them and God.
I want to put limits of Government,,not use it to put limits on people (social Control).

These Social "Conservatives" are nothing but Social Controllers.
The same have been behind Prohibition, The War on Drugs, Forced Sterilizations, Gun Control, and the advancement of the Police State.

They don't need to be pandered to,, they need to be eradicated.

[Brett85]

They don't need to be pandered to,, they need to be eradicated.

You would get along pretty well with Andrew Cuomo. Except even Cuomo didn't go that far.

[Origanalist]

I'm not a libertarian. I don't understand the libertarian position on this issue. I became a Ron Paul supporter because of his opposition to the Iraq War, and then started voting for and supporting other libertarian candidates because of their anti war stance. I can't stand the Republicans like Dick Cheney and John Bolton who are so rabidly pro war and pro surveillance state. So I support libertarian candidates even though I don't agree with them on every issue.

OK. In my opinion, parents would have to deal with the situation as adults without the government involved. They would be forced to do what's right for the kid(s), even if that meant only one of them. People wouldn't be so quick to jump into a marriage if they knew the government wouldn't be there to bail them out. They wouldn't be able to use kids as pawns for their petty squabbles and expect the government to punish the object of their ire.

In other words they would enter into marriage knowing it was up to them to solve their own problems.

[Christian Liberty]

I have to wonder why some of you even supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul even supported the FEDERAL defense of marriage act, introduced the Marriage Protection Act, the We the People Act that would've overturned the kind of court decisions that occurred in Utah, etc.

I don't agree with Ron on those, but I don't see how that means I shouldn't support him. Its an unbelievably minor issue on my radar.


I'm not sure what people are complaining about here. Is this not the libertarian position on marriage?

Yes. I do agree with that.


I agree. If the federal government is going to be used for anything, it may as well be used to actually make people free, rather than put restrictions on the choices people can make in their lives.

To me, this is like asking for pigs to fly. You can't fix this from the ground down. I'll back decentralization any time, anywhere.

Nobody is doing that.

Correct.

[Brett85]

OK. In my opinion, parents would have to deal with the situation as adults without the government involved. They would be forced to do what's right for the kid(s), even if that meant only one of them. People wouldn't be so quick to jump into a marriage if they knew the government wouldn't be there to bail them out. They wouldn't be able to use kids as pawns for their petty squabbles and expect the government to punish the object of their ire.

In other words they would enter into marriage knowing it was up to them to solve their own problems.

Ok, thanks for answering. What would happen if the two parents couldn't agree on the custody issues?

[pcosmar]

I'm not a libertarian. I don't understand the libertarian position on this issue.

Why does it have to be the "libertarian" position. Why not,,the Principled position?

To your question,,
how would something like child custody be handled?

Someone wiser than me said,,, cut the child in half and give each half.
1 Kings 3:16-28

[jmdrake]

It is not my emotions. It is Principles.

And God does not approve of a great many things in this world. He is the judge,, not me nor any self appointed moral crusader.

God does not approve of Gluttony. That won't go over well at a Church dinner.
He does not approve of Usury.. But I don't see a Moral crusade against interest rates. or money changers.

I don't spend my time crusading against peoples sins. That is between them and God.
I want to put limits of Government,,not use it to put limits on people (social Control).

These Social "Conservatives" are nothing but Social Controllers.
The same have been behind Prohibition, The War on Drugs, Forced Sterilizations, Gun Control, and the advancement of the Police State.

They don't need to be pandered to,, they need to be eradicated.

Why do you believe eradicating someone is better than winning that person over to your cause?

[pcosmar]

You would get along pretty well with Andrew Cuomo. Except even Cuomo didn't go that far.

I doubt it.. But I suspect a few here would support Arther Capper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Capper

[Origanalist]

Ok, thanks for answering. What would happen if the two parents couldn't agree on the custody issues?

There was a time before government became the great nanny in the sky where you had communities handling much of this on their own. Grandparents would get involved when the parents weren't doing what what was in the best interests of the kids, friends etc.

Of course sometimes it would still end up in court, but the majority of people didn't want that. The divorce rates went up when the government started stepping in and people figured out they could use the system to get their way instead of solving things on their own.

[Saint Vitus]

Evangelical Christians love big government. They want big government to be the enforcer of their ridiculous morals, just look at the prohibition movement. Gay marriage should be the least of anybody's concern. You're not even going to convert more voters by focusing on this. For every mini-Santorum you convert, you're going to drive away 2 independents.

[Christian Liberty]

Evangelical Christians love big government. They want big government to be the enforcer of their ridiculous morals, just look at the prohibition movement. Gay marriage should be the least of anybody's concern. You're not even going to convert more voters by focusing on this. For every mini-Santorum you convert, you're going to drive away 2 independents.

Hello. I'm an Evangelical Christian ancap. Nice to meet you.

[Brett85]

Evangelical Christians love big government. They want big government to be the enforcer of their ridiculous morals, just look at the prohibition movement. Gay marriage should be the least of anybody's concern. You're not even going to convert more voters by focusing on this. For every mini-Santorum you convert, you're going to drive away 2 independents.

I'm more socially conservative than most here, even though I'm far less socially conservative than people in my community, since I support drug legalization and have a few other disagreements with social conservatives. But how exactly are social conservatives any more big government oriented or "enforcers of their morals" than social liberals? Social liberals want to force their views on others by forcing them to pay for abortions, forcing companies to pay for birth control, forcing people to send money to Planned Parenthood, forcing bakeries to sell cakes to gay couples, force photographers to photograph gay marriage ceremonies, spend taxpayer money on destroying embryos, etc. The list goes on and on. So I don't see why there is never any criticism of social liberals here for their big government views.

[Origanalist]

I'm more socially conservative than most here, even though I'm far less socially conservative than people in my community, since I support drug legalization and have a few other disagreements with social conservatives. But how exactly are social conservatives any more big government oriented or "enforcers of their morals" than social liberals? Social liberals want to force their views on others by forcing them to pay for abortions, forcing companies to pay for birth control, forcing people to send money to Planned Parenthood, forcing bakeries to sell cakes to gay couples, force photographers to photograph gay marriage ceremonies, spend taxpayer money on destroying embryos, etc. The list goes on and on. So I don't see why there is never any criticism of social liberals here for their big government views.

Oh c'mon. Sure there is, lot's of it. There plenty of criticism for both sides.

[pcosmar]

Why do you believe eradicating someone is better than winning that person over to your cause?

Family values.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/06/01/apsimg5046_custom-1ee9749a8ff5840dc80f20ad41c84879bce1e3fa-s6-c30.jpg
http://nursingclio.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/05.jpg
http://content.dnalc.org/content/c10/10013/10013.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AuPoOCVtSzM/TRfR23yMHcI/AAAAAAAAC9Y/E7A5mZcE19U/s1600/Typical%2BAryan%2Bfamily.jpg

[pcosmar]

I'm more socially conservative than most here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party

It is the oldest existing third party in the US.

The Prohibition Party advocates a variety of socially conservative causes, including "stronger and more vigorous enforcement of laws against the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, against gambling, illegal drugs, pornography, and commercialized vice."[1] The Prohibition Party is considered by most to be an extremely conservative party in its views.

[Brett85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party

Yeah, I'm not in favor of criminalizing any of those things or any victimless crimes. But marriage isn't an issue that has anything to do with crime and locking people up in prison for engaging in certain activities, so I don't see the issue.

[pcosmar]

Yeah, I'm not in favor of criminalizing any of those things or any victimless crimes. But marriage isn't an issue that has anything to do with crime and locking people up in prison for engaging in certain activities, so I don't see the issue.

Oh,,but people have been locked up for being Gay.

and for marrying the wrong people.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3277875


It was 1958. Mildred, a black woman, and Richard, a white man, drove 80 miles to Washington, D.C., to exchange their wedding vows. Shortly after returning home to Virginia, the couple was arrested in the middle of the night for violating the state's law against interracial marriage.

[Brett85]

Oh,,but people have been locked up for being Gay.

and for marrying the wrong people.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3277875

That was in 1958 with interracial marriage. Can you cite an example where a gay couple has been thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony?

[Origanalist]

That was in 1958 with interracial marriage. Can you cite an example where a gay couple has been thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony?

Aren't there still sodomy laws in Texas?
Edit; this is from 2011

https://motherjones.com/files/images/sodomy_map.jpg

[Brett85]

Aren't there still sodomy laws in Texas?
Edit; this is from 2011

They can't be enforced because of the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003. And that's a separate issue from gay marriage.

[jmdrake]

Family values.


Let's see. You resort to hyperbole instead of answering my question and you expect me to believe you aren't acting from emotion? Okay. Kid yourself all you want. But you aren't being rational about this. The Nazi's you are comparing social conservatives to are the ones that wanted to try to eradicate groups of people. By saying you want to eradicate social conservatives you are turning yourself into what you hate.

[pcosmar]

And that's a separate issue from gay marriage.

NO,, it is not. It is a related issue.


That was in 1958 with interracial marriage. Can you cite an example where a gay couple has been thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony?

None that I am aware of recently in the US..
but elsewhere ,,yes. And if some had their way,, it would be here as well.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_101182.shtml

[Brett85]

NO,, it is not. It is a related issue.

I don't think so. Almost all of the people I know of who support traditional marriage absolutely wouldn't be in favor of going into people's homes and throwing gay people in prison for having sex.

[pcosmar]

The Nazi's you are comparing social conservatives to are the ones that wanted to try to eradicate groups of people. By saying you want to eradicate social conservatives you are turning yourself into what you hate.

Where do you think the Nazi's got their ideas from?

Most of those pics were of Social Conservatives in the US,

Social Conservatives are Responsible for Giving us Prohibition,, and the Police State and Organized Crime that was the direct result.

Social Conservatives were a Driving force behind the Eugenics Movement,, which inspired Hitler's programs.

Social Conservatives were the Driving force behind the War on Drugs.

Social Controllers.. whether Conservative or Progressive makes no difference,, the results are the same.

[jmdrake]

Where do you think the Nazi's got their ideas from?

Most of those pics were of Social Conservatives in the US,

Social Conservatives are Responsible for Giving us Prohibition,, and the Police State and Organized Crime that was the direct result.

Social Conservatives were a Driving force behind the Eugenics Movement,, which inspired Hitler's programs.

Social Conservatives were the Driving force behind the War on Drugs.

Social Controllers.. whether Conservative or Progressive makes no difference,, the results are the same.

And where did social conservatives get their ideas from? Ultimately from the Jewish Bible. Again, when you start talking about wanting to "eradicate" a group of people, you are on thin ice.

[Brett85]

Social Conservatives were the Driving force behind the War on Drugs.

The war on drugs has always been supported by both social conservatives and social liberals, and by both Republicans and Democrats. Some of the most hardcore drug warriors in Congress are socially liberal Democrats.

[DamianTV]

Why is it that in the eyes of so many people (not singling anyone here out) that Criminals have more Rights than Gays? Criminals have a Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial by a Jury of their Peers, but those same Rights do not apply to a person because they are Gay? That is NOT Equal Rights.

(slightly off topic) Our form of Govt is a Republic. The structure of our Churches are not based on a Republic. Apples and Concrete. Very different things. It seems people pick and choose the most convenient Moral Superiority available to them.

And whats wrong with Gays raising kids? If the kids are not your kids, why do people think it is within the Scope of their Authority to tell someone else how to raise their kids? (not sure if any actualy believe this) Why not just come out and say Gays should not be allowed ANY contact with Children? Then refer back to the first paragraph of this post.

[pcosmar]

The war on drugs has always been supported by both social conservatives and social liberals, and by both Republicans and Democrats. Some of the most hardcore drug warriors in Congress are socially liberal Democrats.

Social Controllers.
I don't care. I could give a damn about their particular labels.. or those they chose to use.
Fabian Socialists, or Moral Majority makes no difference. They are Authoritarians,,
and the want to use the power of Government to push whatever their particular "morality" on others.
They are the bane of human existence.

They are the premise behind this scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VR3Av9qfZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VR3Av9qfZc


Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Social Control.. Making people,, better.
And I do not hold to that.

[otherone]

Why is it that in the eyes of so many people (not singling anyone here out) that Criminals have more Rights than Gays? Criminals have a Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial by a Jury of their Peers, but those same Rights do not apply to a person because they are Gay? That is NOT Equal Rights.


I don't see asking for government approval of your relationships to be a Right. I see it as asking for more authoritarianism.

[pcosmar]

And where did social conservatives get their ideas from? Ultimately from the Jewish Bible.

Well,, I would say from Satan himself.
He has a habit of twisting Gods word for his own purpose.

[DamianTV]

I don't see asking for government approval of your relationships to be a Right. I see it as asking for more authoritarianism.

Youre right. When one has to ask for approval, its not a Right, its a Permission. We no longer have Rights. People create Authritarianism by continuing to ask Permission for everything. People need to stop asking Permission for things by design the Govt does not have the Authority to grant.

[jmdrake]

It looks like social conservatives in Oklahoma are leading the charge to get the government out of marriage.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442467-Lawmakers-Consider-Preventing-ALL-Marriage-In-Oklahoma

So for all of you "Let's hate on the social conservatives instead of trying to work with them".

http://corporatecognewdaddyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2hr1g5c.jpg?w=497

Let me know when you convince left wing gay marriage proponents to take the "Get the government out of marriage" approach.

[pcosmar]

Why do you believe eradicating someone is better than winning that person over to your cause?

Because they will not be "won over". They are the complete opposite. They are elitists who believe that they are fundamentally better, and that they need to mold human beings to fit their Ideals.
They are Authoritarians,, and believe that they are the authority.

They do not strive for Liberty,, but for control.
They are the fundamental opposite of what I believe,, and history is full of example of what happens when they get their way.

[pcosmar]

It looks like social conservatives in Oklahoma are leading the charge to get the government out of marriage.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442467-Lawmakers-Consider-Preventing-ALL-Marriage-In-Oklahoma

So for all of you "Let's hate on the social conservatives instead of trying to work with them".

[

Let me know when you convince left wing gay marriage proponents to take the "Get the government out of marriage" approach.

LOL.
Prohibitionists gonna prohibit.


Wow! Okay, I need to bookmark this the next time someone says "But jmdrake, we all know the government will never get out of marriage." Now true, this hasn't happened yet, but that fact that it is at least a serious proposals proves it is a possibility even in our lifetime.

That is not getting "Government Out of Marriage".

That is Using Government force to Outlaw marriage.

They can't get their way so they will attack marriage itself. It is still the government regulating it,, It is forbidding it altogether.

Both petty and stupid.

[Occam's Banana]

I'd be fine with an amendment to the constitution allowing any adults to marry.

Well, gee, that's mighty swell of you.

In that case, would you be fine with an amendment to the Constitution allowing any adults to have jobs?

Or to have children? Or to be Republicans? Or Democrats? Or vegetarians? Or to do or be [fill in the blank]?

Maybe I need to brush up on my history ...

But as I recall, the Constitution wasn't supposed to have a goddam thing to do with what adults are "allowed" to do.

It was supposed to be a (very strict) enumeration of what the federal government is "allowed" to do ...

[jmdrake]

LOL.
Prohibitionists gonna prohibit.



That is not getting "Government Out of Marriage".

That is Using Government force to Outlaw marriage.

They can't get their way so they will attack marriage itself. It is still the government regulating it,, It is forbidding it altogether.

Both petty and stupid.

Sorry but you are not operating for sound information. You haven't read the text of the bill nor do you have any quote where Rep Turner said anything other than this was an attempt to get the government of Oklahoma out of marriage altogether. The media put words in his mouth. But even if they accurately quoted him, gay marriage is not illegal in Oklahoma and has not since the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling. All states have been able to do is not recognize same sex marriage. And his proposal, from the best we can tell, is to not recognize any marriages. It doesn't make marriage illegal unless there are legal sanctions for getting married.

Now how would you like your crow? Barbequed, fried or stewed?

[pcosmar]

But as I recall, the Constitution wasn't supposed to have a goddam thing to do with what adults are "allowed" to do.

It was supposed to be a (very strict) enumeration of what the federal government is "allowed" to do ...

Actually it is a restriction on what any and all government can do.
Some aimed directly at the Federal Government (Congress shall write no law),, and some universal.(NO Warrants shall issue)(Shall not be infringed).

[pcosmar]

Now how would you like your crow? Barbequed, fried or stewed?

Show me the Bill.. or STFU.

[phill4paul]

Show me the Bill.. or STFU.

Rep. Turner said he is waiting to see if the appeals court will reverse their decision regarding gay marriage before filing this bill. I believe you are correct in his motivations. It is not to "get government out of marriage." Otherwise he would not be waiting until the appeals process is finished.
I hope the appeals process fails and he goes ahead with this bill. Regardless of motivation it is a much needed discussion.

[jmdrake]

Show me the Bill.. or STFU.

The burden's on you to show the bill. What's been seen so far is that Rep. Turner didn't say what the media said he said. Like a sap you bought into the media and claimed it was the "stated purpose" of the bill. If you watched the clip, instead of spouting off at the mouth, you'd know the bill hasn't even been written yet! What was posted in the other thread as a "shell bill" is actually the entire bill at the moment. So all the crap you were saying about the "purpose of the bill" is just that...crap. The "shell text" says the bill is about non-recognition of marriage as opposed to making marriage illegal, gay or otherwise. So again, I will ask you, how do you want your crow? How about smoked?

[jmdrake]

Rep. Turner said he is waiting to see if the appeals court will reverse their decision regarding gay marriage before filing this bill. I believe you are correct in his motivations. It is not to "get government out of marriage." Otherwise he would not be waiting until the appeals process is finished.
I hope the appeals process fails and he goes ahead with this bill. Regardless of motivation it is a much needed discussion.

Do you think if the federal court rules in such a way as to keep in place non-recognition of gay marriage, because despite liberal propaganda it is not "illegal", that Rep Turner, whatever his motivation, would stick out his neck and try to overturn recognition of marriage altogether? When Glen Bradley made his speech about getting the government out of marriage it was not based on the "status quo" but on proposed changes to NC state law. We can't guess someone's motives just based on such a flimsy premise. All we can know is the effect of an action. And the effect of this law, however it ends up being worded, will not be to "keep gay marriage illegal" because gay marriage is not illegal.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you think if the federal court rules in such a way as to keep in place non-recognition of gay marriage, because despite liberal propaganda it is not "illegal", that Rep Turner, whatever his motivation, would stick out his neck and try to overturn recognition of marriage altogether?

It's not an unreasonable expectation, if Rep. Turner is claiming that the purpose of his alleged bill is to remove government jurisdiction from marriage.

[jmdrake]

It's not an unreasonable expectation, if Rep. Turner is claiming that the purpose of his alleged bill is to remove government jurisdiction from marriage.

Not an unreasonable expectation because....? Do you think people get elected just to do thinks to make you feel good at the moment? Rep Turner has a unique opportunity precisely because social conservatives have their backs against the wall. If their backs are no longer against the wall the opportunity will be gone. Sure he could push. And yeah I guess it would get him some "+reps" at RPF. Beyond that it would be a stupid move.

[erowe1]

Show me the Bill.. or STFU.

I hope you were looking in the mirror as you typed that.

[phill4paul]

Do you think if the federal court rules in such a way as to keep in place non-recognition of gay marriage, because despite liberal propaganda it is not "illegal", that Rep Turner, whatever his motivation, would stick out his neck and try to overturn recognition of marriage altogether? When Glen Bradley made his speech about getting the government out of marriage it was not based on the "status quo" but on proposed changes to NC state law. We can't guess someone's motives just based on such a flimsy premise. All we can know is the effect of an action. And the effect of this law, however it ends up being worded, will not be to "keep gay marriage illegal" because gay marriage is not illegal.

It's not illegal. It's just not recognized. Which has the same affect on state and federal benefits as if it were illegal. It can be worded however any side chooses to. The end result is that there is discrimination against consenting adults that equally contribute to the system.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Not an unreasonable expectation because....? Do you think people get elected just to do thinks to make you feel good at the moment? Rep Turner has a unique opportunity precisely because social conservatives have their backs against the wall. If their backs are no longer against the wall the opportunity will be gone. Sure he could push. And yeah I guess it would get him some "+reps" at RPF. Beyond that it would be a stupid move.

He wouldn't have to push. He could simply put out a statement with the following ideas while filing the bill:

"The recent finding of the court to [fill in blank of the outcome of the case] highlights a divide in Oklahoma who believe in differing family and societal values. My bill, [fill in bill details], is an attempt for the families and individuals of Oklahoma to decide which values are best for them, without interference from an overreaching government."

And see where it goes. Or simply bring it up in the legislature and see how many people co-sponsor it. It doesn't require him putting his political life on the line, suspending all other efforts, and going on a singular issue crusade. For anyone who actually believes in getting government out of marriage, this issue is amazingly simple to win on.

[erowe1]

It's not illegal. It's just not recognized. Which has the same affect on state and federal benefits as if it were illegal. It can be worded however any side chooses to. The end result is that there is discrimination against consenting adults that equally contribute to the system.

The wording does matter. It matters because some people try to paint the position of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples as the libertarian position, as if they're supporting more freedom for somebody, and as if the other side is making someone less free.

If someone thinks that a same-sex couple is the same thing as a married male and female couple, and that the state should treat those two things as the same, then I get that. They just shouldn't pretend there's something at all libertarian about that belief.

[jmdrake]

It's not illegal. It's just not recognized. Which has the same affect on state and federal benefits as if it were illegal. It can be worded however any side chooses to. The end result is that there is discrimination against consenting adults that equally contribute to the system.

Medical marijuana is not currently recognized for prescription drug benefits. If the federal government finally says "Okay, okay. You guys win. We will no longer criminally sanction medical marijuana. But it won't be covered under any federal prescription drug benefit either." would you think that meant medical marijuana was still "illegal"? Because it wouldn't to me.

Regardless, the effect of this bill, from everything we've seen and heard so far, is that gay couples and straight couples would be treated the same. So the whole "discrimination" argument is a red herring. The only legitimate question is, under the proposed law, will people in Oklahoma be criminally or civilly sanctioned for getting married? I have seen zero evidence to suggest the answer to that question is "yes".

[phill4paul]

The wording does matter. It matters because some people try to paint the position of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples as the libertarian position, as if they're supporting more freedom for somebody, and as if the other side is making someone less free.

If someone thinks that a same-sex couple is the same thing as a married male and female couple, and that the state should treat those two things as the same, then I get that. They just shouldn't pretend there's something at all libertarian about that belief.

Even among libertarians there is a 'left' and a 'right' when it comes to issues of voluntary association. If laws stand which benefits certain associations over others then either those laws are repealed or rewritten or they are opened to include all.

[jmdrake]

The wording does matter. It matters because some people try to paint the position of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples as the libertarian position, as if they're supporting more freedom for somebody, and as if the other side is making someone less free.

If someone thinks that a same-sex couple is the same thing as a married male and female couple, and that the state should treat those two things as the same, then I get that. They just shouldn't pretend there's something at all libertarian about that belief.

It's worse than that! We finally have a case where someone is actually doing what most libertarians say they want which is to try to get the government out of marriage altogether and some are throwing a hissy fit because...well...just because. If marriage is not recognized by government for gays or straights then there is no discrimination on that front period.

[erowe1]

Even among libertarians there is a 'left' and a 'right' when it comes to issues of voluntary association. If laws stand which benefits certain associations over others then either those laws are repealed or rewritten or they are opened to include all.

"Including all" as married couples is not an option under any circumstances. And it's still the case that, despite some libertarians wanting to pretend that there's something libertarian about states licensing same-sex marriages, there isn't. Whatever drives that belief, it is not the pursuit of less government and more freedom. That doesn't make them wrong, but it's still worth pointing out, especially when they misrepresent their position as legalizing something and that which they oppose as banning it.

[phill4paul]

Medical marijuana is not currently recognized for prescription drug benefits. If the federal government finally says "Okay, okay. You guys win. We will no longer criminally sanction medical marijuana. But it won't be covered under any federal prescription drug benefit either." would you think that meant medical marijuana was still "illegal"? Because it wouldn't to me.

If the federal prescription benefit allowed some and not all based on voluntary association then the affect is the same.

[jmdrake]

Even among libertarians there is a 'left' and a 'right' when it comes to issues of voluntary association. If laws stand which benefits certain associations over others then either those laws are repealed or rewritten or they are opened to include all.

And so somebody finally proposes a law that would repeal benefits for certain associations and some folks are like "OMG! Discrimination!" I guess the libertarian movement should promote public schools because, after all, some folks didn't become against public school until after integration.

[erowe1]

It's worse than that! We finally have a case where someone is actually doing what most libertarians say they want which is to try to get the government out of marriage altogether and some are throwing a hissy fit because...well...just because. If marriage is not recognized by government for gays or straights then there is no discrimination on that front period.

I agree.

And that points to something I said in the other thread, which is that, sadly, what many on the pro-gay marriage side want is not getting the government out of marriage. They want positive state endorsement of homosexuality. The libertarian position was just what they fell back on when it looked like having the state cram gay marriage down the rest of our throats wasn't going to happen.

[phill4paul]

It's worse than that! We finally have a case where someone is actually doing what most libertarians say they want which is to try to get the government out of marriage altogether and some are throwing a hissy fit because...well...just because. If marriage is not recognized by government for gays or straights then there is no discrimination on that front period.

I'm not throwing a hissy fit. I have stated that regardless of the motivation it is a much needed discussion. And yes the end result is to get government out of it period. Something which could be done by simply allowing anyone to name a "benefit designee" for any federal statutory law regarding benefits.

[jmdrake]

If the federal prescription benefit allowed some and not all based on voluntary association then the affect is the same.

I see you didn't actually address what I said. I will try it again.

1) If medical marijuana is "legalized" but not subsidized, and other drugs are, does that mean medical marijuana will be still be illegal? Yes or no? No explanation while dodging giving me a yes or no answer. Yes or no.

2) If medical marijuana becomes "legalized" but it is not covered under a prescription drug benefit, will you lobby to have it added in the name of non-discrimination? Yes or no?

[jmdrake]

I'm not throwing a hissy fit. I have stated that regardless of the motivation it is a much needed discussion. And yes the end result is to get government out of it period. Something which could be done by simply allowing anyone to name a "benefit designee" for any federal statutory law regarding benefits.

I didn't say you were. You aren't the person telling others to STFU or saying that social conservatives need to be "eliminated". And I still love Pete, hissy fit and all. ;)

[pcosmar]

I hope you were looking in the mirror as you typed that.

Nope,, I was searching for the Text of the proposed bill the would Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, AND get Government out of Marriage.

Which seems quite a contradiction.

[phill4paul]

I see you didn't actually address what I said. I will try it again.

1) If medical marijuana is "legalized" but not subsidized, and other drugs are, does that mean medical marijuana will be still be illegal? Yes or no? No explanation while dodging giving me a yes or no answer. Yes or no.

2) If medical marijuana becomes "legalized" but it is not covered under a prescription drug benefit, will you lobby to have it added in the name of non-discrimination? Yes or no?

1) No. It would not be illegal.
2) Depends. If you are talking individual plans then No. If you are talking federal plans then Yes. If money is involuntarily taken from others, those who need marijuana for medical purposes, then their considerations regarding that money should be taken into account.

[jmdrake]

Nope,, I was searching for the Text of the proposed bill the would Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, AND get Government out of Marriage.

Which seems quite a contradiction.

Well there's no bill to "keep gay marriage illegal" because gay marriage is not illegal in any of the 50 states and has not been for decades now. Polygamy is actually illegal in many states. So is marrying your cousin. You can actually be arrested and sent to jail. People have posted the shell text of the bill, which is all that exists. It doesn't say what you apparently thought it said. You have provided no quote of Rep. Turner saying what you claimed he said. You have no evidence, you have no case.

Now...I thought this recipe for Cajun crow actually sounded pretty good.

http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm
Crow Creole
submitted by George Carpenter
Ingredients
2 medium onions
2 fresh chilies chopped
2 ribs celery
3 cloves garlic minced
¼ pound butter
16oz. chicken broth
1 can whole tomatoes
1 small can tomato paste
8oz. ketchup
1/8 teaspoon white pepper
1/2 tablespoon Cajun seasoning
1 tablespoons hot pepper sauce
1/2 tablespoons garlic sauce
1/4 tablespoon sugar
1/2 teaspoon Tabasco sauce
1/2 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme
1 tablespoon fresh squeezed lemon juice
1 pound (12 pieces, or so) crow breast chopped into bite-sized pieces
Preparation
Brown the crow breasts in a skillet with butter or oil. When browned, place them in a Sauté onion, celery, chilies and garlic in butter until tender. Add the above ingredients and all of the remaining ingredients to a crock pot and cook on low for 6-7 hours.

To serve, heap about 1 cup of rice in the center of the plate, and ladle a generous amount of the sauce around it. Garnish with fresh chopped parsley.

I'm not that good of a shot so you'll have to kill it.

[juleswin]

It looks like social conservatives in Oklahoma are leading the charge to get the government out of marriage.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442467-Lawmakers-Consider-Preventing-ALL-Marriage-In-Oklahoma

So for all of you "Let's hate on the social conservatives instead of trying to work with them".

http://corporatecognewdaddyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2hr1g5c.jpg?w=497

Let me know when you convince left wing gay marriage proponents to take the "Get the government out of marriage" approach.

Nice, I didn't think I would live long enough to see this happen. But lets not be confused into thinking the social conservatives have come around to the message of liberty. They most likely read the tea leaves and saw that the precious privilege granted to them by govt is now going to be granted to gay people, so decided to shut the whole thing down. its no different from pro segregationist people, quitting public school so as not to share the same class rooms as blacks.

But really, it doesn't matter the reason why, its a win just as long as they go through with it. A win is a win is a win

[erowe1]

Nope,, I was searching for the Text of the proposed bill the would Keep Gay Marriage Illegal,, AND get Government out of Marriage.

Which seems quite a contradiction.

It seems like a contradiction because it uses the word "illegal" the same way people always do when they talk about gay marriage, which is that they really don't mean illegal. It's just propaganda to get us to oppose laws that don't recognize gay marriage.

[jmdrake]

1) No. It would not be illegal.
2) Depends. If you are talking individual plans then No. If you are talking federal plans then Yes. If money is involuntarily taken from others, those who need marijuana for medical purposes, then their considerations regarding that money should be taken into account.

Interesting. Well I would disagree with you on #2. I'm not for expanding the prescription drug benefit. I also want to see viagra and "penis pumps" taken off the list. I want to see government shrink as opposed to growing it to be more "fair".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YrfAPzF0EM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjnfNFiC6uw

[jmdrake]

Nice, I didn't think I would live long enough to see this happen. But lets not be confused into thinking the social conservatives have come around to the message of liberty. They most likely read the tea leaves and saw that the precious privilege granted to them by govt is now going to be granted to gay people, so decided to shut the whole thing down. its no different from pro segregationist people, quitting public school so as not to share the same class rooms as blacks.

But really, it doesn't matter the reason why, its a win just as long as they go through with it. A win is a win is a win

My point exactly! I think it's quite possible that Rep Turner may be pro liberty. He's good on gun control and taxes, but he might be a boob on other stuff. (Apparently he donated to Romney, though I don't know if that was the general election or the primary). But let's just say he's being "accidentally helpful". Well....great! That's why I applaud the OP effort of this thread. He went into hostile territory, Redstate.com, and pitched an idea that some socialcons may adopt out of nothing but sheer desperation. Fine. I see that as a good thing. Others...apparently want to see things kept "pure". To each his own I guess.

[69360]

Well, gee, that's mighty swell of you.

In that case, would you be fine with an amendment to the Constitution allowing any adults to have jobs?

Or to have children? Or to be Republicans? Or Democrats? Or vegetarians? Or to do or be [fill in the blank]?

Maybe I need to brush up on my history ...

But as I recall, the Constitution wasn't supposed to have a goddam thing to do with what adults are "allowed" to do.

It was supposed to be a (very strict) enumeration of what the federal government is "allowed" to do ...

Is that right? Explain the 19th amendment then.

[Origanalist]

Is that right? Explain the 19th amendment then.

The 19th Amendment granted power to the federal government it did not have, thus "allowing" it that authority. That doesn't change the fact that the constitution was supposed to be a limiting document.

[Occam's Banana]

Is that right?

Yes. It is.


Explain the 19th amendment then.

Are you serious?

First of all: What does an amendment passed over 130 years after the Constitution was adopted have to do with the question of what the Constitution was supposed to be (to wit: a strict enumeration of limited federal powers, and NOT a list of "permissions" to be granted to adult citizens)?

Second of all: The states never delegated to the federal government the authority to set voting qualifications for the states. In fact, prior to the 19th amendment, the Constitution explicitly left the issue of voting qualifications up to the states.

Third of all: Even setting aside the previous two items, the purpose of a constitution is to explicitly spell out how a government is to be constituted. Voting qualifications clearly fall within this ambit (and as noted, prior to the 19th, the Constitution left such matters to the states.). "Allowing" adult citizens to marry (or sell booze - the subject of the 18th amendment) just as clearly does NOT fall within this ambit.

[PierzStyx]

If the government weren't involved in marriage, how would something like child custody be handled?


Child custody has nothing to do with marriage. There are (sadly) plenty of people today who decide custody problems in court who were never married.

[Origanalist]

Let's just have the State of Oklahoma issue a declaration that they consider homosexuals really special but they are getting out of the marriage business.

Everybody happy?

[MelissaWV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aZJBLAu1E

I resisted posting this until now, but honestly...

[Origanalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aZJBLAu1E

I resisted posting this until now, but honestly...

OK.....gee, what made you hold out so long?

[scottditzen]

Every now and then it's good to reflect that just because something is "constitutional" or the "law of the land" it does not make that thing wise or morally acceptable.

Anyhow, I always saw the "getting government out of marriage" proposition as one of the best, most pragmatic of libertarian ideals. That being said, the government is so entrenched with the hundreds of laws/benefits associated with marriage...it would be quite an effort to win this one.

p.s. to the op, I understand why you did it but the title to this thread is divisive from the outset. Not to mention the issue it's a political loser as we know more than half the voting population supports gay marriage.


Well, gee, that's mighty swell of you.

In that case, would you be fine with an amendment to the Constitution allowing any adults to have jobs?

Or to have children? Or to be Republicans? Or Democrats? Or vegetarians? Or to do or be [fill in the blank]?

Maybe I need to brush up on my history ...

But as I recall, the Constitution wasn't supposed to have a goddam thing to do with what adults are "allowed" to do.

It was supposed to be a (very strict) enumeration of what the federal government is "allowed" to do ...

[pcosmar]

It seems like a contradiction because it uses the word "illegal" the same way people always do when they talk about gay marriage, which is that they really don't mean illegal. It's just propaganda to get us to oppose laws that don't recognize gay marriage.

It is not a contradiction..
The Oklahoma Law that Banned Gay Marriage had Criminal penalties.

http://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Marriage_Question_711_%282004%29


"This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married. It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor."

Additionally, it is the only such amendment that establishes criminal penalties for issuing a marriage licence in violation of its provisions.