So-called Civil Rights will cause major infringements on Economic LibertiesFrom Eric Dondero:
Many right libertarians have been maintaining for a while, that government sanctioned gay marriage is actually affirmative action disguised as a "right." Additionally, right-libertarian gay marriage opponents argue that state sanctioned gay marriage will ultimately lead to massive government subsidies for a special protected group. Now, a Christian libertarian, Peter Spring, a senior fellow at the Clifton Park Baptist Church in Maryland, puts the arguments together succinctly in a nationally syndicated piece, "Gay Marriage at odds with U.S. liberties" .
Pastor Peter Sprigg's "key reasons why a libertarian outlook does not require support for same-sex 'marriage'", via the Albany Times-Union:
1. Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution. Homosexual activists once demanded that the government stay out of their bedrooms. In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms.Pastor Sprigg's bio at FRC.
2. Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Every American has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage.
There also are compelling reasons for libertarians to oppose the redefinition of marriage:
1. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business.
2. Economic freedom would be undermined. Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples.
3. The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them. Research shows that children who are raised by their own mother and father are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in other family structures. The state should not affirm the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless homes.
62 Bloviations:
The only libertarian argument against government enforce gay marriage is the argument against government-enforced marriage, period.
None of those other arguments are libertarian. Nor are the people making them.
And who are you to judge?
You are a toothless, government-handout receiving leftist activist, about as far away from being a libertarian as one could possibly get.
Non-libertarians should not past judgement on who is and who is not a libertarian.
So, get lost freak.
"You are a toothless, government-handout receiving leftist activist"
You got one out of three right. I still have some teeth, and I don't receive government handouts (you've tried that lie before, liar), but yes, I am a libertarian activist.
You claim to be one, when you're not gathering signatures for theocrats in Maine or liberal Democrats in Connecticut, but frankly you're just not very believable.
"The only libertarian argument against government enforce gay marriage is the argument against government-enforced marriage, period."
Or in other words, the abolition of marriage which is what you fucking vermin have always been about.
Chuck,
Marriage existed before government.
Marriage will exist whether government exists or not.
And it will be what it is, whether you like it or not.
Are you denying that you receive government benefits? Please state so uncategorically for the record.
"Marriage existed before government."
No shit, Sherlock. Marriage and other institutions are what the people who created government wanted to protect.
"Marriage will exist whether government exists or not."
Are you really this fucking stupid? As soon as government decrees by default that any relationship is a marriage, marriage will effectively be outlawed. You obviously lack the intellect to understand this.
Marriage is the most fundamental unit of society...and it is no way private. For government to recognize this fact is simply the act of being civilized. Dimwit anarchists like you can't grasp things this simple.
Wanna trip up a leftist gay activist?
Ask them if they think marriage for swingers should be sanctioned by government.
Discrimination against straight males, particularly white males with lots of girlfriends/wives, is just fine according to the gay rights movement.
Last I heard, polygamy was against the law. Of coure you could be come a member of the FLDS and have your own version of sister wives.
Eric,
You write:
"Are you denying that you receive government benefits? Please state so uncategorically for the record."
I deny that I receive any government benefits other than those that everyone else receives, e.g. the use of "public" roads, etc.
I do not receive food stamps, "welfare," "disability," "Medicaid," "unemployment," farm subsidies or any other government payments or services of that type, from any level of government. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, am I eligible for any such, nor would I attempt to collect them if I were.
I do not collect any government pension or retirement benefit, nor do I ever intend to (yes, that includes Social Security and Medicare).
I am eligible for one particular "veterans' benefit" -- emergency medical care at VA hospitals should I be indigent and uninsured -- but I am neither at the moment and don't intend to use that benefit even if I become so (I used it once, a number of years ago, for an emergency room visit).
I'm also quite possibly eligible for further "veterans' benefits" due to "service-related disability" (I display symptoms of sarin exposure, and was involved in an incident which leads me to believe that that is indeed what happened), but I have no intention of seeking those "benefits."
The last time I recall receiving any kind of payment direct from any level of government would have been income tax refunds, and the last of those was more than a decade ago.
A few years ago, I did some work as a private subcontractor, to a private contractor, who in turn was working for the Centers for Disease Control, so I suppose you could say that that paycheck was indirectly from the government.
I've been summoned for jury duty later this month. If I am detained there, I'll probably use any "meal vouchers" that are issued. I don't plan to cash any checks that I may get for it, though.
We've been through this before. I don't take money from the government. You know that damn well, and you're a fucking liar every time you say otherwise.
"Last I heard, polygamy was against the law."
That is pretty obtuse, Jim. Polygamy is against the law because it involves marriage. There is no law against having nine girlfriends, but that isn't polygamy. It's not against the law for glory-holers to do their thing, but that has nothing to do with marriage either.
Yafolla?
I don't normally say this, but Kn@ppster is right on the money in this issue.
It has always puzzled me to see gay activists advocate gay marriage (aren't gay civil unions the same thing basically?).
My biggest concern has been the possible infringement of freedom of religion should gay marriage (even civil unions) are legalized.
Can anybody tell me why the privatization of marriage is a bad idea?
Morgan,
You write:
"My biggest concern has been the possible infringement of freedom of religion should gay marriage (even civil unions) are legalized."
What about the infringement of freedom of religion now?
In Missouri, if a clergyman holds a ceremony for a same-sex couple and calls it a "marriage," it's a $300 fine and two weeks in jail.
The US managed just fine for about half a century without government marriage "licensing" -- until the government of Ohio decided it needed to find a way to keep blacks from marrying whites.
Before that, if you wanted to get married that was between you, your prospective spouse, and possibly your minister, and it was either recognized or not by your chosen community.
Yes, government courts applied certain common law and contractual principles to litigation arising from marriage -- the justifiable ones would map just as easily to same-sex as opposite-sex marriage, the unjustifiable ones were, well, unjustifiable -- but it didn't claim any power of prior restraint by "licensing" of marriage.
There may be reasons why it can't be like that again ... but those reasons aren't good reasons. They're just big government reasons.
"Can anybody tell me why the privatization of marriage is a bad idea?"
Private marriage already exists. It's called living together. In that relationship, people have spawn and their spawn go on to have other spawn just as rats, dogs, cats and baboons do.
In married (legally bound) relationships, people have families and children with established paternity along with all the socially mandated duties and proscriptions therein.(that is how ordered, functional societies work)
Your argument only works in a tribal society. You don't want to live in a tribal society, so you are essentially arguing against your own conscience.
"My biggest concern has been the possible infringement of freedom of religion should gay marriage (even civil unions) are legalized."
If marriage were an exclusively religious institution to begin with, you might have a point. Thing is, Tony Weenie and his stick bride are just as married as any other couple and you can bet your ass their marriage is about as religious as Ranch dressing is about herding cattle.
I used to be of the opinion that a constitutional amendment to define marriage was a ridiculous idea. Thing is, back then I didn't see the courts as open enemies of Western Civilization.
I absolutely agree that we do not need gay marriage. How would I and my spousal equivalent be able to collect as much social security if we were married? We would have to give up alamony from previous marriage if we married! When we were younger we would have not have been able for one of us to stay home and collect TANF to raise the kids and Medicaid for health insurance. We would have suffered like married heterosexuals! Perhaps we should get rid of legal marriage for everybody or, like California, give older folks the option of domestic partnership?
"In Missouri, if a clergyman holds a ceremony for a same-sex couple and calls it a "marriage," it's a $300 fine and two weeks in jail."
Only three hundred dollars? Gee. What would the fine have been had he married his daughter to her grandmother?
The more you near your destination the more you're slip slidin' away.
I pity automatons. You people don't even have opinions. Only allegiances and rationalizations.
Seriously. Why doesn't the government just leave Marriage to churches and get rid of tax codes that either benefit or penalize people on marital states. And, also seriously, lets discontinue any subsidies for reproduction. People with kids use more resources and should be discouraged from costing society in general for their decisions to have kids...natural or through adoption.
"Perhaps we should get rid of legal marriage for everybody"
I have to admit I respect an honest degenerate. At least their hatred of the civil society that has provided for their very existence is right there on their sleeve.
"Seriously. Why doesn't the government just leave Marriage to churches?"
Because marriage isn't a religious institution. It's a public/civic institution. You might as well ask, "Why doesn't government leave child custody issues to churches?" or "Why doesn't government leave child support decrees up to the church to decide?"
And so on.
This issue isn't as complex as many "smart" people would like it to be. It's Lincoln log simple.
Chuck:
Several ideas and issues
As a Jew in a relationship with a Christian religious marriage is not open to me. Universal access to civil union would solve this without weighting either religion as "better" or more restrictive.
What would be the problem if we did like many other countries and had a civil contract and then a religious solemnization for those who want it? Isn't a Justice of the Peace marriage basically a civil ceremony? What about the states that let commonlaw marriages be recognized? (With out anyone ruling on consanguinity or other usual impediments?)
I really do think "marriage" is a misnomer if what we are talking about is tax code and inheritance...as often it is.
"People with kids use more resources and should be discouraged from costing society in general for their decisions to have kids"
And that, boys and girls, is the mindset of your average anti-social, sexual-degenerate, sociopath served up on a plate.
The asshole that wrote that was somebody's kid. He's okay with himself being around, but you? Not so much.
The insular stupidity of what this assclown writes is obvious to me, but a whole lot of people seem to agree with this asshole that the existential problem we as people have is the possible existence of future people.
Discus among your shelves.
Chuck if you want to have this argument off the blog I would be happy to continue elsewhere.
Robb
BTW
I am a teaparty patriot and not a socialist.
"As a Jew in a relationship with a Christian religious marriage is not open to me."
You are describing yourself. You are not describing marriage.
You seem to be conflating the two.
Are you asking for advice on your relationship, or do you have something profound to share?
"Chuck if you want to have this argument off the blog I would be happy to continue elsewhere."
I don't, but if you would rather do what you propose the people who run this site can tell you how to reach me.
Best,
Chu
Neither...
You and I seem to like to debate a WHOLE bunch more than other people like to chime in. If you want to continue contact me at notwonderwoman@gmx.com
Best regards
Robb (female -- my surname)
It is always amazing to me how so-called "small government" Conservatives are frightened of freedom.
They live in total fear that two people they will never meet in their lives might get married and be happy.
So very sad.
The end of your finger is amazing to you, "gary".
"Robb (female -- my surname)"
You appear to be on some gender crusade. I don't discriminate between male and female stupidity. I'm quite open minded in that regard.
I can assure you that your having of a vagina is a whole lot more important to you than it is to me.
For what it's worth, I bear you no ill will, cwgll236f. I just don't jump at the snap of a whip.
I wonder....could same sex couples living elsewhere claim common law under their laws?
If so in my state the same sex marriage would be recognized as valid... but there would be no federal record to impinge on freedoms and tax status! (Also works in all states for us old "assholes" on social security)
Interesting website:
www.unmarried.com
Robb
Who hates having government impingement so much she did not register her children's homebirths
And did you follow that Eric said "lotsa girlfriends/wives"? I am sure Eric would love to have 10 wives, thing is, I don't see him as FLDS or Muslim. Even if he was it wouldn't be kosher here.
""Seriously. Why doesn't the government just leave Marriage to churches?"
" "Why doesn't government leave child custody issues to churches?" or "Why doesn't government leave child support decrees up to the church to decide?"
At one time they probably did...But then the Church was the government. We are better off now.
If you are a jew, you are a jew. May be your boyfriend would convert. If you are that good, he might.
My dear Right Guy,
As Publisher of LibertarianRepublican.net I have standards to uphold. How would it look to others out there in the blogosphere if Eric Dondero Rittberg had more than one wife/girlfriend? Imagine the reputation I would get on-line.
I am happily married to my beautiful Chinese wife. And if I ever bring the subject up of swingers, multiple girlfriends and such, it's purely theoretical.
Eric - The Management
Wel, the first thing you need to do is go by your last name. Secondly, get back to Texas, thirdly, theoretics are are just that at best.
"How would it look to others out there in the blogosphere if Eric Dondero Rittberg had more than one wife/girlfriend?"
Isn't that what everybody already thinks? I don't see how your reputation can get damaged any more that it already is Eric.
I'm not sure why having more than one wife/girlfriend would be "damaging" unless it was hypocritical, i.e. at odds with the standards one publicly supports.
Dondero is very forward in supporting sexual libertinism. Why would anyone think less of him if it turned out that he practices what he preaches?
To the extent that Dondero has an "image" problem, it has nothing to do with that.
If his last name is Rittberg, why does everyone call him Dondero? No one calls me David.
Kn@ppster, what you cited in your response to my comment isn't the point. The point is if gay marriage (and even maybe civil unions) are legalized, churches might be forced to perform such services. And since most churches (if I'm not mistaken) are opposed to performing homosexual unions for Biblical reasons, I find it to be the greater concern. Your comment on the whole has given me more reason to support privatizing marriage.
Chuck, isn't it a requirement of law for married couples to get marriage licenses, regardless of who performs the ceremonies? I was under the impression if you're gonna marry somebody, you need to get a marriage license as well.
That's right Morgan, the Church isn't the final authority. You need a license to get married and therefore, the states decide who can marry who, regardless of how long it's been a way of life (just commenting on what I see). Now that states are allowing same sex marriage, look for someone to sue for full faith and credit. What should be a state's rights issue at worst, will be a federal one at some point, unfortunately.
As far as same sex marriage goes, in some states, the Catholic Church has gotten out of the adoption business because they'd have to extend adoptions to gay couples.
"Chuck, isn't it a requirement of law for married couples to get marriage licenses, regardless of who performs the ceremonies? I was under the impression if you're gonna marry somebody, you need to get a marriage license as well."
Yes. That is because (as I said earlier) marriage is a public institution. Dating is private. Marriage is public.
A marriage is elemental. Think of it as a societal atom. It's a basic societal unit. From there, the molecule of family is created and from there the compound known as civilized society is made.
Everyone understands these truths at a deep instinctual level, yet many seem to NOT want to understand it for the sake of some contrived agenda.
Rebels without a clue abound.
"If his last name is Rittberg, why does everyone call him Dondero?"
I believe that he's chosen to use Dondero as his last name for some time. Which he is legally free to do unless it's for the purpose of enabling fraud, and which he should be socially free to do in any case.
Morgan,
You write:
"Kn@ppster, what you cited in your response to my comment isn't the point. The point is if gay marriage (and even maybe civil unions) are legalized, churches might be forced to perform such services."
OK, well, let's examine that fear.
It wasn't until Loving v. Virgina that state laws against interracial marriage were struck down.
Are you aware of any churches which have been forced, despite their beliefs, to solemnize interracial marriages?
I grew up in a Pentecostal church where the minister refused to conduct interracial weddings on the basis of some interpretation of scripture. I never heard that he, or the church, ever experienced any legal pressure over it.
Many churches will not solemnize inter-denominational weddings, or place specific restrictions on doing so. For example, I knew a Catholic and a Lutheran who got married. They got married in a Catholic church, but the priest only agreed to it after the Lutheran agreed that any children would be baptized and raised as Catholics. I also seem to recall that there were some ceremonial differences as to which part of the church sanctary the ceremony could take place in, etc.
Do you know of any cases where churches have come under legal pressure to give non-members of their denominations "full privilege" in marriage rites?
The only case I'm aware of that comes anywhere close to that is when some black guy sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over its prieshood qualifications.
Fortunately, the president of LDS, who is by doctrine a "prophet, seer and revelator," got a visit from God telling him that oops, God had misspoken before when he said black people couldn't be ordained (just like Woodruff got an equally convenient retraction from God on polygamy back in the 1890s). So I don't think that ever got tested in the courts.
I'm not going to scoff at your particular fear here, but given the history of such things, I suspect that the fear is much more a marketing tactic by one side than it is something you really have to worry about much.
I was only asking why, not whether he is allowed to or not. I find it a little odd, JMO. Is it like Seal or McLovin. just a single name to become an eponym? It's a little facetious.
Kn@ppster, I wasn't aware that there any churches which were opposed to performing interracial marriages, and I'm left wondering what the point of your comment is.
There used to be. The Mormon Church.
Morgan,
You write:
"I wasn't aware that there any churches which were opposed to performing interracial marriages, and I'm left wondering what the point of your comment is."
Yes, there are churches which are opposed to performing interracial marriages, either as an official policy or an unspoken rule.
The point of my comment is that there doesn't seem to be any historical basis for your fear that if "X [X being some thing in relation to marriage] is legalized, next thing you know, churches will be forced to offer X."
As I mentioned before many if not most synagogues will not do interfaith marriages. As you may or may not know there are 2 genetic groups of Jews (european and near asian) and largely the refusal is to not dilute the bloodlines. Syrian Jews will not even accept converts due to the bloodline issue (How can we be special if we let you join?)
OK Chuck...do your worst!
Robb
There's a lot of problems with that. One, without converts one of two things will happen: The religion's population will shrink, or there will be consequences of inbreeding or may be both. As spock would say, it's illogical.
And that is exactly what has happened ...sort of like the Amish and other inbreeding groups.
Well, there are other Jewish traditions that would allow conversions or intermarriage. It depends on what is most important to both of you/each of you.
"If his last name is Rittberg, why does everyone call him Dondero?"
Yeah, it makes we wonder which name he used for his marriage license in Texas, and whether it's the same one he used in the state of Florida.
As a former nurse midwife to the FLDS and other polygamists I am told that the plural of spouse is spice.
Yeah, but it tastes bad.
I had an opportunity to discuss this issue at length with a gay man who is a well known Libertarian author who is also gay. He pointed out that in order for married couples (gay or straight) to leave their significant other their houses, money, etc. they have to show proof of marriage.
As it turns out, the only document that is accepted by insurance companies and courts of law to prove their marriage is legal is a marriage license.
If the deceased person's partner does not have a marriage license, their possessions can end up being left to their family members (who may or may not have been accepting of their homosexuality) or it will be given to the state. Possibly being subject to very high tax rates too.
It is unfortunate that a marriage license is the only acceptable document in order for someone who is gay to prove they were married to their deceased spouse in order to inherit their partner's possessions.
Its clear that changing probate and inheritance laws or enacting common law marriage statutes to include gays and lesbians is called for too so that a marriage license is not the only means for an individual to prove they were legally married to someone who passes away.
None the less, the correct libertarian position is to support the legalization of gay marriage. I also do not get the sense reading about the proposed law that the bill before the New York State legislature will impose any more mandates on business.
If you want to press for the deregulation or abolition of marriage laws as a long term goal, fine. Otherwise, the reality is that gay couples need marriage licenses in order for their matrimony's to be legal for many legal purposes other than marriage.
Rittberg is adoptive parents name.
Dondero is biological father's name.
I purposely seek to identify myself with both my Jewish and Italian ethnic backgrounds.
Thus Eric Dondero Rittberg.
LANSMAN!
Is your mother jewish? If not, technically you aren't jewish.
Yep it is matrialinical....sort of a pre paternity test stance. As it used to be said: Maternity is a matter of fact and paternity is a matter of opinion.
With the groups that accept converts the converts are seen to have been with Moses at the giving of the law (all Jews are seen to have been there) and so a female converts children, even if they are adults, are also seen as Jewish.
Remember we also allow for the transmigration of souls so it is not unusual for a Jewish soul to be reborn into a non Jewish body and need to correct this by conversion.
And lets not forget that we all are noahide.
WOW an informed Goyim!
"Is your mother jewish? If not, technically you aren't jewish."
Religious dogman /= ethnic classification method
Hitler's regime classified anyone with one Jewish grandparent of either sex as Jewish.
Israel's government figured that if that method of classification was good enough for Auschwitz, it was good enough for right of return.
Post a Comment