Libertarian position on gay marriage

[Feeding the Abscess]

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

He talked about marriage during a Des Moines Register editorial interview:



@44:30 mark, he reiterates the point from his book that I quoted earlier in this thread. Ron's said a lot more than Obama has for marriage equality, yet Obama's praised for state's rights stance and Ron's a racist gay hater somehow.

 

[dody38]

I tend to believe the same way you do, Craezie. I have read many times that Ron Paul's opinion was that the states should make those decisions on same-sex marriage, but early this month, I saw a clip of him saying that it was none of the state's business---so now I see that he thinks all government should stay out of the marriage business. I think our country will be lost without Ron Paul, because he's the only one that will uphold our constitution. Romney is a NWO man in disguise, which means we will be doomed. I am not a Libertian, but recognize Dr. Paul's integrity and how important it is not to give the government so much control that we are imprisioned---which is where we'll get with Romney, or God help us---Obama! I don't agree with everything, but enough to see if we lose our constitution, we lose our lives. We can deal with the other issues later. Our churches will no longer be held at gunpoint, and our choices regarding teaching our children will have free reign including charter schooling and home schooling---even hopefully getting our public schools straightened out. These are better choices than legislating morality which has failed. This government funds enemies more than friends, which will not happen---giving us a fighting chance here and abroad. Paul always says that we can't grasp the idea of a man in the white house who's main function is keeping us safe! Our country has so failed---Ron Paul with give us a fighting chance!

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I would like to see the government out of marriage altogether.

For those legal concerns about shared financial responsibilities, children, Visitation, Inheritance, etc. You could just start a non-profit corporation called "Smith Family" and assign John and Jane smith as equal partners with Durable POA, and the children when they arrive would have their legal guardianship assigned to officer's of the corporation.

Gays could do it exactly the same way. It is really easier to start a corporation than most people think.

 

[craezie]

I would like to see the government out of marriage altogether.

For those legal concerns about shared financial responsibilities, children, Visitation, Inheritance, etc. You could just start a non-profit corporation called "Smith Family" and assign John and Jane smith as equal partners with Durable POA, and the children when they arrive would have their legal guardianship assigned to officer's of the corporation.

Gays could do it exactly the same way. It is really easier to start a corporation than most people think.

This is more or less how a lot of gay couples DO deal with things. However, I do not favor a society where you need a lawyer to preserve your legal rights over your children, and a corporation is the building block of a family.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

This is more or less how a lot of gay couples DO deal with things. However, I do not favor a society where you need a lawyer to preserve your legal rights over your children, and a corporation is the building block of a family.

In WA state, we made it an easy process by calling said Corporation a "Domestic Partnership" available to anyone which is basically all the same benefits of marriage without the name. Call it a fast-track lawyer less method of setting up your non-profit corporation.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I consider this to be "nonsense" as it is dealing with a false dichotomy. Here is the way this theory works:
1) The ultimate Truth is unapproachable placing it, as an entity, outside of the mind's ability to comprehend. 2) Therefore, in order to create an interpretation the mind can understand (or a "reality" of it), one must first slice the "continuum" whole into two parts, or a dichotomy. 3) The best truth will be that "formal" dichotomy on the path leading towards the ultimate Truth, for example, that which our Founding Fathers decared as self-evident and unalienable natural law. 4) Any less than the formal dichotomy is a false dichotomy. 5) The teaching of false dichotomies should be considered diseducation which I consider a condition worse than being left uneducated. 6) The one true American dichotomy deals with the long standing conflict happening going on forever between a minority of a few tyrants and a majority of many disadvantaged commoners. 7) False dichotomies deal with white versus black, male versus female, rich versus poor, hetero versus homosexuality, and so on.
Before one chooses a topic, they must first choose a dichotomy. If they choose to divide the truth into a false dichotomy, then they are speaking nonsense. The only true issues which should be discussed are those dealing with the one true dichotomy.
We aren't one big family here. Indeed, there are those advantaged individuals and those who are disadvantaged. In regards to speaking about the issues, we should always focus on that dichotomy which is in the best interest of the disadvantaged.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I consider this to be "nonsense" as it is dealing with a false dichotomy. Here is the way this theory works:
1) The ultimate Truth is unapproachable placing it, as an entity, outside of the mind's ability to comprehend. 2) Therefore, in order to create an interpretation the mind can understand (or a "reality" of it), one must first slice the "continuum" whole into two parts, or a dichotomy. 3) The best truth will be that "formal" dichotomy on the path leading towards the ultimate Truth, for example, that which our Founding Fathers decared as self-evident and unalienable natural law. 4) Any less than the formal dichotomy is a false dichotomy. 5) The teaching of false dichotomies should be considered diseducation which I consider a condition worse than being left uneducated. 6) The one true American dichotomy deals with the long standing conflict happening going on forever between a minority of a few tyrants and a majority of many disadvantaged commoners. 7) False dichotomies deal with white versus black, male versus female, rich versus poor, hetero versus homosexuality, and so on.
Before one chooses a topic, they must first choose a dichotomy. If they choose to divide the truth into a false dichotomy, then they are speaking nonsense. The only true issues which should be discussed are those dealing with the one true dichotomy.
We aren't one big family here. Indeed, there are those advantaged individuals and those who are disadvantaged. In regards to speaking about the issues, we should always focus on that dichotomy which is in the best interest of the disadvantaged.

There aren't very many issues that can be limited to a dichotomy. In fact, most of the time restricting oneself this way limits one's ability to find better, more creative, less destructive solutions. I would argue that one of the great problems we face is dichotomous thought.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I tend to believe the same way you do, Craezie. I have read many times that Ron Paul's opinion was that the states should make those decisions on same-sex marriage, but early this month, I saw a clip of him saying that it was none of the state's business---so now I see that he thinks all government should stay out of the marriage business. I think our country will be lost without Ron Paul, because he's the only one that will uphold our constitution. Romney is a NWO man in disguise, which means we will be doomed. I am not a Libertian, but recognize Dr. Paul's integrity and how important it is not to give the government so much control that we are imprisioned---which is where we'll get with Romney, or God help us---Obama! I don't agree with everything, but enough to see if we lose our constitution, we lose our lives. We can deal with the other issues later. Our churches will no longer be held at gunpoint, and our choices regarding teaching our children will have free reign including charter schooling and home schooling---even hopefully getting our public schools straightened out. These are better choices than legislating morality which has failed. This government funds enemies more than friends, which will not happen---giving us a fighting chance here and abroad. Paul always says that we can't grasp the idea of a man in the white house who's main function is keeping us safe! Our country has so failed---Ron Paul with give us a fighting chance!

A subtle point difficult to understand is this:
1) In its infancy, the Supreme Court did not determine constitutionality. 2) In order to determine constitutionality, the two party system was set up in the United States. 3) The winning party could then sway interpretation of or the enactment of the U.S. Constitution.

So, a third party isn't necessary.

Furthermore, another subtlety deals with Aristotle and why he, in the first place, created his "golden mean" political spectrum. Aristotle didn't create the concept of "liberal" and "conservative" ideas in order to make Greece a nation of extemists, but to help bring them together making them more moderate.

As is typical, the sophisticates (wisdomer people) in the world simply don't know what they are talking about, but certainly look like they do.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There aren't very many issues that can be limited to a dichotomy. In fact, most of the time restricting oneself this way limits one's ability to find better, more creative, less destructive solutions. I would argue that one of the great problems we face is dichotomous thought.

As this conflict has been going on forever, the problem here isn't ignorance, but irreverence. We have finally established the excuse that just any orgy for the sake of an orgy is an acceptable orgy. No reason to even pull your pants all the way back up as that will make it more difficult to drop them back down. This has happened because we have placed the importance of the issue, which believes there is no such thing as wrong, evil, or madness in other words, over the idea of a formal dichotomy. In the end, we will debate the petty issues until we have to go to war over establishing a primary dichotomy.
Metaphorically speaking, our Founding Fathers isolated tyranny as half of that dichotomy. This would be a tyrant sitting on the throne as the owner of all things. As his opposite or inverse (perverse), a homeless whore tresspasses on his territory. This is the other half of the dichotomy as she represents the disadvantaged commoner people.