NY passes gay marriage

Good for them. I used to be vehemently opposed to SSM, but my drift towards the Liberty Movement has very much changed that stance.
 
It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.
 
Last edited:
Good for them! It's not the government's place to tell people who they can marry.
And for those who say "I oppose gay marriage because the government should be out of the marriage business altogether," then why don't you give up YOUR marriage licence! So long as marriage IS regulated by the government, it ought to be non-discriminatory.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.
Click to expand...

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.
 
Karsten said:
The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
COpatriot said:
Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.
Click to expand...

lmao!
 
On the one hand it means even more voters will want to keep things like social security which are already too tangled up in marriage. On the other hand it's a state issue so I could care less what NY does.
 
YumYum said:
Not everyone is of the opinion that two guys playing footsies is immoral.
Click to expand...

Not everyone isn't of the opinion either. Peace&Freedom was making the valid point that marriage as it is currently defined isn't just a contract between two people. It's a contract between two people and the rest of society. The way to make gay marriage / polygomy / polyamory / marrying your sheep a non issue is to disentangle government from marriage period by redefining benefits to not be tied to marriage. Social security for example. If it was privatized you'd have your own pot of money you could leave to some homeless guy you never met if you wanted to. Why should your money be allocated based on who you sleep with?
 
COpatriot said:
Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Singles get the shaft once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump to Sign Executive Order to Ban ALL Federal Taxpayer Benefits to Illegal Aliens
Replies
0
Views
118
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
J
NY Post Finds That Nationwide Protests Organizer "Almost Entirely Financed" with $16 Million from Soros, to Chant "Fight Billionaires," "Fascism"
Replies
1
Views
37
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Biden promises veto
Replies
3
Views
336
unknown
unknown
susano
NY Republican introduces resolution requiring the Zionist entity to approve US foreign policy
Replies
7
Views
641
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
CA-Assembly passes bill banning any local gov. from requiring voter ID
Replies
8
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top