NY passes gay marriage

[emazur]

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.

Another thing you'll almost NEVER hear them call for is the nullifying of existing benefits for married straights.

 

[Zap!]

NY sucks, it's a socialist state with no freedom for anyone, unless you happen to be in an alternate marriage. Only in a rouge state can you be denied your Constitutional right to buy a gun without restrictions, yet legally marry with no problem if you're both the same sex. The state legislature can go to Hell. Seeing people support this here makes me want to seriously reconsider any connections to libertarians. The Constitution Party would never tolerate this.

 

[james1906]

Maybe NY read that liberty report that put them firmly in last place as least free state.

 

[Zap!]

Maybe NY read that liberty report that put them firmly in last place as least free state.

Ok great, so now will they allow law abiding citizens to carry legally?

 

[james1906]

Ok great, so now will they allow law abiding citizens to carry legally?

Yes, but you have to go to Vermont

 

[Zap!]

Yes, but you have to go to Vermont

I prefer Utah, best of both worlds, except they frown upon alcohol.

 

[james1906]

I prefer Utah, best of both worlds, except they frown upon alcohol.

Utah frowns upon everything except for Jello

 

[nbhadja]

Great news. I will love seeing the ignorant religious right squirm at granting others freedom. What a bunch of hypocrites. Hope it hurts the right a lot. They deserve it. Now if they marijuana bill can pass it might fill up the hospitals with heart attack victims.

 

[libertarian4321]

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.

I'm not in favor of government getting into the marriage business, but if it insists on doing so, it should treat everyone equally, so while this may not be a victory for individual liberty, it is a victory for fairness.

 

[Ricky201]

Yah...because that is exactly what New York needs...more divorce lawyers. Marriage licenses are about as attractive to me as a colonoscopy. No thanks, and I'm not changing my mind when I turn 50 for either one of those things!

 

[NYgs23]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license.

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

 

[Agorism]

Yes there is. Singles get the shaft once again.

This.

And polygamists too

 

[NYgs23]

I'm not in favor of government getting into the marriage business, but if it insists on doing so, it should treat everyone equally, so while this may not be a victory for individual liberty, it is a victory for fairness.

Marriage licenses are inherently exclusionary and "unfair." That's the whole purpose of the them: social engineering. To make it truly "fair" would mean simply handing licenses to anyone that wanted them, no questions asked. They could just print them off a website, as many as they wanted, and fill them out themselves. But then who would want them? The only reason gays want them (other than the special goodies that could be had through civil unions) is for the status symbol of the government "officializing" their relationship. It's a political ploy for the purpose of assimilation.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm really amazed every time I see so-called "libertarians" cheering more government involvement in social matters.

This forum is bizzarro-world sometimes. State sanctioned gay marriage is not libertarian. It is the opposite direction of where we need to go.

 

[silentshout]

Good for NY!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Good for NY!

You see what I'm saying? ^^^

 

[JohnEngland]

Alternative headline: "New York declares that the Earth is flat"

The union between a man and woman is intrinsically different to that of a man and a man. For the government to decree the two "equal" shows the extent to which government is out of control.

Government is there to protect liberty and the natural law upon which liberty is founded - not to reshape the world in their image, like declaring the Earth to be flat.

 

[BamaAla]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

Marriage licenses are inherently exclusionary and "unfair." That's the whole purpose of the them: social engineering. To make it truly "fair" would mean simply handing licenses to anyone that wanted them, no questions asked. They could just print them off a website, as many as they wanted, and fill them out themselves. But then who would want them? The only reason gays want them (other than the special goodies that could be had through civil unions) is for the status symbol of the government "officializing" their relationship. It's a political ploy for the purpose of assimilation.

Couldn't agree any more. This doesn't make anything "fair" or achieve any "equal rights." It's simply .ny.gov throwing peanuts to a group of people in hopes of shoring up their voting support.

I'm really amazed every time I see so-called "libertarians" cheering more government involvement in social matters.

This forum is bizzarro-world sometimes. State sanctioned gay marriage is not libertarian. It is the opposite direction of where we need to go.

A great many people in this movement are so anti-religion that they will cheer for anything that "sticks it to" the faithful. I'm not a religious man, but I am forced to hang my head from time to time at the seething hate that some here show toward anything concerning faith or religious conviction.

 

[Brett85]

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.

Stopping the government from expanding marriage has nothing to do with "telling people how to live." Gays already have the right to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But expanding government benefits is not a libertarian point of view. It's the liberals who support big government on this issue.

 

[Brett85]

This.

And polygamists too

Not to mention those who love animals and NAMBLA types.