The libertarian case against gay marriage

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach... End government regulation of marriage. Period.

BOOM!! Headshot! Thnx for sharing, I missed that one. 3 cheers to gunny for the rhetoric as well as the legislation. ~applauds~

 

[euphemia]

he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.

You keep throwing out the term homophobes. If you want to have credibility, maybe you should think about not making sweeping generalizations and being a little more consistent in your argument.

 

[fr33]

Get back to me when there's actual progress at getting the state out of marriage or a movement larger than Ron Paul supporters. Until then, I'll continue supporting legalizing gay marriage. A few of us in our little group want the state out of all marriages and most people never heard of such a concept.

 

[phill4paul]

BOOM!! Headshot! Thnx for sharing, I missed that one. 3 cheers to gunny for the rhetoric as well as the legislation. ~applauds~

Glen's too damn good, too damn right, so after the Reps won the majority for the first time in forever they gerrymandered him out. I'll not vote this go around in N.C. except for Haughs.

 

[green73]

Get back to me when there's actual progress at getting the state out of marriage or a movement larger than Ron Paul supporters. Until then, I'll continue supporting legalizing gay marriage. A few of us in our little group want the state out of all marriages and most people never heard of such a concept.

Wow. What a great guy you are, looking good to leftists while demeaning people who actually stand up for your supposed principles.

 

[fr33]

Wow. What a great guy you are, looking good to leftists while demeaning people who actually stand up for your supposed principles.

Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like Ron Paul support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.

 

[fr33]

The whole "get govt out of marriage" argument is similar to how some people claim we can't get rid of warfare or welfare spending until we end the fed.

"To really stop this, we must end the fed first."

No, we have to end the injustice first. The fed will end when it's no longer needed to pay for the injustice. Ending the fed first will ensure a new central bank will be established to fund the root problems that some are willing to ignore. That has happened before.

Get the govt out of marriage? Who's going to do that? I guarantee you Rand is not going to campaign on that.

 

[green73]

Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like Ron Paul support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.

Your silly enmity towards Ron Paul baffles me. As a statist (correct me if I'm wrong) you should support at least the decentralization of marriage.

 

[fr33]

Your silly enmity towards Ron Paul baffles me. As a statist (correct me if I'm wrong) you should support at least the decentralization of marriage.

Calling me names does not answer my challenge nor solve the problem our movement faces. It is also inaccurate. You are calling me a statist for criticizing a statist. If getting the government out of marriage is what we want, and it is, then why has our standard bearer never even tried to do that? Rather why has he always done the opposite?

 

[green73]

Calling me names does not answer my challenge nor solve the problem our movement faces. It is also inaccurate. You are calling me a statist for criticizing a statist. If getting the government out of marriage is what we want, and it is, then why has our standard bearer never even tried to do that. Rather why has he always done the opposite?

"Our standard bearer" as you say has alway been consistent in advocating for less centralization first and foremost. As an elected politician I think we should be damn grateful for how successful he was at advancing the philosophy of freedom. That he should be criticized for sometimes advocating policies that trended away from central government but weren't "libertarian enough" is laughable.

Christ, the guy got shit from most the world for always voting no, and now he gets shit here too for what he did support?

 

[Dianne]

An alternate libertarian case: Is it peaceful? Is it voluntary? Is it between two consenting adults? Then it's none of my business. Have at it. Carry on.

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

to benefit his own political career

Yep, that sounds just like something that Mr. Raimondo would do. He definitely has a long history of such actions. In fact, I'll go right now and dig up a few articles about them. Maybe this newfangled site called Wikipedia can help me...



Update: Seems to support politicians as diverse ideologically as Buchanan, Nader, Kucinich, and Paul. Doesn't make sense if he's just trying to benefit his career that he would do that, but I'm sure there's a reason. I'll keep digging.


Update: Worked actively to pass a law in the 90's in California that would have reduced financial incentives for illegal immigration. Starting to think he's not a big fan of expansive government involvement, but surely I'm just falling for his tricks.


Update: Started working with Rothbard in the late 80's. Total sellout, for sure, right? Maybe?


Update: Good news! Turns out he joined the Libertarian Party back in the 70's and even ran for political office as a Libertarian, so the delusion runs deep. I'm now convinced he has been actively planning to exchange his political ideology for career advancement for decades!

 

[Christian Liberty]

If "gay marriage" were just a state-granted license, I wouldn't care whatsoever, either way, because it really doesn't matter. But if "gay marriage" is also going to include forcing people to provide gay weddings under delusions of "equality", I will fight tooth and nail against them.

 

[osan]

That was pretty good. I and surprised to see lucidity issuing from one who could so easily have chosen the path of whiny victim.

Nice job.

 

[osan]

Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach... End government regulation of marriage. Period.

Hmmm... I expect the opinion in terms of basis, but injecting "God" into the argument runs problematic. His conclusion, however, is on the money in terms of getting government out of marriage, regardless of underpinning reasons.

 

[osan]

As an artificial construct fot purposes of the state, replace "marriage" with "defined household" and carry on. Make provision for any two adults to define themselves as a household with whatever benefits / rights seem appropriate.

Why only two? Basis?

 

[jmdrake]

No thanks, I'm not into that crap.


Make up your mind already.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.

I think our resident troll just had his head explode. (No pun intended). Basically he's calling Justin a gay uncle Tom for being pro liberty. Ummmm....okay.

 

[jmdrake]

But he purposely writes an article for homohpobic conservatives, misleading them into thinking that he supports marriage as a whole, he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.. 99% of ppl don't know that libertarians want out of govt-marriage, so handing that article to someone implies that he's just against same-sex marriage. This was on purpose. Its like a politician using doulbespeak. Fuck Justin Raimondo.

Political career? What political career? His not a politician. He's writer. His website is http://antiwar.com. You should check it out sometime. And if he just wanted to "play to his audience" he could and should have come out pro gay marriage as most people who have taken the "antiwar" banner are liberals like yourself. You sound like the Al Sharpton's of the world who want to shout down every black person who says "Maybe we don't need affirmative action indefinitely" as being an "Uncle Tom". (Misnomer because Uncle Tom was really a hero who stood up to slavery through non violent resistance but most people are too ignorant to know that.)

 

[osan]

Lol Its not govt privilege. This is whether to allow gays to get the same privilege as everyone else. You're arguing for govt privilege. You're saying one group gets to do it but not another group.

I do not disagree. Marriage, as currently constituted in law, is an obscenity. However, if we are to have it, all must have equal access.

The imposition of the "one man, one woman, forever" specification is pretty lame as a universal. I don't care if that is one's belief. Have at it and be happy. But leave others to their beliefs as well. This is where the "religious right" goes so terribly wrong. From the one side of their mouths they go on about "freedom", while from the other they would force their religious values upon others. Denying homos the same access to the vile state-issued marriage license is a good case in point. There is nothing of the Golden Rule in this posture. There is, IMO, nothing CHRISTIAN in it. It is, in fact, eminently un-Christian. Live, let live, and pass no judgment lest ye art prepared to be judged. Nobody is prepared for judgment; we all have committed trespass in one form and degree or another, so some of us really do need to get off the high-horse and return to right-sized. Is it not the Christian tenet that only God passes judgment? If so, then STFU, MYOB, and work on YOUR daily living and leave others to do the same.

I do firmly believe that the fundamental psychology behind all this anti-queer sentiment is the fear that if one is not wildly railing for the gayboys to be drawn and quartered that it implies one is condoning the behavior. This, of course, is utter nonsense, yet it is vastly prevalent so far as I can observe, in some classes such as Christians. I also believe that in some cases people fear that if they are not going on endlessly, much less expressing tolerance, that others will suspect them of being gay. This is all so "commies under the bed" and all it serves to accomplish is to divide us against ourselves and to waste resources that could be otherwise put to better purposes, like getting "government" back on a very short leash and eliminating police.

Leave the queers to their devices. If they are damnably wrong, do you doubt in the least that God will set them to rights in the end?

Sheesh.

 

[jmdrake]

Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like Ron Paul support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.

Ron Paul is consistently supportive of states rights as he believes the Federal Government has a "reverse Midas touch". (Everything it touches turns to crap). Tell me this. Do you support the Federal Government defining abortion rights? How about the Federal Government defining drug laws? How has that worked out exactly?

As for bills to get the federal government out of marriage, in 2007 Ron Paul introduced a bill to abolish the IRS.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-joint-resolution/23

What does that have to do with the federal government and marriage? EVERYTHING! One of the stickiest issues in marriage is the so called "tax benefit". It's actually a penalty to some and a benefit to others. If you and your spouse have similar incomes, quite likely for same sex couples, it is a marriage penalty. Get rid of the income tax and there is no need to file married, single or otherwise. Also the fact that health insurance is tied to marriage is a result of income tax policy. Employers, not individuals, get the tax write off so employers, not individuals, shop for plans. If individuals were making that decision, insurance companies would be tripping over themselves to offer more flexible plans. Look at the competition in cell phones where Sprint offers the "framily plan" where you can define your group cell phone plan however you like. That would be true of insurance if not for federal government interference. The other bigaboo is Social Security. If it was replaced with private retirement accounts you would be able to leave the money to whoever you want regardless of whether that person was your "spouse".

The whole "get govt out of marriage" argument is similar to how some people claim we can't get rid of warfare or welfare spending until we end the fed.

You've got it exactly backwards. The whole "Let's make the states recognize gay marriage" is like saying "We should get rid of welfare. But in the meantime illegal immigrants are not benefiting from it and that's not fair so let's expand it." Or "Let's get rid of affirmative action. But before we get rid of it, let's expand it to gay people."