Comments on: Why I am not a libertarian; Gay Marriage

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:18:49 +0000

Not all libertarians advocate gay marriage either: http://www.libertarianunderground.com/editorial.php?id_msg=4747

By: Stu

Stu — Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:56:02 +0000

Thanks, Kevin, for quite succinctly explaining the differences (albeit in general terms) between conservatives and libertarians and using the gay marriage issue as a lens through which to view those differences. I’ve considered myself a libertarian since I was 16. Now, pushing 40, I find myself not so quick to support all cries for individual rights in a knee jerk fashion. I think what the proponents of gay marriage just don’t get (or don’t care about) is that such a revolutionary change in the law of the land will bring about a lot of unintended consequences. Is it is possible that today’s liberal and libertarian proponents of gay marriage will find themselves quite conservative or reactionary on some causally related issue in the future. I’d bet on it.

By: Chas Rich

Chas Rich — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:00:39 +0000

Careful how you paint Conservatives, Kevin. Not all see it the same.

The first is that I’m not a fair-weather friend of federalism. Real diversity, as the founders envisioned it, requires accepting that some communities will do things you don’t approve of. The second reason is technical: I favor civil unions and I can’t get a straight answer — pardon the pun — on whether any or all of the proposed amendments would allow them.

This proposed amendment will go into the dustbin along with the flag-burning amendment. Seemingly popular and obviously political, but not actually happening.

By: jay

jay — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:55:12 +0000

i thought there was a time when conservatives were against government intrusion in people’s lives and for smaller federal government in general. i’m trying to figure out exactly when that stopped. am i confusing conservative with libertarian? isn’t there some kind of big overlap in the conservative/libertarian venn diagram? telling someone who they can and can’t marry is an intrusion and is placing standards from one community onto another. there really isn’t one national social fabric in this country. i live in sf and our fabric is pretty gay.

there are lots of people who identify as both gay and married; many states have domestic partner laws on the books already. so really, this isn’t a revolution, it’s the next logical step forward.

By: Kathy K

Kathy K — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:14:56 +0000

Conservatives are stabbing themselves in the back with an attempt to federally define marriage. They’d be far better served by an amendment to define the limits of judicial power.

A note from the VCWC (Vast Center Wing Conspiracy — we are so secret even the conspiracy nuts don’t know we exist):

Your amendment won’t pass unless a miracle occurs.
If it that miracle occurs, your children will pass another amendment to reverse yours.

Meanwhile, the activist courts will be issuing all sorts of opinions you don’t like and will want to make more amendments about. Go after the courts, not their opinions.

We centrists won’t support you on a marriage amendment but we might well support you on a judicial power amendment.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:32:29 +0000

That’s as much maturity as a pitiful excuse for an adult such as yourself deserves.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:23:35 +0000

JJ and JC display just how mature and responsible this debate is going to be.

It was the activists in Massachusetts who started this, not the President.

By: Danno

Danno — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:11:06 +0000

Aside from my views on Gay marriage being right or wrong I think it is a BAD idea to make an amendment stating that marriage is an institution between men and women only.

The reason is precedence.

What makes us think that our filthy judicial system will continue to ignore our constitution? They have done so with our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and most recently our right to due process (thanks to the Patriot Act). This just provides our judges on the local and federal level another amendment they can piss on and ignore.

If a person does not agree with the issue of gay marriage the solution is to demand that the judges uphold the laws of the states. If the law is wrong it should be changed, but by a vote not by a judge who thinks he or she knows what is best for the American people.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:53:34 +0000

I second the “you are an idiot” sentiment. Please punch yourself in the face.

By: tina

tina — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:41:54 +0000

“It wasn’t very long ago that no one even envisioned gay marriage let alone saw it as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.”

Actually many people have thought about it like that for ages – since the 1970s. Back then it was only individual couples fighting for their rights, so nobody really gave a shit, least of all politicans. Then in the mid-nineties organizations starting joining the fight and only recently has the media made it into a big deal, pressuring governments to form their own opinions. It’s funny how the media can make us suddenly aware of human rights issues, isn’t it?
Yes it does challenge our social values but take a look into any social sciences textbook – it’ll tell you that’s how society evolves. It’s that simple. I’d go on but I’d be here all day…