tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post5128061910918665144..comments2023-10-26T10:42:47.013-04:00Comments on Rev. Steve: The Bain Campaign Responds to My Pride PostAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10857477383538283181noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-32806327581927566262010-09-25T01:04:05.556-04:002010-09-25T01:04:05.556-04:00It's a clear cut argument that you gave to Mr....It's a clear cut argument that you gave to Mr. Bain and it's sad to see his non-answers and side-stepping.<br /><br />Handing it all over to the church would be the worst thing for the LGBT community. That should be obvious to anyone.Brandon A.http://brandonsadkins.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-52579950190510461822010-09-22T15:55:45.719-04:002010-09-22T15:55:45.719-04:00Steve,
I realized that you were linking to my OLD...Steve,<br /><br />I realized that you were linking to my OLD post on gay marriage--my latest and even more pro-gay marriage is at http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/08/04/californias-anti-gay-marriage-prop-8-overturned/<br /><br />"I oppose both state sanctioned violence and oppression, but as i told Mr. Bain, washing you hands of the issue of same-sex marriage is an abdication of leadership."<br /><br />There is no official libertarian line on this since to be honest it's a "second-best" policy query. Further, the homosexual lobby has done its best to make it hard to support them, because one reason they want gay marriage is to use the state power to declare relationships as a way to force people to "accept" them and also as the thin end of the wedge to begin to push for socialistic laws like antidiscrimination laws and the like. So I undersatnd why some people are reluctant to go along with the pro-gay marriage agenda, as it has baggage.<br /><br />The correct view is to oppose the state's involvement with relationship-approval, regulation, and enforcement in the first place. In my view that is all that is required of the libertarian (again, it's libertarian, not Libertarian). It is my personal view that so long as the state monopolizes the enforcement of contractual regimes that are accessories to various interpersonal relationships, that they need to enforce all of them. If they insist that it be called "marriage" to qualify for enforcement, then that's their rule. But if the state also enforced gay union contracts without calling it marriage, that woudl be okay too--it's then up to people to refer to this union by whatever name they want.<br /><br />"both Mr. Bain's site and the Libertarian Party's site are both sadly lacking on details on the subject. "<br /><br />I have no idea who Bain is, and as I said, the LP has little to do with libertarianism.<br /><br />BTW you may want to check this one out too: by libertarian philosopher Roderick Long in favor of gay marriage: http://aaeblog.com/2010/08/06/equal-protection/<br />http://aaeblog.com/2010/08/06/equal-protection-part-2/Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070207985781079463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-33284311994060399642010-09-22T09:50:55.274-04:002010-09-22T09:50:55.274-04:00The legal definition of a "license" is t...The legal definition of a "license" is to grant permission to do what would otherwise be illegal. In what circumstance should marriage be illegal and require a license? That is how a libertarian looks at it and we conclude that under no circumstance should marriage in and of itself be illegal. The first marriage licenses in the US were given to interracial couples who needed them in states where interracial marriage was outlawed, in ancient England they were given to couples where the king had determined that he did not desire the female for himself. Not sure why you would be so gun-ho to support such a system, and so against those who don't think this sounds all that fair and equitable. That said most libertarians support gay marriage as long as we live under the system we currently have, but we are not vocal about it because the system we have sucks and should be abolished, the idea that you have to get government approval from the king and his men in order to get married is repugnant.Festerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18282789796125211475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-31666327666130728902010-09-22T09:09:13.359-04:002010-09-22T09:09:13.359-04:00Thanks for the insight, Stephan. I oppose both sta...Thanks for the insight, Stephan. I oppose both state sanctioned violence and oppression, but as i told Mr. Bain, washing you hands of the issue of same-sex marriage is an abdication of leadership. The Libertarian position on same-sex marriage is no solution. I did enjoy reading your piece though. It helped me to better understand the party's position on marriage equality. As I said above, both Mr. Bain's site and the Libertarian Party's site are both sadly lacking on details on the subject.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10857477383538283181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-89437817728115824312010-09-22T09:00:24.974-04:002010-09-22T09:00:24.974-04:00Sidney, and Steve-- we are libertarians, not "...Sidney, and Steve-- we are libertarians, not "Libertarians." The capital-L is only for member of the LP itself--most libertarians are not members of the LP, and in my view, the LP itself is not completely libertarian, and certainly many members of the LP are not completely libertarian. So the LP and real libertarianism are only overlapping sets.<br /><br />Sidney, the libertarian position is very sensible. We simply oppose the use of force against other people who have not committed some kind of violent crime. What could be more sensible? Thus, libertarians oppose the modern state, or the state altogether, as an agent of violence. LGBT have long been harmed by the STATE itself, so it's a bit disconcerting for you to come to the defense of the state, which is and has always been the biggest enemy of the LGBT community--which is what you are doing if you reject libertarianism. I say this because either you oppose the state and its use of institutionalized aggression (in which case you are siding with us), or you favor the state, even though it has always harmed you and yours.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968723288420536675.post-25812304086819058932010-09-22T07:23:02.097-04:002010-09-22T07:23:02.097-04:00With the Libertarians passivity on marriage, the g...With the Libertarians passivity on marriage, the government that stays out of marriage means abolishment of legalized marriage all together. Of course the Libs aren’t going to say that which would be political suicide for them. I would be all for abolishing legalized marriage in order to equal the playing field, but like you said, that’s not going to happen. <br /><br />Leaving marriage up to the churches isn’t the answer either. You will have one church who will allow gays to marry, another who won’t. This does nothing for marriage equality or civil rights and continues the cycle of hatred and bigotry against the LGBT community.<br /><br />I also checked out the Libertarians stances on issues and they just don’t make a lot of sense and frankly, I wouldn’t vote for them if they were running unopposed. I suspect they will be like all the other political parties who will sweet-talk the gay community for their vote and then throw them under the bus when the civil right votes come around. I don’t trust them. I say vote for the Independent, Jeff Vanke, in order to vote against both Goodlatte and “Wolf”-Bain.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06626584210566525717noreply@blogger.com