Michigan strikes down gay marriage ban

There are those that claim to be libertarians that are anarchists and don't believe in government that don't appreciate me very much. For example, on another "libertarian" forum they try to make the argument that emergency services could be provided for by private companies such as subscription fire departments. Of course they really don't have much of a response to the fact that if the O'Leary's didn't subscribed to a private fire department then if their barn caught fire no one would respond and it would spread to all of Chicago again (ref. the Great Chicago Fire).

The Libertarian Party Platform puts forward the best example of political libertarianism but even it falls short in many respects. For example the LP Platform on welfare fails to address the povery but merely seeks to transfer the burden of poverty by "privatizing" the welfare assistance. My agrument it that we need to reduce the poverty as opposed to simply mitigating the effects of the poverty regardless of whether the mitigation comes from private or public sources. The problem is the poverty and that is what needs to be addressed, not who pays to mitigate it's effects.

In other regards the Libertarian Party is correct. Abortion should be a decision of the woman, marriage should be inclusive of all those that choose to form personal/financial partnerships (although they haven't come out directly advocating polygamy and incestuous marriage but I do), and we should not limit immigration to those seeking to come to America for peaceful purposes.

In a true sense I'm a "progressive-libertarian" believing that we need to move forward with a libertarian political ideology. I don't want to be tied to the past as that is regressive and you never get ahead by living in the past. I don't want to go back, I want to move forward. That is a current problem for the "social-conservatives" that, for whatever reason, believe things were rosy in the past. They weren't. We don't want to reinstate segregation. We don't want to re-instate prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. We don't want religious theocracy incorporated into our laws. We have to ask how far back do the "social-conservatives" want to take us? How regressive do they want to be? Do they want to go back to the mid-19th Century and reinstate slavery? The National Organization for Marriage once stated in the preamble of their Marriage Pledge that a black child was better off being raised as a slave than as a free person and most of the leading GOP presidential candidates signed that pledge. How "regressive" do social-conservatives really want to be?

 

I thought conservatives don't want the government telling them what they can do with their personal lives? How very liberal of them want to tell consenting adults what they can do with their personal relationships.

 

Thanks again. Very informative. I won't just dismiss Libertarians as kooks, reactionaries and anarchists anymore, although many are. Are there many others like you? Maybe you need another name for your brand to distance yourself from the others.

I have to take exception to the polygamy and incestuous marriage part though. I oppose both, in general and especially in the context of the current marriage debate. They are separate issues, and while opponents of same sex marriage are hard pressed to identify a compelling state interest in banning it, I believe that it would not be so easy to do away with current bans on those practices. However, I will stop there because it would take us off topic for this thread, if we're not already.

I'm also not sure where you're at on immigration. Shall we invite those wanting to come in for un-peaceful purposes?

 

I think most of this boils down to some people wanting to IMPOSE their religious views/beliefs upon other human beings; that 'religion' simply leaks into their politics too much.

 

Like dominoes these laws are falling by the wayside.

Good riddance.

The founders may or may not have been supporters of marriage equality but they certainly thought the concept of being equal was important enough to put in the Declaration of Independence. We've all considered it important enough to recite it in our Pledge of Allegiance.

So these rulings striking down laws based on subjective discomfort take us one step closer to liberty and justice for all.

 

Amen. That is a great encouragement and hope in this nation.

 

I agree which is why I have always said that so called "conservatives" are just liberals who are to stupid to know they are liberals. They constantly want to impose their religious beliefs on society via the government. Which why I laugh when they claim to be conservatives....nothing could be further from the truth.

 

The dinosaurs all all dying out and I couldn't be happier. The sooner the baby boomers die the soon society can start to more forward. Almost all of their social stances have been rejected over the last 30 or so years one by one and we are about 10 to 20 years away from the old guard being completely irrelevant and society can stop being held hostage by their dying ideology. The death of the old white male conservative will be a great thing and they are dying faster and faster every day.

 

Some of us Baby Boomers have our good qualities... but it is hard for some of us to admit our generation came with certain problems.

Here is something to consider. (Although not related directly to 'gay' marriage.)

 

Without ones like you this ball never would have got rolling to begin with which is great but the old mentality is still alive in the old white male conservative baby boomer. When they finally thin out and are gone will be a good day for humanity. They have been rejected into irrelevance over the past 30 years for the most part but I want that final nail in the coffin. Their ideology is a detriment to society and when they are dead it will help out greatly because it will open up there positions of power to the new generation which are, for the most part, not bigoted, racist, homophones like the old guard.

 

I know what you mean man.

I drive some of my (White) Tea Party ("Boomer") acquaintances crazy; because I grew up when they did and can decipher from their comfortable Tea Party mindsets... the problems they SHOULD have resolved decades ago.

It's too often an 'ethnic' thing... and I do have to say that being "Black American" acts somewhat of a cultural 'prophylactic', where it concerns the "Tea Party". The very essence of the Tea-Party is something that one can sense is HOSTILE to the overall interests of those who are likely the descendants of slaves held as chattel. Simply put... the Tea Party has in no significant manner shown/proven that they give a tinker's damn about Black people.

Now, they DO NOT WANT that (racism) to be noticeable, but it is as as obvious as an orange laser light, shining from a darkened stage with velvet curtains. Yet, many associated with the Tea Party ignore or pretend they cannot see what I'm talking about here.

Your point is well-made.

 

My brother had me give him a tea party tattoo, the snake with "don't tread on me" on his entire arm. He claims he is not racist but get him talking and he is constantly saying racist things. Then when you bring it to his attention he is confused as to why what he said was racist. They actually believe they aren't racist when anyone with half a brain knows better. He is like " We should send all of the Mexican back to Mexico." I'"m like "That is racist" he looks at me with a straight face "That isn't racist"

I tried to explain that not all Hispanics are illegals and he is like" Yeah but Mexican commit all of the crime so we should deport them" This is what it is like to be a total (*)(*)(*)(*) for brains. They don't see that kind of (*)(*)(*)(*) as racist where everyone else knows it is racist.

 

You might try sharing the words of Tim Wise with your brother.

As a Black American, I knew and understood the essence of what he's discussing LONG AGO... but the WORDS he uses to explain what I knew, were absolutely refreshing when I first heard them.

White people are a BIG part of my American experience; they are my relatives, friends, lovers and fellow military members... but the larger White American "culture", needs its own "Cosby" moment. And Mr. Tim Wise is the man to deliver the message.

For those who have ears to hear... it is very enlightening stuff.

 

He pretty much nailed it. My brother, and must republican/conservatives I talk with, believe the blacks are taking all of their money via welfare, That Mexicans are taking all of their jobs. That Arabs are trying to take over their country. He is always worried about the boogie man and on all kinds of anxiety medication. He thinks the gays are trying to turn his kids gay though the media. He believes that the communists are taking over america and he can stop them if he just has enough guns. He believes the end is coming any day now and has for 20 years, He just keeps waiting and waiting while nothing happens. He bet me $1000 dollars that Obama would never let there be elections again and become the dictator of American and I will see next election when he elects himself for life. Meanwhile he lives in SLC, Utah. There is almost no whiter place with less gays. He is a necrotic mess like most conservatives. I think it is funny but I believe all of these people are actually mentally ill.

 

Simply put, people like that need to allow themselves time with people NOT like themselves.

I'm so happy that somewhere in my life, I realized and accepted that people who are different, are not necessarily people who are "enemies".

 

Common, give the boomers a break! I'm an older boomer, born 1947 and I'm on the right side of history. There are others like me too! I know, most are conservative, but don't paint is with a broad brush

 

I almost exclusively look for people with opposite views as mine. I already know what I think so why would I want to confirm my own bias? I am probably wrong half the time and am probably a hypocrite most of the time and I want people to tell me so I can get as close to the truth as possible. The best thing that I ever did was accept that I am full of (*)(*)(*)(*) a lot of time and don't know I am full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and want people to tell me so I look for those people to keep me straight. I never want to be so narrow minded I can't see outside of myself and believe I am always right and everyone else is always wrong.

 

I know there are a few good ones but I am going of of a ratio here. I salute those who paved the way. It is appreciated.

 

OK Bro ! You're right about the ratio though. Good to have you aboard

 

The LP Party provides a good context in addressing issues based upon the Party Platform but sometimes members of the Libertarian Party are unrealistic in their expectations IMHO. For example on welfare, as I noted, it puts forward that the person should first rely on family and then the local community for assistance but if the family and local community is in poverty then assistance would be required from sources that are not in poverty. That could take us to the State and/or Federal government.

We need remember that the reason that the Federal government became involved in providing welfare assistance was because the States were not providing the assistance. Sort of like why "Obamacare" exists. If all of the States had been addressing the problem of health care for all of the citizens of the State then there would have been no compelling arguments for the PPACA or federal involvement. If every State had "Romneycare" then there wouldn't have been a problem of tens of millions of Americans being without health care insurance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a belief in the Inalienable Right of Expatriation (immigration) of the Person. The Right of Expatriation is based upon the more fundamental Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. Inalienable Rights exist outside of the contraints of the existance of government. If there was no government then a person born in Mexico could freely immigrate from Mexico City to Denver CO.

We create government to protect our Inalienable Rights (Ref. Declaration of Independence) and in providing those protections it become necessary for government to infringe upon our Freedom To Exercise our Inalienable Rights as a Person. Such infringements should always be based upon compelling arguments and always to the least extent possible to provide the protections established by the compelling argument.

There is a compelling argument supporting a limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Expatriation when there is an explicit threat nefarious criminal intent for the immigration. Those that we can show would come here to violate our Inalienable Rights (e.g. bank robbers and terrorists) can reasonably have their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Expatriation restricted. There is no fundamental difference between prohibiting immigration for nefarious criminal intent than there is in prohibiting a convicted bank robber from walking the streets freely though incarceration. Both are infringements upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person based upon compelling arguments.

The Right of Liberty remains intact but the Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right by the Person is limited based upon a compelling argument in both cases where our Rights as Persons would be violated if the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right was unrestricted.

There is no such compelling argument to restrict the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Expatriation (Libery) for those that would immigrate for peaceful purposes. Their immigration does not represent any threat to our Inalienable Rights.

 

A "compelling State's Interest" that infringes upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights must be based upon the protections of the Inalienable Rights of other person's in society. Indviduals (adults) enaging in personal-financial partnerships based upon voluntary consent do not represent any threat to the Inalienable Rights of other persons.

Marriage laws provide protections of the Right of Property of those involved in such personal-financial partnerships including but not limited to acceptance of the fact that the assest, liabilities, and income of those involved are merged. Joint tax returns and joint bankruptcy petitions both represent "protections" based upon the personal-financial partnership where financial assets, liabilities, and income are merged by those involved in these voluntary partnerships created between consenting adults. Spousal Social Security benefits are based upon the taxes imposed on the merged income of those involved in the relationship.

Does it really matter of two consenting adults happen to be brother and sister if they are living together in a personal-financial partnership when it comes to the government protections and benefits related to their merged financial assets, liabilities, and income? Why should they logically be denied the protections and benefits under the law that others involved in identical relationships are afforded by government? The fact that they are genetically related has no relevance to their financial situation.

I would also argue that three or more people can also merge their financial assets, liabilities, and income just like two people can and they should also be afforded the identical financial protections and benefits that a couple is entitled to under the law.

The argument of "equal protection under the law" applies to the individual. It doesn't matter if they are involved with a person of the same gender, or a close family member, or more than one other member. It isn't the "relationship" that is protected under the Constitution but instead it's the "Person" who's Rights are protected and are being violated because the "State" imposes prohitions based upon the "relationship" they're involved in. .

 

I call what you describe above, a form of humility. It's good.

And I think as long as you/I work with people to help them (for the most part), it cannot be so wrong.

I'm not hostile to religious beliefs or practices which do not infringe upon the freedoms or liberties of others (I have some of my own).

But imposing one's beliefs or religion-based morals upon others (via force/law)... is something I'll always fight against 'directly'.

 

Yes well I won't say that you're entirely wrong but the implications for marriage and who can marry who go well beyond the issues of property and other financial considerations. I have posted extensively about that but I am not going to repost it here because the subject is way off topic. Why don't you start a thread on the topic and I'll join you there. I'm still trying to get my head around your post on immigration. Yet another topic

 

In truth addressing polygamy and incestuous marriage has the same fundamental criteria that same-sex marriage addresses.

As we know based upon the dissolution of marriage (i.e. divorce) the Courts really only address the issue of "property" as even the children are fundamentally treated as "property" of the parents. Custody is awared (i.e. ownership) and financial obligations (i.e. child support) is addressed by the Divorce Court Judge. That is why "contract law" is applicable to divorce and provide the argument that we should abolish the "marriage" laws and address "marriage" as a simple matter of contract law which is non-discriminatory.

There are no situations that exist in opposite-sex marriage of interest to the government that are not applicable to same-sex marriage, polygamy, or incestous marriage. All can be raising children or not for example. All typically involve joint financial assets, liabilities, income, taxes, and other financial interests of those involved. All of them establish a commited voluntary relationship between adults that the Courts have stated is a benefit to society as a whole. There is fundamentally no difference between any of these forms of marriage.

 

One of the greatest attributes of a Political Forum is that it challenges us to address our own political beliefs if we let it. If we listen to the arguments of others either we can dispute them based upon knowledge (and citations) or we can ignore them remaining a bigot based upon ignorance, or we can do the research necessary to support and/or change our own beliefs. We can learn from others and share our knowledge with others or we can simply remain ignorant bigots and argue points that lack foundation based upon knowledge.

Those that learn are the ones that benefit from the discourse on a political forum.