Chick-fil-a

[makattak]

OK... so i take it you have no issue with states legalizing gay marriage?

It is within their power to do so. I am opposed to it, but that is their perogative. I am opposed to using that in order to force other states into their choices, though. (Which is why I support DOMA.)

[BlueStarLizzard]

It's not marriage. However, your side wants to force me to treat it as such.

I always find these threads amusing as I get to see the Coercive Libertarians go nuts. And I'll be sure to note who "blows their tops" in this thread.

To people, make a life long commitment to one another, in a romantic setting, vows, intending to become a family unit (as sociologically defined, which does not nessasarly include children)

The only diffrence between your defination and mine is it must be male/female and involve god. And I don't beleive the god part, or the male/female part, along with a gazillion other people... So...

Gay couples can and do raise children just dandy, and hetro couples get devoirced and mess up kids left and right, so your arguement that only hetro couples provide a stable home envirnment holds no weight.

(see fitz, next he'll come up with more examples of why homo couples are bad, which are rediculous since hetro couples do the same thing, and you call him on it, and he just goes back to "HAZ TO BE MAN AND WOMEN!!". Its very predictable)

[Balog]

Isn't it odd that the thing libertarians claim they want (fed.gov out of the marriage regulating bidness) is never what they actually lobby for (fed.gov more involved in the marriage regulating bidness)? When you say you want something then lobby for its polar opposite it always strikes me as a mite odd.

I also note the opposition to laws that extend the exact same legal benefits as marriage, but do not refer to it as "marriage." Gives the lie to the "We just want to be treated equally" crowd. The intent of gay marriage laws is use of .gov force to compel a social change. Witness the Canadian pastor jailed for "hate speech" after taking out a newspaper ad qouting Bible verses stating homosexuality is morally wrong. Witness the lawsuits against photographers who don't want to shoot a gay ceremony and etc.

[red headed stranger]

One of the reasons for civil marriage was as a means of recognizing marriages that churches would not (Interfaith, Interracial).

I find it ironic that now that there are some fairly mainstream denominations that will perform same-sex ceremonies, it is the government that has the tighter restriction on marriage criteria.  

In this day and age, the concept of a marriage license (iow: permission slip) seems positively medieval.  

[makattak]

To people, make a life long commitment to one another, in a romantic setting, vows, intending to become a family unit (as sociologically defined, which does not nessasarly include children)

Why must it be a romantic setting? I thought this was about governmental benefits?

The only diffrence between your defination and mine is it must be male/female and involve god. And I don't beleive the god part, or the male/female part, along with a gazillion other people... So...

Actually, no. My defitition is the government recognizes a male+female relationship because it wants to encourage the procreation and support of the next generation for the continued existence of the state. Privately you can call your relationships whatver you want. Privately, you can declare yourself King. Just don't expect me to kneel.

Gay couples can and do raise children just dandy, and hetro couples get devoirced and mess up kids left and right, so your arguement that only hetro couples provide a stable home envirnment holds no weight.

Beautiful strawman. What part of "best environment for the raising of children" means "only possible way to raise children"? Children are raised "just dandy" in lots of different environments: one mother, one father, their grandparents, one grandparent, foster homes, seperated parents, widowed parents, etc... That doesn't change what the best environment is.

(see fitz, next he'll come up with more examples of why homo couples are bad, which are rediculous since hetro couples do the same thing, and you call him on it, and he just goes back to "HAZ TO BE MAN AND WOMEN!!". Its very predictable)

I'm glad I'm predictable. I'll be waiting for your meltdown, though.

[Fitz]

Actually, me and mak agree more than he might think. right up until supporting DOMA.


Wouldn't DOMA force the states NOT to be able to make their own choice regarding gay marriage?

[makattak]

Actually, me and mak agree more than he might think. right up until supporting DOMA.


Wouldn't DOMA force the states NOT to be able to make their own choice regarding gay marriage?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The italicized portion is the important portion to me. It does not prevent state's from making their own formulation, but prevents California Massachusettes from making the decision for all other states.

[dogmush]

Actually, no. My defitition is the government recognizes a male+female relationship because it wants to encourage the procreation and support of the next generation for the continued existence of the state. Privately you can call your relationships whatver you want. Privately, you can declare yourself King. Just don't expect me to kneel.

The government provides special benefits to married couples because we want to encourage a certain family structure. Man+Woman+childen is a stable structure for the benefit of society because progeny are best raised in a stable environment of that nature.

Question:

Honest question, not Snark.  I'm genuinely interested in your view.

My wife and I (Hetero couple, legally married just to cover the bases) aren't going to have children.  We don't want them, and take active, redundant measures to preclude conception.  No kids in this family.

In your opinion should we get the government benefits put in place to encourage Man+Woman+Child family?  There is no possibility of the societal benefit they were designed to promote.  

[BlueStarLizzard]

*chuckle*

Matt, I hate to tell you this but there is no "best possible way to raise children". Kids arn't generic do not come with a easy to assemble instruction guide.

Look, federal government has a few, needed uses. One is to define basic status and rights for all U.S. Citizens.
When it comes to universal status defination, I think marriage (being the most basic, and I don't give a flying crap what it's called legally, civil union, marriage, marriage reconized by gov.) is one of those things.
You get married, anywhere in the country and you are married, anywhere in the country. Everyone has the right to get married, or not, to any other consenting adult, anywhere.

It's like a DL. It would be a real bitch to have to get one for each state you had to drive in.

Mind, being of libertarian leanings does not equal no federal government. I, personally, think the federal government has its paws in a lot of crap it shouldn't be involved with, while in the meantime, is totally slacking on the things it's supposed to be doing.

(and fitz, you're no fun  )

[Fitz]

The italicized portion is the important portion to me. It does not prevent state's from making their own formulation, but prevents California Massachusettes from making the decision for all other states.

Edit. Just read it again...


Basically, that law throws "full faith and credit" out the window, IMHO.

I'm fine with the idea of "we can't force states to legalize gay marriage"

I'm not so fine with "we will ensure that states don't have to obey the whole full faith and credit thing."

[makattak]

Question:

Honest question, not Snark.  I'm genuinely interested in your view.

My wife and I (Hetero couple, legally married just to cover the bases) aren't going to have children.  We don't want them, and take active, redundant measures to preclude conception.  No kids in this family.

In your opinion should we get the government benefits put in place to encourage Man+Woman+Child family?  There is no possibility of the societal benefit they were designed to promote.  

Yes, but only because of the invasion of privacy necessary to ascertain that whether you deserve those benefits.

[makattak]

Edit. Just read it again...


Basically, that law throws "full faith and credit" out the window, IMHO.

I'm fine with the idea of "we can't force states to legalize gay marriage"

I'm not so fine with "we will ensure that states don't have to obey the whole full faith and credit thing."

They do, the clause reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Congress gets to decide just how far the "full faith and credit" clause goes. It has with DOMA.

[Fitz]

They do, the clause reads:

Congress gets to decide just how far the "full faith and credit" clause goes. It has with DOMA.

Well, then i guess I stand corrected. I still don't like it, but it passes the constitutional test.


That said, back to the point of the thread, I will continue to go to Chick-Fil-A, because the people that actually own the restaurants probably don't care one way or the other, they're just trying to put food on the table, so to speak.

Be it known that on this day, Fitz admitted he was wrong.

[makattak]

*chuckle*

Matt, I hate to tell you this but there is no "best possible way to raise children". Kids arn't generic do not come with a easy to assemble instruction guide.

You're right. I mis-stated that. I should have said, best on average, not "best possible." Good point.

As for the rest, I have disagree. If you want the special privelages that one state offers, you should stay in that state. I like the laboratories of democracy idea.

I assume Covenental Marriages don't have any special protections aside from the states in which they are granted in the same way Homesexual "married" couples don't get any special protections outside of the states in which they are granted.

[Fitz]

You're right. I mis-stated that. I should have said, best on average, not "best possible." Good point.

As for the rest, I have disagree. If you want the special privelages that one state offers, you should stay in that state. I like the laboratories of democracy idea.

I assume Covenental Marriages don't have any special protections aside from the states in which they are granted in the same way Homesexual "married" couples don't get any special protections outside of the states in which they are granted.

I would point to federal benefits as the only exception. Things like military retirements, federal health plans, etc etc.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The "anti-gay" claims are pretty weak, actually.

beyond weak
i did this on facebook with a reactionary friend. of the "zomg 2 mill!" something like 10 k can actually be claimed as being for "antigay" groups.  the folks behind this campaign are actually anti religion and also view any group that doesn't sign up as "we love gay marriage! yes we do!" as anti gay

[roo_ster]

So, as a libertarian, you are for more governmental coercion. Got it.

That is the MO for the liberaltarians.

[Fitz]

That is the MO for the liberaltarians.

That's not very fair, at all.

In fact, there's a sticky up top about things like that.

[mtnbkr]

Closed because folks can't refrain from name calling.