If I may be so bold, if you really want to know what libertarians think of this, I would suggest the Cato institute.
In fact, they wrote a nice piece on the ruling, and on the law.
The law was stupid, and it was good being tossed out. Government has no real business regulating marriage at all, except as a function of an agreement between two parties (or more) similar to a business contract, and that all the "specialness" of marriage should be left to religious (or other) institutions.
And an FYI, the judge ruling was actually appointed by Reagan (one of the most conservative presidents in recent history), and passed by a Democratic congress. In a rather delicious bout of irony, the appointment of said judge was opposed by such people as Pelosi and Lambda Legal.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#53
Aug 04 2010 at 7:29 PM
gbaji wrote:
Let me give you a hint: It's not because they think gay couples should have those benefits. They don't think *anyone* should have them.
Look at that! Equal treatment for everybody!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#54
Aug 04 2010 at 8:10 PM
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let me give you a hint: It's not because they think gay couples should have those benefits. They don't think *anyone* should have them.
Look at that! Equal treatment for everybody!
Yes. Exactly. I never denied that. What I'm arguing against is the absurd position that libertarians support this because they want to provide gay couples with state funded benefits.
They support this because they don't want state funded benefits for anyone. And I don't fundamentally disagree with them on that issue. My problem is that as long as government is in the business of funding any social programs which have an impact on family choices (like marriage), it's silly to only address one of them. I think that the libertarian leaders are taking a popular way out while ignoring the larger issue. Welfare spending for single mothers and their children is a fish 100 times larger than the marriage benefits. But it's easier to go with the flow in this one, appear to be congenial and get their larger message out.
I personally think it's a mistake in a broader "small government" position, but I'm also not those guys. I'm not a leader of a libertarian organization, who's going to be publicly held accountable for his statements, with all the ramifications that brings. I'm also not aware of what internal membership and platform issues these guys have to deal with. I'm free to speak my mind. When I say something, I represent just myself. To what degree that modifies what a libertarian leader might think is up to you.
Um... But I can quote a libertarian position on gay marriage as well. They don't all agree with each other either, so why the hell are you bashing me for the same damn thing?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55
Aug 04 2010 at 8:18 PM
Keylin wrote:
The law was stupid, and it was good being tossed out. Government has no real business regulating marriage at all, except as a function of an agreement between two parties (or more) similar to a business contract, and that all the "specialness" of marriage should be left to religious (or other) institutions.
I agree. But as long as the government already funds social programs which affect decisions like marriage, and ultimately affect the rest of us who have to pay the taxes to pay for those programs, then we're kinda stuck in a "take the option that is the least worst" position.
If the same libertarians praising gay marriage will condemn just as loudly and in the same context things like the EITC and welfare aid for single mothers, then I'll join them in their position. But they don't do that. They stay quiet on what should be the larger issues for them in order to remain "popular".
Which is one of the reasons I don't associate myself as a libertarian. It's not the ideology, but the politics. The Republicans aren't perfect either, but at least they acknowledge the political realities which affect their public positions. The libertarians pretend to be absolutists, but manage to chicken out when there's popularity on the line. I can't blame them though, they're the third fiddle, so they kinda have to...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57
Aug 04 2010 at 8:37 PM
ThiefX wrote:
What I'm saying is when the case involves something the Judge has a personal interest in...
Who is to say he has a personal interest in it? Has he ever expressed a desire to marry? Has he been an advocate for it? Do you just assume that since he's homosexual you can predict how he feels about any gay issue and then tell us that he's unable to rule fairly?
How is this different from assuming for a woman how she'll deal with women's issues? Is your only defense really to say "No, I didn't mean that and shame on you!" when it's obvious that it's exactly what you meant?
Nice try though. I'm sure you fooled... someone?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58
Aug 04 2010 at 8:47 PM
Quote:
How is this different from assuming for a woman how she'll deal with women's issues?
Well, apparently women shouldn't rule on issues affecting women. Never mind that that's nearly all of them.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#59
Aug 04 2010 at 8:52 PM
Well then, middle-aged white men should not be allowed to make rulings that might affect middle-aged white men.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#60
Aug 04 2010 at 9:17 PM
Quote:
Sadly, I doubt we'll be able to do that, so we'll be stuck with the bad and none of the good.
Quote:
Because at that point, the floodgates are opened, and the whole point of the benefits ceases to exist. The problem for me is that I can see why those benefits are needed.
Edited, Aug 4th 2010 10:20pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61ThiefX,
Posted: Aug 04 2010 at 9:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're absolutely right Joph we have no reason to believe that a Homosexual Judge who lives in and works in one of the most liberal parts of the state where the over whelming majority of the people were against prop 8 and is in charge of deciding the outcome of a proposition that if upheld would mean that he or the very least the people he is around the most friends, family, neighbors what they believe is wrong.
#62
Aug 04 2010 at 9:38 PM
ThiefX wrote:
You're absolutely right Joph
Quote:
we have no reason to believe that a Homosexual Judge who lives in and works in one of the most liberal parts of the state where the over whelming majority of the people were against prop 8 and is in charge of deciding the outcome of a proposition that if upheld would mean that he or the very least the people he is around the most friends, family, neighbors what they believe is wrong.
Yeah we have no reason at all to believe why he couldn't be impartial..........
Yeah we have no reason at all to believe why he couldn't be impartial..........
Thanks for proving how right I was. You didn't have to go all out like that.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63
Aug 04 2010 at 10:02 PM
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
Who is to say he has a personal interest in it? Has he ever expressed a desire to marry? Has he been an advocate for it? Do you just assume that since he's homosexual you can predict how he feels about any gay issue and then tell us that he's unable to rule fairly?
How is this different from assuming for a woman how she'll deal with women's issues? Is your only defense really to say "No, I didn't mean that and shame on you!" when it's obvious that it's exactly what you meant?
How is this different from assuming for a woman how she'll deal with women's issues? Is your only defense really to say "No, I didn't mean that and shame on you!" when it's obvious that it's exactly what you meant?
You're absolutely right Joph we have no reason to believe that a Homosexual Judge who lives in and works in one of the most liberal parts of the state where the over whelming majority of the people were against prop 8 and is in charge of deciding the outcome of a proposition that if upheld would mean that he or the very least the people he is around the most friends, family, neighbors what they believe is wrong.
Yeah we have no reason at all to believe why he couldn't be impartial..........
In that case, I see no reason why a heterosexual judge could be impartial.
#64
Aug 04 2010 at 11:29 PM
Quote:
Right, you just parrot their rhetoric when you think it'll give you an edge, most liberals not being used to facing idiot idealism from the other side. Catches the grubby little buggers off-guard. Remember that fishing PDF you posted? You know, society as played by cavemen.
Hi-larious.
Hi-larious.
I remember that. It was intensely funny.
Just as Planned.
#65
Aug 04 2010 at 11:35 PM
Quote:
Yes. Exactly. I never denied that. What I'm arguing against is the absurd position that libertarians support this because they want to provide gay couples with state funded benefits.
They support this because they don't want state funded benefits for anyone. And I don't fundamentally disagree with them on that issue. My problem is that as long as government is in the business of funding any social programs which have an impact on family choices (like marriage), it's silly to only address one of them. I think that the libertarian leaders are taking a popular way out while ignoring the larger issue. Welfare spending for single mothers and their children is a fish 100 times larger than the marriage benefits. But it's easier to go with the flow in this one, appear to be congenial and get their larger message out.
I personally think it's a mistake in a broader "small government" position, but I'm also not those guys. I'm not a leader of a libertarian organization, who's going to be publicly held accountable for his statements, with all the ramifications that brings. I'm also not aware of what internal membership and platform issues these guys have to deal with. I'm free to speak my mind. When I say something, I represent just myself. To what degree that modifies what a libertarian leader might think is up to you.
Um... But I can quote a libertarian position on gay marriage as well. They don't all agree with each other either, so why the hell are you bashing me for the same damn thing?
Hint: It's because Libertarians prefer the smaller financial infringement of personal choice that is brought on my marriage benefits for a rather small subsection of the populous rather than the larger social infringement of personal choice that is brought on by designating specific gender relationships in a marriage.
Just as Planned.
#67
Aug 05 2010 at 8:26 AM
ThiefX wrote:
I'm implying no such thing. (And its a damn shame that liberals can't have an argument without always trying to imply its has to be some kind of bigotry)
Unless you're arguing for equal rights for all, or no rights for anyone, equally, you are being a bigot.
#68
Aug 05 2010 at 8:29 AM
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Because the homosexual community cares so much about the will of the people. 
This is going to be a big issue come Nov. It's going to be funny watching the Democrats run like scared children.
H*ll Obama comes to town and Democrats scatter like the cockroaches they are.
This is going to be a big issue come Nov. It's going to be funny watching the Democrats run like scared children.
H*ll Obama comes to town and Democrats scatter like the cockroaches they are.
Until you can sit at the big boy table and discuss issues without bring up your favorite scape goat, shut up.
#69
Aug 05 2010 at 8:34 AM
I think Varus has cried about Obama during his short term, than everyone on this board combined did about Bush in his 8 years. Quite a feat to be honest.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#70
Aug 05 2010 at 8:36 AM
Regardless of the outcome, I can't wait until the Nov. Elections are over.
#73
Aug 05 2010 at 10:18 AM
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ugly,
Thinking was never your strong point.
The personal political preference of this one judge overturns the will of 7 million.
Thinking was never your strong point.
The personal political preference of this one judge overturns the will of 7 million.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#74
Aug 05 2010 at 10:18 AM
The sad thing is, only about half of those 7 million people actually cared one way or another. Most of them voted Yes to Prop 8 because they were told to by a pastor or someone from out of state scare-mongering them, and they didn't even really investigate what the issue would actually mean.
So the ruling overtuned the will of maybe 3.5 million people, and probably allowed the other 3.5 million to feel a little less guilty for voting to strip rights from a minority simply because someone else told them to.
So the ruling overtuned the will of maybe 3.5 million people, and probably allowed the other 3.5 million to feel a little less guilty for voting to strip rights from a minority simply because someone else told them to.
#75
Aug 05 2010 at 10:37 AM
Honestly, if the will of eleventy-bajillion people is unconstitutional, then the proposition should be overturned. I'm not even talking about this guy since I know this will go to the SCotUS, but if yesterday's ruling is upheld there it won't be "going against the will of the people", it's telling the people that what they "will" happens to go against the Constitution. Which means, barring an amendment, those people are shit outta luck.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76
Aug 05 2010 at 10:42 AM
I'm sure overturning slavery, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights act all had similar large portions of the populace against them.
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 413
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (413)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC