Loading
ironhead Libertarian
Saint Louis, Missouri US
110 news,
5 videos,
2 blog posts,
1185 comments,
33 forum posts
Recently Submitted News
Killa from Wasilla ROCKS on Dennis Miller
Reaganite - Great interview of the Arctic Fox on the Dennis Miller Show today- all conservatives really need to...
4 commentsSpecial counsel to investigate ACORN
Breitbart's BigGovernment - It will be smashed like the Black Panthers voter case "The NEW America
Obama to the Troops:You guys make a pretty good photo opt'.
Washington Post - It's all about the show.
SEIU leader who threatened Boy Scout quits
Michelle Malkin - SEIU SUCKS
Obama accused of doing favors for ally
The Hill - He's from Chicago and a Community organizer. Any questions?
How ACORN Profits from New York’s Eminent Domain Abuse
Breitbart's BigGovernment - Last month, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments in the case of Goldstein v.
- 3 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
hepsy 2 weeks ago
Reply to ironhead
No, the problem is that the democratic process should have nothing to do with natural rights. The ri … Show full comment
No, the problem is that the democratic process should have nothing to do with natural rights. The ri … Show full comment
You said, "All hail the State, the great protector of our sacred institution of marriage."
You say you would have government (state) removed from marriage, yet you would dissolve a marriage via courts, an action of state.
The state cannot take away what was bestowed by a higher power.
Perhaps for different reason than you, I say government (collective rule or oligarchy power) has no business in marriage, as it has no business in many things it usurps power over.
When the rite of marriage was removed from the Church and became a government rite, and the religion of it denied, anything sacred in marriage became a rare find. Government is (rightly) not concerned about infidelity, divorce or the sacraments of marriage, so it (government) has the privilege of licensing and collecting fees while bearing no responsiblity in it (marriage).
Government can not "make holy" (make sacred) any thing, so it taints marriage with its laws.
It's my guess, and I could be wrong, that your view of marriage is secular, removed from the tenets that US marriage law sprang from.
What's sacred about the institution of marriage is the part that isn't licensed by secular law.
Mobocracy is unlikely the means to anything good, but it is what is. Statism is neither the cause of all problems, nor is its absence the cure. No measure of altruism will cause people to be other than they are.
When marriage law is re-written that a marriage be between two consenting adults, the plea for the natural rights of a father to marry his prepubescent daughter, three men or group of five assorted gender to marry, or the man who would have his goat by his side, for better or for worse, will soon follow.
Before dismissing it as ridiculous, know that it happens already.
A state-issued marriage license is not required for a couple to have a wedding ceremony.
Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison, vous et moi tous les deux.
ironhead (Libertarian) - 2 weeks ago
Reply to hepsy
Gay Marriage is the victim of a conundrum eked out in democratic process. People's votes say they … Show full comment
Gay Marriage is the victim of a conundrum eked out in democratic process. People's votes say they … Show full comment
No, the problem is that the democratic process should have nothing to do with natural rights. The right of contract, the right to live one s life as they would wish (marry whom they wish) are among these rights. The ideal would be to have the state removed from marriage, save for enforcing contracts and dissolution of marriage via the courts. Marriages involving consensual adults do not violate anyone's rights. Banning gay marriage effectively amounts to making gay marriage a victimless crime.
This is majoritarian tyranny. All hail the State, the great protector of our sacred institution of marriage.
hepsy 2 weeks ago
Gay Marriage is the victim of a conundrum eked out in democratic process.
People's votes say they want the simplicity of Marriage uncomplicated by gay marriage and the other special considerations that are to sure follow.
The voters say to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Problem is, Marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be, not as sacred as it's wanted to be and the proof of both is in the rampant infidelity, divorce and re-marriage with the married thinking "I'm in love!" but not knowing what they signed up for.
Who adheres to, 'until death do we part' or its nicer phraseology, 'as long as we both shall love'?
Undiscriminating pseudo-equality?
Fools rush in...
1 - 3 / 3
SPREAD THE WORD