Loading
ironhead Libertarian
Saint Louis, Missouri US
146 news,
7 videos,
2 blog posts,
1369 comments,
56 forum posts
Recently Submitted News
0 commentsHouse vote on the Slaughter Solution:222-203
Michelle Malkin - Constitution-butchers prevail, 222-203.Democrats plan a vote on a rule on Sunday that would make changes to the...
CNN and MSNBC Beaten By Cartoon Network In Primetime
www.mediabistro.com - Not only did the Cartoon Network beat the two most trusted names in politics,it beat them combined.
Dem Admits"If you don't tie our hands we will steal "
hotair.com - What this guyβs actually copping to is nothing less than the collapse of representative government.
The PayTeck Smart Box
USA Today - Payments are due every two weeks at Patriot. Sales staff program the first due date into the...
Obama Encounters a REAL Interview- and Doesn't Like It
Reaganite - For the first time in memory, Barack Obama was but back on his heels by a persistent...
Covering the Backsides of Obamacare-pushers?:CBO
Michelle Malkin - The poor number-crunchers have been working overtime as Speaker Pelosi and the Dems have re-jiggered and re-jiggered...
- 3 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
hepsy 5 months 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) - 5 months 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 5 months 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