Comments on: More Freedom Lost: The Farcical California “Gay Marriage” Ruling

By: Derlin

Derlin — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:30:11 +0000

While I’m not happy about this decision on moral grounds, I’m more concerned that the judicial system was interpreting the constitution and preexisting laws in ways that were not intended, and then overruling a validly enacted law banning homosexual marriages.

In Maryland, My Maryland there’s been a bill passed around to eliminate marriage from the State’s jurisdiction, and replace it with a “domestic partnership”. Then religious institutions would be free to interpret marriage however they wished. In theory then, I suppose couples could obtain either, both, or neither of the statuses.

I’d be more enthusiastic about such an idea if it was genuinely driven by the desire to help people care for each other rather than to satisfy the gay marriage lobby. What’s wrong with siblings, friends, father/daughter, etc partnering together for legal benefits?

By: Byron

Byron — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:22:34 +0000

Except that I would not agree. A “purely libertarian perspective” would not, in my understanding, mean that “anything that can be legal should be legal”, which to my way of thinking one would have to say in order to justify this decision; I believe that that’s a skewed definition of libertarianism. Here’s why: a purely libertarian perspective would suggest that there should be no laws restraining behavior in this regard; i.e., no anti-sodomy laws, etc. But I do not understand such purely libertarian perspectives to entail governmental sanction of any/all such arrangements. Translated, if two homosexual men want to live together, do their thing, even go to some “church” and receive its “blessing”, so be it. But that’s not the same thing as the government redefining an institution such as marriage in order to make room for such arrangements, conferring legal standing upon those arrangements. Behavior is protected, not necessarily translated into some special legal standing, according to my understanding of libertarianism.

That make sense?

By: Don

Don — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:52:39 +0000

Okay then, let me put it another way. You have RIGHTLY concluded that a purely libertarian perspective on the issue of gay marriage does not agree with a Christian worldview, because it radically “redefines” marriage in a way that God never intended for it be. My point is that marriage isn’t the only thing that gets “redefined” when we make it legal. There are other issues in which libertarianism would be at odds with this same reasoning.

By: Byron

Byron — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:12:42 +0000

Dude,

Apparently I didn’t understand your point. I would not agree in calling it “deregulation”; that’s the rub, I think. No, of course I don’t think you agree with those folks; what on earth would make you think I thought that? Did YOU pay attention?

Use different terminology to make your point; come around the barn a different way, and maybe this thick skull will get it.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:57:46 +0000

Dude,

You don’t pay attention. First, I never said I agreed with those that assert gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone. I was merely stating a reality. Second I never said I believe gay marriage was a “right”. But when something that was previously illegal is made legal we refer to it as “deregulation”. You may choose to refer to it in different terms, but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.