42 votes

From George Takei's blog

Sounds sorta Libertarian to me.

September 5, 2012
by George Takei

It’s no surprise that I’m a Democrat. I’m a gay man, I got married to my husband Brad, and I don’t particularly like being told my marriage should be invalidated because I don’t have the same rights as other people. But mind you, I don’t forget that it was a Democratic President (FDR) who abused his power 70 years ago and put my family and me in an internment camp without charge, trial or cause. Now that was Big Government at its very worst. So I am leery of excessive government power or control of any kind.

That’s why I want to take a moment here to talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room: To ask why the GOP has allowed itself to be hijacked by extremists who aren’t Republican at all.

At their core, Republicans are for smaller government. That means LESS governmental intrusion into our lives, our affairs, our money. Consistently applied, this is a sound and important philosophy that acts as a counterweight to wasteful government spending, excessive taxation, and Big Brother intrusiveness. It is a “live and let live” attitude. Good people may disagree respectfully whether more or less government is needed in areas such as healthcare and education, whether a larger military or more international intervention is needed, and whether we should cut taxes on the wealthy or raise them. I personally can completely understand the economic rationales behind the GOP platform, even if I don’t think we should retry them right now.

What I simply can’t understand is why the GOP ignores the gorilla in their tent when it comes to social issues. For a party that prides itself on less government intrusion, it sure seems busy these days telling women and LGBT persons what they can and cannot do.

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/gorilla-their-midst

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Related content of a humorous

Related content of a humorous nature - http://www.wipeouthomophobia.com/hatemailreplies.htm

Sorry...

But I had to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szS3SJDaBGc

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Oh how far we have come off the rails

Like most crazy things in our lives - the marriage license as we know it today has only been around since the early 1900's- you know - about that time big governmnet was just starting to get a foot hold.

What is marriage? Today it is nothing more than a simple contract between two people AND the governement. It means you file taxes together, property is shared(to make sure the government gets all of it in the end), one has the power to make decisions for the other(cases of medical emergency) and yet not without the other(pretty much anything else). It is no different than signing a lease - it is an agreement of legalities.

Why do people even bother? Well - for some(like George) it is because they are told thay can't. But really - can't he. I mean - just go to a lawyer and they can draw up all the same paperwork to give the same "rights" to your partner as a wife or husband AND you will probably have an easier time with taxes. You can wear your rings and even say you are married. WHAT would be different??

I say we ALL stop getting marriage licenses - that would be the first step for EVERYONE to shrink government. If your priest won't marry you without one - then I suggest you get another priest because he is no disciple of Jesus.

I'm not impressed

with GT's arguments here. He covers two social issue topics in his blog: homosexual marriage and abortion. He doesn't seem be aware of the contradiction in his argument for homosexual marriage. First he says Republicans are for smaller government and finds the government restriction on homosexual pairs from being considered for a marriage license as intrusive. Yet, he wants the government, he decries as intrusive, to recognize his partnership with another man as a marriage.
His approach to the problem appears to be "recognize homosexual marriage officially and mind your own business." Am I the only one to see an inconsistency here? How about, get government out of my personal relationships and yours too? But, it really isn't about who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, is it? It is about taxes and benefits that relate to married couples.
Homosexuals are not the only people restricted by government from becoming married. Close relatives cannot marry. Groups greater than two cannot marry. Why not, if love between, or among, people is what it is all about? How does one test for that? I say, get rid of government licensing and restrict it to government record keeping. Better yet, create an NGO to keep the records.
As for abortion, the question is not about a woman's right to choose, it is about a baby's right to live. Do the legal protections granted to other human beings include the unborn? Again, GT is rather inconsistent: The superfluous "right" to have a personal relationship be recognized by an intrusive government should be broadened to include homosexual pairs, while the basic right to life should remain denied to children prior to their birth.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Very good points -

I don't care about gay marriage one way or another - but I always ask the question you asked - where is the line drawn. If you can marry another man - why can't I marry my sister(in reality I have no sisters so this is not at all creepy to me)? Why not my cousin etc. etc.

My other problem with it is simple - it NEVER stays at home - it will and is already making its way into our schools to teach MY child that my beliefs do not matter - only what the government believes. Of course - if only the government wasn't involved with education -then - oh forget it - that rabbit hole is too big.

Very good point on your part!

Very good point on your part! It seems so many times that homosexuals care little about govt. intrusion in anything other than telling them they can't marry. Whatever happened to liberty as a whole???

I see his point, but the

I see his point, but the platform states that for family values, it has been proven that children do better when raised in a household with a regular mom and dad. Seems like a fact, though I do not know. The platform also stated dignity and respect should be afforded to ALL Americans. It is not horrible. I do agree that there is little validity in licensing anyone for marriage, and churches should resolve that issue on their own.

ignorance

define "family" for a gay couple, thats a family... There have been so many abusive relationships with "regular" mom and dad families... Point is, if you believe in freedom, this is absurd. However, youa re right in that there is no Constitutional authority to license any marriage on a Federal level, so the states should decide... still, philosophically, its bs to say they have less rights because of who they f**k

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

I just saw George

He was starring with Patty Duke in a Star Trek take off, at the Social Security Office, promoting benifits for everyone.

abolish marriage license

Nothing good results from getting a government license to simply exercise your natural rights.

Cyril's picture

Meh. Of course gay people

Meh.

Of course gay people ought to be left alone and not oppressed by anybody or anything.

But government isn't supposed to defend their NATURAL rights MORE than other individuals, either. Or to grant them special favors (e.g., via specific laws).

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Period.

How do you change society for it to be more tolerant and/or more fair ? Certainly not by many more laws made by bigger and bigger government.

From my point of view being gay should be MUCH, MUCH MORE ANECDOTICAL. I mean, like ... the color of one's hair, that's all.

Or what did I miss ? What's so special about it ?

Group thinking and opposing and picking and choosing what to grant, and to whom (and for how much...) has done WAY TOO MUCH HARM already. Enough is enough.

The INDIVIDUAL be RESTORED, damn it !

Not some idiotic "administrative label" that a bureaucrat will have to acknowledge on the Form AB-GFR/9-XYZ for you "not to worry" as an "offically protected gay, now". Yeah right.

Again : the Bill of Rights first and foremost.

Anyway, like I always (used to) say (when younger) :

Gay dudes around are a blessing to heterosexual single men : more girls to meet on the free market !

That's my point for heteros and LGBT to live together FRUITFULLY. Their differences ARE THEIR ASSETS on a free market (for singles, anyway) !

"Just" teasing. :P

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I don't see any 800-lb. gorilla in the room

First, it makes no sense to say that "at their core" Republicans are for smaller government, unless he means "as compared to communism." No matter who is president or who has the majority in Congress, the federal government has kept growing. That's why there is a tea party.

Also, while vote-wise, the country is mostly split between Democrat and Republican, i.e, split in two - because it's a two-party system, in reality, based on what they actually believe, people can't be categorized that way. And included within both parties, though more within the Republican Party, are conservatives, which is how I tend to regard myself. In general, I don't see that "moving forward" is necessarily good: it would all depend on where you were headed - and how well you could predict the ultimate consequence of the change. As the native-Americans say, we should consider the consequences to the Seventh Generation. A fantastic book where technology is concerned (we're quick to adopt whatever the newest invention is) is "Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology," by Eric Brend, amazingly, an M.I.T. alum. For his thesis, he and his wife lived within an Amish-type community for a year and a half.

In this case, the issue has to do with family. The family unit is what's at the real core of society. Not in communist China under Mao nor on kibbutzim in Israel, but in America the traditional family has been a mother, father, and children. It's not "the individual" except in an ideal sense on account of... children, who remain dependents until they come of age. That's not just been the traditional unit & means of providing for people's needs (society's needs) in the recent past, but historically. "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at most, minimal and gradual change in society." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Look what happened with the feminist agenda in the 70's. It certainly sounded good. It also appeared to be the moral stance to take. But as I've written elsewhere, it began as women (most women) having a choice of whether they wished to remain at home in a capacity as homemaker and to raise the family's children. It certainly didn't take long for that to change to: "What's a smart woman like you doing at home?" It happened in the blink of an eye. And here's one of the "unintended consequences." (I mean besides helping to drive up the cost of homes across the country once HH income increased - a matter of supply and demand.) We ended up with a generation of "home alone" children. (It's textbook fare that such children, regardless of urban/suburban, divorce situation/married parents, or income level, are in the "at risk" category of learning. There are multiple reasons why.)

It was bad timing for "progress." Concurrently, progressives (also) took control in universities, namely (to this point), schools of education. So at the same time that we provided children with a different breed of teacher in school, we provided them with less support and guidance at home, with both direct and indirect consequences to education. The upshot is that, thanks to those two changes since the 70's, academic achievement levels have fallen across the board. We've gone from being exceptional in the area of math & science (for one) to the BOTTOM OF THE BARREL. (The United States is now something like 26th among 29 industrialized nations in math, with equally dismal standing in science and "language arts.") Americans didn't just "turn stupid" over so short a time. There was a fundamental change in the traditional family. It happened too fast. It happened with no one thinking ahead as to how "just" social changes could so change the entire fabric of the nation. It's politically incorrect to discuss the issue of (so-called) "working women." (Women worked then and now, just in different capacities.) And so it's all blamed on schools. Regardless, the situation is so dire, it's become an issue of national security. (I called it years ago. This is only one source finally acknowledging it. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-nationa....)

I can appreciate different opinions on the issue. In any event, that's why I'm "conservative" - in favor of minimum and gradual change in society. Earlier in our history, another change happened overnight, in 1913. Too bad we didn't consider the consequence to the seventh generation there, too.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Kathleen Gee's picture

The important part of the article is the COMMENT SECTION

....Where Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party people, Libertarians and everybody else does a remarkable job of respecting each other and demonstrating that normal Americans have far more in common with each there than with the thugs who run the DNC and the RNC.

I think the comment section is a microcosm of America...it gives me a huge amount of hope, actually.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

As If Being a Tax Makes Obamacare Okay

Taxation is theft.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Takei, I fought for your

Takei, I fought for your right to marry who you choose at the convention, and sought to nominate a president who would defend your rights.

But that 800 lb gorilla just ignored me while a teleprompter told him the Ayes have it.

Classic

Too bad George didn't bother to pay attention.

Joη's picture

not being figurative, FDR put his family in an internment camp!

I did not know this about him & his family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

reedr3v's picture

Good video. This is the sort of material that

would be in a good history class.

reedr3v's picture

Thanks for the addition

.

,,,

For the most part I agree with his point, big government is not good.
However, I disagree that he doesn't have the same rights as any body else. Technically he doesn't have less rights, he has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like anybody else does. Before you get all emotional on me, just consider that point, and realize that I don't intend to be offensive towards gay people. Another point is that there is no way to determine if someone is gay other than self identification, so it makes no sense to treat them as a privileged class of people with minority status. Ron Paul would have government get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches and people to call their relationships what they want, and I don't think he wants the government to force people to approve of 'gay marriage' either.

http://equallywed.com/gay-wed

http://equallywed.com/gay-wedding-planning/legal-advice-for-...

Gay married couples do not currently have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple in many states.

single

and asexual people have no privileges at all. Those benefits they are all upset about is concerning the encouragement to procreate. Something homosexuals and asexual people don't do. Sure you feel the shaft, but you don't have to pay their piper either.

...

A gay man has the right to marry a woman and have all of the benefits of marriage with her. A heterosexual man will not get special privileges if he has someone pronounce him married to another man. The individuals have the exact same rights.

I've heard that one of the reasons the government grants privileges to married couples is that the natural marriage relationship produces the next generation, which is comparable to a natural resource.

You are right about the last part

The good faith and credit of the US depends upon people paying taxes - and hopefully creating more people to pay more taxes. Kinda doesn't work in a gay relationship.

And don't forget - marriage used to have nothing to do with government - it had to do with God - whichever god you may believe in. Licenses were not required until the 1930's

does a blind person have a

does a blind person have a right to be a pilot and a pilot's income?

False dichotomy

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Ask any single unwed mother. Marriage is a social contract that you will provide for each other and for the family you create and not necessarily via procreation. There are more children awaiting adoption than parents seeking adoption. Lesbian couples can get artificial insemination done. Marriage is about family no matter the shape that family takes. Man + Man = Family, Woman + Woman = Family, Man + Woman = Family. Woman + Deadbeat abusive Father of her Child ≠ Family. Add a child to any of those families listed and the family grows. Family doesn't begin with a child, it begins with two individuals who care more about each other than they do for themselves.

The government has no place in deciding what is and isn't a family.

P.S. Pregnancy produces the next generation, not marriage. If your getting married just to procreate, "Your doing it wrong."

wrong, "natural" marriage relationship

The fact that there are anomalies does not negate the fact that the natural marriage relationship is what produces the next generation. I also said it was only 'one' of the factors. But to say that it has 'nothing' to do with procreation makes no sense. In the wedding vows, there is usually something about procreation in there.

Aside from that, I think that classically, 'proper' consummation of marriage involves something physical which artificial methods don't achieve. Which is why someone who was impotent would say that they could never be 'properly' married. Why someone gets married is irrelevant to whether or not someone is married.

Your definition of family seems arbitrary and based more on emotion than facts. The term family carries the affect of the feelings you invoke because they are usually the result of family relationships, but classically, they are not entailed. The government shouldn't be involved in new-speak.

Pregnancy outside of marriage is by definition what produces 'illegitimate' offspring. It's an anomaly. Single parent families are a sort of defect(not that the people in them are less valuable); it's what happens when things don't work out in an ideal manner, so they can't be viewed as the norm of what produces the next generation. As a rule, proper marriage produces the next generation.

How do you equate those two scenarios?

A gay man does not have the right to marry someone he chooses out of love to be able to gain the same privileges as a straight man marrying the person that he loves.

That is the difference. Don't you see that? Is marriage not about love to you? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm genuinely asking.

Love thy enemy.

equivocation.

I think you are equivocating with the term 'marriage' here.. There is a distinction between gay unions and marriage. Man/animal unions are also not considered the same thing as proper marriage. When marriage is something in particular, it can't be redefined to satisfy peoples emotions. My point was that people have the same rights. A gay person has the same rights as a straight person with regard to marriage as it's classically defined; a straight person would have the same issues as a gay person if they had a gay union with someone. Your equivocation seems like new speak.

Regarding love, technically I don't think love is a prerequisite for marriage, since arranged marriages often started without love. I think love should be a part of marriage though.. I think that the marriage commitment involves a commitment to love, even when the spouse might be considered unlovable, but I don't see love as the same thing as lust.

On a side note, some think that true love is not found in gay unions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-Bdcd8cZ0