5 votes

Libertarian Party is misleading about Equality Marriage

I notice some libertarians support the equality marriage because the government should be out of it. What they didn't realize is if we approved the equality marriage, the government will enforce the anti-gay people to follow the law. I would say 'No' to Equality Marriage because it is not the government's job to tell our people what to do.

I don't support the marriage license because it is the ownership by the state, you and your partner. Marriage and Marriage License are not the same thing. I don't believe we should own anyone. If you want to make a commitment or get bride, talk with your partner about it, isn't it a very simple?

Definition of ownership: the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others.

Definition of union: The action or fact of joining together or being joined together.

If you get divorced after get the marriage license, you will be robbed by lawyers/judges, the result of possessions are the loss and taxed by the state. It is all about money and law, not about you.

Don't you see it?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

That s a really big leap off

That s a really big leap off the headline you made there, sparky. To go from the entire "Libertarian Party" to just "some libertarians" in fewer than 7 words. Maybe you could edit your headline to be factual and consistent with the body of content in your article, or edit the body of content to be factual and consistent with the headline? You don't want to give the appearance of misleading people do you?

Libertarian Party 2012 Platform

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:

Some Libertarians still being

Some Libertarians still being part of the party because they are also leading the party.

I agree with you on this one but there still being loophole about the marriage license. Marriage License is created by the government and the clerks are working for the government too. Other than that, it have to be through within the banking system and again, they are part of the government system. I don't think the marriage license is any good for every citizen.

Names please?

[...because they are also leading the party.]

If they are holding leadership positions in the LP than provide names and which county/state/national committee they serve on. Some kind of reference or link to their statements would also be helpful, so I could examine their exact statements in it's entire context. If not don't sweat it, just give me their name and I can find out the rest - then I can concentrate on addressing the fundamentals of the issue you raise.


Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:

to be continued

Sorry, I havnt had time to sign-in the past couple days. Weekends are my busiest days of the week - holiday weekends are doubly busy. I glanced over these links and bookmarked them so I can check them out more thoroughly later tonight or tomorrow. I will definitely follow up this discussion with you in a day or so. Right now I have a house full of guests and distractions and not much time for comments lengthier than a few sentences at a time. I wanted you to know I'm not blowing this off.


Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:

Your arguement is based on a fallacy

The bulk of your arguement is based on your claim that marriage equility would mean "the government will enforce the anti-gay people to follow the law". That is a non sequitur:

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?)

Anti-gay people would not be effected at all, well, not in a legal or social sense. The only way "anti-gay" people would be effected is if the government forced them to marry the same gender. And that, of course, is absurd. Marriage is a contract, as as such the government (state and federal) should not be involved in who is making a contract, just enforcing it through the court system.

If you are are referring to the equally absurd notion and fear propaganda that the government will force a pastor to marry gay couples, then you are woefully misinformed. A church is a private institution and can refuse to marry anyone they want. It happens all the time, every day. The Catholic Church will not marry non-Catholics, etc... You cannot just walk up to a church and demand to get married. You can, however, be married by a judge on request - which I think makes sense. I even became "ordained" over the internet for $30 and married a couple friends. That doesn't mean I can be forced to marry two people if I refuse.

Now, if your claim that being "forced to accept" gay marriage is merely living in the same society as them, well, I can't help you. By that logic, or lack of logic, I am "forced to accept" Christianity because I live the in the most religious nation on Earth.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Do you know where to get the

Do you know where to get the marriage license? You have to apply it by through with a clerk in person. I bet some clerks will get fired for opposed the gay-marriage. In future, the requirement of clerk job positions must be gay-friendly. Is it fair? I don't think so. Marriage License shouldn't be exist, period. No thanks to the marriage license.

By the way, I am not Christian or don't go to church. Your judgement is fallacy.


I think anyone, working for the government, cannot refuse this on Constitutional grounds. First amendment - No one can be forced to follow the religious practices of others. If a clerk disagrees with the premise of equality and refuses to issue (the government extortion of) a marriage license because of his/her religious convictions, then he/she should relinquish his/her position to someone that can practice according to our, secular, legal system.

That is part of what, the real, separation of church and state, (also not declared in the constitution) applies to. A secular government would have no business in any relationship, other than enforcing a legal contract, if dissolution may happen in the future.

I am a charismatic Christian. I do understand the first amendment, as it is written. If it does not apply, then we are a theocracy, not a democratic republic! I can disagree with the behavior, all I want! It does not mean I have the right to deny it, under legal premises! Judgement about the actions of a couple, that are contrary to my religious convictions, is not acceptable as a Constitutional servant. Thing is, according to Christians, premarital sex and living together, are both sin. How many are living in just that situation as heterosexuals in today's world? Hypocrites, all of us!

Judging the homosexuals, as a Christian, is also prohibited by the Bible I read! They are the ones that will face their own judgement from God. I would not, ever, want to risk that. It does not matter, in our secular form of government. Just sayin'!


So a clerk working for a government can discriminate based on personal feelings? So, by your 'logic', a clerk could refuse to give a marriage license application to a mixed-race couple and not be fired? Hmm....I don't think that is based in a place I call "reality".

And....if we both agree that marriage licenses shouldn't exist (which I do), then why would you use that to justify a different arguement? It just plain doesn't make sense. I'm with you - no government involvement of any kind. But, how can you be FOR government preventing two people of making a marriage contract? Again, doesn't make sense.

As to the rest, first of all, I didn't "accuse" you of being Christian. Secondly, even if I did it would have nothing to do with anything. Thirdly, my "judgement" cannot be a fallacy, that claim in itself is a fallacy called "Arguement from Ignorance" (no, I'm not calling you ignorant - it is based on the lack of knowledge of something as evidence of existence). A fallacy is a string of logic that doesn't make proper causation connections, it is demonstrable, an individual judgement is not.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

oh you don't think so? You

oh you don't think so? You would be surprise to know some clerks who would do that and get fired or not. My point is we should let a local to decide, not state nor federal level. Because some towns are serious discrimination, it would lead to a crime or protest if someone want to legalize the same-sex or interracial marriage in this town. Why would you fight over this place if you are in wrong place? There have a plenty of places for you to get marry.

If people want to be in mixed, let it be. If people want to be separated, let it be. I don't believe that we should enforce anyone to do what others want. I don't believe in separation only or integration only, I believe in both as long as we wish to choose.

OK Then......

I guess individual rights don't exist....Thanks for letting me know.

Is English your second language? I'm just curious. We may be having a semantics problem.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

yes, English is my second

yes, English is my second language but my family is pro-american and I born here as US citizen. No one could figure out what is my first language. First person to answer that would get my bet to do 100 push ups in YouTube. :)

I would say the majority of

I would say the majority of people here also feel like it should be a states right... Though I personally morally believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would mean you can marry who you want.

marriage, should comes with no benefits besides the natural benefits you get. And everyone should be able to marry who they want. Without getting a tax breaks or government benefits or all the other stupid reasons some people get married today.

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Claude Frédéric Bastiat

For the benefits, We are not

For the benefits, The Bankers and Corporations are better out of the system. Money creation is the belief system that we will follow to survive but it is not. It destroyed our values and freedom.

And yet you seem to

support traditional marriage by the government.

I smell bigot.

Bottom line, Marriage is a religious union that is TAXED by the

. . . GOV. By voluntarily buying a marriage license you are subjecting your relationship to be taxed(license fees) & governed by the state laws, and entered a state-created legally binding contract, dictated by state laws (not you) of child support, wage garnishment and asset division, in the event of a divorce, and you have to pay divorce court taxes (filing fees, mediation taxes (fees) on top of attorney fees, etc., .

Marriage licenses didn't exist 100 yrs ago. All marriages in the USA were private, non-taxed (separation of church & state) religious ceremonies.
WHY DO GAYS WANT IN ON marriage-equality-in-taxation, government control and taxation?

Gays already have Equality in social contracts and Wills and Living Wills, but the only obvious reason I can see is, the gay's objective in this 'marriage equality' nonsense is to REMOVE the religious origin of, and definition of marriage, or it is an attack on Christianity in particular, an attempt to suppress, control and define religious Freedom.

The State cannot redefine a religious-originating word's definition, the lawyers are having a hard time getting around this, which is why it never gets much traction, and is nonsense on it's face.
Coerced acceptance in the form of religious suppression or redefinition, or any form of Religious 'control' will never succeed.

Galatians 5:1
It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I support traditional

I support traditional marriage. Not as a government privilege, but as a social institution.

Government at all levels should be out of marriage. You shouldn't need a license from the state to wed.