More on Gay Marriage
In response to my piece on Gay Marriage, "Dang" comments:
Okay "Dang".
Without a doubt, the decision was an abuse of judicial power. No argument from me there.
However...
I swing libertarian. I think that you SHOULD be able to grow pot in your back yard without fear of ski masked government agents violating your property rights. And... you should also have the right to form social/economic unions with whatever consenting adult you choose. Polygamy... polyandry... group marriage... it's none of the government's business.
Where do we stop? Where direct tangible harm is directly caused by one of the individuals involved to another. Not emotional harm… economic or physical harm. You know... assault, fraud, theft, robbery, forcible rape, murder. Anything else is a null argument. Reasonable, right thinking people 40 years ago argued that interracial marriage was unnatural and should be prohibited by government power. Why don't we see that as the start of the slippery slope? Why not the liberalization of divorce laws?
Okay, incest with minors should be a felony... hey... it already is! But, I do think that we need to throw the full weight of the government against the rash of brother/sister mother/son father/daughter marriages currently in vogue.
"Dang", Property is liberty. Privacy is liberty. Don't want to shack up with your first cousin... don't do it.
And… I try to be consistent in this point of view. There is a strong governmental incentive for the proponents of gay (and eventually other forms of alternative) marriage to seek entry into the institution. Look at the tax law (if you have the stomach and time). The government actively subsidizes marriage. Even though I am a beneficiary of this government social management, I find it heinous.
If the federal and state governments did not attempt social engineering through the tax code, this would be much less of a public issue. And that would be all for the better.
In response to my piece on Gay Marriage, "Dang" comments:
If the defintion of marriage is open, the I will restate the position if G. Will Sunday
Under what basis do you stop polygaomy or incest. Again use the same reasoning that MA court used.
The biggest question? Why are only 4 people in MA making this decission. I can see thousand of issues that are not mentioned in the constitition and fall under the 'dont bug me I wont bug you' catagorie. Wher do we stop.
It seems to me the courts are running roughshod over our legslative branch and or elected representative are willing to let them.
This started with the abortion issue and has morphe into this.
If I can have an abortion due to my right to privacy than why can I not grow pot in my back yard.
Private property rights are at least, if not , more important than the right to privacy
Okay "Dang".
Without a doubt, the decision was an abuse of judicial power. No argument from me there.
However...
I swing libertarian. I think that you SHOULD be able to grow pot in your back yard without fear of ski masked government agents violating your property rights. And... you should also have the right to form social/economic unions with whatever consenting adult you choose. Polygamy... polyandry... group marriage... it's none of the government's business.
Where do we stop? Where direct tangible harm is directly caused by one of the individuals involved to another. Not emotional harm… economic or physical harm. You know... assault, fraud, theft, robbery, forcible rape, murder. Anything else is a null argument. Reasonable, right thinking people 40 years ago argued that interracial marriage was unnatural and should be prohibited by government power. Why don't we see that as the start of the slippery slope? Why not the liberalization of divorce laws?
Okay, incest with minors should be a felony... hey... it already is! But, I do think that we need to throw the full weight of the government against the rash of brother/sister mother/son father/daughter marriages currently in vogue.
"Dang", Property is liberty. Privacy is liberty. Don't want to shack up with your first cousin... don't do it.
And… I try to be consistent in this point of view. There is a strong governmental incentive for the proponents of gay (and eventually other forms of alternative) marriage to seek entry into the institution. Look at the tax law (if you have the stomach and time). The government actively subsidizes marriage. Even though I am a beneficiary of this government social management, I find it heinous.
If the federal and state governments did not attempt social engineering through the tax code, this would be much less of a public issue. And that would be all for the better.
posted by Royce at 8:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home