The Chick-Fil-A/Libertarian/Gay Marriage thread ;)

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.

I also support separation of marriage and state.

But why would the religous ceremony be "legally non-binding"? One of the few (in my mind) legit purposes of the state is contract enforcement. The bindingness of a marriage contract at that point would depend on what the couple put in it (plus, if they see fit, some church or etc, which could be a 3rd party to the contract). It would put an end to no-fault divorce, unless you put a no-fault clause in the contract.

I don't know enough about contracts and fault in regards to marriage to really discuss this point.

I just think the religious aspect of marriage should be ceremonial in relation to the state. The contract should be through the state. In regards to 3rd party participants, I would have to do more research.

The "highest" state-related level should be the civil union. Abolish state-sponsored marriage.

http://front.moveon.org/the-scariest-gay-marriage-chart-ever/#.TjWFAD-AyWc.facebook

I personally think that marriage shouldn't be a legal institution to begin with. Civil unions for those of all stripes who need a contract. Insurance should be square across the board. That's my libertarian streak.

I agree. If they made that change, it would come off as a way of re-thinking marriage so as to never allow gays to enjoy the honor of being married. But, I would read it as a better understanding of the problems of using a religious ceremony to create legal groundwork. Civil unions for all. And a legally non-binding religious ceremony for those who desire such.

I also support separation of marriage and state.

But why would the religous ceremony be "legally non-binding"? One of the few (in my mind) legit purposes of the state is contract enforcement. The bindingness of a marriage contract at that point would depend on what the couple put in it (plus, if they see fit, some church or etc, which could be a 3rd party to the contract). It would put an end to no-fault divorce, unless you put a no-fault clause in the contract.

Well lookey there!

Looks like the libertarian position on marriage can draw agreement from across the political spectrum.

Let's look a little at the state sanction for marriage. There really weren't any financial support until the income tax. That's when you needed to have deductions for dependents,including non working wives. Then there's the whole medical coverage as an employee benefit, which also needed coverage for dependents, including wives.

Both of these came from an increase in Federal power. The enactment of the income tax amendment is obvious, but how many people know that employer medical insurance plans arose because of the Federal pay freeze during WW2?

So, let's get the Federal government out of the marriage regulation business all together. The states probably ought to be out of that business too, but I'm not completely decided on that. If it's a free for all, there will be people engaging in plural marriages. I shouldn't care, but I do, apparently.

http://front.moveon.org/the-scariest-gay-marriage-chart-ever/#.TjWFAD-AyWc.facebook

Loved it! Thanks for sharing Matthew.

I just don't think it's all that complicated:

I don't want anybody telling me whom I can love, or how (excepting those who cannot consent, of course).

Therefore, I have no right to tell any other person whom they can love, or how.

Period.

(Uniformly practiced, the Golden Rule really would fix most everything.)

And to make this a valid post on a food forum: I don't want anybody telling me where I can eat or what I can eat there, either.

This thread is so much. I saw that Jeffery posted last, and knew that he hadn't posted prior to this one, and then I relalized I (capitol I) hadn't posted. In reality I did - in the louisville forum, then deleted it! Buyer's remorse, then seller's guilt. I've never been so emotional reading a thread on LHB - ever. I'm astonished that BC hasn't been barbecued.

I've had somewhat interesting dialogue with via PM with a libertarian, debated healthily with my mom about the subjects here, dialed in ON THE HOUR to see the most recent post, developed a crush on Matthew (just kidding - I've always had a crush), had a confessional of my short-sighted early 20's affection for Ayn Rand (primarily Atlas Shrugged, but Fountainhead was okay, too - who is John Galt?)

That's about it... Except maybe "go gays! Brian Curl is kind of a dweeb".

Jackie, you are a complete riot.

[Robin Garr]

Jackie, you are a complete riot.

In a GOOD way.

Jackie, I'm sorry you feel that others can't have views that may be different than yours. I haven't been "bbq'd" because I've stated my view in a clear, non biased way, if you've read the thread, you haven't seen any gay bashing from me - I'm not that type of guy. I'm glad the thread has provoked thought and discussion, if anything, that was my intent with posts that may not be considered pc.

So I'm just curious, if you hsve no problems with gays, why are you opposed to gay marraiges since it would have no bearing on your life what-so-ever?

[Robin Garr]

So I'm just curious, if you hsve no problems with gays, why are you opposed to gay marraiges since it would have no bearing on your life what-so-ever?

"I have plenty of black friends, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one"?

So I'm just curious, if you hsve no problems with gays, why are you opposed to gay marraiges since it would have no bearing on your life what-so-ever?

"I have plenty of black friends, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one"?

"I have nothing against gay people, but my kid better not turn out to be gay. That's not natural. To me."

Robin, that's a dumb analogy as it's not even relevant to this subject, it's relevant to racism but not a stand for or against gay marriage. Now, if you want to make it relevant try to somehow incorporate my son growing up and becoming gay, that might actually make some sort of sense.

Carla, my belief and why has already been stated much earlier in the thread.

If you want use 'it doesn't effect me" argument then you might as well say, why do you care about anything, it doesn't effect you...

[Robin Garr]

Carla, my belief and why has already been stated much earlier in the thread.

I'm probably just showing my stupidity and lack of cognitive skills again, but I had a hard time parsing out the roots of your opinion (as opposed to your opinion itself, which was quite clear) out of your word salad.

To simplify, perhaps you can just tell us if you basically agree with this guy:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/l ... -end-times

Carla, my belief and why has already been stated much earlier in the thread.

I'm probably just showing my stupidity and lack of cognitive skills again, but I had a hard time parsing out the roots of your opinion (as opposed to your opinion itself, which was quite clear) out of your word salad.

To simplify, perhaps you can just tell us if you basically agree with this guy:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/l ... -end-times

Nice link Robin! And to think there were no gays just 50 years ago? Wow!! (I guess Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, T.E. Lawrence, etc, etc, don't count after all!). Just a bunch of dudes ahead of their time I guess....