US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[jamil]

I think you grossly misunderstand all of the court opinions you are referring to. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is not a federal constitutional issue, it is an issue left to the people of the state. The ability to govern oneself also implies the ability to govern oneself poorly.

I am amazed at how many so-called libertarians on here really are in love with oligarchy when it suits their ends.

It's call "progressive" libertarianism.

 

[jamil]

Libertarian's stance is not one of banning things.

Especially not in respect to dark age superstitions.

IBTB. Oh wait. Prolly not going to happen.

 

[Fargo]

Libertarian's stance is not one of banning things.

Especially not in respect to dark age superstitions.

So libertarians support being ruled by unelected lawyers versus through the democratic process? Color me surprised.

I thought they were all about limited and local government?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Libertarian's stance is not one of banning things.

Especially not in respect to dark age superstitions.

Wonder to what this is referring....

 

[jamil]

So libertarian support being ruled by unelected lawyers versus through the democratic process? Color me surprised.

Well, you know, if the people can't get "liberty" right, have the state enforce it.

 

[Tombs]

So libertarians support being ruled by unelected lawyers versus through the democratic process? Color me surprised.

I thought they were all about limited and local government?

So like I said, are you in support of Sharia law if the majority pushed it through the democratic process?

 

[bmbutch]

Especially not in respect to dark age superstitions.

Care to elaborate on what dark age superstition?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So libertarians support being ruled by unelected lawyers versus through the democratic process? Color me surprised.

I thought they were all about limited and local government?

I think that's what they mean by taking over and leaving you alone....wait....

 

[mrjarrell]

I think you grossly misunderstand all of the court opinions you are referring to. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is not a federal constitutional issue, it is an issue left to the people of the state. The ability to govern oneself also implies the ability to govern oneself poorly.

I am amazed at how many so-called libertarians on here really are in love with oligarchy when it suits their ends.

You don't get to vote away others Rights. Ever. We'll just have to wait and see what the courts final ruling is. If they toss out their previous ruling on Baker then that pretty much leaves you nowhere to go. I don't think they will uphold it, though. Scalia probably will, but he's a tool on his best day. Conservative judges across the country are ruling in favour of marriage equality, because the times have changed and many of us have evolved.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So like I said, are you in support of Sharia law if the majority pushed it through the democratic process?

If the people of one state wish to do that, I ought to have a right to get up and leave for a place more to my liking and not have the .gov come in like mom and dad and make everyone play nice and as a result, everyone is miserable.

 

[Tombs]

If the people of one state wish to do that, I ought to have a right to get up and leave for a place more to my liking and not have the .gov come in like mom and dad and make everyone play nice and as a result, everyone is miserable.

I'm sorry, I thought we had a constitution.

Thanks for reminding me that we do not.

 

[Fargo]

So like I said, are you in support of Sharia law if the majority pushed it through the democratic process?

Of course not. That said, if heaven forbid that should happen, I am not in favor of throwing out democracy and limited government in favor of some unelected rulers who I think might do the right thing this time but have no control over afterwards.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm sorry, I thought we had a constitution.

Thanks for reminding me that we do not.

You do remember that was originally intended to restrain the federal government rather than the leviathan it's become?

 

[Fargo]

You don't get to vote away others Rights. Ever. We'll just have to wait and see what the courts final ruling is. If they toss out their previous ruling on Baker then that pretty much leaves you nowhere to go. I don't think they will uphold it, though. Scalia probably will, but he's a tool on his best day. Conservative judges across the country are ruling in favour of marriage equality, because the times have changed and many of us have evolved.

Times have changed and we have evolved new constitutional rights with no change in the text? Got it.

what happens when times change and we evolve away the Second Amendment? Once again with no change in the text?

 

[mrjarrell]

So libertarians support being ruled by unelected lawyers versus through the democratic process? Color me surprised.

I thought they were all about limited and local government?

Libertarians and the LP have been out front on this issue for years now. While the end goal would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether, until that day arrives will will lobby and labour for equality before the law for all.

Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination | Libertarian Party

 

[Tombs]

You do remember that was originally intended to restrain the federal government rather than the leviathan it's become?

So you're meaning to say, a state is allowed to entirely remove every single right you have, through popular vote, and the federal government should stand back?

Of course not. That said, if heaven forbid that should happen, I am not in favor of throwing out democracy and limited government in favor of some unelected rulers who I think might do the right thing this time but have no control over afterwards.

Nice double standards you have.

 

[mrjarrell]

Times have changed and we have evolved new constitutional rights with no change in the text? Got it.

what happens when times change and we evolve away the Second Amendment? Once again with no change in the text?

We have evolved in our view of the Rights of individuals. Marriage is a Right, (as the courts have spoken to for decades now) and it is being upheld by the courts across the country. The 9th covers it and the 14th upholds it, (just as it does our Right to keep and bear arms, which has been voted away by the legislators for decades).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So you're meaning to say, a state is allowed to entirely remove every single right you have, through popular vote, and the federal government should stand back?



Nice double standards you have.

All rights not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by the people and the states (kind of combining #9 and #10).

 

[Fargo]

Libertarians and the LP have been out front on this issue for years now. While the end goal would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether, until that day arrives will will lobby and labour for equality before the law for all.

Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination | Libertarian Party

Knock yourself out on laboring and lobbying, I have no issue with you exercising your democratic rights just the same as anyone else. But I do have an issue with it if you want to go take away my democratic rights because you disagree with me. If you want to win this issue you should be doing it at the ballot box, not by making up new evolved constitutional rights not supported by the text.

The means you have chosen to trying get to your desired end is oligarchy, and nothing else.

 

[PaulF]

"Dark Age superstition"?

This thread is locked pending review.