Skip to main content

In the "Credit Where Credit is Due (sort of)" Department

This post by Eric Dondero at Libertarian Republican--Extreme Differences over Prostitution Legalization & Swingers Rights: This is why we're Libertarian Republicans and not Conservatives--mystifies me.

After praising Starchild's prostitution decriminalization initiative in California, Eric writes

Libertarians and most especially Libertarian Republicans are aligned with Conservatives more and more these days, on a variety of civil liberties issues. Conservatives have come around on smoking bans, seat belt laws, speed limits, free speech rights, and even in some cases on the gambling front. But they still seem completely out-of-touch on sexual matters, and hopelessly uncool.

And they wonder why young people are turning off to the GOP in record numbers.

Perhaps they should consider that it's their oldline prudishness that's more of a turn-off to younger voters than the War in Iraq. Solution: Let the Libertarians take the lead on issues such as legalization of prostitution and swingers' rights, and bring some hipness back to the GOP.


OK [he said slowly, drawing out the syllables in skepticism], but what about Eric's consistent refusal to consider the rights of gay American citizens, posted about two weeks ago in which he praised LP VP candidate Wayne Allyn Root for resisting the concept of supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians:

Also in the interview Root outlines the libertarian stance on Gay Marriage, at variance with the liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights. Root says, Government should stay the hell out of the issue of Marriage altogether.


Just so we're clear on what Root was saying, here's part of his interview that got left out of Eric's post:

If Massachusetts or California and other progressive states legalize gay marriage, I say “great” and you as a gay person may want to go live there and feel more free, that’s great. If someone’s very deeply religious and they don’t want gay marriage and they therefore want therefore to choose to live in Alabama, Georgia or states with a more religious bent who don’t want to legalize it, then I say more power to those people who want to live in Georgia or Alabama.


[For fun, replace the words "legalize gay marriage" with "end slavery" and you get the point; arguing States' rights is still arguing for Statist control of human relationships, just at a different level.]

So, Eric, as much as I'd like to praise you for coming out in favor of Starchild, prostitutes, and the rights of (presumably hetero-) swingers in order to make Republicans more hip, I'm still struck by your continuing willingness to deny equal protection under the law and full faith and credit to American citizens of differing sexual orientations.

Comments

Unknown said…
The point missed is that (in America today), marriage is a positive act of government.

It doesn't seem outrageous to me to say that, since marriages are performed by states, that states should determine the circumstances under which they will perform marriages.

My preferred destination is that government not acknowledge marriage at all, and treats it as what it is: a private contract between two or more parties and (optionally) the spiritual or religious organization of their choice. Of course, they will still find themselves involved in divorce, since they are charged with resolving contract disputes, but if they did not impose a "one size fits all" contract on all couples, this should make little difference.
Unknown said…
I should probably not that the "probably straight" comment was not warrented by the quoted text, since unlike marriage, sex, swinging and prostitution are not functions of government, so there is no reason to involve government in them at all.

Well, an argument can be made that Prostitution is a function of government, but it's mostly an unintended consequence of overgrown government.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?