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
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:
Just so we're clear on what Root was saying, here's part of his interview that got left out of Eric's post:
[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.
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
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.
Well, an argument can be made that Prostitution is a function of government, but it's mostly an unintended consequence of overgrown government.