Then, from a libertarian standpoint marriage as is should be made illegal.

Why? I realize that most libertarians believe that government should not regulate marriage, it should be a church thing, but illegal? And I exactly understood why they believe it, in case someone would explain it to me.

 

Remember, you have to explain things very slowly to me......:lol:

Umm, yea, where to start. I'm gonna skip over the adverse health effect comment and get to the main point. The main belief of a Libertarian is freedom of choices without government interference. So a person should DEFINITELY have the freedom to make the choice to enter into a homosexual relationship and thus should also be able to be recognized as an equal to a heterosexual relationship.

 

But, off subject, the question in the thread is whether the Republican party can be the party of small government but still endorse such big government ideas?

FWIW, I am not exactly sure of my stance on gay marriage. I believe it is morally wrong, and I won't ever support it, but it is not an issue that makes or breaks my voting decision. There certainly is plenty of an argument from the libertarian standpoint on keeping it legal (there is also an argument to keep abortion legal); I am trying to provide a libertarian argument against it. Like I said, gay marriage won't keep me from supporting libertarianism, although I do believe there is a strong argument against its legalization.

 

Now, if a true libertarian society were in place and government had nothing to do with marriage, I don't think that I would support government telling Churches that they could not marry homosexuals.

 

As for the original question, yes, it is quite hypocritical of the Republicans. That is why so many conservatives are tired of them.

cch, not trying to pile on, but my inner Federalist is working right now.

 

The fact that the words God, Jesus, Bible, Saviour are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Religion is mentioned in EXCLUSIONARY terms only in 1787, shows how radical and liberal:sssh:, the Constitution really is. No Christian nation would do this, hence there is no Christian foundation of the government. Christian foundation of the people, different story.

 

 

Sorry for the extension of a slight treadjack.

If I came off as trying to imply that, I wasn't. :thumb:

I think Libertarian's are getting a bad name here. Straight from the Libertarian platform, I feel this should clear up how Libertarian's believe on gay marriage:

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

 

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

 

Libertarian Party Platform

 

If you wanna know more check out the link.

I think the majority of America has differing opinions on different components of the agendas claimed by each party. And, that's the single reason that I registered Independent. I can't stomach the thought of aligning myself with either "agenda", because neither "agenda" fits my personal "place".

I should have done it earlier myself. But I did find a party who I essentially agree with on all but one issue.

Sorry for the extension of a slight treadjack.

No problem here, I think that needed to be cleared up. :thumb::thumb:

Here is a big key point:

 

While it may be the dealbreaker, it is NOT the only issue.

 

I love to have two prolife candidates (Geoff Davis and Ken Lucas or the Republican primaries) and be able to look at the other issues.

 

We are not a single issue voter, but that single issue is a dealbreaker.

 

As EVERYONE here knows, I was a Huckabee supporter. I looked at all of the other issues and after Thompson didn't seem to want the job, liked Huckabee.

If that issue is a dealbreaker, than how is it not a single issue voter? Granted you are going to find other points you agree with a pro-life person on, but if they are pro-choice in anyway are you saying you could vote for them if they thought the exact same way you did on every other issue?

 

If you say you will never vote for someone that is pro-choice, to me that is a single issue voter!