For my Libertarian friends

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: "Free to follow their life choices."  A toker is also not free to follow his life choices.  The freedom to follow all your life choices with full protection of the law isn't what "equal rights" means. Also Dean, if you'd read carefully my full position (and what I wanted to discuss in the first place), I advocate getting the government out of the institution of marriage effectively by changing the way revenue is acquired.  Other arrangements and benefits could be attained by an attorney or notary public (things like "who can visit me if I am in the hospital"). This means that married couples do not get special treatment from the government for marital status.  Did you catch that? A "toker" is not a comparable case, so I'll ignore that.   The question then is why do married couples get special treatment in the first place. It goes beyond simple tax breaks and benefit payments, but extends legal status on a variety of other matters, which as you say, could be dealt with by other means, but would still require legislation to protect those unable to pay expensoive attorneys.

I don't know why married couples get special treatment.  I don't think it's a good thing that they do.

As for expensive attorneys, I'm sure the states could develop a simple legal proxy for that.  We already have state-run offices where legal documents can be filled out, signed and filed, usually free of charge (even a marriage license costs a small fee).  Why not simple state-run offices to deal with the paperwork?

Now I have no problem with gay marriage, so I think that right can not be denied.
Whether it has to be done via federal law, or by taking marriage totally out any government hands doesn't matter to me.
As long as that right is not infringed upon. Leaving it up to the states would do that.
I can't really debate if its "moral" or all that because as a secular liberal, well its like me and Rob and taxes...way different ideological bases.

Slartibartfast wrote: Mandatory gay marriages for everyone!

I claim Slarti as my domestic life partner, a gay couple each with the same name!
How f*cking progressive is that?

Easy Money wrote: You do have to wonder about people who don't want the government to help the needy, but are all for the government intervening when two people want to show their commitment to each other out of love.

What!? Don't bring up such things!

JJLehto wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Mandatory gay marriages for everyone! I claim Slarti as my domestic life partner, a gay couple each with the same name! How f*cking progressive is that?

I'm sorry, but I'm already gay married to my wife.


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 30 2010 at 18:20

JJLehto wrote: A gay marriage to a woman!? Now THAT is progressive You're a lil old for my taste anyway

How's the joke go?  I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

That is a libertarian show!
Forget involvement of any kind...just put nazi's and commies together and let them settle their differences through chair throwing!
I think when I run for office Im going to make that the new law making procedure!

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JJLehto wrote: A gay marriage to a woman!? Now THAT is progressive You're a lil old for my taste anyway How's the joke go?  I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. You're a woman who likes other women trapped in a man's body?    I'm sure I'll see you on Jerry Springer.  Do I get to throw chairs at anyone?

No.  You will violate the rights of tetrapods. 

 

Aw, this thread got serious again.

Well Anton I can't disagree about the media. In fact I don't at all.
It's like I said...use your brain, do some research. If you do, and still don't like Obama/Dems or hold conservative opinions that is 100% fine. This is still America, you can have any opinion you want. I just wish people would think of it on their own. And it goes both ways, I have no doubt there a lot of liberals that mindlessly absorb everything Olberman and Maddow say.
I personally watch MSNBC, but I do lots of my own research and just use the sh*t they say as a guide, I guess, and I certainly don't just take everything they say as gold and shut off the brain.

As for the government, yeah...I dont have a problem with term limits and why not have a vote/say with Ben Bernanke? Let me be benevolent dictator for a day and I'll fix these things
And I did NOT beat around the bush...you guys have been honest in here and so have I. I admitted my bias, Anton. I don't just take every position in the government as good and every business/leader as bad. But hey, I have my biases, I try my best not too but I'm human and I'll fully admit to them. Like I said, even if a consumption tax is something you guys like and ended up being "good" considering those who put it forward...I personally question their true motives behind it.


Edited by JJLehto - June 30 2010 at 20:47