Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[Just_A_Guy]

I subscribe to Liberty and how it applies to our rights as they exist today. If you feel that definition of Liberty is hindered upon then petition your govt. If you feel it's a business owners Liberty to refuse service based on race, start marching and try to change it. But know that there will be fierce opposition because this battle was already fought and WON.

Oh, I think we have much more pressing issues upon us at present than getting bogged down in a revision of the Civil Rights Act. I'm just pointing out that legality of private-sector racial discrimination has little to no bearing on the constitutionality of private-sector sexual orientation discrimination and inviting you to consider the difference between what is immoral versus what is illegal versus what is unconstitutional. But if your entire approach to liberty is merely that might makes right, then further discussion may produce more heat than light.

[jerome1232]

Racial Discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment, therefore unconstitutional. That is backed up by the below Supreme Court Cases.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Arlington Heights v. MHDC (1977)

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

You are talking about that document that limits government and not private business correct?

[Just_A_Guy]

Racial Discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment, therefore unconstitutional. That is backed up by the below Supreme Court Cases.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Arlington Heights v. MHDC (1977)

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Racial discrimination by a government entity is a violation of the 14th amendment, therefore unconstitutional. None of the cases you cite deal with discrimination by private individuals or organizations.

[yjacket]

OK, you are saying while you don’t ‘personally’ support discrimination based on skin color you have no objection that ‘other’ people doing it because it’s their right. You are saying every American should have the right to discriminate based on skin color.

Therefore, logically, you are defending racism.

Escher, thank you for engaging. I am not in favor of racial discrimination or racism; I think it is absolutely dispicable to think that one is better than another simply based on their genetics.

I also don't believe in anything like group rights. There are no group rights there are only individual rights.

However, there are a lot of things that I find in this life despicable. I think one-night stands are despicable, I think getting drunk is deplorable, I think doing drugs is offensive.

However, regardless of what I think, I do not have the moral right to force my beliefs on anyone else. My rights end where another's begins, ipso facto I have a duty, no I have a moral obligation to defend the rights of any other individual no matter how deployable I personally feel their actions are.

If I do not stand up for other individual's right to be a jerk, to be a racist, then I give up my own ability to defend my freedom of thought. I give up my right to believe that their actions are deplorable. I can defend their right to be a jerk while still saying that their actions are stupid.

Let's suppose that I have the moral right to force others to conform to my philosophical belief system, meaning say that I believe drinking hot chocolate to be wrong. All I need to do is convince enough people that drinking hot chocolate is wrong (hmm hot chocolate when it is below 0 .. .good stuff!), petition some legislatures, get a majority vote and bam, henceforth all who drink hot chocolate are fined. In fact, because I can do that I can now outlaw (i.e. fine and put in jail) anyone who sells hot chocolate.

That is tyranny of the majority and might makes right. Now let's suppose the former chocolate drinkers and sellers get together and decide to convince everyone of the benefits of hot chocolate, they form a coalition, petition legislatures and pass a law that stipulates everyone must purchase 1 cup of hot chocolate a week in the wintertime and if you don't you are fined or put in jail.

A system set up as such, or more to the point a society without any firm grasp of natural rights ends up becoming thug rule, i.e. as long as I have a majority I can do whatever I want.

The Revolution, Declaration and Constitution where all different facets of a successful succession against a King who had a majority (Great Britain and Parliment) who were exercising tyranny of the majority over a minority (the colonies).

The original founders were very much steeped in understanding what should be law and in natural law. The Constitution, while a very good, inspired document is in many ways flawed. If one reads the Anti-Federalist papers, one can see the worries and fears of the Anti-Federalists have come to fruition. The Bill of Rights specifically tried to allay their fears. Think where we would be without the BoR . . .

I can hear it now . . .but, but, but the Supreme Court protects us. We'll ignore the fact that judicial review is not explicitly in the Constition. Okay, in the entire US history the Supreme Court has found 163 acts of Congress as Unconstitutional; an average of less than .72 laws per year for the entire time since the US has been around. In a typical year Congress passes around 300 laws, last year 65. So in a given year only .24%, that's 1/4 of one percent of laws passed are declared unconstitutional.

Now that's amazing, I'm impressed at the Constitutional acumen of our Representatives that they are 99.75% acurate at passing Constitutional laws. This is in spite of the fact that several Congressmen have commented to me personally that it's not their job to determine what is Constitutional or not, that's the Supreme Courts job!

You are also conveniently ignoring the several times that the Supreme Court has reversed itself.

Discrimination based on skin color is racist and ANY race can be racist.

Going from racial discrimination to racist may be the case but it doesn't necessarily mean that is the case.

Racist: a person who believes a particular race is superior to another.

I guess that must mean there are a lot of racists in this country based upon where people live, because they practice some form of self racial discrimination.

The 2010 census (from the NY times website) clearly shows that demographics in this country are not evenly distributed. There are white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, hispanic, etc. I guess all those people who choose to live in a neighborhood with people who look a lot like them are racists. Who knew everyone is a racist!!

What about religious communities? I guess people who live in catholic communities or mormon communities are religist.

So you believe Americans should have the right to be racist and operate racists businesses.

That Racism should be a freedom every American should have....

So long as they do not infring upon the rights of another individual, they have that right, no matter how deployable it is. Just like I have the right to not buy from those businesses and advocate that others don't buy from them. I have a right to boycott them and to put them out of business by not giving money to them.

No one has a right to a job, or a right to buy something. To have a right to a job means you have to force someone to give you a job. To have a right to buy something means you can force someone to sell to you. Which goes back to my comments above, i.e. might makes right and tyranny of the majority.

You have a right to yourself (i.e. no one can physically acost you as long as you don't physically acost them), a right to life, a right to property, a right to liberty. Basically meaning I own myself and by extention anything that I make. As long as I do not infringe upon someone else's body or property, I can pretty much do as I please.

How is someone refusing service an infringment upon their life, their liberty or their property?

Now governmental racial discrimination is and should be against the law. Why? Because everybody pays taxes, it is a common use. If taxes are extracted from me to build a town hall then that means I should have use of it regardless of my race and my status should be the same as everyone else's because we all pay the same taxes.

However a private business has not extracted a tax from me and therefore I have no claim to use it.

Edited January 7, 2014 by yjacket

[Escher462]

Cool. So forcing hypothetical racist me against my will to do business with people I'd rather not is liberty. Interesting definition of freedom. Explain how forcing someone to do something against their will by force of government is freedom please. I don't understand how it can be so. I certainly understand it is wrong and unjust for me to refuse business to people based solely on skin color, but I don't understand how it is liberty that forces me to do so.

News alert. You don't have the absolute liberty to do anything you want. This absolute Liberty World you believe in DOES NOT EXIST. There are laws that you must follow. There are laws that if you break them, the govt will punish you by taking away your money, your property and/or taking away almost every bit of your freedom. You do not have absolute Liberty!

I'll say it again. Welcome to the REAL AMERICA. Welcome to the Real World.

[yjacket]

I'll say it again. Welcome to the REAL AMERICA. Welcome to the Real World.

Welcome to a fascist state. We'll see how you like it when someone gets in control that disagrees with your philosophical beliefs and starts banning them or forcing you to do something you don't like.

Welcome to AMERIKA. Welcome to the Real World of the NSA and might makes right.

Just because something is a law does not make it a moral or a just law or even a law that one should obey!

Edited January 7, 2014 by yjacket

[Anddenex]

I'll say it again. Welcome to the REAL AMERICA. Welcome to the Real World.

As the great Inigo Montoya once declared, "You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means," but if you want to keep your head in the

that is completely your "absolute" liberty...I won't stop you or make a law that says you can't because I disagree with it.

[Escher462]

So long as they do not infring upon the rights of another individual, they have that right, no matter how deployable it is.

Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.

I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I agree to my bones that you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. I have a very wide spectrum but I'm sure there could be some outlying situations that this may not apply, but I think its ~98% correct.

Now lets see if YOU 'really' agree with this belief and I'll bring it back on topic. Yes....this is a test and remember: I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.

Agree / Disagree?

2. Racial Discrimination by businesses: Racial discrimination by businesses DOES infringe upon my rights as an American. If I need to buy supplies from a supplier and they will not sell to me based on my skin color, that infringes upon my rights as an American. It is my right as an American to be about to by products from any business regardless of how I was born. I did not choose my skin color, therefore this violates my rights.

Agree / Disagree?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Escher462

[Escher462]

Welcome to a fascist state. We'll see how you like it when someone gets in control that disagrees with your philosophical beliefs and starts banning them or forcing you to do something you don't like.

Welcome to AMERIKA. Welcome to the Real World of the NSA and might makes right.

Just because something is a law does not make it a moral or a just law or even a law that one should obey!

Fascist state! That is the totally CRAZY. I was wondering when Mr. Crazy would come out and play. We have problems in American but we are no where near a fascist state. That is just insane talk.

NSA spying on US Citizens is totally and utterly unconstitutional. This will be a very true test of our country to see if the Supreme Court will rule this violates 4th Amendment.

Fascists.....you sound like Glenn Beck...Hannity....Savage....almost entire right wing Republican party. Thought you were a Libertarian.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Escher462

[tw88]

Have you read the below stories Swiper? These people are in a vice because they simply do not wish to take pictures, bake a wedding cake or host a reception for homosexual weddings. There are other stories as well I have seen of people having their First Amendment rights violated regarding their beliefs with homosexual weddings.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He is under a court order to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Denver's Masterpiece Cakeshop Turns Down Gay Couple Because of Religious Beliefs

Vermont inn that was sued when it refused to host a lesbian couple's wedding reception

Vermont Inn Settles Lawsuit over Lesbian Marriage

Elaine Huguenin sued for not taking pictures of a wedding

Photographer Elaine Huguenin Takes Religious Freedom Fight To Supreme Court After Being Sued For Refusing To Take Photos Of Gay Commitment Ceremony

The commerce clause of the constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce. Like interstate commerce on a federal level, intrastate commerce is with in the power of the state to regulate. The ability to regulate commerce is of tremendous importance to a well functioning society. It is what gives the federal government the right to enact laws such as the civil rights act preventing business from refusing service or products of the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, or the food the drug act that mandates labeling and safety information on pharmaceuticals and food products. The ability to regulate commerce also means that a state can make it illegal for a business to refuse its services or products to people on the basis of sexual orientation. All of this is completely with in the bounds of the constitution. Our society wouldn't function very well, let alone be free, if say different grocery stores only sold food to certain types of people, doctors pick and choose who to provide life or death medical treatment to regardless of their ability to pay, internet service providers blocked your access to particular websites based on their personal beliefs or philosophy, and academic Journals refused to sell access to their material to those they deemed unenlightened.

[Anddenex]

Here is a prophetic declaration by

.

[jerome1232]

News alert. You don't have the absolute liberty to do anything you want. This absolute Liberty World you believe in DOES NOT EXIST. There are laws that you must follow. There are laws that if you break them, the govt will punish you by taking away your money, your property and/or taking away almost every bit of your freedom. You do not have absolute Liberty!

I'll take that as a concession that forcing private businesses to accommodate all races despite the owners racism is indeed a limitation on liberty. Hopefully from now on you will not cite liberty as the value this type of law is based on.

I never claimed that we do have absolute liberty, can you please point out what I said that made you believe that I believe we currently have absolute liberty so that I may avoid that misunderstanding in the future?

[Just_A_Guy]

Our society wouldn't function very well, let alone be free, if say different grocery stores only sold food to certain types of people, doctors pick and choose who to provide life or death medical treatment to regardless of their ability to pay, internet service providers blocked your access to particular websites based on their personal beliefs or philosophy, and academic Journals refused to sell access to their material to those they deemed unenlightened.

Modern progressivism is a curious mindset wherein one believes that those eeevul money-grubbing capitalists will do every morally reprehensible thing under the sun just to make a buck--except that, we are to believe, these despicable businessmen will never, ever stoop to actually selling their product to people who are willing to pay good money for it.

Freedom, when combined with accountability/natural consequences, will usually--not always, but usually--lead an actor to rational decisions. A common thread in progressivism, statism, and socialism/communism is that each ideology champions removing the element of natural consequences--and then, when the system predictably goes kaput, we will be told that the problem was a surfeit of individual freedom rather than a dearth of individual accountability.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[applepansy]

You may believe that in your alternate World, but in the America we live in today that isn't Liberty. Until you get the Supreme Court to over turn the laws to meet YOUR definition of Liberty.....my definition of Liberty WINS.

Truth doesn't change. Not in the America we live in today and not in "your" alternate world. Good Grief!

[applepansy]

News alert. You don't have the absolute liberty to do anything you want. This absolute Liberty World you believe in DOES NOT EXIST. There are laws that you must follow. There are laws that if you break them, the govt will punish you by taking away your money, your property and/or taking away almost every bit of your freedom. You do not have absolute Liberty!

I'll say it again. Welcome to the REAL AMERICA. Welcome to the Real World.

Yes we do have the liberty to do whatever we want. Even in what you call the "real America" we have the Liberty to do anything we want. What we don't get to choose are the consequences of our choices.

[Just_A_Guy]

1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.

Agree / Disagree?

Agree, if "marriage" is defined as a privately-solemnized union that carries no state sanction or benefit.

Disagree, if "marriage" is defined as a state-sanctioned union. Civil marriage is subsidized by the taxpayer. The taxpayers didn't choose to subsidize monogamous sexual relationships because they're hopeless romantics; they chose to subsidize monogamous sexual relationships because 1) there were better than 50/50 odds that those relationships would be lifelong; and 2) it was understood that childbearing would generally (not always, but generally) accompany such relationships, and more children are generally seen as socially desirable objects. The nexus between civil marriage and both 1) and 2) has been eroding for a while. Gay marriage isn't the sole destroyer of the sanctity of marriage--we straights have been doing a bang-up job of that for a while now. Gay marriage is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. It's what makes me say "you know what? Marriage is now officially nothing more than a declaration that, for a while at least, the parties will (maybe) be sexually monogamous; and I just don't think that's worth subsidizing anymore".

And of course, there's also the way gay marriage factors into the larger agenda of "normalization", and the threat that normalization poses to conservative Christian religions has been well documented within this thread.

2. Racial Discrimination by businesses: Racial discrimination by businesses DOES infringe upon my rights as an American. If I need to buy supplies from a supplier and they will not sell to me based on my skin color, that infringes upon my rights as an American. It is my right as an American to be about to by products from any business regardless of how I was born.

Err . . . constitutionally, no, you do not have a right as an American to obtain "products" from any business regardless of how you were born; anymore than it is your right as an American to obtain love (or even just sex) from any person you find attractive regardless of how you were born. Nondiscrimination in the commercial sphere is a creature of statute, not constitutional or natural right.

Interestingly, you've already conceded that one person's rights end where another's begin, which logically means that your natural (as opposed to legal) right to do business with me ends where it infringes on my natural right not to do business with you.

In the "real world" government can--and does--force us to play with each other in the sandbox. But economic necessity is a far better means of making people actually like (or at least tolerate) each other than the threat of force is.

[Guest]

Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.

I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I agree to my bones that you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. I have a very wide spectrum but I'm sure there could be some outlying situations that this may not apply, but I think its ~98% correct.

Now lets see if YOU 'really' agree with this belief and I'll bring it back on topic. Yes....this is a test and remember: I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I'll chime in because I hear this over and over and over and I wish people would realize how breaking the foundation of society damages everybody.

1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.

Agree / Disagree?

Marriage is the societal foundation by which CHILDREN develop. Today's children are tomorrow's leaders. Therefore, anything that impacts marriage impacts society and thus impacts every individual in that society.

For example: Let's go with something that already happened.

In the Philippines, Divorce is illegal. In America divorce is legal.

Divorce affects marriage which affects the foundation of society. In the Philippines, the welfare state is close to nonexistent. But, those who have claim to family goes to their family for welfare. Making divorce legal would completely break this strong tradition of family and bring more people, especially children, to need/desire government welfare. Crime may also increase as desperate people without any family to protect/defend/support them commit crimes for lack of choice.

In America, divorce is legal... you can see stastically the disadvantage of children growing up in divorced or single parent households versus those that grow up in intact family units as far as welfare state/poverty/crime rate is concerned.

Now, whether the disadvantages of children in divorced/single parent households is an acceptable price to pay for the advantage of leaving a failed marriage, that's for society to decide - and in the Philippines, society decided No it is not, America decided Yes, it is. There's no right or wrong on this. It's the society that decided what they feel is right for them.

So, when we talk of Gay Marriage, we need to stop saying - it doesn't affect me because, you know, my neighbor being gay doesn't make the neighborhood gay or their children gay. What we need to be saying is - is the price to pay for the unbalanced psychology of Children growing up in gay families that do not have the male and female psychological influence worth the price of allowing gay people to be a societal foundation?

Because, you may think it doesn't affect you, but when it comes to marriage - the bedrock of society - it definitely, absolutely does.

Now, there is no good study on the psychological impact of gay families on children. That's the problem with these kinds of discussions - just like single parenthood, divorce, etc., you won't know what impact it will have on society until the thing is already imbedded solidly in society. And that's why we as a religious group, rely on what our faith teaches us about these things.

2. Racial Discrimination by businesses: Racial discrimination by businesses DOES infringe upon my rights as an American. If I need to buy supplies from a supplier and they will not sell to me based on my skin color, that infringes upon my rights as an American. It is my right as an American to be about to by products from any business regardless of how I was born. I did not choose my skin color, therefore this violates my rights.

Agree / Disagree?

No. Technically, it only violates your rights if you are prevented to buy supplies from somebody else.

But yes, I support the Civil Rights Act only to "jump start" necessary cultural change. Because, even if you are not prevented to buy supplies from somebody else, if the culture makes it so that MOST people are not inclined to sell it to you, then free market waits until such time as the demand makes it worth somebody's time to buck culture.

I don't have the same desire for cultural change as far as gay marriage is concerned.

[Traveler]

Fascist state! That is the totally CRAZY. I was wondering when Mr. Crazy would come out and play. We have problems in American but we are no where near a fascist state. That is just insane talk.

NSA spying on US Citizens is totally and utterly unconstitutional. This will be a very true test of our country to see if the Supreme Court will rule this violates 4th Amendment.

Fascists.....you sound like Glenn Beck...Hannity....Savage....almost entire right wing Republican party. Thought you were a Libertarian.

Define Fascists - that may be the problem. Would you define Fascists as an organized effort within the government to use governmental institutions (like the IRS or EPA) to harras and punish political opponents or pay off political supporters (like organized unions) with exceptions and grants?

How about this: Gorge Orwell used the example in Animal Farm of oppressive Government changing definitions of rights by first promising - "All animals are equal" Then later saying that it is true "All animals are equal, whoever, pigs are more equal than others." Does that sound at all like or compare to - "If you like you can keep you current health care plan" Then later saying - "Oh you may have liked that health care plan you use to have but you cannot keep it because it is not current."

How about this: It does not matter what the Law (constitution) defines it only matters what is enforced - Think "Fast and Furious".

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.

I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I agree to my bones that you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. I have a very wide spectrum but I'm sure there could be some outlying situations that this may not apply, but I think its ~98% correct.

Now lets see if YOU 'really' agree with this belief and I'll bring it back on topic. Yes....this is a test and remember: I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.

Agree / Disagree?

....

I disagree - If someone you do not know is murdered - it has no impact on you your relationship with your wife, your family or any property you own. Therefore, as far as you are concerned - any murder of someone you do not know is a freedom every American should have.

Granted this is an extreme example - but the point to me is that if by the force of law it is declared that an action "MUST" have public support as a right - then I believe that the proponents of that right have an obligation to demonstrate a public benefit.

As a libertarian all that I ask is that if we use the force of law to force public support - there must be a demonstrable public benefit. Gay marriage has no possible public benefit that I know of. If someone knows of any public benefit I would be interested in considering the validity of such a claim.

The Traveler

[Escher462]

I disagree - If someone you do not know is murdered - it has no impact on you your relationship with your wife, your family or any property you own. Therefore, as far as you are concerned - any murder of someone you do not know is a freedom every American should have.

NO...that isn't logical because the person that was murdered had THEIR rights infringed upon by the murderer. I'm not the center of the universe. HA! =]

As a libertarian all that I ask is that if we use the force of law to force public support - there must be a demonstrable public benefit. Gay marriage has no possible public benefit that I know of. If someone knows of any public benefit I would be interested in considering the validity of such a claim.

Does smoking have a public benefit?

Does drinking have a public benefit?

Does gambling have a public benefit?

Nope. Banning things that don't have a public benefit isn't very Libertarian. Actually...and just trying to be factual / NOT CRAZY....that is moving towards communism.

As a Libertarian, I'm free to do what I want so long as it doesn't impact your rights. Tens of thousands of Gay people have been married across this country and it hasn't impacted you one bit. Gay people have the FREEDOM to marry and obtain all the rights and protection as anyone else in America. That is Libertarian.

[Just_A_Guy]

Banning things that don't have a public benefit isn't very Libertarian.

Insisting that the taxpayers fund something that doesn't have a substantial public benefit isn't very Libertarian, either.

[Escher462]

Define Fascists - that may be the problem. Would you define Fascists as an organized effort within the government to use governmental institutions (like the IRS or EPA) to harras and punish political opponents or pay off political supporters (like organized unions) with exceptions and grants?

How about this: Gorge Orwell used the example in Animal Farm of oppressive Government changing definitions of rights by first promising - "All animals are equal" Then later saying that it is true "All animals are equal, whoever, pigs are more equal than others." Does that sound at all like or compare to - "If you like you can keep you current health care plan" Then later saying - "Oh you may have liked that health care plan you use to have but you cannot keep it because it is not current."

How about this: It does not matter what the Law (constitution) defines it only matters what is enforced - Think "Fast and Furious".

The Traveler

The IRS and EPA are not fascist organizations! They don't have that kind of power because the heads of those departments are NOT DICTATORS! That is more crazy talk. You are listening to right wing media w/out critical thought. Hilter, Kim Jung Un, Stalin all controlled and promoted fascist states. The IRS and EPA are not the gestapo! That is alternate World crazy talk.

Using George Orwell is a great example.

All Americans are equal, however, heterosexuals are more equal than others. Others being those who want Gay Marriage. That fits perfectly.

[skippy740]

Does smoking have a public benefit?

Does drinking have a public benefit?

Does gambling have a public benefit?

Nope.

I disagree. Check out the Vice Fund:

Home

[Traveler]

NO...that isn't logical because the person that was murdered had THEIR rights infringed upon by the murderer. I'm not the center of the universe. HA! =]

So is a person (victim) agrees to it - you think it is okay to murder them? You think it should be lawful for a person to sale their organs - like a heart? Perhaps to the highest bidder?

Does smoking have a public benefit?

Does drinking have a public benefit?

Does gambling have a public benefit?

These items to not have a public benefit - therefore I believe that those that indulge and profit from such activity should pay an additional tax (above and beyond normal taxes) for the pleasure of it - thus compensating the public

Nope. Banning things that don't have a public benefit isn't very Libertarian. Actually...and just trying to be factual / NOT CRAZY....that is moving towards communism.

As a Libertarian, I'm free to do what I want so long as it doesn't impact your rights. Tens of thousands of Gay people have been married across this country and it hasn't impacted you one bit. Gay people have the FREEDOM to marry and obtain all the rights and protection as anyone else in America. That is Libertarian.

Okay - you have a lot of things backwards. As a libertarian you should understand that with freedom comes responsibility. The reason is that freedom is only defined within a society. Marriage is no more a right than receiving a wage - If you are willing to earn compensation than you have a right to money. If you are not willing or able to earn compensation then you must rely on the charity of others or do without.

The institution of marriage evolved in society because marriage benefited society. For example it is through marriage that the best condition of children being born is provided. And children being born is an absolute necessity for a society to survive beyond one generation. Therefore, not just any old marriage but a stable lasting marriage that provides children for a next generation is an absolute necessity for a society to survive.

Now if you do not want to provide any incentive for children being born in a stable marriage - I think you are crazy not to allow some incentive for it. Especially if you think anything in this universe happens without some kind of incentive (positive to support it or negative to prevent it from occurring). And unless you have not figured it out yet - homosexual sex does not nor cannot result in children. So if you do not want children in a society - eliminate any and all incentive forcing or defining by law that all sexual activity is equal and one is not more beneficial than any other sexual activity. A society that does or allows that - is very much crazy. And the result will, like everything else in the universe, take the course defined by whatever forces of incentive are active at the time.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The IRS and EPA are not fascist organizations! They don't have that kind of power because the heads of those departments are NOT DICTATORS! That is more crazy talk. You are listening to right wing media w/out critical thought. Hilter, Kim Jung Un, Stalin all controlled and promoted fascist states. The IRS and EPA are not the gestapo! That is alternate World crazy talk.

Using George Orwell is a great example.

All Americans are equal, however, heterosexuals are more equal than others. Others being those who want Gay Marriage. That fits perfectly.

There is a story about a frog in a pot of water. If the water is hot the frog will fight to get out of the pot. But if the water is just right with the frog to start it will just stay in the pot and by slowly increasing the temperature of the water the frog will remain content until the water becomes too hot to fight and gets cooked.

Now if you knew anything about history you would realize that Hilter, Kim Jung Un, Stalin and all such dictators did not start out by immediately taking control of everybody. They went about such things by picking on less popular elements in their societies - then progressing through the elements to the whole.

Did "Fast and Furious" violate the law and get guns into the hands of drug cartels? Can you name one person held responsible? I would be happy with one. So you think the people that engineered that federal project ought to be given more responsibility? That is what happened. Did you know that innocient people have died because of bad management by officials in you government? Would you expect no accountability in a fascist state or a government of the people for the people and by the people? If you define it okay if elected officials of your party do it then when the other party gets in power - do not complain.

I guess as long as the IRS harasses political groups you do not like - it cannot be fascist. If the justice department harasses reporters in the right wing media (that do not have a critical thought) that is alright with you because harassment against those with whom you disagree is not fascist?

I am not a proponent of the patriot act. I do not think the ASA makes airlines safer. As a frequent flyer I see countless security breakdowns and I know for a fact if I wanted to take a gun on an airplane - I know how to do it. Perhaps we are lucky that terrorists are so stupid - I think it is just a matter of time before they figure such things out. We would be much better having faith in G-d to protect us.

The Traveler