by Smitty (h/t Big Government)
Wow, these dudes make sense:The notion that the government, especially the federal government, should involve itself in marriage may need to be reviewed. I should not be imposing on these gentlemen to support my hyper-conservative views on baptism, and I appreciate that they are not asking me to justify their private practices.
The meaning of the word ‘marriage’ is as invariant as ‘illegal’. The notion that some prefix ‘marriage’ in their effort to render a constant symbol somehow mutable is tiring, tiring, tiring. Also, a distraction from actual threats to liberty.
So, kudos to these fellows for taking what is likely to prove the all-around least-worst compromise to the whole situation: spending less time minding each others’ business.
I always liked P.J. O’Rourke’s 2 rules for everything:
1. Keep your hands to yourself
2. Mind your own business
These were for the people as well as the government.
I always liked P.J. O’Rourke’s 2 rules for everything:
1. Keep your hands to yourself
2. Mind your own business
These were for the people as well as the government.
Maybe we are seeing the leading edge of some type of mutual uderstanding here. Is there a cultural bias against conservatives?
It seems I’ve seen a blog about that somewhere…
Maybe we are seeing the leading edge of some type of mutual uderstanding here. Is there a cultural bias against conservatives?
It seems I’ve seen a blog about that somewhere…
Wow. That was well said.
Here is some old dead dude giving his view of things:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Baldwin v Missouri (dissenting).
Pretty smart Yankee that Holmes was.
Wow. That was well said.
Here is some old dead dude giving his view of things:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Baldwin v Missouri (dissenting).
Pretty smart Yankee that Holmes was.
Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should take notes on what being a gay conservative is all about?
Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should take notes on what being a gay conservative is all about?
[…] Posted on August 6, 2010 by Gatordoug Smitty, one of two blogging legends at The Other McCain has a video you MUST SEE! Frankly, Smitty agrees with these two fellas view on government and marriage, and I […]
I’ve always wondered why conservatives don’t prefer that government stop deciding:
*what marriage is
*who is married
*which relationships to encourage through tax policy and legal advantage
Of course, most gays don’t want that kind of freedom, because then they’re left back in the same place–nobody is intervening to make the rest of us approve of them. That’s what they really want, I think: government mandated applause for their lifestyle.
Hats off to gay folks who recognize that the rest of us have a right to disagree with them.
I’m mostly libertarian, so my position has almost always been that there is no reason for constitutional amendments or laws on this. Government needs to get out of the marriage business, except to enforce marriage contracts that adults have entered into. Good luck actually getting them out of it, though…
I’ve always wondered why conservatives don’t prefer that government stop deciding:
*what marriage is
*who is married
*which relationships to encourage through tax policy and legal advantage
Of course, most gays don’t want that kind of freedom, because then they’re left back in the same place–nobody is intervening to make the rest of us approve of them. That’s what they really want, I think: government mandated applause for their lifestyle.
Hats off to gay folks who recognize that the rest of us have a right to disagree with them.
I’m mostly libertarian, so my position has almost always been that there is no reason for constitutional amendments or laws on this. Government needs to get out of the marriage business, except to enforce marriage contracts that adults have entered into. Good luck actually getting them out of it, though…
Three cheers for getting the gubmint out of the marriage business entirely, and eliminating preferential treatment for people who happen to be able to get one of these certified marriage contracts that are now available to a select few. (And remember there are a lot of single people who might like to get married but are just unlucky or whatever. Why is the law discriminating against them in granting tax and other privileges?) Marriage should be left as a matter of private contract or private religious practice.
Three cheers for getting the gubmint out of the marriage business entirely, and eliminating preferential treatment for people who happen to be able to get one of these certified marriage contracts that are now available to a select few. (And remember there are a lot of single people who might like to get married but are just unlucky or whatever. Why is the law discriminating against them in granting tax and other privileges?) Marriage should be left as a matter of private contract or private religious practice.
Althouse thinks Kennedy is going to go for it, I hope she is wrong.
Justice Kennedy, listen to the two finocchios (ask Scalia what it means) above.
Althouse thinks Kennedy is going to go for it, I hope she is wrong.
Justice Kennedy, listen to the two finocchios (ask Scalia what it means) above.
One thing that is never – and I do mean never – discussed when someone brings up the “get government out of marriage” argument is that doing so would abolish the spousal testimony privilege and the marital communications privilege.
As the law stands now, you never have to reveal the contents of conversations you have with your spouse, and you can never be forced to testify against your spouse. But we only have these protections because the government is able to determine that you’re married. Get government out of marriage and your spouse can be compelled to testify against you, and your conversations with your spouse are subject to discovery and cross-examination.
No thanks.
One thing that is never – and I do mean never – discussed when someone brings up the “get government out of marriage” argument is that doing so would abolish the spousal testimony privilege and the marital communications privilege.
As the law stands now, you never have to reveal the contents of conversations you have with your spouse, and you can never be forced to testify against your spouse. But we only have these protections because the government is able to determine that you’re married. Get government out of marriage and your spouse can be compelled to testify against you, and your conversations with your spouse are subject to discovery and cross-examination.
No thanks.
[…] The Other McCain agrees. Get the government out of the marriage business. […]
[…] ‘She’s No Nikki Haley’ Lindsey Graham Sadly Abdicated His Elected Responsibility What These Dudes Said The Future of Conservatism ‘Humble and Polite’ Bloggers? Recovery Summer: U.S. Now […]
Yawn. So they parrotted the libertarian party line. Wet behind the ears punks who know more in their brief lifetimes than the collective wisdom of hundreds of years of great Americans. Sure, let’s tamper with greatness so that all the perverts can feel “normal” about themselves.
What’s the next “fairness” issue? Polygamy? Beastiality? Incest? I eagerly await how far libertarians will allow themselves to be pushed before they finally grow a pair and fight back against those who would pervert this great country. I won’t be holding my breath.
Yawn. So they parrotted the libertarian party line. Wet behind the ears punks who know more in their brief lifetimes than the collective wisdom of hundreds of years of great Americans. Sure, let’s tamper with greatness so that all the perverts can feel “normal” about themselves.
What’s the next “fairness” issue? Polygamy? Beastiality? Incest? I eagerly await how far libertarians will allow themselves to be pushed before they finally grow a pair and fight back against those who would pervert this great country. I won’t be holding my breath.