Hi Marcy,
I apologize for this belated reply, but I do thank you for your
thoughtful reply, in which you said partly:
<< That's a lot of stuff in one e-mail, and interesting comments from
Becky Akers! >>
That was a "lot of stuff in one e-mail," but I didn't send you an
e-mail. If you click on "Edit Membership" above, you'll probably see
that in the "Message Delivery" part the "Individual Email" button had
been selected. Select another button to change this.
And yes, those were certainly interesting comments from Becky Akers.
<< And I would like to add more gasoline to the fire, though: >>
I like "arsonists."
<< If we libertarians want to get the government out of marriage, we
better be
working to remove the little box from tax return forms that ask for
marital
status, eliminate all the tax laws that treat married and single people
differently . . . >>
It seems the final arbiter to decide whether same-sex or gay marriages
are legal might not be the "bozos in black" in the Supreme Court, but
employees in the IRS.
<< . . . change employment rules modeled after government rules on
married/not married . . . >>
What specific "government rules" are you talking about?
<< . . and eliminate all divorce and divorce settlement laws. I
personally am OK with all that. >>
I know there are laws that govern the grounds for a divorce, but are
there "divorce settlement laws"? I thought divorce settlements are
decided between the parties and their lawyers. And the divorce
settlements often make grist for the media.
<< However, should we succeed in doing all of the above to get the
government out
of marriage, I am assuming that marriage would be solely in the realm of
religion . . . >>
I had previously said I thought marriages were inherently religious
rites and ceremonies. So I don't merely "assume" that they should "be
solely in the realm of religion." As an alternative (or "perversion," as
some will say) to a religious ceremony, for $25 a couple could have a
"civil Marriage Ceremony" in the City Clerk's Office of New York City.
Can we presume the officiating Clerk will be an atheist? (See:
http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/ceremony.shtml.)
<< . . . and it would seem to me that the fight for marriage equality
would
then shift from government to religion. >>
I think Becky will agree with this, as I do.
<< Or, maybe market forces would work in this situation, whereby
supporters of marriage equality would all move to religious factions
that support equality. >>
I know there have been dissensions within established religious groups
over "marriage equality," but I'm uncertain how "market forces" actually
influence how the "upper echelons" would decide whether to alter their
"official" views or doctrines on marriage to accept "marriage equality."
Perhaps "market forces" would lead some religious clerics and officials
to break away from the "home office" and create "offshoots" or sects
that recognize marriage equality. Isn't this happening now? Isn't there
an official "Church of Gayness," an offshoot of whichever "major,
mainstream sect"?
<< Should I be mistaken, and marriage equality really means getting
government to
force equality in marriage as it does in race/gender/religion, then
that's a
different subject. >>
I think the government, with beckoning by many in the gay community, is
trying to force this issue. Becky Akers had vociferously complained
about this in her article.
<< My thinking would be that the government, desperately trying to
squeeze a maximum amount of taxes would not be keen on granting tax
reductions via marriage equality. >>
See my earlier comment about about the IRS as the final arbiter over
marriage equality. Even so, whether to file jointly or file individually
is often debated among married couples, sometimes hotly so.
<< Businesses, trying to squeeze as much profit as possible, would not
be jumping at the idea of granting more benefits unless forced by the
government to do so. >>
Unfortunately, many in the gay community is lobbying the government to
force businesses to provide those beneifts, which Becky also complained
about. I disagree with this lobbying. I think a better way is if a gay
"husband" wanted his employer to provide benefits for his partner
(husband B?), they should be allowed to draw up any contract they like.
Unfortunately, any such contract is regulated by the government. So much
for prohibitions against states from "imparing the Obligation of
Contracts."
<< Hope that answers your questions, Alton! >>
Let's see, Marcy:
In the last paragraph of my posting I asked:
1) Whether you agree that Becky's views on "gay marriage" deviate
somewhat
from a "straight" libertarian viewpoint.
2) Will you say that my views are more "mainstream" libertarian?
3) Do you know the LP's "official party line" on gay marriage?
4) How do you feel, as a libertarian, about "gay marriage"?
5) Do you favor civil unions for gay couples over marriage?
6) Do you find it "terrifying" that government employees (e.g. "bozos in
black") can wield so much power over intimate, personal relationships?
Although some might consider some of my questions rhetorical, it seems
you only answered question #4. Still, I liked your answers and I
appreciate that you took the time to provide them. And I found it
interesting that you never mentioned "same sex" or "gay" marriage, but
"marriage equality" to refer to what Becky probably considers
"abominations."
Anyhow, I hope you found my response satisfactory. And while we agree
that the government should stay out of this issue, I'm afraid the "major
presidential candidates' will bring this issue to the forefront during
their "debates," mostly to divert We the People from the real issues,
such as reducing spending and borrowing, and the size of government.
Ending the wars might be something we're more concerned with. I hope GJ,
should he somehow get into the debate, won't allow himself to get
diverted by the "overwhelming concerns" over gay marriage.
Thanks again for your reply.
Alton
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Hi Alton,
That's a lot of stuff in one e-mail, and interesting comments from
Becky Akers! I would like to add more gasoline to the fire, though:
If we libertarians want to get the government out of marriage, we
better be working to remove the little box from tax return forms that
ask for marital status, eliminate all the tax laws that treat married
and single people differently, change employment rules modeled after
government rules on married/not married, and eliminate all divorce and
divorce settlement laws. I personally am OK with all that.
However, should we succeed in doing all of the above to get the
government out of marriage, I am assuming that marriage would be solely
in the realm of religion, and it would seem to me that the fight for
marriage equality would then shift from government to religion. Or,
maybe market forces would work in this situation, whereby supporters of
marriage equality would all move to religious factions that support
equality.
Should I be mistaken, and marriage equality really means getting
government to force equality in marriage as it does in
race/gender/religion, then that's a different subject. My thinking would
be that the government, desperately trying to squeeze a maximum amount
of taxes would not be keen on granting tax reductions via marriage
equality. Businesses, trying to squeeze as much profit as possible,
would not be jumping at the idea of granting more benefits unless forced
by the government to do so.
Hope that answers your questions, Alton!
Marcy
>
> Hello all,
>
> A link led me to Thomas Sowell's May 8, 2012 article, "The 'Occupy'
> Movement & the Moral Infrastructure," in which he asked, "How did
the
> "Occupy" movement acquire such immunity from the laws that the rest
of
> us are expected to obey?" His answer: "Simply by shouting
politically
> correct slogans and calling themselves representatives of the 99
percent
> against the 1 percent."
>
> In his usual level-headed commenting, he cited this example, which
you
> "occupants" in the SF area might like: "In San Francisco, when the
mob
> smashed the plate-glass window of a small business shop, the owner
put
> up some plywood to replace the glass, and the mob wrote graffiti on
his
> plywood. The consequences? None for the mob, but a citation for the
shop
> owner for not removing the graffiti."
>
> See: http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/
>
> Also at The New American's website is an "OPINION" box at the top.
When
> I clicked on it, I was pleasantly surprised to see Becky Akers's
> by-line. (Becky is a long-time acquaintance and a prolific writer
who
> usually writes from a libertarian viewpoint. She is a rabid critic
of
> the State's never ending encroachment on our freedoms, especially
> through its TSA attack dogs. Her writings are collected at TNA
within 27
> pages. You will be richly rewarded by reading her articles.)
Clicking on
> her name showed her most recent article, a rather amazing one,
"Cancel
> Leviathan's Invitation to the Wedding."
>
> In this article, written on February 8, 2012, Becky first reports:
> "A federal appeals court today declared California's same-sex
> marriage ban unconstitutional
The three-judge panel of the 9th
US
> Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge
correctly
> interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when
he
> declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 a response to an earlier
state
> court decision that legalized gay marriage [sic] was a
violation
> of the civil rights of gays and lesbians."
>
> She then complained that while Proposition 8 (a referendum to ban
gay
> marriage in California) was passed with 52 percent of the vote,
marriage
> is none of the State's business. Indeed, as she reminded us,
"despite
> the media's incessant propaganda," people of the same sex do not own
> a "constitutional right" to marry one another"[b]ut then
> neither do people of opposite ones." To which she added, "Thank God,
> marriage has never come under federal authority, nor does the
> Constitution empower the Feds to interfere in any way with this very
> private contract."
>
> After she declared that "Pretending that the 'Equal Protection
Clause'
> pertains to sodomy perverts the Fourteenth Amendment as much as
> homosexuality does its victims," she was led to consider it
"terrifying"
> that these "bozos in black [can] wield this much power." For Becky,
this
> is "the real issue here," which should "worry us far more than
> deviants' mockery of the sacrament of marriage."
>
> After that, she launched a diatribe against "deviant sodomites"
whose
> homosexuality is "utterly immoral," as evidenced by The Bible as it
> "unsparingly and clearly condemns it in multiple passages."
>
> It became readily apparent that Becky is against gay marriage. But
> whether Becky believes these biblical homophobic dogma or she's just
> being a provocateur, it's sad how people use religious references to
> support their "aversions." In the case of homosexuals who run afoul
of
> adherents of the Koran, in such "Garden of Edens" as Iran or
> Afghanistan, it can be deadly, as homosexuality is a "crime against
> Allah," punishable by death.
>
> While I don't subscribe to any religious dogma (I'm a devout
atheist,
> thank you), as Becky seems to, I am also against gay marriage for
> religious reasons. Specifically, I think marriages are inherently
> religious rites or ceremonies. (This is different from saying that I
> consider marriages religious "institutions," as I have been
misquoted.)
> Thus, there are, for examples, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu
> marriages. What religion is a "gay" marriage?
>
> But I do agree that, as Becky puts it, when these "sodomites" are
> "simply seeking lifelong bliss in each others' arms or at
> least until the next girly guy caught their eye there's
> nothing to prevent such degeneracy, especially in our permissive
> culture." I wouldn't have said it like that, however. Still, if gay
> couples seek a contract between themselves with enforceable clauses
> concerning such things as property, child care, or grounds for a
> "divorce," or legal separation, then there's nothing to stop them
from
> drawing up such a contract. I think "Plan B" for some of these
couples
> is to seek a "standard contract" from the State or a "civil union
> contract," which is erroneously called a "marriage license"; neither
are
> now given to gay couples in many States. I would certainly support
such
> "civil unions" for gay couples (or any couple), though I'd prefer
they
> keep the State out of their private affairs. (Mike Huckabee also
> supports civil unions. And, like Becky, he's against gay marriages
for
> biblical reasons, though he doesn't express his views as viciously
as
> Becky did.)
>
> To Becky, however, when gay couples "want and need the State to
meddle
> in this issue . . . [it's] because their goals far exceed mere
> cohabitation," especially, according to her, when they seek the
State's
> help to force private insurers to provide them with "benefits,"
which
> are now accorded to "regular" spouses. I think that's true for some,
if
> not many of these "sodomites." And this is where I must disagree
with
> the agenda of many advocates of gay marriage "rights" or "equality."
>
> Still, while we may agree with Becky that marriage is no business of
the
> State, we do agree that Becky's views on "gay marriage" deviate
somewhat
> from a "straight" libertarian viewpoint, no? Will you say that my
views
> are more "mainstream" libertarian? (Do you know the LP's "official
party
> line" on gay marriage? This will be on the test.) But more
important,
> how do you feel, as a libertarian, about "gay marriage"? Do you
favor
> civil unions for gay couples over marriage? Do you find it
"terrifying"
> that government employees (e.g. "bozos in black") can wield so much
> power over intimate, personal relationships?
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Alton
>
> BTW, you can read Becky's article at:
>
http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/becky-akers/10803-cancel-leviathans-in\\
\