David Rhodes wrote:
Now I mean no disrespect to homosexuals in their new
found government privileges, but as a willful straight
man am I not now bottom of the heap on tax breaks? Who
will join me in my new cause? <<
Until the Federal government recognizes my marriage, I am still right down at the bottom of the heap with you. Unfortunately, all the years Ben worked and there would have been a good tax advantage, we couldn't marry.
After all, it wasn't
that homosexuals were barred from government marriage
- only from marriage with other homosexuals. <<
Don't know why you said that. So, I could have always married a lesbian. (For that matter, so could you have.) I guess being single is my fault, after all!
Are you saying that my natural rights weren't violated, even though I couldn't marry my partner of 20 years, because the government gave me a state-approved option: i.e., marry a woman? What if the tables were turned and you could only marry a man? I'll bet you'd have remained single, too.
As with environmentalism, I don't see how
egalitarianism has anything to do with the fight for
liberty. <<
We're not talking about equality of outcome or even of opportunity. These have evil consequences if implemented. We are talking of equal treatment under the law, whose outcome is justice.
If gaining the freedom to marry whomever one wants (and they consent) isn't a matter of liberty, I don't know what is. Why would you think that barring this particular form of contract (namely a marriage contract) has nothing to do with the fight for liberty, while you might fight, for example, to keep government from barring a contract between buyer and seller of marijuana or banned books or gold.
Would it be all right if blacks were barred from serving on corporate boards, or women were not allowed to vote or Jews were not allowed to own property? Isn't liberty the state where I can do with my body and (other) property what I want, associate with whom I want, contract with whomever I chose for whatever purpose, without coercion from the State or others (so long as the NIOF is met). See any connection to libertarianism now?
I think we already have enough work on our
hands in the LP fighting coercive government without
wasting time making sure everyone gets screwed
equally. Maybe that's why I'm not a left-libertarian.<<
Like Jay, you seem to think that getting married is getting screwed (your words). Even though the one-size-fits all government marriage contract is not perfect, by far, there are both advantages and disadvantages. For some, the advantages outweight the disadvantages, and they get married. Unless, of course, it is illegal to do so.
Rich