Starchild - That sounds a bit like neocon philosophy
to me. i.e. "You're either with us, or you're with
I thought it was clear that I have been advocating for
the removal of these laws, not for promoting them -
whether they be of privilege or rights violation in
Additionally, I am opposed to vindicating the
existence of the state by attempting to level existing
laws and privileges.
To me this is basic libertarian philosophy and I find
it disturbing that we're even having to discuss this
internally. I must be going insane.
--- Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Are we to take it then that you are supporting the
people for violating state licensing laws?
<<< Starchild >>>
On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 12:41 AM, David
Rhodes wrote (in part):
> The legal attempts at criminalizing non-civil
> are actually done by criminalizing some of the
> ancillary aspects of marriage where they can -
> anti-sodomy laws, anti-cohabitation, etc. But the
> illegitimacy of these laws are not the discussion
> this thread. The fact that everyone _believes_
> same-sex 'non-civil' marriage is banned is a
> force but it does not indicate direct individual
> rights violations. And not giving something is not
> same as taking it away.
> To exemplify this point -