Starchild:
I think your optimism might be misplaced. I agree that support for
gay marriage, whatever that means, is much higher among the young
than among older Americans. However, as far as I can tell, support
for legalizing marijuana has been high among the young for something
like the last 45 years. Something seems to happen on the way to 40
years old that turns most people much more socially conservative than
they were in their youth. Maybe it's having children, a mortgage,
building roots in a community, losing idealism with age, or a
combination of all these things....
-Derek
Phil,
I don't think gay marriage is way beyond what the public will
accept.
The younger generation is overwhelmingly for it, just as older
folks
are overwhelmingly against, which means the near future is one of
strong public support (at least in the U.S.).
But even if it were way beyond what the public will accept,
I'd still
support court action in favor of gay marriage. Would you rather
history
had been written the same, except the Supreme Court didn't rule in
favor of the Cherokees? I think that ruling was a valuable one, as
it
helped expose a U.S. president as a blatant law-breaker, thus
undermining to some degree the legitimacy of the system in the eyes
of
the public. Knowing that there were people in high places at the
time
speaking out for a more just and compassionate approach makes the
crime
committed by the Jackson administration and apparently condoned by
the
majority of the populace that much less excusable in retrospect.
And as Martin Luther King said, it's never the wrong time to
do the
right thing.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
> Rob, I guess I should have complemented you before this Ron Paul
issue
> came
> up because until then I thought you were right about everything.
>
> On your opinions of Dr. Paul, I have quibbles.
>
> On the issue of immigration I am for open borders ideally, and as
a
> practical matter, I believe there should be a work permit program
for
> everyone who wants to work, with path to citizenship. All
immigrants
> in the
> country should be invited to get such permits.
>
> Perhaps a workable comprimise for the liberals would be allow
guest
> workers
> to be exempt from taxes if they have health insurance and send
their
> kids to
> private school.
>
> Ron Paul's support of the wall sucks, and so nobody is perfect,
but at
> lleast he is consistent , in control of the borders is an
enumerated
> power.
>
> As for his marriage equality stand, on the issue of process I
agree
> with
> him 100 percent.
>
> Deciding very emotional and devisive issues by court fiat is
extremely
> dangerous to the health and safety of those receiving the court's
> activism.
> I in no way view this as a positive observation, but as very
> unfortunate
> reality. When the court pushes the public waay beyond they are
willing
> to
> do legislatively the usual problems of government actions are
> multiplied,.
> Advances in liberation , in order to be real and permanent , are
best
> done
> when the public pushes legislatures.
>
> Forcing gay marriage especially on private pension plans does
have
> sever
> economic repurcussions. In a time when many plans are already
severly
> underfinanced, the blame may be shifted to gays when plan
failures are
> blamed on gays isnstead of the corrupt ways that pensions have
been
> handled.
>
> If the US economy suffers sever flation of the de or in variety,
as
> Germany
> did in the 1920's scapegoats will be sought. Gays will be
targeted ,
> especially if the courts are used instead of the court of public
> opinion to
> advance gay marriage.
>
> Ron Paul stands on solid constitutional ground in preventing the
court
> from
> using the full faith and credit clause in enforcing gay
> marriagecontracts
> entered in one state on other states.
>
> If the court makes an extremely unpopular decision, it risks not
> having it
> enforced. Thus when the court made a very enlightened decision on
the
> Cherokee Tribes, tpresident Jackson said, the court has made it's
> decision,
> now let them enforce it. The Cherokee's were picked up and forced
into
> Arkansas. The description by deToqueville of the Cherokee
crossing the
> ice
> choked Missippi in JJanuary, was one of the most heartbreaking
things
> I have
> ever read.
>
> from memory:
>
> The men women and children were crowded into small boats and
pushed
> into the
> ice choked river. Their dogs were left onshore. As the boats
departed
> the
> dogs howled. Finally they plunged into the frozzing current"
>
> Gay marriage rights will effectively be advanced one mind and one
> heart at
> time, and one State at time. In a world full of very ignorant
violent
> people, process matters.
> I know this is not a positive view, but Holocausts happen.
>
> Phil
> From: "Rob" <robpower@...>
> To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:48 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fw: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas
Republican
> known
> for his Libertarian views,
>
> > Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from
South
> > has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
> > benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights
(except in
> > the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's
against
> > taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a
member
> > of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
> > "libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-
immigrant and
> > in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
> > second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
> > accommodations.
> >
> > Do you support his campaign for President?
> >
> > One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David
Duke, and
> > his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
> >
> > Do you still support his campaign for President?
> >
> > Your answer to this question will display once and for all
which of
> us
> > is more out of touch with the electorate.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
> > <thebrokenladder@> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays,
I'd vote
> >> > Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But,
sadly,
> >> > just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own vision
of a
> >> > walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is
> doomed to
> >> > failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and
support
> our
> >> > own party's candidates instead.
> >>
> >> That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian ideals
as
> you
> >> could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is
impotent, and
> >> suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when
he said
> >> the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether,
because
> >> it's counterproductive to their goals.
> >>
> >> Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and giving
him
> >> every last spare dime you have to give, should be every
sensible
> >> Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE. Voting
for
> >> your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and
holding
> your
> >> breath.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release
Date: