- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,294
- Reaction score
- 275
- Location
- Utopia
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, I still have not seen that reason or how you square it with a libertarian stance. This is a step in the right direction.
I apologize for questioning your sincerity. I will try to refrain from doing that. I have become frustrated with libertarians who give lip service to civil liberties or who are really just embarassed Republicans. I should not assume that describes you.
Why wouldn't I like that one? I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" too.
I am not necessarily opposed to polygamy, but it is not equvialent to same sex marriage. The fact that there would be more than two parties to the marriage changes the nature of it and creates numerous complexities for the state in enforcing the contract. For instance, if one party out of five seeks a divorce does that end the marriage of the other four? How is inheritance determined? If one person becomes incapicated and the other parties disagree on care, how is that handled? In terms of access to Federal benefits, this is not just a matter of cultural bias but creates real issues in how the programs are administered and operated. These and other questions would likely require statutory remedy and therefore the courts cannot possibly intervene. I would support polygamy at the state level, but because of the issues I have noted, I might then support a DOMA law specifically dealing with polygamy.
So then you are questioning their sincerity? Okay, but that is certainly not a good reason to show disdain for the fact that innocent citizens are seeking and have received relief.
It really does not matter whether they think they are rights or not. Congress can at anytime change or eliminate the benefits. It simply cannot give preference to certain classes of beneficiaries or deny them to others without a valid reason. I cannot imagine the courts would EVER interfere with Congressional authority in changing or eliminating benefits. There is no right to the benefits only a right of equal access to the benefits.
Anyway, I welcome the decision. More freedom is better. The economic impact is insignificant and does no more damage to my liberty than does a heterosexual marriage if it does any damage at all.
The issue at hand is that consenting adults should be left to handle decisions about divorce, inheritance, benefits, etc. That is why govt needs to get the heck out of people's personal business. If it weren't for government controls on so many other personal matters, this whole brouhaha over gay marriage would be non-existent. This whole issue is the government taking with one hand and giving with the other.