How do you define "marriage equality"?

A hangnail is not a human being. A zygote is. The issue is not about "life." Plants are "life." The issue is exactly the one you raise, i.e., when should abortion be prohibited. Gosnel, Peter Singer and others think "never." I believe that because, as you say, it is impossible to determine a precise point at which this human being becomes eligible for the respect owed a human life, abortion on demand, for the purpose of birth control, should never be allowed. There should be no law. The "life of the mother" issue is akin to the separation of conjoined twins, and should be left to doctors. And "life of the mother" does not contemplate emotional distress equivalent to a hangnail. One of the supreme ironies of our age is that just as actual birth control methods were perfected, which should render unnecessary any post facto murder for convenience, we allowed babies in the womb to be killed. Why?

I'm not sure I understand the reason for this distinction. I didn't mean to characterize libertarians as uncaring. My point is that libertarians are realistic about human nature. Private destructive behavior is not my business, but public support of it, at my expense, is. And it hurts society. And if you're emphasizing the other side of that coin, you're exactly right. Government has NO right to dictate what we do behind closed doors if it hurts nobody else.

SdAufKla Wrote: " [the GOP's] arguments and justifications for its restrictive social policies and positions are no more legitimate than the progressive lefts same arguments for economic justice." The way to split this baby is to get the government incentives out of it. That's the strength of a libertarian approach. For over 40 years the government has discouraged marriage, work and savings (even unmarried bread-winners staying with their families), and encouraged additional babies to be conceived by providing additional welfare money and food stamps. These are not neutral policies, and their effect has been the virtually total destruction of the family culture in inner-city, poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. The chaos and violence are a danger to us all, and the human tragedy is incalculable. Thank you, liberal progressives, for this outcome. Libertarians would simply avoid these perverse incentives in our public policy. Conceive out of wedlock if you like. Smoke marijuana. Fine with us. But don't look for the government to bail you out when your life is ruined.

Your slip is showing, James. You know nothing whatever about me. I could be a gay libertarian raising three kids for all you know, and rich as Croesus, besides. Do you have a comment on my points? There is no need for society to change the definition of marriage. "Hate crime" laws are an abomination, contrary to equal protection under the law. And so forth. What is your point, Jimmy?

No argument from me about what "the GOP can't figure out." But I find your comment somewhat in the same category as Mr. Barone's column. You are seeing these issues through a political lens, which makes it difficult (as DHE pointed out earlier) to ever find the center. Thus the pendulum swings, thus the seemingly irrational positions staked out by even the most rational people. Government is the villain who causes the reaction by radically exaggerating the effects of merely "decriminalizing" behavior, never mind giving it legal recognition as in the case of same-sex marriage. And you should be willing to admit, SdAufKla, that abortion is murder, and there are some things that we do need government and criminal law to control.

The problem, Mr. Barone, is seeing everything through a political lens. Same sex "marriage" is different from a libertarian tolerance of others. Libertarians don't care what people do behind closed doors. In fact, they mostly don't care what people do, period, if it doesn't hurt other people. So marijuana and homosexuality can coexist with mature, responsible people holding jobs and raising families. But none of this can be sustained if government gets its clumsy fingers into it. Immigration can't be unfettered if we don't secure our "entitlement" programs, marijuana can't be legal if we don't lock up those guilty of crimes and if we don't stop rewarding other irresponsible behavior with health insurance mandates and public financial support. And we can't coexist with same-sex couples if they coopt spousal benefits and claim special rights under "hate crime" laws, etc. That is not libertarianism.

It breaks my heart to read the intelligent pleading of Star Parker. She comes across as a lone voice in the wilderness because there is so much irrationality and hysteria in our popular culture. In fact, everything she suggests is just common sense. For one thing, I believe the vast majority of white people really, really like black people. Since the days of Duke Ellington and Count Basie, Flip Wilson and Bill Cosby, to the present day of the beautiful people like Halle Berry and Denzel Washington, black people are the biggest stars with all of us. Sour apples like Al Sharpton and Cornell West are no better than Paul Krugman. They are opportunists, living off the ignorance of the too many. Republicans should be out there educating people about the horrors of liberal values and the benefits of conservative economic principles. We need to get off the defensive where race relations are concerned, and on offense where public policy is concerned. Come on, people! What's wrong with us?

Ms. Parker, you have done it again. I've seen a lot of commentary encouraging the GOP to employ an "outreach" campaign directed specifically at blacks and other minorities. This nonsense simply feeds into the Democrat narrative of difference. I have actually been proud of Ed Markey, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, who has used campaign ads showing video of his opponent saying he doesn't believe in gun "control" laws outlawing so-called "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. So if Massachusetts voters want these mindless restrictions placed on their constitutional rights they can vote for Markey. He hasn't minced words. The GOP need not mince words. We are for life, liberty, property rights, individual responsibility, etc. As Thomas Sowell has asked so many times, can Republicans talk? There are good arguments for all these things. The insulting Democratic positions described so aptly by true liberal earlier speak for themselves. It's Democrats who should be mincing words--they are for the really condescending, demeaning policies. Republicans have every reason to be proud of their aspirations for blacks and everybody else.

By whom were they called "looters"? Which party did Ray Nagin belong to, and whose police were indicted for shooting these "looters"? Actually, c, your prejudice is showing. It's never the case that those committing these faux pas, or worse, loudly announce that they are conservative Republicans. Unless, that is, they are planted trolls, actual radical liberals, at sites like Townhall.com working to give conservative Republicans a bad name.