In response to:

Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows

tncdel Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:22 PM
All too often those calling themselves "strict constitutionalist Libertarians" aren't. But if the Constitution is strictly applied, a homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT, no more, no less, as does a heterosexual man under the Constitution to marry a woman. However, the fact that he does not wish to avail himself of that right, though surely that is his prerogative, does not create another right for him; namely: to change the heterosexual definition of marriage.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:32 PM
Re: tncdel,

-- But if the Constitution is strictly applied, a homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT, no more, no less, as does a heterosexual man under the Constitution to marry a woman. --

Hey, Constitutional "scholar": The Constitution does NOT grant rights; it LIMITS government from stepping on people's rights and especially those ennumerated in the Bill of Rights. But the 10th Amendment establishes the hands-off approach for government on those things like marriage.

So homosexual men are VERY FREE to marry other homosexual men. That does not mean they're guaranteed a religious marriage, but they can draft a contract and call it a marriage if they want. The Constitution does NOT say otherwise, so don't make things up.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:28 PM
If the Constitution is strictly applied, in some states a woman can marry a woman LEGALLY. Every other state would recognize the marriage in that state and so would the Federal Gov.

In some states currently, a Child of 14 can get married with parental permission. Not only does that couple get Federal Benefits if they move to a state where marrying a child is illegal, the marriage is recognized as legal and Valid.

That is Article 4 of the US Constitution
Wandered Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:28 PM
The issue is that heterosexuals are able to legally marry the consenting adult of their choosing, while homosexuals in most states are not. If marriage is a *legal* term, then the "heterosexual definition of marriage" should not necessarily take precedence when doing so would limit freedom of other consenting adults.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:27 PM
Agreed.

I still don't have a problem with any 2 people who want to be contractually obligated to each other in whatever way they choose though. To determine beneficiaries and such.

Earl29 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 2:26 PM
Neither do I, Fuzzy. I don't even have a problem with more than 2. I see no reason for government to decide terms of a contract unless those terms harm others.

Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.

We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.

"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to...