‘That’s not pro-liberty’: Conservatives come out against GOP marriage amendment

Thank you for writing this piece!

Although libertarianism has its shortcomings, MNLG’s position on this issue is right on. The real solution here is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Churches and other non-government institutions should have the freedom to define marriage within the social/religious context of their members. Otherwise, religious freedom in our country is a sham.

I watched Freedom Riders last night and found it fitting and timely. Not too long ago folks were being beat, killed, dehumanized and vilified “to protect the sanctity of a time-honored tradition” of segregation. Do we REALLY want to go down that path Minnesota???

In America, we have the right to vote, but NOT to vote to abolish other citizens civil rights. Shall we take away blue-eyed citizens civil rights next? A waste of precious Minnesota tax dollars this will cost fighting NOM’s ideological war AND it’s WRONG!

I agree Dog. And in the spirit of fairness I too oppose requiring any religious organization to perform a marriage that violates their beliefs. Thankfully there are many prepared to perform SSM ceremonies already and more would likely follow when they find society and the heavens don’t collapse as a result. They simply require that the legal prohibition of SSM be lifted.

The legal ban on SSM is religious intolerance. But let’s not become what we oppose.

Praise Jebus, God hates double edged swords, Amen.

Diogenes lives, but he has left the Republican camp, not to be found there.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” -Ayn Rand

I am grateful you live here and write here. Thank you for all the work you do to bring us the news … this was excellent!

Lord oh Lord! This is really getting interesting now! What must be going through the heads of those Repubs at the State who opened this whole can of worms? I guess they thought it was a slam dunk and my oh my have they been proven wrong.

I just wish our elected officials who happen to be religious, and came into office because of the votes of religious individuals, could realize that even if gay marriage became legal the church need not recognize it. This is purely a state issue giving individuals all the same rights. Nothing to do with god.

At last!

I’ve been making the same points for a long time now, but it is very promising to hear it from conservatives.

It is hard to describe how marginal and irrelevant the Libertarian Party or a Ron Paul group are, but we know this: marriage amendments have consistently outpolled GOP candidates throughout the country. Support for traditional marriage is a far more popular position than other GOP policies. This idea of ‘divided Republicans’ is a myth; anyone who has watched actual votes on this issue can see it is the Democrats who are divided, not the Republicans. All GOP senators in the MN Senate voted yes; in fact, one DFLer joined them. In the MN House, expect around a dozen DFLers to join probably 71 Republicans in support.

As for ‘restricting liberty’ does it not also, under that standard, restrict liberty to not have plural marriage? What do the Ron Paul folks think about that? Do they support plural marriage? Do they have some principle against it? Or do they simply ‘oppose’ it because it is not yet fashionable to support it? There is no obvious reason, under their principle, that plural marriage should be opposed.

@Mike P.

“Support for traditional marriage” need not equal opposition to same sex marriage (SSM). And opposition to SSM does not necessarily mean support for a constitutional ban.

You see, many Minnesotans, while currently undecided about SSM, don’t want our constitution used to deny what many consider a civil right. Especially when SSM is already illegal. Why etch bias in stone when polls show people’s acceptance of SSM increasing? Or is that the purpose, fear of a an enlightened citizenry? SSM is no threat to traditional marriage.

Praise Jebus, God hates an enlightened people, Amen.

@ Mike, I don’t know what Ron Paul thinks about plural marriage (and frankly don’t care), but I have always felt that Reynolds v. US is a poorly-reasoned relic of its time, and stands as an example of religious intolerance combined with conservative judicial activism. There are limits to what someone can do under the auspices of religion, but as far as I’m concerned, the right of a religious institution to recognize the marriage of consenting adults, without regard to their number or gender, is central to the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

@Mike P

I’m quoted in the article, and you confuse government with society. If Gay Marriage became legal, it doesn’t mean your church or anybody in it has to change their beliefs to match. It just means that the government recognizes the rights of individuals to be treated equally under the law. By restricting the rights of individuals to give peace of mind to an uninterested third party, you open up the floodgates for people to restrict your rights in the future. Based on your answer, I assume then if Islam some day become the majority religion in the United States, you will have no qualms about that new majority flexing its political muscle and using Constitutional Amendments to deny rights to your progeny? The point is, sometimes tolerance of controversial beliefs and behaviors is necessary, because it could very easily end up in some future time that the beliefs you hold today might be scrutinized the same way.

As for your red herring of plural marriage, I really have no issue with it if everyone involved is a consenting adult that is competent enough to be responsible for their own actions. The real problem in most cultures that allow bigamy is that women are often treated like property and are placed into relationships they do not consent to when they are underage. In a free society that respects the rule of law, that would never be legal. No one is anyone’s property, and minors are not eligible to enter into contracts.

Conservative includes the moral perspective not just financial. The usage of “gay and lesbian” is not honest but misleading it is Homosexual and Lesbian, The Republican Party platform is direct and clear on this topic, anyone who claims the Republican label must at least “attempt” to support the Party position or join the proud supportive Democrats on the subject of Homosexuality and Lesbianism, then fight within the Democrat Party for financial change in their platform.

Now on to Fidelity to the Constitution and Restoring the Republic.

@Tim, so you can’t be a Republican without agreeing with *all* of the party’ positions? No room for philosophic debate in the GOP? That wasn’t always the case. Nor was it always the case that, to be an economic conservative, you had to be a social conservative as well. Unfortunately you’re right; no thinking person would continue to associate with a party in which independent thinking is not tolerated.

If you want fidelity to the Constitution, you don’t want amendments that strip people of freedom and religious liberty. If you want to restore the republic, start by supporting your neighbors’ rights to live as free people, without an interfering government telling them who they may and may not marry.

why they think this will STOP LGBT peopel from marrying – NO IT WON’T……1000′s upon 1000′s of LGBT Citizens ARE Married already……..are they married in MN..Nooo, thats your states loss of Revenue, and Population…for people who want to live where ALL people are Equal, they’ll just Leave MN….and you’ll be left with your Religious Zealots and Intolerance. FACT: in the States that have Marriage Equality – the Divorce rate is lowest in the nation…while the Red States have the Highest Divorce rates, Highest Drop Out rates, Highest Obesity rates….etc etc….but boy they gots plenty of that old time religion…………yea, big win. NOT!

Supporting same sex marriage is not the only possible libertarian position. In fact, I think the proper position for those who want minimum government, is to preserve the natural pre-political definition of marriage, which has the capacity to create social order with minimal interference by and support from the State. I explain why I think the Libertarian Party’s position is incoherent here: http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/18/the-incoherent-libertarian-position-on-marriage/

This article exactly captures the position I am pushing within the GOP. The marriage contract is an unenforceable contract because one of the parties (god) cannot be addressed through the legal system. At the same time, the idea that it is fair for the government to let businesses pay people more (through benefits, usually) just because they are “married” is an offense against the concept that we are all equal under the law. A politician should stand on principles and the people who claim that defining marriage this way is a matter of principle are choosing principles that go against other principles that IMNSHO are more important to a just society.

Now, if the Church wants to slap its own definition on a contract, that is between that Church and its members.

If you really want government out of the marriage business, we can start with a couple of ideas that even some of my pro-marriage equality shudder at….abolishing the need for marriage licenses and settling marital disputes via private arbitration.

@Jennifer Roback Morse,

The only social disorder I see created by same sex marriage comes from it’s opponents. And if some are born homosexual is that orientation and pairing not natural? I won’t relinquish a civil right to shrink government to a size that satisfies you, Ayn Rand or any other arbitrary standard. The Libertarian Party can go undermine it’s own Constitutional protections, leave mine unmolested.

Praise Jebus, God hates generosity, Amen.

well MN residents – its up to you…..do you allow the Right Wing Wackjobs dictate THEIR Religion on Your State? Hey they’ve already have Hampered WOMEN’s Health Issues in Numerous states…that’s right ladies…..keep giving them a pass, and YOUR RIGHTS as WOMEN WILL SUFFER…..why do you allow MEN to tell you what you can and can’t do with your own bodies? Let them pass this this ammendment, and Ladies – YOU’RE NEXT! The RIGHTS of your daughters, grand-daughters ARE UNDER ASSAULT by the GOP and thier Right Wing American Taliban Fringe!!!! LGBT people are ONLY the beginning…..THINK people THINK!