Libertarian Party of California Backs Domestic Partnership Initiative

PANORAMA CITY, Calif., March 26, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Libertarian Party of California formally endorsed the Domestic Partnership Initiative (DPI), a proposed state measure that would replace the word “marriage” with “domestic partnership” throughout the California constitution and statutes. The DPI was approved on March 9, 2009 by the California secretary of state for petition signature gathering.

more here:

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=162043

You dodged my argument. I am not arguing about discrimination or non-discrimination. My comment said that sexual preference does not equal race. That is a fact. A man is physically different from a woman. The differences between a black and a white are superficial. The vast anatomical differences between a man and a woman are not the same as the superficial differences between races, so the sexual preference = race canard is phony.

The entire point of this is that the government has no business in trying to define OR re-define the concept of marriage.

The point is that the concept of one man one woman marriage is a religious construct and should be entirely the realm of the religious sector of our society; IE, not the governmental sector.

—————————–

First a point on your word choice. You keep saying “the point” and then listing your opinion. Your opinion or your perspective is not a “point” or “the” point. It is just your opinion. Just having an opinion does not make that opinion somehow greater than other opinions.

As for you OPINION (not “points”), the concept of one man and one woman is a social construct, not a religious one. For example, I believe strongly in such a thing and I’m agnostic. I’m not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, etc. So marriage is not just a religious concept as you claim. It’s a social concept, and society does need to protect itself. That is one role of government. So acknowledging the social concept of marriage is a necessary role for government.

—————————-

The way marriage is used in a civil (read; government) context is to say ‘this person and this person alone is an extension of myself in all matters’. So go ahead, when this is law form a contract with your buddy for lower taxes. Of course, then your buddy can sign contracts on your behalf, have access to your children, and see you when you’re in the hospital. Sound good? Fine, do it. Oh yeah, if you and your buddy have a falling out he gets half your stuff. At no point do you ever have to actually have sex with this person.

———————

That is a functional definition of how the government views marriage. However, society views marriage as between a man and a woman, so there if you are making a libertarian argument, then it would not be consistent for you to argue that the government should try to change the attitudes of society by redefining the social concept of marriage.

—————————————

Nobody cares what you think about homosexuality. Nothing about ‘marriage’ or ‘civil unions’ has anything to do with where you put your dick. I am married, and nowhere in the entire process did anyone verify that I ever actually had sex with my wife. There is no difference on a fundamental level between the idea of ‘two men or two women can’t form a union’ and ‘a white and a black can’t form a union’.

———————-

So everyone cares what you think about homosexuality, but not what people opposed to homosexuality think? That sounds a bit egocentric. Secondly, the government apparently does care what people think about homosexuality, considering that gay marriage has been banned in roughly two-thirds of the states.

———————-

The only thing holding you back is that the idea of two men having sex makes you feel icky inside, while at the same time your very existence is testament to the fact that we have decided against the following people who think that a light skinned person and a dark skinned person having sex is icky.

—————–

The only thing holding me back is that gay rights activists are trying to use the courts to hijack this democracy, as was done in Connecticut. Most people of Connecticut oppose gay marriage, but supported civil unions, so they authorized that. The courts of Connecticut reversed the decisions of the people, and legalized gay marriage using the 14th Amendment as a pretext for it. If you want to know if something is holding me back, just ask me, and I’ll tell you. It’s dishonest for you to make up things which you think “hold me back.”

As for my existence, I was born before my parents got married anyway, so I don’t owe my existence to the passage or non-passage of any laws regarding marriage. Again, if you want to know about my existence, it’s stupid of you to assume rather than ask.

——————

To bring it full circle, you call marriage anything you want. A-ny-thing-you-want. I don’t care. You keep your definition to yourself and your church and let the government recognize contracts between two consenting of-age adults regardless of RACE or GENDER.

———–

Of course I can call marriage anything I want, however I never talked about what I was interested in calling marriage, so that’s a strawman argument. Secondly, you again make the foolish mistake of making assumptions (that I belong to a church). I don’t belong to any church. It would have been less foolish if you had asked first instead of assuming. Perhaps you have just demonstrated that your assumptions that marriage is a religious concept is flawed, and thus your entire reasoning about the issue is flawed.

As for letting the government negotiate contracts, I’m all for that, and if you weren’t misrepresenting what I said, you would have seen that. The government can negotiate those contracts, recognizing marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a civil union between same sex couples.

——————–

If you want to join a church that won’t perform the ceremonies of single sex ‘marriages’ then you go right ahead and do that, your church will fit right in with the ones who won’t marry no darkies to our white wimmins.

——————-

Again, I belong to no church and I have no desire to do so. Since your position on the issue is based upon an opposition to the ideas of church and marriage, and I have demonstrated that my position has nothing to do with church and marriage, it seems that your argument is based upon a faulty premise and is therefore invalid.

As for the churches that won’t marry “darkies to our white wimmins”, let them do that. Unlike you, I’m not going to ask the government to use violence to force them to think as I do.

That said, people who have an axe to grind against theism — or those who simply know nothing about world history pre-Christ — really need to stop making fools out of themselves by insisting that marriage between men and women is a religious construct.

In fact, while it is indeed a construct, it is a civic and social construct that has arisen in secular, pagan, religious, and nonreligious societies worldwide, independent of one another, and throughout almost all of recorded human history. Indeed, anthropology has taught us that something nearly identical to marriage units existed well before recorded history.

If you want to argue for gay marriage (as I do) go ahead, but please stop pretending that marriage or something that did not exist before churches. It simply is not true.

The entire point of this is that the government has no business in trying to define OR re-define the concept of marriage.

The point is that the concept of one man one woman marriage is a religious construct and should be entirely the realm of the religious sector of our society; IE, not the governmental sector.

The way marriage is used in a civil (read; government) context is to say ‘this person and this person alone is an extension of myself in all matters’. So go ahead, when this is law form a contract with your buddy for lower taxes. Of course, then your buddy can sign contracts on your behalf, have access to your children, and see you when you’re in the hospital. Sound good? Fine, do it. Oh yeah, if you and your buddy have a falling out he gets half your stuff. At no point do you ever have to actually have sex with this person.

Nobody cares what you think about homosexuality. Nothing about ‘marriage’ or ‘civil unions’ has anything to do with where you put your dick. I am married, and nowhere in the entire process did anyone verify that I ever actually had sex with my wife. There is no difference on a fundamental level between the idea of ‘two men or two women can’t form a union’ and ‘a white and a black can’t form a union’.

The only thing holding you back is that the idea of two men having sex makes you feel icky inside, while at the same time your very existence is testament to the fact that we have decided against the following people who think that a light skinned person and a dark skinned person having sex is icky.

To bring it full circle, you call marriage anything you want. A-ny-thing-you-want. I don’t care. You keep your definition to yourself and your church and let the government recognize contracts between two consenting of-age adults regardless of RACE or GENDER.

If you want to join a church that won’t perform the ceremonies of single sex ‘marriages’ then you go right ahead and do that, your church will fit right in with the ones who won’t marry no darkies to our white wimmins.

http://www.bishca.state.vt.us/Civilunion/civiluguideweb.htm

Civil unions, therefore, do no equal marriage. I personally think that this avenue SHOULD be the ultimate solution (Govt. gets out of the marriage business). However, it would be very ugly for everyone until the federal government replaces “marriage” with “civil union” in all of its laws that mention marriage and marital status. Otherwise any families with a civil union would only be stable inside of states that recognize it – and some things vary even between those that do.

http://www.dompar.org

and

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42833687407&ref=nf

Society may consider anyone deviant that they wish. I’m half black and half Chinese. If I go into the rural areas of the South, I’d probably be considered an abomination. So would our President. Guess what. I don’t care. I’m not going to go down in there with an army and force those people to accept me or the President and all mixed race people as something that they need to accept. You don’t want to accept me? Fine, there are millions of fish in the sea (300 million in the US).

Same goes for gays. They are trying to force the American mainstream to INDOCTRINATE society that homosexuality is ok. If you want to do that, then do it on your own time. Launch a grassroots movement to gain the acceptance of the American people. Do not try to redefine marriage to legitimize what people consider illegitimate.

Bottom line: let society make of people what they will. I won’t hold a protest outside a bakeshop if they don’t have a black man and a white woman on top of a wedding cake and you don’t try to redefine marriage.

The sexual preference = race is the biggest propaganda tenet and canard in the world today. It’s as much propaganda as bonuses for failing banks are “retention awards.” So unless you are talking about the Civil Rights movement or racism, please stop trying to add homosexuals as a new race to society. Thanks

Right-marriage=man&woman. excludes gays, polygamists, interspeciesists?
Left-marriage=m&m or w&w. excludes polygamists, interspeciesists?

the implication is that there is a heirarchy from both perspectives, and they argue about who is at the top, and whether there is room for ONE more at the top (gays). However, nobody ever even wants to begin to say that polygamists or other lifestyle choices are OK as well, because those prejudices are still OK. currently, the government, conservatives, and liberals pass judgement on adult, consenting polygamists that their sexual orientation/lifestyle is wrong. this is the same kind of prejudice that gays fight, but neither the right or the left wants to admit it because there is nobody fighting the problem yet.

my point is that fixing the marriage laws for gays is a small step in the right direction to actual equality under the law for all sexual orientations and family types.

Incidentally, there is no loophole in the DOMA for unions not identified as “marriage.” Also note that it was authored by notable “Libertarian” Bob Barr.