I Favor Rights for Individuals, not “Couples”

My friend Richard Rider argues for No on 8 on another page of this newspaper that homosexual marriage’s “time has come.”

 

I am certain that is shorthand for something deeper, but it is neither a legal nor a moral argument – it is an argument of expediency unworthy of serious consideration. If that is the level of argument for or against anything, we are all in trouble.

 

MY libertarianism tells me that government should be limited…in my case VERY LIMITED, but what government there is should be determined by the citizens, not by the Courts.

 

 Personally, I want government out of marriage altogether – I support religions setting their own rules for those who voluntarily participate, and contracts for the rest of us who wish to participate. For those who wish to simply cohabit, they may do so with or without contract.

 

The problem comes with government. It is government that determines how singles, couples, or multiples will be taxed; it is government that determines rights of survivorship; it is government that determines rights of ownership; it is government…

 

If government treated all individuals as individuals, regardless of their “marriage”; regardless of their “income”; regardless of their social contracts with others (single or multiple); then I would not give a fig about Prop.8 and in fact it would not be in question, nor would have the previous proposition, nor could the courts have had anything to overturn.

 

But government IS involved. HEAVILY, and it is my contention that insofar as the government IS involved, that involvement may be constrained or mitigated by the citizens. 

 

I would love government involvement constrained to simply reading and interpreting the written words of a contract, as written, between two (or more) people. Instead, government places barriers: These two people pay x because they are of opposite sex and have a State issued contract, while these two people pay Y because they don’t; these two people may take ownership of property as M, but these two people may not; these two…

 

It is insanity. We need to get government out of our lives, but what government there is should be under the rule of the citizens of 50 separate “experiments.”

 

“Out! Damn Spot!”

 

Citizens Rights

While I am voting Yes on 8, I recognize the right of the people of the State under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution to set the rules for their society and I will accept the will of the people.

 

Somehow, I doubt the No on 8 folks will do the same, and they will litigiously appeal to “equality” (not in the US Constitution, except in the 14th Amendment for “freed slaves”), or to “fairness” which appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration, or the Constitution.

 

(Sigh, I understand that neither do “privacy” or “abortion” – don’t remind me. Some like to tell us about Bush using the Constitution as toilet paper – believe me, that document has been no more than a paper icon, revered without understanding or observance – LONG BEFORE BUSH.)

 

If Prop. 8 fails, I will immediately add my support for those working for acceptance of polygamy, using EXACTLY the same arguments as the No on 8 group and watch at least some of their hypocrisy as they immediately cry foul; because polygamy will dilute their political victory. – much as many Blacks are annoyed when the homosexual community lays claims to a Civil Rights Movement.

 

We live in interesting times, and I will look forward to having those who call for “equal rights for all” join me in supporting the rights of polygamists.

The Nanny State

Prime News on CNN is reporting that a school district in Massachusetts is banning not just junk food from school vending machines, but from SCHOOL LUNCH BOXES.

 

It bans donuts, candy, soda, cakes, cupcakes, pies, cookies, & ice cream.

 

The Nanny State is coming…Beware the Lunch Box Police!