Comments on: Republicans Boo Their Own Candidate

By: the lion

the lion — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:06:37 +0000

Michael, the government needs to recognize all marriages equally whether it is between man and woman or man and man or woman and woman. Churches need not recognize all marriages but the government must.

I hope one day we look back and see this anti-gay marriage sentiment as we now see anti-interracial marriage sentiment: foolish and simply wrong.

By: Michael Lockridge

Michael Lockridge — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:31:48 +0000

I don’t think people have ever had much in the way of rights in nations such as China.

What people want to take away the right to marry? By what authority? Marriage should occur within your own sub-culture according to whatever rules you have chosen to submit. Nobody else has any say.

This is the ideal world, of course. Then again, I know of no agency imposing any restrictions on my own marriage other than the government. That license thing. As to whether or not others recognize a particular form of marriage, why would it matter?

I am probably fortunate to live in a place where I experience little social compulsion to conform. Except that old guy from the home owner’s association who doesn’t like how I keep my yard.

By: Uruk

Uruk — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:24:17 +0000

I can’t recall an exact quote and source– but Thomas Jefferson basically said that our democratic experiment is doomed if the people don’t stay educated and remember that our government facilitates the people’s rule. Not, that the government rules over the people.

Each party needs to fall in line or get out of the way.

Except that the people don’t seem to know that in mass. We need to start a movement that helps our fellow citizens recognize that in my opinion.

By: the lion

the lion — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:07:55 +0000

Michael, the govvies are heavily into marriage only because people are trying to take away the right of all Americans to marry (consenting adults) whomever they please. It is the government’s job to protect rights. That is why they must stay involved here. Once that right is protected, step out.

Rights must be actively protected or they will be taken away. You need only look to Asia to find many examples.

By: TheNate

TheNate — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:38:02 +0000

I heard a quote from my father when I was young. I believe it effectively sums up current American politics. “One side seems crazy, the other side is crazy. And I can never tell which is which”

By: Michael Lockridge

Michael Lockridge — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:51 +0000

I, too, am a hair shy of being an anarchist. I selected the Libertarian party as a tool to thumb my nose (through my vote) at the Democrats and Republicans. They are two flavors of vanilla, and not very good vanilla.

Even the Libertarians as currently evolved are a disappointment.

Gay marriage? Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. That would include marriage related tax regulations. If taxed at all people should be taxed as individuals. Their relationships should not be a factor. Marriage should be a matter for individuals to work out apart from government.

On the up side, the current system has lumbered along more or less adequately for centuries. I think the key is nobody having power for long enough to really screw things up. Moderated mediocrity. That’s America!

Of course, anarchy has it’s down side. As a friend said to me, “We are just too old for anarchy. I don’t have what it takes to defend myself all of the time, anymore.”

Mike

By: mac

mac — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:09:37 +0000

I saw they booed Bob Barr for going against torture, too.

You’re right. If they don’t straighten that ship, they will loose revelance as a party. Well, they should anyway.

By: the lion

the lion — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:47:27 +0000

Ron Paul does not support women’s rights. He does not support gay marriage. Like him, I believe in a tiny government. Unlike him, however, I believe that when it comes to defending our rights the government should be like dictatorship large. We are talking massive. Other than that? I am with him. But I can not support a man who refuses to protect my basic rights and the basic rights of everyone.

By: mac

mac — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:36:21 +0000

Mitt is a little too fundie for my taste.

Ron Paul, though nutty, is the only one I’d actually vote for. But, he doesn’t play nice with the other repubs, so he won’t go too far on the national stage. At least, I believe that’s what happened last election.