Maine's Question 1

[Scam of God]

I have precious little doubt this will pass. The religious rubes and their yay-freedumb-except-for-you bumpkin allies have the motivation to vote; those who love liberty do not.

[Scam of God]

Come on "No" votes. Common sense, Maine. Common sense.

More than that: freedom. Maine must believe in freedom.

[Scam of God]

The idiots who voted Yes are just making it worse for themselves. If this passes it will motivate gay people to fight harder for our rights.

Don't worry so much about it. The fact that it's this close is a propaganda coup for the side in favor of individualism and liberty, if nothing else. The rednecks have had their day in the sun for thirty years.

[Scam of God]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

[Scam of God]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

And rightfully so, as we've just democratized the right of personal freedom in this nation. And if you were remotely committed to the concept of small government as you pretend to be, you would be, too.

It's a state's right to define marriage.

No, it isn't. That's the point you dumbass New Rightists have never understood. It is the right of the institution which performs marriage to define it. If some sect wanted to perform a gay wedding, the State has no authority whatsoever to countermand that, because it is a private institution.

[Scam of God]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

So you approve of the government denying the will of private institutions in this area?

The same logic applies to business regulations.

[Scam of God]

Good job Maine!

And it's funny to see the left wanting to do to the right what they think the right is doing to them. Idiotic hypocrites like JFraud and Kucinishisdabest.

Eye for an eye, idiot.

You're fighting the wrong battle. Call them out directly, using their principles. Shove it under their nose like you would a dog that took a big s**t right where he sleeps.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

[Scam of God]

In other words: I like big government - when it does what I want.

The entire conservative movement in this country ought to be bulldozed over and salted.

[Scam of God]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

I like waffles, but I'm absolutely terrified you'll drown if you keep pouring syrup over yourself.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

[Scam of God]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

"Gay Marriage" led by radical activists who probably want to sue God because two men can't naturally bear a child = Fail.

So i guess you are in favor of banning infertile staight people from getting married?

He's in favor of anything that doesn't upset the delicate status-quo within the Republican Party, even if it means selling out again and again and again on the vital issues.

[Scam of God]

Why has this debate descended into puerile legalism? What matters is the preservation of the national spirit of individualism! I care less what one document says; what matters are the principles behind it - the absolutely freewheeling individualism, the benign freedom-loving of our forefathers. The conservatives have completely abandoned it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not arguing that you should be showing "tollerance". F**k your "tollerance", and f**k your faith with it - I'm not a liberal. I'm arguing you should be honest about the values you pretend to hold - do you really believe in a smaller government?

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

[Scam of God]

In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

Precisely. Personal freedom first, states' rights a distant second.

[Scam of God]

The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).

You need to run for office.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

Don't be facile. Everything today is identity politics - the Right practices identity politics more often today than the Left. "Joe the Plumber, ho ho ho!"

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.

This isn't regulating marriage - it's legally defining a legal term and legal contract established by the government.  If there was a 3rd party marriage regulation board, it'd be different, but government is creating the legal contract here.

Ludicrous. No other contract between two private individuals requires the involvement of the State to construct it. Not one. And a person is not a business. As long as this holds true of every other aspect of American contract law, then it is de facto true for marriage as well.

But it is not the government issuing any of those other contracts.  I don't think the government should be issuing the contract of marriage, but while it issuing it, it has the right to set parameters.

No, it doesn't. It might do it anyway, but that doesn't give it the metaphysical right to do it. Merely because something exists does not make it ethically right.

So does the government have any right to set parameters on marriage?

No, it does not. And that it chooses to do so today - just as it opts to regulate business - is a massive overstepping of its boundaries. If we had genuinely impartial Supreme Court justices, they've have struck down Question 1 yesterday.