Gay Marriage Goes to The Supreme Court – What Libertarians Say

Once again the debate is on the table regarding gay marriage because the majority has squashed the rights of the minority (the minority not just being gays but the 16 states left who favor gay marriage). This time the debate will happen in U.S. Supreme Court. all because once again the majority is being allowed to legally show brutal disdain to the minority. Legally !! Unbelievable !! We still haven’t learned our lessons to look out for the minority so they won’t get crushed. 16 states have given rights that legally bind gay couples who have come together and the only way those agreements can be binding is that they MUST remain in the state that they were married. We can marry in Massachusetts but our legal arrangement with the state will only be honored there. Our marriage means nothing Michigan. So much for land of the free. Thank you America. You are clearly showing what “freedom” means to you.

The truth is there are really not even 16 states that gays can actually have the legal rights of marriage in. There are only 9, Conneticut, Iowa, Main Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington , the District of Columbia and finally New York . The other 7 are simply civil union, domestic partnership allowances . California gays fought a very hard fight for gay marriage but lost the battle when Prop 8 was instituted. They later had a rematch when a the federal court found it to be unconstitutional. That court ruling is being repealed and awaiting a ruling now by the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow!! Somebody really hates the idea of gay people being allowed the freedom to marry.

So ….either today (Friday) or Monday, the Supreme Court is going to look at some of the things that have gone on with the issue so they can determine how to move on. 1 state is petitioning them to determine whether the over turning of prop 8 was legal . 8 states are petitioning them to determine whether DOMA -The Defense of Marriage Act put in by President Clinton is constitutional (and the gay community sees this man as a champion for gay rights. Yet he along with the Democratic Party instituted the very bill that federally confirms all gay marriages null and void. I understand why the gay community at large doesn’t support the Republican party but I’m not getting this great love at all for the Democrat party when no Democrat President has ever DONE anything to support gay marriage. Libertarians have supported gay marriage since its inception).

At any rate the Supreme Court is scheduled for a pre-hearing to determine which of the 10 petitions set before them they will look at OR … if gays that are already legally married should have federal rights as gay couples. If the repeal to the over ruling of Prop 8 is thrown out, its been been said the ruling could be huge and thereby either overturn anti-amendments all around the country or go as far a ruling out all gay marriages that have been deemed legal. Its hard to imagine either way. The hearing coming up today or Monday is only to determine which of the marriage issues the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain, Which ever one is decided will then be the topic of Supreme Court discussion sometime around March 2013.

My libertarian take – First let me say this: Libertarianism is all about the individual rights we all individually have as humans. As a libertarian I stand behind everybody’s individual right to believe whatever they want to about marriage. If a person is against gay marriage they have that right to be against it and not support it. Thats what liberty is all about … being free as an individual to believe whatever you desire. In the same way however that a person has a right to be against it, people should also have the right to favor it BUT when laws are made that don’t not allow people to favor it, it infringes on their individual rights. This is not simply about marriage rghts its about all of our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS . You don’t have to allow a gay couple in your house. You can be against it. Your church has the right to preach against it . Thats what freedom of religion is all about.Thats YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Your church should not have the right however to stop another church from favoring it. Thats THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You can call that church a heresy or whatever you’d like. Thats YOUR RIGHT However in the same way you have the right not to endorse it, others should also have the right TO endorse it and to legally deny that right, takes away THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of others. The Lord never denied Adam the right to choose what he wanted, even though he disagreed with Adams choice. He did not intervene and we should follow his example. Keep in mind: If you take away someones individual rights trust and believe …their going to come after you and successfully take away rights you currently enjoy. “Whatsover a man soweth that shall he also reap”.

This country was founded on freedom, actually freedom of religion as those who came here came so that could practice what they believed in, which was not allowed where they came from. That kind of freedom should still be allowed. Denying individuals freedoms to believe and practice what THEY believe (especially wen they are not harming others) is not what this country is all about.

Libertarianism is not about fighting for the rights of gays but about fighting to keep INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS FOR ALL.

Celebrating the 1st Anniversary of The Repeal of DADT – A Christian Libertarians View on Gays in the Military

Today was the 1st anniversary of the military law of D.A.D.T. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) being repealed. DADT was initially instituted by the Clinton administration in 1993 to keep the military from booting people out of it who were known to be gay. The thinking was that if the military couldn’t ask and gays didn’t tell , those who were gay could not be booted out because no one would know. The problem is, keeping it from public knowledge would mean you could be gay in the military but would have to remain closeted. If gays were in gay marriages they couldn’t be known. If they frequented gay places (clubs ect) it couldn’t be known, and straight people who who didn’t want to serve next to gays would never know because with DADT it was not to be revealed. If it were ..someone could get the boot. Democrats set this up, Republicans were determined to keep it going and after almost 20 years of Democrats instituting this descriminating policy they were finally coaxed into withdrawing it and September 20th 2011 it was finally repealed.

Libertarians in office and libertarians running have fought Congress tooth and nail for this repeal for years because Libertarians are all about standing up for individual liberties, where everyone is allowed to live their lives the way they want without government interference as long as the way the individual lives does not hurt or effect anyone else. DADT was wrong because it effected gays in several ways. They couldn’t share about their proud family lives as other men and women in the military were able to share. They could not introduce their partners to others they served with, the way that others could. They had to be secretive about where they were spending their time off duty, and always ran the risk of being discovered, ridiculed and ultimately booted out. With DADT finally being repealed, they are free and “the boot” could not happen, at least not because they were gay.

Of course a lot of people (even some Libertarians) were upset when DADT was repealed last year because they say that it endorses a chosen “life style that they don’t agree with”. A lot of gay people would argue thats its not something thats chosen and I agree. But let’s just say for this discussion that it IS chosen. Is it right to take away someones right to choose what they want? For those who believe in the bible, you KNOW that God doesn’t take away freedom of choice. He specifically told Adam and Eve, for instance, that he didn’t want them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but even though he disagreed he placed it there FOR THEM TOO CHOOSE. He could have just not created the tree, and flat out JUST TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE in the same way that DADT took away people choices to live openly, but He didn’t. He let them choose. God always says ” I set before you life AND death, blessing AND cursing; therefore CHOOSE life that both you and your seed shall live. (Duet 30.19). More than anybody, believers should endorse everybody’s right to choose EVEN if they think the choice is a bad one, because God endorses choice. Libertarians believe in every individuals right to choose as well, as along as their choices don’t hurt or interfere with anyone else’s life. With DADT being repealed the choice for gays to live openly and honestly is now an option, before it wasn’t

In the fight for getting DADT repealed, 1000 military soldiers signed a letter claiming that repealing it would have a lot of negative outcomes.  However, one year later a study has just been published by “Palm Center” a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, and it found that there has been “no overall negative impacts” at all in the military aas a result of the repeal. I believe those fears were there because there are so many negative stereo types promoted of what a gay person is, and how he or she generally acts, that their ability to be effective soldiers in military was totally being overshadowed. One proof that gays are just as effective in the  military as anyone else is seeing Army Colonel Tammy Smith who was promoted to Brigadier General. She was one of the first to come out as gay since the repeal last year. She’s gay and made it all the way to General yawl !! Had the law not been in effect she would have never come out and had she revealed it just 1 year earlier, she would have never been promoted even though she was found well qualified. Congratulations General Smith.

So Happy Repeal Day to everybody and to all of you who are libertarian and the libertarian minded, keep fighting for individual freedoms. Vote for your local Libertarians. Vote for our libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson…and whether he makes it or not remember he and the rest of us are out here all out here fighting so there will be liberty and justice for all.

Thousands Forced Out of Marriage And Neither Presidential Candidate Says Anything. -A Libertarian Response to Gay Marriage

Pic of the constitution and a gay rainbow ring

Governor Romney is VERY clear that he will do nothing to stop gays from being forced out of marriage and while President Obama says he’s supportive of marriage equality, he has been pretty clear that he, just like Gov. Romney, will do nothing as well to institute it . He says” let each state decide”. That in turn means ‘ whatever each state decides, I’m good with it. If Michigan wants to force gays out, they can I don;t care’. Yet Democrats are backing away from him because he has expressed support for gay marriage, even though he’s stands behind every state that votes to reject it. What kind of support is that. Its risky for his campaign yet it appears clever in that it “says” to the gay community ..” I support” yet he has done nothing or has even expressed on record any kind plan to do anything at all.

There are plenty of things he could do if he was really supportive of gay marriage. He could approach it from the federal end and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which he hasn’t. He could see that a policy is instituted that would protect the rights of ALL to marry around the country instead of the rights of one party or one special interest group. You don’t have to believe in gay marriage to do that. You can say “I don’t believe in gay marriage but its a free country and I won’t stand in the way or pass any laws against of those people who do”.

The Defense of Marriage Act is cohercive and forces gays out of rights and benefits in marriage that are now given only to a select group and right now about 37 states are still passing laws that force gays out. A President who has no plan to do anything about , is simply saying ..”Oh well, they’ll just have to deal with it”. Thats a person who doesn’t care at all about liberty or rights of individuals, and thats a clear description of both major presidential candidates. Thats why neither of them has done nothing to deserve my vote.

I believe in “live and let live” and thats the libertarian way. I could only vote for a candidate who believes in that as well, a candidate that has a plan to stand up to support the individual rights of all. The only person I see like that is the Presidential Candidate of the 3rd largest party in America, Libertarian nominee for President, Gary Johnson .

In one article that I read he said ”People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.”

Thats my position as well. I have the utmost respect for those who promote that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I cannot respect those however, who make laws that STOP OTHER PEOPLE BY LAW from promoting what THEY believe as well. They want their beliefs respected in the constitution, but they don;t want others to have the same respect. Its the same kind of kind of religious hypocrisy that Jesus railed about that the Pharisees and Saducee’s displayed when he walked here. Jesus was vehemently against that kind of religiousity and I stand against it too.

Just an opinion of a new libertarian

Mayor Rahm Emanuel Penalizes People of Faith: A Libertarian Stand For Gay Marriage!

Mayor of Chicago

Before we get into this article let me say first I am huge supporter of “the freedom to marry” and thank God everyday that the U.S. Constitution says we have the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own faith. That means, IF A FAITH (any faith) encourages same-sex marriage then the constitution says that faith has the freedom to do it. However if a faith encourages its people to speak out against gay marriage, our constitution ALSO says that that faith has the freedom to do that as well. Its a constitution that supports liberty for all and that is what the Libertarian Party is all about. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (pictured above) wants to take that liberty away.

In case you haven’t heard this story,Lauren Silich, who owns a Chick-fil-A had plans of opening one of its franchises in Chicago. After an anti-gay marriage statement made by its company’s head Dan Cathy in the Chicago Tribune, Alderman Joe Moreno, supported by Mayor Emmanuel began to work to put a block on the Chick-Fil A effort. In response to Mr Cathy’s statement, Mayor Emanuel said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” He said “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

When I heard this all I could think was …WHAT?? Now we have GOT TO HAVE the same values as …now we have GOT TO HAVE the same beliefs?? Where is the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech that everybody is always always reminding us about? Its one thing to say gays should be allowed to marry, I agree 100% . But to PENALIZE people who don’t agree and hold “different” beliefs and values by blocking their efforts to do business in the city, is flat out unconstitutional. How does taking a way a freedom that another group has always had .. promote liberty . Also is the whole company going to be penalized just because of statements of its owner. Liberty, in our country is not to be just for some …it is suppose to be for all.

The LGBT community has done so well and fought so long for the freedom to marry and are seeking to have that same freedom all over the country that so many are having all over the world. The moment that that freedom begins to intrude on freedoms of others who believe differently though, is the day “freedom for all” in country begins to stop. Mayor Emanuel , Alderman Moreno, If your goal is to work with the gay community in promoting the freedom to marry, just know … you won’t be able to ever do it… by taking the freedoms of others away. Please don;t send us 20 years back to start all over again by legally penalizing the Chic-Fil A franchise. We have come to far on this issue. One of the main beliefs of Libertarianism (which I’ve supported throughout this blog) : No one should authorize another person to violate someone else’s rights.

One nation, Under God. With Liberty, And Justice – FOR ALL

Just a opinion of another libertarian

Vows of Powers Vs. the Marriage License/ A Libertarian Alternative to Marriage

People who are in my family and those who know me well and are in my church and circle of friends know that one political issue that  I’m very passionate about ,which is very close to my heart, is the marriage issue, and they know why.

The marriage debate is very interesting in that, in my opinion (and in  a lot of others opinions ) is very lop-sided and only seems to support people of one religious sect. Yet we’re supposed to be a country of “freedom of religious expression” but yet there are people of many religious sects that are not allowed that freedom. Unfortunately every religious persuasion doesn’t believe that marriage should be just between “one man and one women”.

History (even biblical history) shows marriages that are more than just “one man and one women”.

Genesis16:3-And Sarai, Abrams wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Vs. 4 and he went into Hagar and she concieved.

Today there are many religious sects that believe in marriage between people  of the same sex, yet their freedoms to have marriage, as their sects believe, are discriminated against in laws all around the country, “forcing by government” people to accept other religious beliefs and to denounce their own. How would christians feel if government laws were instituted here in our country, that forced them to denounce worship of Christ. Yet others are being forced to denounce practices which they uphold and believe. So much for “freedom of religious expression”.

In the meantime while this fight goes on millions of people in strong loving relationships around our country are openly discriminated against by the law, yet they are expected to honor people who have absolutely no honor for them at all.

I ran across this video and it really got me to thinking. How unfairly people in the minority are treated (and this time its not minorities such as “the races” , it speaks of minority groups who also have rights).

Imagine how you’d feel if you were tossed out of a home you’ve lived in for years or tossed out of hospital while you’re trying to spend the last moments you have with someone you loved for a very long time … lets say even your mother or your grandmother … and you were told you’d have to leave because you are unrelated. Whether they are a relative or a just a long time girlfriend you still love them and should have a right to be with them in their last hours, especially if you know that person would want that.

(Look at this video)

Unfortunately, that is not the case in our country. If you are a legal very close relative, (husband, wife, son, daughter), you’d be allowed to stay. If you are not, in many states, you’d be tossed out.

I’m a firm believer in “marriage equality”. That any adult should be able to marry any consenting adult that they want to. I don’t believe a pastor or any religious sect should have to endorse a marriage that they don’t believe in, however I DO believe that no religious sect should be denied the right to honor the families their sects believe in. Here in Michigan many sects have been denied that right. That is what I call true “religious discrimination”. There are a lot of people in this country who want to keep that going. Your sect should be able to honor whatever your sect believes in and so should everyone else’s.

So while this fight is going on … I’d like to offer “a libertarian alternative to marriage” which doesn’t involve the word marriage or changing the definition of marriage at all (since that seems to be the big issue). It’s legal, its wouldn’t take long term lobbying and it can be done without changing laws. If its taken seriously it can be instituted in a relationship within the next hour and could be done without spending one red cent. It can also provide some support to a lot of relationships until those fights are resolved. I’m calling it, The Vows of Powers of Attorney.

The Vows of Powers of Attorney-

The Vows of Powers attorney, a term which I have coined, is a document that anyone can draw up that is very similar to a regular “Power of Attorney” document. (A lot of people say this is a very costly undertaking but that is untrue as there are regular “Power of Attorney” documents already pre-drawn and given free by Attorneys all over the internet). That document is generally just signed by the person granting someone power of attorney and then notarized.

The “Vows of Power of Attorney’ document is different in that it is (in my own definition) “an agreement between TWO people granting each other SEVERAL different powers of attorney that each person on the document has vowed/agreed to honor in behalf of the other”.

The regular “Power of Attorney” is not an agreement between two. Its simply a statement, wish, or will of “one” which sometimes the other doesn’t even know about. In the “Vows of Power” both parties know because both sign and the document holds because it expresses the wishes of the party not able OR available to express their wishes themselves. In some ways the “Vows of Power” are more powerful than a marriage license and definetly much more easier to resolve than a marriage.
.
Where the “General Power Attorney” basically just authorizes someone to handle another’s financial affairs, the “Vows of PowerS of Attorney” would authorize a number of other powers as well. It would grant …

  1. GPOA /General Power of Attorney – which authorizes one to make financial decisions on behalf of the other when the other person is simply UNAVAILABLE.
  2. MPOA/Medical Power of Attorney – which authorizes one to make hospital and medical decisions on behalf of the other when the other is INCAPABLE.
  3. DPOA/Durable Power of Attorney –which authorizes one to make financial decisions on behalf of the other if the other person is INCAPABLE or DECEASED
  4. Guardianship – which expresses the wish of one to have another care for a family member who is unable to care for themselves (children ect) should legal caregiver or legal guardian expressing the wish be UNAVAILABLE, INCAPABLE or DECEASED to continue care.

Each “Power” on the “Vows of Power” document would be paragraphed separately and list several very generale details.

The GPOA for example would name the partys at the beginning of the document (Partner 1, Partner 2) and it would start something like this …

General Power of Attorney – If Partner 1 is unavailable for any reason to fulfill any responsibilities of the list below, General Power of Attorney is granted to Partner 2 to fulfill those responsibilities on his/her behalf, in Partner 1’s name. General Power of Attorney is also granted to Partner 1 to fulfill this list of responsibilities in Partner 2’s name whenever Partner 2 is unavailable. (I’m not a lawyer but if its worded incorrectly a good laywer could fix this)

The responsibilities being graned in this GPOA include the following:

  • Handling banking transactions
  • Entering safety deposit boxes
  • Handling transactions involving U.S. securities
  • Buying and selling property
  • Purchasing life insurance
  • Settling claims
  • Entering into contracts
  • Exercising stock rights
  • Buying, managing or selling real estate
  • Filing tax returns
  • Handling matters related to government benefits

If desired both parties would also have the option to grant the following additional powers to the other:

  • Maintaining and operating business interests
  • Employing professional assistance
  • Making gifts
  • Making transfers to revocable (“living”) trusts
  • Disclaiming interests (this has to do with estate planning strategies to avoid estate taxes)

The other powers being granted would appear on the document the same way, They would be listed MPOA, DPOA & Guardianship. (The powers typically granted for each one of theses can be found in many places on the internet). Guardianship issues can only be assigned by legal guardians and those to be guarded should be listed on the document. Each may have a different age up to which a child can make their own decisions.

Another unique factor of the “Vows of Power” document that I am proposing is,] that it can be much easier resolved than a divorce. Only one signature required.It would contain a clause such as, PLEASE NOTE: Only a revoke of power issued by one of the above vowing party’s can nullify the agreed upon arrangement. This can be done at anytime without the others consent. The “Revoke of Powers” document should read :This “revoke of powers” is being issued to revoke all powers granted on the Vows of Powers of Attorney  document on 00/00/2000

Now I did mention earlier but i will say again that I am not a lawyer but all of the language I’m proposing to be used are very general legal terms, already basically accepted in court of laws around the country. Any one attempting to draw such a document up for themselves however should seek legal advice or to the very least, take the document drawn up and have it approved by a lawyer in order to confirm its legality.

I’m currently looking for a lawyer to assist in drawing up a document like this that can be used by any body. It would be a “statutory document” in which blanks will be added so that individuals will only have to add their names and signatures to the document (I’m a pastor and once its approved I plan to have it on the backside of every certificate I grant when I do a wedding- It will be optional for those marrying to sign).

My next step would be, in order give some “added protections” to the document for the individuals, is to propose a bill requesting “state senate” legislators to create a similar “uniform statutory FORM” called “The Vows of Powers of Attorney”
and to have it distributed and filed by and with the “secretary of state”. This will give those who enter the agreement additional security in knowing that their rights to have such a contract are supported by the states which they live in.

This is not marriage, nor a marriage license, nor is it an attempt at all to re-define marriage. It is a simply a libertarian effort to bring some supports to relationships of individuals who have come together as family’s, whom the states don’t acknowledge. It also gives everyone the “individual rights” to secure the relationship they desire.

Seeing that “individual” rights are protected is, the Libertarian way.