Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
The government shouldn't be involved in blank, but since it is.....
"The government shouldn't be involved in blank, but since it is....." is a common problem encountered by libertarians. The marriage issue comes to mind. Sometimes, the defense of those who propose extending government into protecting the "marriage" of gays and lesbians is couched in the language of equality. I think further involving the government in marriage is a mistake. Another area where the above argument comes into play is with public property, i.e. parks, jails, squares, streets and the like. In this case, I don't object to rules being imposed on the users of these areas. There shouldn't be public property. But as long as there is, there has to be some sort of rules.
Thoughts.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
Ok, in all honesty, I have to admit, that is my view on gay marriage. In the larger picture, I agree the ideal is for government to not be involved...but..since it is...
The basis for this fear is that I'm really uncomfortable with people being able to put what others are allowed to do with their lives to a vote. The voting block usually becomes the chopping block in this situation. I mean, if the right to enter into a legal contract can be taken away from someone becuase they are gay, what if my rights can be taken away because I'm a woman? What if men decide they want my right to vote back, or decide to take away my right to choose? Both of these would affect my life greatly and the thought of the government being involved in hindering peoples lives in such a huge way just makes me nervous.
--
Jackie Fiest
You could argue that the government should honor contracts and leave the religious aspects, or lack thereof, to the participants. As a sidenote, I still don't understand the psychology of many homosexuals. Why do they need someone to approve of what they are doing? Since a majority (just a guess) are liberals, they have the same view of government as other liberals. It's society's mommy and daddy.
Well, I've discussed this with a friend who is gay and in a lot of ways it's objecting to being called a second class citizen. Why should they have to pay taxes to a government that treats them differently? Also, the lack of marriage effects them in ways that are important. Like, next of kin issues. If I was married, and my husband is critically injured and in the hospital, I can go in and see him. If I was a lesbian, and the woman I was with for 20 years was in a bad wreck and in the hospital, I couldn't see her. It's that kind of stuff that makes me for it. We are playing games with the emotions of human beings and it's horrible. And to make it even worse, it's religion that causes this kind of discrimination. The most useless thing ever is genuinely hurting people. And, the churches cause this harm while enjoying tax free status.
I don't want anyone paying taxes but I understand that we're addressing the problem under the current system, not the system that we would both like to see. I've heard the visitation argument before and if it's true (I'm the eternal skeptic), it's reprehensible. The question I have is who's preventing the visitation: the hospital on their own or the government? If it's a law that the hospital doesn't want to run afoul of, then the law should be changed or abolished. If it's hospital policy, then it's a little more problematic. If the patient can't be moved and the hospital won't let the patient's significant other visit, I don't have answer.
As far as the source of the discrimination, I don't agree that it's entirely or even primarily religious. Most of the guys I've known who didn't like gays didn't like them for macho/testosterone reasons. And these same guys didn't have any problem with lesbians.
Oh yea, I know a lot of guys like that. All of society serves to service their sexuality even to the point of detroying lives. I hate that.
But, having said that, it's not the macho issues with homosexuality that is preventing them from marrying, it's 99% of the religions and the particular denominations that are preventing them from marrying on a religous level, and using "God" as an excuse to vote them out of civil marriage that is making hospital policy an issue. If gays could marry, the hospital couldn't make an issue out of it.
The 99% aren't preventing them marrying. They are just refusing their sanction and the use of their property, as is their right. The solution, of course, is to find a denomination that will marry them. Or start your own. As far as civil union/marriage goes, the prevention is coming from the law. This hospital issue should give gay leftists pause when it comes to supporting universal health care. If the government is in control of hospitals, it is possible that they won't have any option. At least in a free market, there will be some hospitals that will allow visitation.
The "The government shouldn't be involved in blank, but ..." topic may have the makings of a podcast. Maybe you can use your new found influence with Gard to make it happen.
Actually, I'd argue that the discrimination by gays of religous organizations is something, especially us as libertarians, should be concerned about. The fact that churches, synagouges etc "serve the public" is what they argue when they do ask for federal monies. For example, there was a church that asked for (don't remember if they recieved it) government money to repair a broken gazebo. Their rationale was that members of the community marry there. So, a gay couple asked if the church would marry them, and they said no. These people aren't using their property discriminate, some of what they are using is tax payer property. They are using tax money to discriminate against people.
My ultimate belief, as far as marriage, is that it should be a legal contract between two people and the government shouldn't be involved at all. But I also hear that saying in my head, "They came for the Jews, and I said nothing because I wasn't a jew. They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing because I wasn't catholic. When they came for me, there was no one to speak for me." There was a point in my life a few years ago where I was in a relationship with someone whom I was extremely happy with. I was happy with my job. My life was happy to the point that when I was asked what I wanted for Christmas that year, I said I was happy with my life and wanted nothing. I want that same happiness for everyone. If I sit back and do nothing while these people are discriminated against, who will speak when the guns of government are pointed at me?
There's private discrimination, which all of us engage in every day. Some of it is intelligent, some of it just plays the percentages and some of it is obnoxious. There is a price to be paid for it, however, Then there is government discrimination. We all pay for it. literally. Libertarians can, and should, fight discrimination. We shouldn't support it by the government and we should socially sanction those who engage in it privately.
I agree 100% with your marriage position. However, the "you're taking tax dollars, you can't discriminate" scenario has some pitfalls. Of course, the church shouldn't have gotten the money. But once they did, it's not so clear to me what should happen. I can easily see this argument applied to almost the whole society. Most of us receive some sort of "benefit" from the government. Does that mean that the government can dictate to us how we behave? You mentioned that you live in a government dominated city. Do all the people who receive tax dollars in your city have to change their behavior to conform to what the government thinks is right?
I'm not saying I don't agree with you. I'm just throwing out some possibilities.
Do they? No. They don't. Too many people here either recieve benefits from the government in some way that there would be no way to enforce it.
To break it down, those who work for the army, the courts, the state university, the community college, the public schools...do I think they should have to change any prejudices? Actually, no. These aren't government hand outs per say, they are jobs. It isn't welfare. So, sure, let them donate to a discriminitory church if they want to. Now, personally, I shun those people and their churches, but it's private money, at least IMO, when it's wages and they earned it. But, in the case of the church that asked for money to fix a gazebo, I see it a bit difference because this organization discriminates against people. If a local business asked for money for the government, but refused to hire homosexuals, that would be a violation of EOE. I'm not sure why the churches are different. I wouldn't take away their rights to be soverign from the government, but I'd be quick to slap that hand away when it wants my tax money...
I agree that the dividing line should be the solicitation of tax money. I differentiate between people who work for the government (preferably in a job that would exist in a free society) and those who take subsidies. This whole discussion we've been having should be further demonstration that Economy and State must be separated. Think of all the problems and chaos caused just by businesses taking money.
Agreed.
End the state!
...and the fed!