6 ms·

I agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage

by MCRed 11y ago

I agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the government out of marriage. Notice the Libertarian position is not the same as the mainstream "Gay Marriage" position. Libertarians would legalize Poly marriage as well, while I've had Gay Marriage Advocates give me a list of reasons why that shouldn't be legal. While some Libertarian candidates are personally against abortion, they would be laughed out of the movement if they advocated actually passing laws at the federal level to restrict it. Hey, I'm even personally not a fan of it (though I paid for one once) but that is completely different from being willing to support their bans, and I wouldn't support someone who wanted to ban them. (And yet I work for the Michael Badnarik campaign for a little while and he was "anti-abortion") Rand is going to have a tough time getting the republican nomination because that party hasn't quite realized that it's being to conservative and not responsible enough. So I don't mind that he's not taking a stand on these things. In fact, if we were in a climate where gay rights were being restricted (increased restrictions) or abortion were being fought (at the federal level) then I might be more worried about it. But we are not. W ran on a strong anti-abortion platform and nothing really happened during his term. He didn't even try. He knew it was a wedge issue, more than anything. Only at the state level are Abortions at risk. The real crime of our time is the out of control federal spying, adventurism and rights violations. (this is not a rebuttal to hackinthebochs who said nothing I disagree with.) EDIT: My statements are historical fact and consistent with what's known about libertarians: They want the state out of these kinds of decisions. Yet I'm downvoted. Is it because I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't really support gay rights? Sorry, but it's true. When clinton signed DoMA with broad democrat support, I was out. Sure the republicans were worse at that time, but I'm not going to compromise the idea that I don't have a right to get married! Even in the 1990s the Libertarians were the only party that was clearly pro gay rights and so I joined them. The past 20 years have proven me right. I take down votes (without comments or rebuttals) as merely an admission of the frustration at this truth.

dmix 11y ago
Just because people downvote you doesn't mean they disagree with you, or what you said is not factual. Hyper-political comments tend to get downvoted on HN in general because of the type of toxic comment threads they breed. Having libertarianism vs democrats categorization, gay rights, and abortion in one thread fits that category quite well.
- MCRed 11y ago
  I'm being brigaded. It's not just this one comment, it's comments on other threads, non-political and non-controversial ones as well.
jbrown 11y ago
Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will probably speed up the necessary changes.
- sjwright 11y ago
  The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there is just one relationship. Between three people there are three relationships.) I have no problem with the idea in theory, but it will require a lot of structural change of law to implement and is therefore sufficiently different to warrant a different technical term in law.
  - jbrown 11y ago
    How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, why should that preclude me from making another similar contract with a different party?

by MCRed 11y ago

dmix 11y ago

Just because people downvote you doesn't mean they disagree with you, or what you said is not factual. Hyper-political comments tend to get downvoted on HN in general because of the type of toxic comment threads they breed. Having libertarianism vs democrats categorization, gay rights, and abortion in one thread fits that category quite well.

MCRed 11y ago
I'm being brigaded. It's not just this one comment, it's comments on other threads, non-political and non-controversial ones as well.

jbrown 11y ago

Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will probably speed up the necessary changes.

sjwright 11y ago
The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there is just one relationship. Between three people there are three relationships.) I have no problem with the idea in theory, but it will require a lot of structural change of law to implement and is therefore sufficiently different to warrant a different technical term in law.
- jbrown 11y ago
  How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, why should that preclude me from making another similar contract with a different party?