California Libertarians Say Today’s Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage is a Step in the Right Direction

From the Libertarian Party of California:

The Chair of the Libertarian Party of California said today’s California Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage was the right one, but that it is only a small victory in the larger battle against government interference in marriage.

Kevin Takenaga, chair of the Libertarian Party of California, issued the following statement:

“People who truly cherish freedom see today’s Supreme Court decision as a victory for liberty and common sense. There’s no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to marry so long as their arrangement doesn’t interfere with any other individual’s ability to live their life in any way they want to.

“Many supporters see the decision as a repudiation of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. But Libertarians also see it as a step towards a revision of the larger public policy issue surrounding marriage. Californians should start asking their elected officials why government is involved in granting marriage licenses at all.

“Adults should be allowed to arrange their personal, financial and legal affairs in any way that best suits their needs. Businesses make private contractual arrangements all the time. Arrangements in the name of marriage should be no different.”

17 Responses to “California Libertarians Say Today’s Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage is a Step in the Right Direction”

  1. disinter Says:

    The Chair of the Libertarian Party of California said today’s California Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage was the right one, but that it is only a small victory in the larger battle against government interference in marriage.

    More government interference is a “victory in the larger battle”? Umm… okay.

  2. Brian Miller Says:

    Mike Nelson (“disinter”) was a supporter of incrementalism during his tenure as a member of the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians, and has not pursued any meaningful initiative towards “getting government out of marriage altogether.”

    In addition, he is a strident and vocal supporter of a Republican candidate who both has a marriage license and who advocates deep government involvement in marriage.

    Ergo, it’s a bit rich for him to be criticizing the LP of CA for its efforts, when its the LP of CA who has been part of the leadership coalition on this issue, with do-nothing Mike Nelson carping from the sidelines.

  3. disinter Says:

    In addition, he is a strident and vocal supporter of a Republican candidate who both has a marriage license and who advocates deep government involvement in marriage.

    Very good observation. Key word is “republican”.

  4. disinter Says:

    Ergo, it’s a bit rich for him to be criticizing the LP of CA for its efforts, when its the LP of CA who has been part of the leadership coalition on this issue, with do-nothing Mike Nelson carping from the sidelines.

    Brian, you never cease to amuse me with your infinite stupidity. If the LP of CA has some sort of “leadership coalition” in favor of more government regulation (marriage licenses), then by all means I will be “carping”. Duh!

  5. Michael Seebeck Says:

    disinter, you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue. Brian Miller is correct.

    As a member of the LPCA Legislative Action Team, I can tell you that we have taken the ball and ran with providing legislative bill analysis for the LPCA to promote moving policy in a libertarian direction. That includes supporting Mark Leno’s same-gender marriage legislation. EVERY state and the LNC should have LATs, and few do.

    We also played a role in this press release, providing input to it, although we had no say on the final wording (which is fine since that’s not the LAT’s role anyway).

    So, yeah, we’re on the front lines here. This was a HUGE win, whose impacts will be felt beyond CA. Sure, it’s not getting government out of marriages, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and by leveling the licensing playing field it sets the table to get rid of them entirely.

  6. disinter Says:

    Sure, it’s not getting government out of marriages,

    No shit?

  7. Michael Seebeck Says:

    disinter, with your attitude, it’ll never happen! Rather than celebrating a win, you complain about it, primarily because of your own pissing fest with the OL folks (of which I am not a member, BTW). Swell, take it offline. Rather than bitch about it, get off your sourpussed ass and DO SOMETHING to help to get where you think it should be.

    Sheesh, it’s not that hard: to go 2 miles you need to go 1 mile first…

  8. disinter Says:

    Yes, anyone that disagrees with Seedick should just shut up. All hail Seedick!

    Interesting that this “libertarian” sees more government intervention as “a win”.

  9. disinter Says:

    48.

    Huge Ass correctly points out:

    “This doesn’t move us closer to liberty, because it simply mandates that all gay couples register with the state government, and that unelected judges maintain the power to overrule the wills of the people. Libertarians should be working to abolish unconstitutional marriage licensing, and allow all couples to freely marry.”

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/phillies-salutes-advance-of-liberty-in-california/#comment-608831

  10. Michael Seebeck Says:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/gravel-statement-on-california-supreme-court-ruling/#comment-608895
    says it all.

    disinter doesn’t like valid points and therefore he complains I think everyone who disagrees should STFU. Nope, disinter, just you should STFU, because you are as wrong on this one as Dondero is on everything else. Your personal vendettas cloud your judgment, and that is plainly obvious to everyone on TPW.

    Now, disinter, be a good little boy, and go do your reading homework assignment: find the CA ruling and actually READ IT!

  11. Michael Seebeck Says:

    I wish to apologize to all the little boys for associating them with disinter.

  12. disinter Says:

    find the CA ruling and actually READ IT!

    Seedick - are you saying that gay couples will not have to register with the government (get permission) to get married? Are you saying such licensing is constitutional or even libertarian?

  13. Michael Seebeck Says:

    disinter, I never said licensing was constitutional or libertarian. It isn’t, but that is NOT what the battle of that ruling was all about, and your fixation on it shows you missed the point entirely.

    What I DID say was that the ruling now requires a license for same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. That requirement now makes it much easier to say the licenses aren’t needed at all. Before that, the claim was made that the licenses were need to deny same-sex couples marriage That claim is completely gone now, and the only reason for licensing marriages is now contractual, and that is done just as well privately.

    Only in your mind is opening up marriage to same-sex couples a bad thing. You are so fixated on the licensing that you miss the point that it is a step in the right direction, even if it isn’t the whole kit and kaboodle that you want and are bitching about because it isn’t there yet.

    So namecall all you want, but the fact is, you are just way off-base and out of line, and you are making yourself to be a fool.

  14. Anonymous Says:

    The libertarian ideal of no gov’t involvement in marriage would be nice, but that’s not likely to happen. We live in the real world and there are political realities. Given that a complete overhaul in how the state controls marriage licences is not realistic, the Supreme Court decision was, indeed, a step in the right direction. As John Wooden said, “The smallest good deed is better than the biggest best intention.”

  15. disinter Says:

    disinter, I never said licensing was constitutional or libertarian.

    Then why are you hailing it as a victory? Perhaps you aren’t libertarian?

    What I DID say was that the ruling now requires a license for same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. That requirement now makes it much easier to say the licenses aren’t needed at all.

    More government is necessary to get less governmen? Let me know when you return to earth, Seedick.

  16. Michael Seebeck Says:

    It’s a victory for equal opportunity and equal property rights, contracts, and privacy, and freedom of religion. Even you in your minuscule mind should be able to tell that, disinter. Those are things that libertarians favor more freedom in, whether you think so, or not.

    As for questioning my libertarian creds, you don’t want to go there. Unlike you, and your sideline complaining like a pathetic wimp, people like me are actually in the trenches fighting the fight.

    And I don’t need to revert to namecalling either. All it does for you is make you look like a blustering fool. I’ve dealt with plenty of them in past, and I’ve heard almost it all, so you’re nothing new. In fact, in the insult department, you don’t even make it out of Rookie League!

  17. Michael Seebeck Says:

    And to address the question, disinter, sometimes government can be a good thing, and sometimes it can be a necessary thing, such as enforcing the rights of the people. If you think all government is bad government, then I can’t do much for you except laugh at you, since you show no idea how the tool of government works properly, let alone improperly.

Leave a Reply