United Liberty

Like many in both the conservative and libertarian camps, I count myself a fan of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  His no-nonsense style and willingness to take on entrenched interests have won him many admirers.  Yet one area where Christie and I diverge quite starkly is on the issues of gay marriage and drugs.  On these issues, Christie veers to the social conservative side whereas myself and other libertarians are more moderate.

Christie, however, will soon have a chance to let us all know whether he will continue to express opposition towards equal recognition of gay marriage, or if he will let New Jersey join the small but growing number of states that have allowed gays the same rights and privileges as straights.  In the upcoming session of the Garden State’s legislature Democratic leaders will once again introduce a gay marriage bill.  As of yet, it is uncertain what Christie will do.  He previously promised to veto such a law, but that was two years ago and prior to New York’s historic actions last year.

As a native of New Jersey and a current resident of neighboring Pennsylvania, I’ll be watching this process closely.  In my mind, it will signal whether, in just a matter of years, the political winds have changed enough that Christie will choose to support gay marriage equality.  It is certainly my hope that Christie will come to the realization that allowing gays the freedom to marry will harm no one and enrich the lives of LGBT New Jerseyans and their friends.

I was looking through the comments on some of our posts, and I came across an interesting one on one of Jason’s entries. The article Jason wrote was “Ron Paul may not win, but his influence will be lasting,” and the comment in question was from a Jill. Q, who wrote (and here I am copypasting everything):

[T]here’s something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party…”

He’s not my idea of a “small government” anything. Ron Paul opposed the supreme court’s 2003 landmark decision on gay rights, Lawrence v. Texas. He said that it was an infringement on states rights to tell them that they can’t ban homosexuality.

Do you agree? Is this your idea of “liberty”, Jason? If it is, go ahead and vote for Ron Paul.

“Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.”

I think this is actually a good point to make, and I want to take it as an opportunity to discuss some ideas about negative and positive liberty and what I think about them as well.

First, a clarification: I don’t think anyone here considers Ron Paul to be the best, in terms of doctrinal purity, libertarian, but he is certainly a standard bearer, and has definitely put the movement “out there.” So we look to him as someone who is great for messaging libertarianism to others, but not necessarily the “best” libertarian. I think most of us here would prefer if Gary Johnson was in Paul’s place on that front.

Some good news to start off this week (in which I suspect everyone will be screaming their lungs out for.) The PJ Tatler reports that Andrew Breitbart, conservative blogger and media mogul extraorindary, will be skipping CPAC 2012—because the American Conservative Union banned the gay Republican group GOProud. (I’m not going to do the usual quote box because the article itself is only a few lines.)

Conservatism as we know it is heading out the door. It may take a little longer to boot it to the curb then progressivism and FDR-style “social welfare liberalism,” but it’s heading towards the door all the same. Breitbart’s decision just highlights what Al Cardenas and the rest of the ACU are doing—shooting themselves in the foot.

Look at New York. Look at the upcoming generation. Look at our country. Those who continue to deny homosexuals the right to marry and live their lives are becoming a minority, fast. And I say good riddance. I hope Al and the gang continue doing and saying things that make them and CPAC more irrelevant, so the rest of us, those who are serious and focuing on grown up matters, can finally take care of our real problems.

Cross-posted.

Libertarians usually reserve the concept for marriage privatization for the debate over same-sex marriage. Theoretically, the position is pretty accessible: government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning the voluntary, free associations of fully enfranchised people, and should not confer special tax status or beneficiary privileges on one group of people while denying the same to another group. (For a contrarian libertarian view of this school of thought, see Jason Kuznicki’s “Marriage against the State: Toward A New View of Civil Marriage” — for a snapshot, he discusses his findings in this podcast.)

But what happens when the debate isn’t about same-sex marriage? What happens when we’re talking about garden variety, heterosexual, one-man-one-woman marriage? Why should we support privatization then?

For starters, people in government have lots of incentives to do the wrong thing.

Take, for example, John Arriola, Davidson County Clerk in Nashville, Tennessee, who has been using his staff to help him charge $40 cash per marriage ceremony, money which he pockets instead of depositing in the county’s coffers. When News Channel 5′s investigative reporting team uncovered the scandal, Arriola began insisting that he was accepting “gratuities,” and hilarity ensued:

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

While some conservatives are stomping their feet like spoiled children over the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC, Erin McPike explains that legislative action like repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” could mean problems for GOP with the next generation of voters:

In the Republican Party, the fracture over issues concerning homosexual individuals revealed itself more clearly in the vote for repeal of the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military.

Of the eight Republican senators who voted for repeal, five are among the youngest in the upper chamber - and they’re not all moderates.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Ensign of Nevada and Richard Burr of North Carolina maintain relatively conservative voting records, despite some of Murkowski’s recent votes. They are 53, 52 and 55, respectively.

Their colleagues Mark Kirk and Scott Brown have been lumped into the more moderate wing of the party, but they, too, are some of the youngest GOP senators. Both are 51.

Melissa Kennedy, press secretary for Log Cabin Republicans, said that gay issues generally are generational.

“Nearly all young service members supported the repeal of DADT because it simply doesn’t matter to them what anyone’s sexual orientation is and many happen to know and are friends with gay people,” she said.

Social conservative groups are withdrawing from participation at CPAC, the national largest annual gathering of conservatives, due to the involvement of GOProud, a gay conservative group:

Two of the nation’s premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

“We’ve been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization’s financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

“CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud,” CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.