“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Monday, March 25, 2013

GOP fractured over gay marriage?

There is a schism brewing within the GOP over the gay marriage issue. According to Huck, evangelicals, a significant component of the base, will bolt if the party accepts gay marriage, but polls show a plurality of Americans either support gays marrying or don't care about it one way or the other. Conversely, young otherwise conservative voters may bolt if the party clings to traditionalism. That's a problem for the GOP when national elections come around.

I predict the GOP will stick with "no gay marriage" positions, at least for the next few elections, therefore I welcome all the disgruntled, young conservatives into the libertarian fold where arbitrary moral judgments have no place in the political process.

If you are fiscally conservative, believe in small limited government and low taxes, and believe that people should be free to pursue happiness how ever they like, no matter how offensive it is to certain other people, as long as they don't break the law, hurt themselves, others, or impede anyone else's pursuit of happiness, then you might be a libertarian.


Anonymous said...

I am a conservative but struggle with the moral conundrum that if gay marriage is okay then so must polygymy, incest etc.

Where is the moral baseline that something is wrong or not?

Love your blog btw.

Ed said...

Anon, I actually don't see anything wrong with polygamy if that's the kind of relationship contract people want to enter into in their personal pursuits of happiness.....as long as all participants are fully sober, consenting adults.

It's not for me, but as long as it meets the criteria above, why should I care what they do? How does their "marriage" affect me? Why should I deny happiness to somebody on the basis of my moral objection to their lifestyle?

As for incest, there is a biological, evolutionary imperative that consanguinity not exist in a population. The biological results will likely be impaired and burdening a person with a disability would constitute impeding their pursuit of happiness in my book.

Hope that explains my position better. Thanks for commenting.