You argue that all marriages should be legal without government regulation (as if laws just pop up from the ground), yet argue that the law should not apply to those who hold religious beliefs, because its an infringement upon freedom of religion, despite their imposition of religion being of detriment to the right of association of others.
If all marriages are legit, then how can religious weddings be "of detriment to the right of association of others"? You're making no sense at all.
And I'm not arguing that some law "should not apply to those who hold religious beliefs", I'm explaining that it
does not apply; any such law as you've proposed would be tossed out by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision as a violation of religious freedom. No law telling one church it can't perform weddings while telling others they can would last a week, if you could even get one passed, because it's so obviously a government preference of one church over another.
You argue that the church 'requires' church weddings, yet argue that marriage is between people (thus it is a social institution and not a religious one), and yet somehow, government acceptance of that would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion.
You said no church requires church weddings, which is false. You further said some churches would be allowed to do weddings and others not. That would obviously be an infringement of freedom of religion, as obvious as that snow is frozen water.
BTW, marriage being a social matter does not preclude it being religious -- that's really sloppy thinking you did.
The problem with the Libertarian view, is that it masquerades as being in the best interest of everybody, when in actual fact it is inherently selfish.
I dispute your suggestion that better than two in five americans are libertarian, purely on the basis that such views are unpopular everywhere else. Most people are either left or right, with people falling mostly in the centre, and where people lean differently depending on the subject matter of any moral or social policy. Libertarians do not fit the mainstream like either conservatives or liberals do.
Huh? Where did you get that wild claim? That's an incredibly bizarre assertion!
Libertarianism is about rights. It rests on the fact of self-ownership. It aims at liberty. And it believes -- if you want to talk about interests -- as did Barry Goldwater, as did America's founding fathers, that liberty is what's in everyone's best interest.
A CNN poll last year showed about two-thirds of Americans being basically libertarian. A NYT poll in '09 or '10 came up with slightly over half. When the World's Smallest Political Quiz is used, the results fall between two-fifths and three-fifths.
It's because America was founded on libertarianism, though it wasn't called that back then. It was founded by libertarians who recognized that all sovereignty in human society lies with the individual. And the United States remains nearly the only country in the world founded purely on liberty, without the notion that government, a totally artificial construct, has some existence and rights of its own. Most of the world still believes in the "divine right of kings", though they'd hardly admit to it -- they believe that government has an existence of its own, with inherent authorities and powers, and that rights flow from government to the people. But that means there are no rights, merely privileges, because if government has to give us rights, then what we are in truth is property, the property of that government.
Libertarians don't "fit the mainstream" because they aren't on the spectrum. Left and Right authoritarian at root, thus anti-liberty.
You want government to butt out of peoples lives, but yet want them to do the right thing. You want the right of self defence to be absolute, regardless that the evidence proves it impedes the right to life. You want freedom of religion to be protected to the absolute, despite it impeding on social institutions. You want freedom of speech to be protected to the absolute, despite it impeding on peoples right to security. You want everybody to be treated equally, yet approve of blocking the furtherance of that cause. You believe that basic rights should be free, yet qualify criminals as being exempt from the most important, on the basis that they are bad people, which makes you a follower of their level of morality.
Libertarianism is the road to anarchy, i say that as a liberal.
The right to self defense IS the right to life.
Freedom of religion CANNOT impede on social institutions, unless those institutions belong to one or another church.
Freedom of speech doesn't impede people's right to security. There is no right to harm or betray or steal secrets from anyone, so speech can't be used for that.
I'm haven't said anything toward blocking the furtherance of any cause but oppression. You've been arguing consistently for religious intolerance and for discrimination against people on the basis of who they love.
Where here have I talked about criminals? They're exempt from nothing except when they ask to be, by violating the basic contract.
From the above paragraph, I can tell you haven't got a clue about libertarianism. It couldn't possibly be the road to anarchy, because anarchy is at root a denial of all rights -- the utter, complete opposite of libertarianism.
And the licence fee for marriage, i'm sure covers administrative costs. It's not paying for the right to be married.
It it covers administrative costs, it should be about $2. In the digital age, that's being generous; it works out to about $60/hr, since it takes the clerk maybe two minutes to deal with the matter.
