A little disingenuous.....Libertarians just want the government out of everything involving the lives of the People.....and the control thereof. Doesn't in any way mean they "favor" ANYthing other than "favoring" the rights of the People to make their own decisions in their lives without government interference.

.....and on that...I agree with them.

They favor the government out of the marriage business altogether......including out of the homosexual marriage business.

That doesn't mean they "favor gay marriage" at all. "They" favor the government out of the relationship business.

MAtter of fact, their platform simply says on the matter of homo-marriage......."Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships."

Just because Libertarians want the government out of the "imposing morals" business doesn't mean they are a-moral. It means the they don't want it to be the business of the government to impose morals on the People.

I know quite a few moral church-going libertarians (the "little 'l'" brand, not the "big 'L'" party).

I also know quite a few uber-religious people like you that want the governmnet to impose YOUR morals on the People.

Must've missed that part of the Constitution that says the government should force morals on the People.

Get your morals from wherever you get them from, church, family, a personal athetistic sense of "treat others as you'd wish to be treated".......so long as they are not imposed by the government. THAT is what the Libertarians stand for.

As in...the government should leave me the hell alone unless I infringe on the freedom/liberty of others through criminal acts.

The Libertarian "platform" on their website says this:

"Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual."

I don't see this as too likely to attract any considerable portion of the disaffected conservative base--who see John MCCAIN as too liberal.

As to the notion that it is even possible to avoid the imposition of "moral" laws--it's flatly ridiculous. ALL laws are undergirded by morality of one form or another. Even the refusal to pass such laws is a principled MORAL position.

And so is this:

"As in...the government should leave me the hell alone unless I infringe on the freedom/liberty of others through criminal acts."

ALL laws are undergirded by morals, eh?

60-mph speed limit on Rte 3 South to Cape Cod is a "moral" law, eh? Doesn't have anything to do with the State trying to regulate the safety of drivers? .....or simply raising $$$$?

Rape laws are "moral" laws, eh? Doesn't have to do with a violation of another person, it's for moral reasons?

So THIS is how you get to feel good when wanting to legally impose your morals on other people....by making bullshite claims that all laws are based in morals...so laws shoving YOUR morals down our throats fit right into the mix.

No wonder everyone bailed from this once-fine site.....YOU took it over with your bullshite.

Great job. 2 contributors and one "but but but BUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush...." whiner.

...signing off until whichever twin that originated this site (been so long since I've seen 'em, I don't remember which it was A or M)....takes back the site and makes it great again....if ever.

"ALL laws are undergirded by morals, eh?"

Absolutely.

"60-mph speed limit on Rte 3 South to Cape Cod is a "moral" law, eh? Doesn't have anything to do with the State trying to regulate the safety of drivers? .....or simply raising $$$$?"

The calculation that renders safety as more important than the drivers' convenience is a moral one.

"Rape laws are "moral" laws, eh? Doesn't have to do with a violation of another person, it's for moral reasons?"

The holding that it is WRONG to "violate" another person is a moral assumption. It has nothing to do with pragmatic concerns and, in fact, is given a veto over pragmatic concerns. We would not allow rape if the rapists agreed to pay the state a fee for the right to rape, would we? Of course not. Because the integrity of the human person is a higher moral value than the enrichment of the state coffers.

See ya, Sarge. Hope to see you again, and I hope this site does come back, one day.