The Sex Life of the Libertarian Species.

Robert Meyer and Douglas Kern are very concerned about the sex lives of Libertarians.

Meyer subscribes to the Taliban view of individual liberty, which is that freedom means freedom to do what my God tells you to do. Take this quote for instance:

At the founding of this country, liberty was understood in a biblical sense, rather than from an egalitarian perspective. Liberty was the right for people to act as free agents within the channel of God's providence, and without coercion from tyrannical governments in opposition to those standards. Today liberty is thought of as an unobstructed path to fulfilling whatever a corrupt imagination desires. Such is the low road to tyranny as noted above.

The key to liberty is for the rulers to honor self-government as a fundamental right of its citizens, but the key to self-government is to recognize that such must be based upon recognizing the laws of God as a transcendent moral authority. I believe George Washington tries to tell us this in his Farewell Address, when he states, "Indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." Without that sort of recognition you have acts like abortion and drug abuse viewed as a right or personal choice, instead of an affront to the sanctity of life.

But what he refuses to address is that where there is no choice, there is no morality. Morality is not being FORCED to behave a certain way, with the threat of imprisonment if you don't. Morality is choosing to behave a certain way without earthly coercions.

He goes on to quote John Adams, who would apparently think Taliban tactics were just fine, if only they'd convert to a civilized religion:

Again as John Adams eloquently stated. "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a utopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

Some people will of course protest that the founders never wanted religious precept to influence civil government, but that is a flat out fallacy. As Joseph Story, perhaps the greatest legal schollar [sic] of his day noted, "One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society."

So, when do the witch-burnings start up again? Why don't we just ban eating pork and playing football? Those are Biblical teachings, too.

Oh, I get it. The religious right wants to be able to pick and choose which Biblical teachings the rest of us must live by. It's all or nothing, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Adams. We either have religious freedom in this country or we don't. And if we don't, it's not just the homosexuals and dope smokers who are going to be rounded up.

Kern, on the other hand, sees no difference between loving someone and beating them up. I'm glad I'm not married to him.

He neglected to mention that when dealing with a battered spouse, there is an inherent probability that the abused is testifying under the threat of more abuse if they don't say what the batterer wants them to say.

What that has to do with two people in a loving relationship seeking equal recognition of that relationship to the recognition of the relationship of the straight, married couple across the street is beyond me.

Marriage does not equal spousal battery. Dude, go get some counseling.

He then goes on to argue that free does not mean free, that the exercise of freedom is an abuse, that governmental paternalism is a good thing, and that rights do not make one free, and that people need to be "managed," especially if they are "grubby selfish people."

Then he goes all touchy-feely:

The libertarian language of rights and rationality lends itself to a superb criticism of the suffering that states inflict. But that libertarian language speaks hardly at all to individual, existential suffering -- to the harms that evil, mortality, and loss wreak on every life, every day, everywhere. If libertarianism cannot speak to personal suffering -- the most definitive of human experiences --
ought we to enshrine it as our highest ideal?

Rights are absolute things, sir. You can have mercy, or you can have justice. You can't have both. You can have equal protection, or you can have a caste system. You can't have both. But if you don't have equal protection, you by definition have a caste system. One plus one equals two, sir, no matter how much suffering two puts you through.

Government's sole legitimate interest in marriage is as it relates to enforcing the marital contract between individuals. It is not about raising children, since there is no requirement that parents remain married or that married people create children. There are no bans on sterile people marrying someone.

Nor is it, as my friend Kevin believes, about a right to anal sex, or any sex at all, for that matter. Married people do not necessarily have sex, after all. Marriage does not equal sex.

It is about government telling two men that their 20-year loving relationship is inferior to the 2-day marriage of Britney Spears. It is about an estranged mother having more power to make medical decisions about her incapacitated daughter than the daughter's wife does.

Marriage is a contract. Government has no business dictating the sexes of the people entering the contract. In fact, if I placed an ad in the paper that said, "Business partner wanted; men need not apply," the government would be all over me for it. Yet when it comes to the job of husband, the government tells us that men need not apply. Am I the only one here who sees (I'll be nice and not say 'hypocrisy.') a contradiction/inconsistency here?