Abdul, from Indianapolis Newstalk 1430 A.M. asks:
“Can anyone give me a reason why gays shouldn’t be able to have the right to marry?”
Well, I can answer that “Yes.”
In order for something to be a “right” is has to fullfil two conditions. (1) It must be able to be exercised without let or hindrance, and (2) It cannot impose an obligation on anyone else.
Your speech is a right. You can speak. I am not obliged to listen. Marriage, however, fails both tests. Long ago, we the people decided we’d rather have Mommy Government license our marriages to keep dem darn darkies from marrying our white women. (What the government may forbid, it may also make cumpulsory, etc. etc.). Next, it obliges me to recognize it, extend insurance to a “gay spouse” if I hire them, and so on.
Now, if they want the *RIGHT* to marry, you have to fulfill the definition of a right first - no licensing (Which part of “Make NO law” is hard to understand?) and second remove the obligation of me to recognize it.
Without that, it is a privilege derived from government and we the people - and what the government giveth, the government may taketh away. A good reminder that even if you don’t live in a libertarian society, libertarian principles and consequences yet apply.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
