Izdaari said:
No, not really. Libertarians are not about democracy. They're about individuals being free to do whatever they want so long as they don't aggress against others.
Libertarianism emphasizes person freedom and individual choice. You would deny many that freedom by (some would say patronizingly) substituting your judgment for the majorities. How is that in keeping with libertarianism? Live and let live is the libertarian creed.
Izdaari said:
Democracy can interfere with that... which our Founders were well aware of, and wary of. That's why instead of democracy we have a limited constitutional republic.
One reason for it is to protect minorities against oppression by the majority, which is SOP in full democracies. If the will of the people (50% + 1) is that Bou, and only Bou, should be taxed at a 100% rate or that he must dye his hair bright purple, there's nothing in a pure democracy to prevent that. Ancient Greece had nothing to prevent the majority from making their greatest philosopher drink poison because they didn't like his ideas, though he had done nothing wrong. In our system, we put limitations on what the majority can do. Isn't that a good thing?
A constitutional republic is democratic. What you're describing above is a pure or direct democracy. In America, the people are free to express their choices through their elected representatives and courts defer to the will of the people UNLESS it violates the Constitution. This means the only limit on the will of the people is the Constitution.
Izdaari said:
One of those limitations is we can't establish an official religion, nor can we prohibit anyone from practicing their own religion. And if we can't establish an official religion, how can we establish an official morality based on one? It's simple, we can't, not even if the majority wants to. Though if we really insist, we could repeal the whole 1st Amendment or just its "establishment clause". Theonomists would like that.
Society is free to establish whatever morality they want. So if they decide to go with a libertarian morality, don't infringe on people's liberties, then they can. If they want to establish a utilitarian morality, maximize utils, they can. If they want a collectivist morality, liberals would argue that they can. Voters always have some kind of underlying morality for their choices. America's official morality is democratic; as long as the morality doesn't violate the Constitution (as your tax example would), people are free to express their voice at the ballot box and shape society the way they want to. When the will of the people is enforced, it's not establishing an official religion. The church is not dictating anything. The people are!
In other words, why are you trying to force your libertarian morality on the people of NC (et al)?
Izdaari said:
So long as the state is in the business of enforcing marriage (and btw, I think it should get out), it can legally define it. I don't agree with the NC amendment, but so long as it stuck to that, I don't think it was unconstitutional. However, when it also banned civil unions, it crossed the line. It made it clear the intent was not just to define marriage, but to discriminate by denying a minority equal protection under the law. And that runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, which is why I say the NC Amendment will be struck down by the federal courts.
That's not an equal protection violation either. Equal Protection means that everyone has the same rights under the law.
You're confusing the issues. EP means, for instance, that a restaurant can't say that only whites can come in and deny African Americans the opportunity to come in. If one person can do it, you can't discriminate against anyone else by telling them they cannot do exactly what the one person was allowed to do. The key is, the rights are the same! Not differing.
Homosexuals are free to marry or have or not have civil unions with members of the opposite sex, the same as heterosexuals. The law applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If you want a marriage or in some states, a civil union, you must marry someone of the opposite sex.
What you and other advocates are trying to arrange is a new right. Wrapping your cause in the Constitution makes for good rhetoric, but it's not in keeping with reality. And you are intelligent, Izdaari. Regardless of your desire to see this come about, you should see this is not an equal protection issue.
