I agree 100%.

Mr. Verdot,

When you stop dictating your morals, you might have a chance to get others to stop trying to dictate theirs. Since you are for government outlining any form of union, I assume you are no libertarian.

Every law in existence is a moral judgment. Hillary Clinton stated, and Barack Obama said she was right, “It is our moral duty to provide health-care to all Americans.”

What say you?

Mr. Deal, your sweeping claim that ‘every law in existence is a moral judgement’ is quite incorrect. In fact the vast majority of law is rather more quotidian in it’s aim to regulate and state boundary, procedure, and consequence of non-compliance to law. Ms. Campbell is known on these pages as a predictable spokeswoman for the Catholic world-view, and her remarks are often a reminder of the value to be found in the concept of separation of theology from influencing the lives of those who do not choose to adhere to a particular, institutional God-View. Personally my own views are strongly libertarian, and given the successful commercial marketing by theologians, be they the current Pope or Joyce Meyer in Missouri, the idea of taxing those in the quite profitable business of religion is always one worthy of consideration.

#2,

I think most of us can see a clear difference between the government stepping in to ensure the very most basic of opportunities - health care, education, and the like - versus stepping in to ensure that someone’s viewpoint on a sexual or religious matter isn’t offended. If some couple has a same-sex relationship going on, that does not in any way, shape or form prevent you from have an opposite-sex relationship, nor does it lessen any rights you have in that relationship. But if a company stops providing health insurance to its employees, the employees or their children could die or be permanently maimed under extreme circumstances. And you completely failed to notice that the letter writer is suggesting we stop calling it ‘marriage’ for ALL people, to distinguish it from religious marriage, which is a separate and optional thing. By calling it a domestic partnership (and permitting it for all couples, straight and gay), we would be moving away from the government endorsing one relationship above others.

German,

Every law is a moral judgment. Boundary- that is the limit of property is a very moral subject and has been treated by nearly every philosopher (check Proudhon and Bastiat for examples). Procedure you could make an argument for except - does the way in which a moral is imposed upon you count as a moral in itself? The same question can be asked of penalties. I would say they are just the form of the moral.

I agree that religion should not be given privilege over other entities, but I don’t think they should forced in taxation like the rest of us. They should remain free from taxation and we should be given the same freedom.

Where does the discussion go if bigamy, incest, and beastiality are included? Where are the lines between law and morality or religion and nature? Who’s interests justify government intervention?

Sej,

Government should grant no privilege to anyone. By endorsing and promoting any group of people (people who choose to be in a relationship, people who choose not to purchase health-care, children, elderly, businesses, religions) government oversteps its rightful bounds. I very clearly state that if the author of the letter were true to the idea that government should not be used as a tool to impose morals upon us, there should be no privileged arrangement (single, couple or group).

#7,

I agree that singles should not be excluded. And I think any church that chooses to recognize polygamy should be allowed to perform those marriage rites. But I think one partner per person is enough for our government to recogize for a domestic partnership. Adding additional people to the government database does nothing to expand the person’s rights, and the quality-of-life issues can be handled by the churches that recognize polygamy.

Mr. Deal, perhaps we are starting from the different poles of morality vs. reason. I see our accumulated body of legal thought to be taken more from the latter, although the desire for a moral compass informs some of our legal framework. But it is a consideration, not the be-all of
all legal views. But then again, I have never claimed to be a Jesuit.

If you truly believe you should be ‘free’ of all taxation, either desert isles, or ‘nations’ such as Somalia, might be more in tune to your desires. I understand the tax burden in such countries as Angola and Cambodia is also virtually non-existant. In the meantime, Religion Inc. should(morally) welcome the opportunity to render unto a secular Caeser a bit of their earthly treasure.

German,

I’ve got to say this is the best debate I’ve had so far where someone actually makes sense in their arguments.

Morality is supposed to be where reason gets you. You can start with Plato and Aristotle and end with any junior college philosophy instructor.

I’m not a Libertarian or a market anarchist. As I’ve said before I am a classical liberal. I believe government should provide the protection of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (which includes the pursuit of property), though I have some reservations about the limits of the ownership of real property. As such I believe every person should bear the financial burden of the protection of their person, liberties and property.