McCain is the oldest of the four children of John and Cindy Hensley McCain.She has been a public figure for most of her life, appearing at the 1996 Republican National Convention

That's the most reliable difference between the two parties. Democrats want to regulate businesses and give individuals civil liberties. Republicans want to give free rein (or "reign" as the corporate-influenced congress is permitting) to businesses, while dictating how individuals live their lives.

Libertarians are the only consistent ones, advocating no restrictions on anyone.

I'm a Republican and this is something I've always believed... good for her to say something.

However, I think the legal and financial benefits of marriage are something that should be stopped at the same time.

Interestingly, I think it's more despicable that the boys in this situation felt it was OK to exploit Prejean (and any other woman, such as J. Lo in the article) through a video that was supposed to be private and between two individuals. (However, I do think it's highly ironic considering Prejean's stance on OTHER people's sexuality, and therefore amusing).

I don't have much interest in what they do with their private sexual lives; I do have a problem with someone saying "well, that was fun, now I'm gonna sell it and shame you."

And the women are the ones who catch flack for it, not the men. Need I even point out the double-standard?


Now, as for the hypocracy, it was inevitable when the party split itself between its original issues (small government) and moral stances (no gay marriage, pro-life, etc). It's been well-documented that if people truly voted on fiscal issues, the votes would change dramatically on an individual level. BUT (as both parties well know) it's faster and easier to pull the heart strings by threatening morality, one way or the other. That gives (both parties) leeway in actually following their root causes, for good or bad.

I found the title and description of this post quite a bit misleading, as the focus of the article was sex tapes and marriage was secondary.
Double Standard?? Pffff. Everyone knows that when boys do things like that they're just being male and besides they can't control their urges anyway. It's all the woman's fault for leaving the kitchen in the first place!

But really, this just takes us back to square one where women are viewed as either innocent virgins or whores.

You know, keep the government out of our lives except for having control over our bodies and security of our person. But maybe I'll leave that can of worms alone right now.

Thanks :D

Sorry, I just picked my favorite quote of hers from the article.

[quote id=/l/135771/1/#q7]JoshSF49 : Thanks :D
quote]

I need to find, or start, a political movement that combines the best of all parties.

So who will be the guilty party when Meghan's lesbian sex tape is leaked?

Except that Libertarianism fails to adequately acknowledge that we have responsibility to each other in a community. Sorry, it's not always about the individual - that way leads to chaos. Libertarians never seem to have satisfactory answers about how we deal with shared resources and community property - you can't, for instance, have a credible libertarian environmental policy because all the evidence weighs heavily against letting the free market keep our shared air and water clear of toxins (in fact, all evidence shows the opposite to be true, since the Industrial Revolution).

I didn't say that consistency made for the best party. I think Libertarians attitude is naive and unpractical, as it fails to address society's needs that can not be met by the private sector.

Yes - what did Emerson say about "a foolish consistency?" :)

The issue isn't legal union. The issue is dictating that a church MUST provide it's services (building, clergy, etc) to ANYONE.

This is my issue with Libertarians. They are able to appeal to people who want government out of their lives, hell I want government out of my life. It's a nice ideal but in reality government makes our lives better in many ways. I don't think anyone would argue that we need laws (and politicians to write them), police and lawyers and judges, schools, roads, hospitals, etc.

But where do Libertarians draw the line?

You must see the need for environmental regulations that ensure a sustainable society.

The need for labor laws that ensure the poorest workers are paid a livable wage.

The need for social programs to help people back on their feet when they are down on their luck.

You know, one really has nothing to do with the other.

Being naked on camera, making a sex tape - those have nothing to do with gay marriage.

Carrie Prejean can certainly do any kind of tape she wants and still not support gay marriage.


Sorry, but this is a ridiculous article and a ridiculous comparison.

I can't speak for Libertarians (or Republicans for that matter) but my personal ideology states that while there certainly exists the need for government support in the sense of roads, police, fire departments, justice systems, tax legislation, etc. ... I think that anything I do in my life that doesn't impede on another's, but is restricted by government regardless, is not a government 'for the people'. I draw the line when the government doesn't benefit all people or restricts any individual when that individual isn't obstructing anyone else's rights.

Because of those beliefs and because I see no reason how a gay couple's marriage affects my life, it would be hypocritical of me to argue their right to marriage.

At the same time, however, what if my girlfriend and I don't believe in the institution of marriage? The legal and financial benefits of marriage essentially leave us at a disadvantage to remain unmarried. That is a personal decision (whether to marry or not) that the government influences... but should not.

I think the institution of marriage is somewhat archaic and is merely a formality of tradition that more often than not just becomes a legal and financial burden rather than a symbol of love or religious joining of souls as it was meant to be. Remove the law from marriage and I bet this gay marriage debate disappears from everyone's mind ... except the religiously fanatic right wing, of course (but please don't continue the cliche of pegging all Republicans in this category).

I wish there were way more Republicans like you around.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the GOP has been radicalised to an extent the last 8 years. That is hurting the Republican party, and to the extent the US, and to that extent, the rest of the world.

Those silly laws and regulations make their lives easier. Recognizing marriage means inheritance, hospital visits, and health coverage are much less restricted for both parties.

I disagree with you completely, I believe marriage is about love now more than ever. Before women needed men for financial support, and men enjoyed someone cleaning their kitchen. In this day and age people get together because of love (mostly) rather than obligation or coercion.

Who is demanding this? I think if you told gays they could get married, but they might have to do it without a clergy they would still be content.

The marriage success/failure rate suggests otherwise.

Not necessarily; it shows that those relationships, regardless of the basis (love or economics), don't always last.

We don't have a reliable way to see if those who married in a less divorce-friendly would have wanted to leave but weren't able... but we do know that when divorce was made available to women in pre-Napoleonic France, lots of women took it as an opportunity to leave their husbands (when previously only men were allowed to divorce, for virtually any reason, and women were not allowed any divorce recourse).

We didn't invent divorce, we just accept it now.