A Contract, Not A Sacrament

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/03/outright-libertarians-responds-to-lpca-domestic-partnership-initiative-endorsement

Update: Starchild now replies to me saying that renaming "marriage" to DP would "cement the current role of government by making that role once again non-controversial".  I replied that contract enforcement is /supposed/ to be non-controversial.

Debra, Mike is just returning some of Rob's snarkiness.   Please re-read what he's written about all the people in the room in Long Beach who dared to disagree with the wisdom he was dispensing there.

It makes no sense for the Outright membership to control LPCA endorsement of what their own leadership says is an initiative whose enactment would harm only straight Californians.  Would you have only female Libertarians decide the LP's abortion plank? Would you have only immigrant Libertarians decide the LP's immigration policy?  The LP should stand for individual rights, not group rights or identity politics.

Gene, you're not distinguishing between marriage as a religio-cultural practice and marriage as a two-party legal contract.  The DPI would not "eliminate marriage as a legal option".  It would just change the label on the contract that you sign backstage after you take your ceremonial vows (or jump your broom or whatever).  Any change that makes government rules about pair-bonding seem more like a contract and less like a sacrament is a Good Thing.  It's simply astonishing that any self-described libertarian could disagree with the previous sentence.  Any takers?