I am, at least as of the time that I am writing this post, a registered Republican. Truthfully however, at this point that is only because of the ridiculous ballot access laws and Ohio Senate Bill 193. I am not currently a member of the Libertarian Party, nor do I have any sort of affiliation with any member of the Libertarian Party.

Recently I have seen an article by a former legislative aide for Rep. Ron Paul, that was posted at the Ron Paul Institute make the rounds on libertarian leaning social media sites. The title of the piece, “Libertarian Party Chairman Denounces Ron Paul’s Support for States’ Rights” caused an eruption in comments across Facebook.

The article was loosely about an interview that Nicholas Sarwark, the current chairman of the Libertarian Party had on a Lions of Liberty podcast recently. I say “ loosely” because the entire basis of the article was a completely taken out-of-context piece that used one line out of a forty minute long interview.

I even saw a liberty minded Facebook friend of mine re-post the article with the comment “Looks like the Libertarian Party is being destroyed by socialists.” I can understand given the title of the posting at the RPI how a liberty minded individual might get upset , I mean denouncing Ron Paul and for supporting States Rights of all things.

The thing is, if you listened to the actual Lions of Liberty podcast, you would see that at no point did Nicholas Sarwark ‘denounce’ Ron Paul or Ron Paul’s support for States Rights.

But hey, let’s not allow things like facts to get in the way, no one can speak ill of muh Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul discussion in the podcast started at about 25:30 minutes into the interview and came after a discussion about the Gary Johnson campaign and how Bill Weld displeased many hardcore libertarians. Sarwark himself admitted that many of the things that Bill Weld said during the campaign were not things that he would have said, or things that he necessary agreed with. His point was however, in growing the Libertarian Party as a viable third option — do you want a pure ideological person standing on a soapbox speaking to ten people or do you want a slightly less pure person with a giant microphone who is able to reach millions?

Mark Clair, the host of the podcast, responded by saying that he thought a lot of ideologically libertarian leaning people got spoiled by Ron Paul and his manner of speaking libertarian ideas. Clair, then went on to say that “…we still have to look at Ron Paul and what his… success was, I mean he floundered out of the Republican Primary.” Clair followed up with talking about how the bigger thing to look at Ron Paul was at how many people he turned on to the idea of liberty, partly because of his ‘ideologically pure’ libertarian message. Moving forward Clair wondered how do liberty minded people turn on more people to the liberty message as not everyone can be Murray Rothbard.

Sarwark, in talking about Ron Paul, commented that you ‘run a very dangerous line’ if you get too caught up with any one personality, be it in politics or any other aspect of life.

His point was that there is no one true pure as fresh snow ideological libertarian and everyone is capable of being wrong on some things. He had mentioned how he had spoken to Ron Paul supporters who if you were to mention an issue that Ron Paul was not a pure libertarian on they would twist themselves up into pretzels while trying to say otherwise because “Ron Paul could do no wrong.”

Sarwark also pointed out that the strength of libertarianism is that the principle doesn’t care who the messenger is. It is either a libertarian position or its not, no one is perfect and its okay to not be pure and it is also okay to be able to call out the things of libertarians that are not really libertarian positions.

Sarwark was particularly talking on same-sex marriage, citing Ron Paul whom for a long time said that it should be up to the States. His point was that “States rights” do not trump individual rights or civil liberties.

Clair, even agreed mentioning how you see people get caught up in personalities, such as opposing something, but then supporting it because Obama does or opposing something but then supporting it because Trump does. Then saying that he agrees with about 95% of what Ron Paul says but “heaven forbid” you mention that other 5% and then the name calling ensues.

That is exactly what happened with the reaction after the article was posted on the RPI website.

Nicholas Sarwark did not “denounce” anyone and “the socialists” are not taking over the Libertarian Party.

I swear libertarians are more often then not, their own worst enemy.

Also, in regards to the whole “States Rights” issue, the 10th Amendment provides that the “powers” not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or the people.

States don’t have rights, we the people do.

Nicholas Sarwark, rightfully stated that you can’t use “States Rights” to allow government to take away individual rights based on gender, race or [in this case] sexual orientation.

The 10th Amendment does not provide for allowing the States the “right” to trump the natural individual rights of American citizens.

The latest hero that the religious right is touting as a staunch defender of “traditional marriage” is a thrice-divorced registered Democrat who has given birth out-of-wedlock in-between her four marriages.

Combine that, with the fact the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and eccentric billionaire reality television star Donald Trump are currently leading most polls in the race for President, and it makes one think that we must be living in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who defied a U.S. Federal Court order requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis continued to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses on Tuesday, despite a Supreme Court ruling against her the previous day, was jailed for contempt of court.

Davis filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking to put the lower court’s order on hold while she seeks an appeal, however the Supreme Court denied the application. Stating that she was acting “under God’s authority,” Davis ignored the court order and continued to deny the licenses. Last Thursday she was jailed for contempt of court and has been labeled as martyr by many on the religious right.

Mike Huckabee and other instigators in the religious right claim that jailing Davis for refusing to do her job because of her religious convictions is the “criminalization of Christianity.” The problem is, unless her Apostolic Christian beliefs require her to keep her job in the public sector (which I seriously doubt they do), she’s not in jail for violating her religious beliefs.

Working for the state is not a “right.” Kim Davis, whatever you may feel about her religious convictions, was wrong to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office. If you are not willing to enforce the law, you should not be an officer of the state. Her job as a county clerk is not to determine the constitutionality of laws, it is to perform the issuing and registering of various licenses, recording and keeping of various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting various election duties and tax duties. There are many other occupations that she can pursue if her current job no longer suits her religious beliefs.

Signing off on state documents is not the same as being forced into participating in a same-sex wedding ceremonies as private business owners such as bakers, photographers and ordained ministers have. If she was an ordained minister and refused to marry same-sex couples in her private establishment I would vehemently support her right to do so. If you want to participate in civil disobedience, don’t work for the state.

The hypocrisy amongst the so-called conservatives of the religious right who have infested the conservative movement is down right sickening. If Kim Davis was a soldier who abandoned her post after the country goes into war, because her religion tells her that “thou shalt not kill,” would Mike Huckabee and other social cons be as quick to defend her? If she was working for the INS and refused to deport a criminal invader because her religious convictions were against it, would the religious right be holding rallies in her honor?

As I’ve stated before the religious right have nobody to blame but themselves for what has happened to the institution of marriage, if they were true small-government conservatives and not bigots masquerading under the false banner of “religious liberty,” the fight all along would have been to get the government out of the business of issuing licenses to marry all-together.

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that “...the right of same-sex couples to marry…is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

As a conservative, I have to agree with Justice Kennedy’s words. For the government to deny the rights of same-sex couples is a fundamental attack on the very principle of liberty.

Social conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee who called today’s ruling ‘judicial tyranny,’ are upset of course. I actually don’t necessarily disagree with all of Huckabee’s sentiments — mostly because I don’t believe that this issue should have even had to have been decided on by the Supreme Court.

If the religious right is upset about the Supreme Court affirming the government sanctioning of same-sex marriage they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves. They have been fighting the wrong battle this whole time.

Advocates of ‘gay marriage’ claim that what they are fighting for is ‘equal rights,’ the right to marry the person they love. But what they are really fighting for is the right to have a previously government-sanctioned ‘privileged status’ extended to them as well.

The truth is, government does not grant marriage licenses to certify a couple’s love. The government issues permits to marry so it can designate those who qualify for the benefits attached to being in a government-sanctioned marriage.

The religious right, in their opposition to ‘gay marriage,’ claim they are fighting for ‘traditional marriage.’ True conservatives however, understand that there are certain aspects of life that should be left to be conducted solely within the confines of your own home, family, churches, synagogue or mosque. This belief if part of the fundamental core of what it means to be a conservative, yet social conservatives have abdicated that position and granted the governmental role in those matters.

The primary role of the federal government is to uphold the Constitution and to defend our rights. The act of granting the government the power to regulate the institution of marriage, takes away it’s duties in serving its primary purpose.

Conservatives should have never been fighting for foolish efforts like the idiotic ‘Defense of Marriage Act.’ Instead of focusing their time, effort and money into trying to pass laws throughout the country that offer a government-defined sanctioning of marriage — the real battle should have been to remove the government’s role from marriage altogether and to put it back where it belongs as a private matter between two individuals with each-other or two individuals with their religious community.

Not anywhere within the Constitution is their any mention about marriage. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, clearly state that any power that is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved solely for the people and the states. If marriage is even to be regulated at all, it should be done so only at the local level.

One of the few true responsibilities of the government in a free society is to enforce private contracts between individuals or groups. If two consenting adults enter into a contract with one another, it is not the business of the government to deny those particular individuals the right to do so.

All conservatives, the religious-right includes should be fundamental opposed to government regulation of private matters. Sadly, it is those so-called conservatives who make up the religious right who actually advocate for more government intrusion into our lives. The religious right is blaming the desires of gay & lesbian couples as an attack on the ‘sanctity of marriage.’ All the while ignoring the real threat… the government.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained Christian ministers and owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

As I wrote last year in my post about the Supreme Court decision striking down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, I tend to lean (socially) to the left on certain issues. The right of free-people to make life long commitments to each other, no matter what the genders of the parties involved is one of them. The government should have no say in the matter what-so-ever.

As a small-government loving Conservative, I want Uncle Sam out of my life. If you need the strong arm of the government signing off on your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?

Last year, the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idahao, passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ordinance applies to employment, housing, public accommodation and was supposed to protect religious entities. However because the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which sits across the street from the County Clerk’s office is a “for profit” entity, city officials claim they are not exempt from the ordinance.

This past Friday, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the city from forcing the Chapel’s owners, both ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

From The Spokesman-Review:

Owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp say in the lawsuit that they believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

“Performing same-sex wedding ceremonies would thus force the Knapps to condone, promote and even consecrate something forbidden by their religious beliefs and ordination vows,” the suit reads.

…

According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.

“The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows,” the suit reads. Read More…

First, I would like to ask “Why would a couple that wants to express their life-time commitment to each other, want their special day tainted by having the person officiating the ceremony forced to do so under orders from the government?”

The First Amendment clearly prohibits the government from interfering in the free expression of religious beliefs, or to use the term that progressives always misuse the first amendment establishes a “Separation of Church & State.”

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has the right to use government force to make anyone be it an ordained minister or a lay person go against their religious beliefs and take part in a same-sex ceremony. It is downright totalitarian to force someone to have to choose between their strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have the right to do so, I just don’t believe that the rights of religious people should be trampled on to make that happen.

I am torn, at least partially, on today’s ruling(s) from the SCOTUS as they relate to the same-sex “marriage” debate. I am torn in the sense that, while I do agree that the Defense Of Marriage Act is un-constitutional, I don’t necessarily agree with the reason it was struck down (I’ll get to that later). Furthermore, I am also partially torn in the sense that I am a big proponent of clearly-defined terms not being re-defined and given new meanings simply for the sake of changes in the willingness of society to accept change.

I am more libertarian (not liberal) minded on most social issues and have no problems with people who are of the opposite sex and want to make a lifetime commitment to each-other. But I draw the line at changing the meaning of things just because you want inclusion in something that another group has.

The simple truth about marriage, something that many proponents of same-sex “marriage” refuse to understand, is that marriage is and has always been an institution that is between a man and a woman. While it is true that over the past few centuries the reasons that couples enter into marriage arraignments with each other may have changed, starting off as primarily financial arraignments centuries ago to now being about love, commitment & family; what has not changed is the people involved, a husband & a wife — or more specifically one man & one women.

Changing the definition of marriage is like changing the definition of water, it just can’t be done. Just as water is the combination of two hydrogen molecules & one oxygen molecule, marriage is the combination of one man and one woman. Furthermore the argument that “people should be allowed to marry whomever they please,” is simply not a valid excuse for redefining what marriage has traditionally been. If same-sex “marriage” is recognized, why not polygamous “marriage?,” or multiple participant “marriage?”

Many of the supporters of same-sex “marriage” (particularly those coming from a liberal / progressive viewpoint) would state that those are straw man arguments the fact is that redefining the definition of marriage to include government recognition same-sex couples as “married” based on the “people should be allowed to choose” argument, doesn’t just redefine marriage but completely undefines it.

That being said, I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have some of the protections afforded to married individuals, such as; financial rights, benefits, inheritance, health decisions… I just don’t believe that the institution of marriage should be trampled on to do so.

The other reason I am torn with today’s decision is that I find it truly saddening that the SCOTUS should have even been deciding on a case that involves the issue of marriage. Not only is marriage an issue that the Federal Government has no business being involved in, it shouldn’t even be an issue that government has any say in.

Marriage and people’s desires to make a lifetime commitment to each-other are private matters between those two individuals or those two-individuals and their faith/church or their interpretation of God.

As a small-government loving Conservative, I want the the government out of my life. If you need the government’s recognition of your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?