National Platform of the Libertarian Party

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

 

Their platform on "Personal Relationships" states:

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

 

The platform covers considerably more than just homosexual "marriage". Are you okay with homosexuals adopting and raising children? Are you okay with sex offenders adopting and raising children? How about underage marriages? How about incest? How about polygamy? These are all things regulated or prohibited by law aren't they? So should the government "stay out" of all these "personal relationships"? That's what the platform states! Does the afterthought clause about "consenting adults" provide enough protection?

 

But, the strawman says that it does "authorize" these things if it does not stand against them. It proposes removing government from all aspects of regulating "personal relationships" and, Ken, you know that! Polygamy, after all, can certainly be among "consenting adults" just as can be homosexual "marriage". And if a child can be "tried as an adult" then what's to say a young teenage boy or girl can be considered an adult for marriage. After all, at one time such was not so uncommon.

This is one of two main stumbling blocks for joining hands with this party no matter how good the rest of the platform might be.

 

I probably won't but I'm still going to evaluate the options including this one.

I can say that I don't like their platform on "personal relationships" because it's too extreme. I also don't like platforms that go too far the other way.

 

Their platform on "abortion" states:

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


This suggests that we, through government, should not have laws prohibiting murder.

 

The Libertarians for Life state:

"Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional. Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy."

I certainly agree with their conclusion and find it more palatable that the other Libertarian statements on this subject.

However, their reasoning is "expressly scientific and philosophical" which implies a man-centered view rather than "religious" which to Christians would implies a Christ-centered view. I'm afraid that a man-centered view will be corrupted in the same way the present view on abortion has been corrupted. I'd like to elect leaders that are willing to humbly state the only true basis or righteous convictions - God Almighty - without shame, without apology, and without hiding behind "science" or "philosophy".

 

The basis behind a person's decision means everything as to how firm and steadfast they will be in holding to it. A person who makes their decision on man-centered philosophy is on very shaky ground compared to one who does so on God's law. The former is every changing but the latter remains eternally the same.

It's great that Bob Barr is pro-life but unless he's based this on God's law he's likely to compromise his beliefs - or have them compromised for him - for political favor of his party and the many others with whom he needs alliance.

 

The proper order of our government is God, the people, their constitution, their representatives, their laws, their leaders, and their judges. This is why the pledge of alliance rightly includes "one nation under God". The right plan starts with God. Without God it is based upon man and all things of man are corrupt. This is the weakness we have and the reason for the problems we face. We, the people, are not following God and do not want Him to be at the head of our government. We want Him out of the way so we can make our own rules. We should always come back to God for the basis of all aspects of our government. Our laws - especially the core that defines right and wrong in society - were and should continue to be based upon God's laws. The only God is God the Father, God the Son, and god the Holy Spirit. This is the God of Chrisitanity and no other. We can tolerate other beliefs for the purpose of our own liberty and freedom of worship. We need and want no state church. But we need and should want God to be the basis of our personal and national fiber.

I'm afraid none of the political parties nor their candidates really understand this.

 

Yes, that's correct, and for good reason was it added. God's name had been mentioned often since the founding of our nation.