Thank you for calling all of us to speak up for natural law. The gay community will never be happy even if every person in America praises their lifestyle because the condemnation come from inside their heart. They know it is wrong (unnatural).

I've never understood why homosexuals need "Gay Rights." What is that exactly? Homosexuals who are American citizens have the same rights as everyone else in this country. The one exception is marriage which, quite frankly does not concern them at all, and in my view, they only want in order to make their perversion more mainstream and acceptable.

To define oneself according to deviant behavior is really bizarre and I am at a loss to understand why people are encouraged to be "proud" of that or to even make it public.

I agree with everything Carl Paladino said. Unfortunaely he is runing in a LIBERAL state, that is his only downfall.

Mr. Paladino has my respect. He is so much not a politician that it's refreshing and hopefully there will be more of a movement toward electing people like him.

As for gay rights, it's an outrageous attempt to have the minority opinion imposed on the will of the majority. That shouldn't work in our republic.

I hope Mr. Paladino stands strong (looks like he is) - maybe the is another turning point in American Society (first being the liberal government agenda of Obama waking people up) - this turning point being enough American's will stand up and say 'Timeout' to the small minority of Gay activitists pushing their agenda.

Fortunately in Michigan we can opt our children out of the propaganda.

Paladino is right. The leftist agenda is to destroy American cultural values, and they are succeeding. They use all available means - the legilatures, executive branches, courts, colleges, government schools, and the media to ceaselessly promote their message and punish those who resist. It is time to purge all those institutions of "progressive" poison. Americans can and must defend their culture, and defeat those who want to change it. Stand and fight.

I would NOT let my children attend a class that teaches at a very young age that Gay Marriage or the Gay lifestyle is "normal". No judge, school administrator is EVER going to take my parental beliefs and obligations from me. My kids are now adults and they are quite capable of making their own decisions about these matters. BUT...when I am responsible for their wefare & upbringing, I will train them...not a government employee.

"I agree with everything Carl Paladino said. Unfortunaely he is runing in a LIBERAL state, that is his only downfall."

I live in Rochester and I'm voting for him. In fact, I have one of his bumper stickers on my car. I agree that he probably won't win, but I hope he'll make a good enough showing to make Cuomo shift to the right a bit.

I live in Vermont where same-sex marriage is legal (against the will of many, many Vermonters). Now I wonder how this will impact the sex education in our schools. We teach how babies are made; to be fair, now we have to teach how babies are not made, that is, what male/male and female/female couples do instead. We need to give homosexual sex equal time, or it won't be fair. Where will this end?

P.S. My kids do not go to public school. But it still matters what other children are taught.

It is a wise man who said that there

is no greater inequality than the

equal treatment of unequals.----

Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965)

I confess to being conflicted about this. On the one hand the state should not involve itself in the private decisions of adult citizens unless there's a REALLY good reason for it, especially if it involves unequal treatment under the law. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to obey "Nature and Nature's God" and maintain the conditions for civilization to thrive and advance as far as we can take it (primarily by means of the private sector, of course). I would argue that is the ONLY legitimate test of whether any government is behaving correctly in the long run.

So here's my dilemma. The law favors heterosexual marriage and it also favors child-rearing (the two are not synonymous). For most taxpayers being married lowers one's tax bill, and the more dependent children one has the more one gets to write off one's taxes. (Spare me the argument that children cost money - you knew that before you had them.) My question is this: is it a proper function of government to penalize people who do not make those choices in the form of higher tax liabilities, and subsidize those who do make those choices in the form of reducing their taxes relative to their unmarried and/or un-childed neighbors, as well as subsidizing education?

Is the preservation of the status-quo (which is deliberately discriminatory in favor of married people and parents) outweighed by the government's responsibility to preserve the conditions needed for a stable society?

Please note that I am NOT advocating gay marriage, or civil unions, or gay adoption, or any of that AT ALL. As a socially-conservative Christian I consider that I am married because my wife and I took oaths before God, not because the state of North Dakota issued us a license. To be clear, I am not suggesting marriage licenses are irrelevant - since that's how one becomes legally married in the US at present - but if I found out tomorrow that there had been a clerical error at the town hall and we weren't legally married, I would not suddenly consider myself single. I apologize for all those caveats but I want to deflect the more obviously irrelevant counter-arguments from the start.

The libertarian in me wants to say that everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of their personal decisions, as long as nobody else's choices receive subsidy. But libertarians aren't anarchists, and some government action is required to preserve the society against existential threats, even those that originate within the citizenry itself.

Since giving legal sanction to gay marriage, gay adoption, etc, is actually counter-productive to societal well-being, it seems reasonable to remove it from consideration, but is it equally valid to remove preferential treatment for ANY choice private citizens make in that regard? In other words, is preferential treatment of heterosexual marriage and child-rearing justified? I'm not trolling here - I'd really like to hear any reasoned arguments on this.

Scary stuff. How far removed we are from the Bible and our Constitutuion which lay the solid foundation of this Republic and are inexorably linked, despite what the liberal ruling class would have us believe.

Army Officer - I don't mean to trivialize any of your very valid points by giving so basic a response. However it seems to me that the true building block of a great society is the strength of the family. This seems to have been true for thousands of years. I too don't think the government should be in the business of picking favorites, but if an error is to be made, it seems far safer and more productive to err on the side of favoring the family.

Army Officer- would only I had served under an intelligent individual such as yourself. Your sense of fairness to all is refreshing. Would only your CIC saw it as clearly!

Rather than get involved in the legitimacy of "gay marriage" (How oxymoronic!), suffice it to say that morally it is abhorrent, scripturally it is an abomination, physically it is a health hazard, and scientifically it is a Darwinian dead-end. A species cannot continue to exist if it cannot reproduce. Which TOTALLY explains why the gays want your children taught it at an early age. It is their sole recruitment tool.

I use the term "gay" because it is the "polite" thing to do. If I had my druthers, they would be referred to as what they are: sexual deviates.

Referring to the comment that it is a health hazard, it also fails Darwinian Theory in that the homosexual life-style is inherently fraught with dangers such as STD's, ex. AIDS. Consequently Gays fail the survival of the fittest as well.

Lastly, anyone who would choose to tell me what my children will or will not learn is playing with their early demise. The "public" schools are mandated to teach ONLY the fundamentals- reading, writing, and mathematics. As they are failing miserably at ALL of them, NO intelligent person would ever grant them freedom to "educate" moral, social, or sexual behaviors as well.

I look forward to the day that the "public" school systems are totally dismantled so that the parents of school-age children will once again have a say in how their children are taught the basics of education. We can start by going back 150 years and using the curriculum then in use. Going beyond what is essential to being a good, productive contributor to society is a decision best made by the parents and their children.

I would NOT permit my children to be "taught" in a public school, by a public school teacher, in this day and age. The agenda of the "Teacher's unions is NOT that of a self-sustaining Republic but of a morally corrupt Socialist clique.

Should the upcoming election(s) NOT begin a massive move back to moral, thoughtful, and Constitutionally-based governing of the citizenry, then there will be blood.

It would be inevitable.

It would be

Rick and Edward,

Thanks for the responses. I'm leaning toward the idea that it IS legitimate for a government to favor heterosexual marriage and child-rearing in the tax code, but probably only if the latter is the result of the former.

I'm generally against actual subsidies on principle, and I think people would be more conscientious as parents if they had to pay the bills themselves. I totally agree with Edward that publick skuulz should be privatized now if not sooner as well. In the interest of full disclosure: I used to teach at a private Christian school for a fraction of what my unionized public sector colleagues made (I won't use the term "earned", and I probably shouldn't use the term "colleague" either) while our students were two to three years ahead of their government school counterparts.

Army Officer raises several good points, but let's remember that governments of all kinds reward behavior they approve of, and somehow punish that which they do not. Yes, the married-with-children tax burden is less than Swinging Single's, but that's called policy. Nothing in this world is absolutely fair. Fair to all not only is impossible, it becomes unfair to most. How would you explain the punitive taxes on tobacco? Alcohol? Trans fats in New York? Government exerting its viewpoint. Four balls and only three strikes? Only four lousy downs to make ten yards? Four whole tries to make ten lousy yards? Sorry, Bud, rules of the game.

I remember when homosexuality was illegal; then it became frowned upon; now it's optional. Let's keep it from being mandatory. Not all governments, not all religions, not all social mores, not all philosophies are equal, and they cannot be made equal, particularly to avoid offending some one.

Carl Paladino should clearly state his moral values, what he believes in, what he condemns, and finish with, "This is where I stand. If you're offended, .....(followed by a two-word imperative I learned in my New York youth). He'd probably collect a ton of votes.

Army Officer

You said, "But libertarians aren't anarchists.."

Actually, many are. And anarchy is not necessarily a bad thing. When the colonies decided to throw off the yoke of King George and institute a new form of government there was not a total breakdown of society that many fear today. Anarchy has been wrongly coupled with chaos and lawlessness and has been taught in American schools virtually forever. It is one of the best ways for keeping control and power in the hands of a relative few. I have a higher opinion of mankind's ability to self govern starting with his personal behavior. We are not animals!

What may be the ONLY real chance for this country is for the federal gubmint to collapse---however not as Obama and friends want it. The States can conduct just as well, if not better, the functions of the federal monster. The State Militias (aka National Guard)can be brought back under their control (as the Constitution dictates) and they, along with counties, cities, and towns can absorb a myriad of other programs that would best be handled at a local level. What we need is trickle up government...the whole idea of a Republic is founded upon on this concept. I don't believe the federal gubmint can be "fixed" by any measure except to take it apart brick by brick and onerous law by onerous law and put back together according to the Constitution. In the meantime, the Articles of Confederation would be better than we have now.

As to your question, no clear thinking TRUE libertarian would ever believe that anyone should get preferential treatment in relation to taxes for ANY reason. Of course, most believe taxes taken by threat of the gun, whether it takes its' form in the way of prison, garnishments, or the taking of private property, is morally wrong.

Libertarians also don't believe private behavior should be subject to public control. Marriage is a sacrament--- a religious function. The "license" aka permit/permission of the State is purely created for the issues of estate/contract. It isn't true marriage; it's a business arrangement.

Paulrod and Merry,

Thanks for your insight. I have to dispute Merry's assertion that libertarians can be anarchists or reject differential taxation for ANY reason though. As a life-long libertarian and current dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, I can testify that the two cannot be synonymous. Anarchy is an absolutist position where there is no government at all, while libertarianism accepts the need for some government, albeit on as limited a scale as possible. Libertarians routinely disagree about how much is the correct amount, but libertarians never put that amount at Zero.

An example may help: an absolutist position would be that one should be able to do anything at all with one's property. It sounds good, and I think it's generally true. However, if someone buys property in a residential area and builds a sugar beet processing facility (they reek to high Heaven, by the way), that reduces the property value of the homes already in the area. The anarchist position is to blow the facility up. The strictest libertarian position says that the affected homeowners should be eligible for relief through the civil court system for damages done in the form of lower property values. However, that is entirely unworkable in the real world in that the courts would have to settle hundreds or even thousands of individual cases based on innumerable factors unique to each piece of property for miles around. Simpler by far to have local zoning ordinances, which obviously impinge on the freedom to do ANYTHING with one's own property. Libertarianism does not require people to act against their best interests just because they sometimes have to act collectively because of proximity.

Nonetheless, all of the responses thus far have helped me get my brain around this...

... which brings me closer to an answer I think. If government has a legitimate duty to defend society, and heterosexual nuclear families are the most efficient means of perpetuating society, may the government properly favor them over other arrangements? We're not talking about subsidies here - at least I'm not - but government has methods of encouraging particular choices other than simply writing checks. For example, since government may legitimately collect taxes to carry out its legitimate functions, may it lower the burden on the "married with children" cohort as long as it does not actively discriminate against people who fall outside that category? That is ARGUABLY not penalizing those others, since the money belongs to those who earned it and lowering a person's tax bill is NOT a subsidy (Oh, how I wish more Congressmen and Senators understood that!).

Since I'm married with no kids I receive only partial benefit from the current system, and I resent paying taxes to educate other people's children, but then again I'm a biological cul-de-sac and no kids of mine will perpetuate society into the future. In ancient Sparta (not a libertarian place AT ALL) they at least understood the importance of perpetuating their society. Reportedly the only people whose graves were marked were men who died in combat or women who died in childbirth. Food for thought.

Anyway, I appreciate all the insight thus far. Thanks to all who responded.