Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to advance the principles of limited government, free markets and individual liberty within the Republican Party.

You mention Jennifer Coffey. Did she commit to vote for this bill if she had been able to attend the session? I am a constituent of hers, and thought that she would not have supported it, but I could be wrong.

It’s worth mentioning that with the exceptions noted above, All other RLC-endorsed candidates voted against the bill, and those fighting hardest against it were all, without fail, endorsed as well.

Maybe time to rethink your criteria?

One of the problems is that the so-called RLC in New Hampshire has been hijacked by conservatives and those in bed with the rligious right. I would love to see the RLC be a little more strident in making it clear that the RLC is NOT *primarily* for ‘conservatives.’ The problem is that right now those of us who are small ‘l’ libertarians have no organizational voice with which to address our fellow party members.

Thom,

The NH Chapter of the RLC is a membership organization. The members choose the leadership.

Bring your fellow small ‘l’ libertarians onboard, be active and run for leadership positions. The RLC needs libertarians, conservatives and religious members in able to reach out to all parts of the Republican Party and move it towards liberty.

Thanks,
Steve
Los Angeles

One of the problems I have with some libertarians is that they lack what I call a “moral barometer.” While I do not necessarily consider myself a member of the “religious right,” I do believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. It is wrong. It is unnatural. Furthermore, it is damaging to public morals.

That being said, there a number of things that take place in our society that damage the moral climate, and certainly we cannot prohibit everything with which we disagree. Marriage, however, is based on biblical morality. To call a union of two homosexuals “marriage” is twisted and wrong.

Liberty without moral limits is not liberty, it is license, the abuse of liberty. Liberty, the freedom to choose, has moral limits. Otherwise, liberty could be defined as whatever pleases one citizen regardless of how it harms another.

Our nation began and prospered due to biblical principles, including a biblical understanding of liberty. If we abandon that, we abandon our roots and our true identity as a nation. If we leave our moral standards in the dust, we will do no better than Rome, which drowned in decadence during its decline. This decadence included rampant homosexuality and sexual perversions of other kinds.

Sound public policy supports good morals. It does not dismantle them in pursuit of a false and deceptive version of what someone has misnamed “liberty.”

Where is the separation of the church? It seems that the religious nuts freak out when they are scared or intimidated by something. Who cares about “God.” I certainly do not believe in “God”, Christianity, or any other religion so the religious argument is in effect imposing a belief on someone who does not follow the same ideology as the middle-aged, repressed men and women who are supposedly protecting the interests of the constituency. It’s called tolerance. Don’t impose your interpretation of your religious materials on us, we don’t impose our views on you. Do what’s fair and equitable and stop discriminating against a suspect class. Finally, children have nothing to do with this, in fact, I know a lot of children who are the product of a supposed “loving” or “holy” or “moral” heterosexual relationship who are as F’d up as their parents are. The best thing for children is stability and love. Get off your high horses with your empty rebuttals and go about your lives!

yeah… i really hope this law gets passed.. i dont see what everyones big prob is with homosexuals.. we ARE people to… this is how i see it… its just like us gays telling the heterosexuals that we dont want them to have the right to marry… how the hell would they feel about that…. soo think about that before u start to judge us…

I suppose I should not be surprised by some of your responses. As libertarians, which I assume most of us are to some extent, I would have thought you would have had more of a sense of history. Most of the Founding Fathers had some strong moral principles. Some of them were very religious men. While I don’t agree with many elements of organized religion, people like Franklin, Washington, and even Jefferson had great respect for the Bible, Jesus Christ and faith in general. They had disagreements with religious groups in their time as well. But Christianity and the Bible were huge contributing factors to the development of the American republic.

If being involved in the RLC means one should become an agnostic or a nihilist, that’s very sad. Some of you should take a step back and read about our Founding Fathers if you seek to restore the liberty they bequeathed to us. You should also read about the fall of Rome and the rampant homosexuality and other vices that accompanied its decline.

Jim

Jim,

The government cannot be our moral guide. Individuals must be trusted to make their own choices. That’s all I’m advocating: preserving equal rights under the law. Ideally the government would not be involved in marriage at all — but it already is. As such, it must grant equal rights to all, not just a favored class of citizens.

Aaron

Aaron,

The government already is our moral guide. What do you think is the basis for criminal law? That’s right, morals – standards for what is right and what is wrong. Some of the basis for these laws is biblical, some of it is derived from a number of cultures, some ancient. But there is a moral basis there. This morality teaches that murder is wrong, stealing someone’s property is wrong and that kidnapping is wrong. This same morality has taught for thousands of years that homosexual acts are wrong. Gays disagree and want to depart from this morality.

And they are entitled to their opinion. but it’s not just a matter of redefining marriage, which some want to do, but also a question of recognizing homosexual activities as an exercise of civil rights when for thousands of years such acts have been considered crimes. To make homosexuals a protected class on the same basis as races who have been discriminated against because of skin color is a perversion of constitutional rights. In the case of racial discrimination, people were granted relief due to injustices stemming from their skin color, something over which they had no control. In the case of homosexuals, you are seeking relief based on someone’s behavior, which many would argue is unnatural and immoral. How can a protected class be created on the basis of immoral behavior? I know of no culture that has endured that has done such a thing.

Besides, there are many instances of homosexuals who have changed their behaviors and are no longer homosexual. I have known people who have “made the journey,” so don’t start with the “It’s genetic” argument.

It’s not “equal rights” issue at all, and homosexuals should not be a protected class under civil rights law. Like anyone else, they have all of the rights conferred by the Bill of Rights.

Marriage was designed by God for one man and one woman, not for those of the same sex. There is no culture that has endured in which same-sex “marriage” was a moral standard.

Jim