There’s a big election tomorrow. I went to VOTE411 for information on races and ballot questions. Besides Rep, Dem, L (Libertarian) and Green I saw candidates listed as Key. I had a good laugh at the thought of the Key Party. Then, it hit me. I did a search on Keystone party. https://www.keystone.party/
To sum up- Less government. Nobody should be in jail for “victimless crimes”. People should be free to invest in precious metals and Bitcoin. Term limits. The government should not define marriage. More immigrants make for a better America ( I agree with this one of course).
I’m not saying there’s a major problem. I disagree with much of their platform. But, that’s just me. I also am genuinely unclear on the difference between the platform of the Keystone party and the Libertarian party.
In my experience, “less government” tends to mean “The government should only spend money on the programs that directly affect me, personally.”
I’d be concerned that they only care insofar as the government extending marriage benefits to relationships which have not, traditionally, received the benefits of government-recognized marriage. You know, like homosexuals.
With those two concerns, the rest of it looks good. Which means, of course, that they are unlikely to ever break the Republican/Democrat wall.
Practical solutions must include diversified access to energy. As we transition to new technologies (green or otherwise) we must constantly evaluate their impact on the environment and mitigate the negative effects. All the while maintaining affordable access. No energy sources should be subsidized with tax dollars and excessive taxes should be ended.
So we need new energy sources, but we expect private industry to develop them without government subsidies? And they should be affordable. But we reserve the right to regulate them for negative effects. And we won’t tax them excessively.
If I were an energy company, I might just say screw it, and stick with petroleum.and coal.
I’m having trouble parsing this. It sounds like, either they have a problem recognizing same-sex marriages (which I didn’t see any evidence of in the platform) or you do. Or something else. Would you care to re-phrase more clearly?
There are a few areas where it matters whether the government recognizes your relationship, such as medical situations, and taxes. I can see them saying that marriage makes no difference to taxes, if that’s what they want to be fore, but the other things also need to be dealt with.
Sorry, yeah… I wasn’t too clear. It’s been my experience- at least online- that some people only began to care about getting the government out of marriage once the institution was opened to homosexuals. They didn’t have any problem with the government being involved with marriage… until they didn’t approve of the marriage.
Got it, thanks. I think small-l libertarians were always fine with same-sex marriage, being more concerned with discriminating (for or against) unmarried households, and taxes, and things like that.
As for bigots, I suspect many/most of them harbor the hope that things will go back to the way they used to be (yay Supreme Court! – when they rule the way I like), so they can once again feel morally superior, and not have to think of queers as actual people.
Not to put words in Lightnin’s mouth, but suppose I’m in a car accident and go into a coma. I’ve never drawn up a will or designated someone to make health care decisions. Who decides what care I receive or inherits my estate, my same-sex spouse or the family I haven’t spoken to in years?
Seems like we kinda need the government to define marriage.
I’d say it as, “We need the Government to respect marriage”. If I say I’m married to X, accept it. Doesn’t matter who X is, so long as X agrees we’re married. Register this somewhere safe, and then leave it alone.
Suppose I say “I’m married to X and to Y”. Or “I’m married X who happens to be age 12”.
Either the government recognizes those declarations or they don’t. In either case they’ve expressed a legally binding opinion on what constitutes “marriage”.
Given the reality that marriage has civil legal implications for taxes, ownership of stuff, inheritance, emergencies, etc., the government cannot avoid having an opinion on what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage. Because they will be called up to adjudicate differences of opinion between those claiming some benefit of a marriage and someone else bearing a burden from that claim.
Suppose, after an accident, I’m taken to a Catholic hospital. Can that hospital choose whether my same-sex marriage is valid? If they start following my parents’ decisions about my care, should the government step in?
I understand why a political party, especially a new one, might want to avoid taking a stand on an issue which will inevitably bother some people. But saying “we have no position on marriage” is their position on marriage.