I started this as a comment response, but felt it was too good to bury in a comments section.
Here's the original comment, from the league: reassembled. This is regarding my post, "Bet you thought I forgot...":
At one point you rant against individual rights (you would rather have the impersonal corporation that is WalMart keep a few extra bucks than allow individual families the adequate health care they deserve; you would sacrifice the liberty of individuals to enter into civil marriage for some mis-informed concept of "One man, one woman") but then end the post by implying that you support "the power of the individual." It seems to us you are more than willing to disregard the power, rights and liberties of the individual for the gain of corporations and the anti-gay movement.
Let me counter both arguments:
You say that "the impersonal corporation that is Wal-Mart" is keeping families from getting health care. However, the dirty little secret is there are thousands and thousands of Wal-Mart employees who do have health care coverage through them.
But more importantly, it is not the mission of Wal-Mart to provide health care for their employees. Like it or not, and I know that lefties don't like it, Wal-Mart is in business for one purpose and one purpose only: make a profit for their shareholders. (Full disclosure: I'm not one of them.) In fact, 99.9% of businesses are in it for the profit, and the other 0.1% won't be in business much longer if they keep that poor attitude up.
And nobody is coercing the workers who continue to apply to Wal-Mart for work to do so. With all the negative publicity surrounding Wal-Mart that's mostly stirred up by the unionistas, it's likely that people applying to work there are aware that they're not going to get gold-plated benefits. Also, many of the company's workers are the "working spouses" or retirees who are already covered under another company's health plan or Medicare.
It's one thing that an individual can consider when choosing to work for Wal-Mart. With thousands of jobs out there, one does not have to work there, I choose not to. I applied myself and got a college degree and professional registration so I could choose from among better paying jobs. I do shop at Wal-Mart because they have good grocery prices, but that doesn't mean I stay completely away from a union store like Giant. I just don't shop at Giant as much, since they made the choice to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by having a union shop.
Of course, what bugs me is Giant trying to strongarm the legislature into artificially leveling the playing field (so to speak) by taxing Wal-Mart. Basically that's what "Fair Share" amounted to. However, I also do not like Wal-Mart (or any other private entity) when they convince local governments to use eminent domain power to steal land from a rightful owner to build a store.
Now, as for my views on marriage: believe me, I know all about ceding liberty there! That's probably why I'm single again.
But seriously, again this is a choice made. While I've benefitted in some ways from liberalized divorce laws, it doesn't mean I was in the right for doing so. Western civilization has benefitted for two thousand years with the morality of one man, one woman. It's only within the last 40 years or so that other "arrangements" have been made more commonplace, and it coincides with a general decline in morality.
If I were a gay man, and I had a partner I was in love with, I would have a choice to make. Now it's easier than ever to be accepted as a couple. But I also know that the relationship would only progress to a certain level because we could not be "married." Maybe it would be a sad reality, but that's the way it is. And in the end it's the way it should be for society's sake.
Assume we cross the line in the sand, as Massachusetts has. Do we now allow a man and boy to be married? If it's all right for two men to be married, why have an arbitrary age limit? Age is only a number. Hey, it works in some Islamic societies, they marry boys and girls off before puberty in some cases.
I don't have the most logical argument against gay marriage; philosophically it does run against the grain of my libertarian streak. But there does have to be a set of rules of some sort, lest morality dissolve into anarchy. It's a concern when behavior becomes the basis for civil rights. This paper does a nice job of presenting the argument of gays comparing their civil rights struggle to blacks in the 1960's.
My final argument is this. Actually, it's not so much an argument as a question.
We all know what sort of chaos the area around New Orleans has descended into since the floods of Katrina. I read Michelle Malkin's blog as a quick news gauge - and the news is now rapes, robberies, shootings, and the like are rampant. Basically, it is truly the strong surviving there. Those that are armed are bullying those who are not, and there's no compunction about breaking into a store and looting the contents. Yes, it can be argued that some simply need the food and water in the store to survive. But nobody needs a TV or electronics when the power is out.
I seem to recall reading that about 40 years ago, New Orleans was in a somewhat similar situation. What I'd like to know, and it'll probably take someone who's an oldtimer familiar with the area to answer this, is whether there was the looting or lawlessness in that flood that there is today?
My theory is that this sort of mob rule did not happen, but with the decline in morals over the last couple generations, we have now seen in New Orleans what happens when people are totally free to do as they wish - when the guardrails are taken down, as it were. It's not a pretty sight.
So yes, I do believe in individual liberty, but I also believe that there is a moral code that needs to be followed to enhance this liberty.
