What is the True Libertarian Position on Same-sex Marriage?

First of all, there are two issues: the moral issue and the legal issue. I find it best not to muddles the two. Libertarians of all people understand that what is moral is not necessarily what is legal and vise-verse.


I also must be fair in clarifying where I am coming from, if you don't already know.  
1. I do believe the Bible and I believe the place the Bible defines marriage is in Genesis 1 and 2.
2. I am not coming at this from a "holier than thou" POV. I will readily admit my own moral depravity before anyone else. I do not know your heart, but I know my own, and it is frightening.   
3. I believe the government should stay out of legislating morality and the decision of the definition of marriage should be left up to individuals and churches, whether that definition is traditional or alternative.  
4. I believe in equality. But equality does not mean sameness as I will expand on later. 

The Legal Issue - To Same-sex Side
On the legal side, I agree with Congressman Justin Amash. He says the government should not be defining marriage for anyone, gay or traditional. I would rather the law be silent and let people and their churches make the determination. You say we should not impose our view of marriage on you. I agree. You see, I do not want to ban same-sex marriage. Adults should be free to make those kind of choices, even if I don't agree with them. In the same way, I would ask that the government not do the same by forcing everyone to accept same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not banned. It just doesn't currently get the same benefits that traditional marriage does. So think about what you're arguing for. Are you really just arguing over benefits, ie. money? Should legal benefits really be your primary motive in getting married? As a heterosexual, I would not care if the government stopped promoting traditional marriage and giving out benefits. Those things are privileges, not rights. I'll gladly give them up. That should never be anyone's primary motive in marriage.

And I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Doug Mainwaring is homosexual himself and opposed the government promotion of same-sex marriage. He writes,

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
...
In our day, prejudice against gays is just a very faint shadow of what it once was. But the abolition of prejudice against gays does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is inevitable or optimal. There are other avenues available, none of which demands immediate, sweeping, transformational legislation or court judgments.

We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.
Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.

The Legal Issue - To the Traditional Side
I urge you to think about how you present your argument. Ask yourself, "Is tax-exempt status is a right or privilege? Is marriage a right or a privilege?" I probably know your answer, but the answer begs the question, "If it is a privilege, would you be okay if the government ceased to promote traditional marriage?"

The Moral Issue - To the Christian
For the Christian reading this, I would challenge you to think about what I write below. If you take the traditional marriage side, remember that if you cannot speak to someone in a loving and articulate way, it would be better to keep your mouth shut!

"One of the fears I have as Evangelicals address the issue of the legalization of gay marriage is that we might win a battle on shooting down gay marriage and lose a war of building caring relationships with gay people. Will Evangelicals influence the morality of our culture on marriage most by enforcing its overarching view on marriage on others or by embodying its ethic of marriage and family in a way that demonstrates loyal love and self-sacrifice?"
- Dr. Paul Louis Metzger

If you take the same-sex side, I would urge you to think about the virtues of long-suffering, self-sacrifice rather than self-fulfillment and read the section below as well as this interview with Christopher Yuan.

I shared [my homosexuality] with this chaplain. He told me, “Hey, you know, the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality.” He gave me a book from his bookshelf which explained that view. I was very curious. I thought, “Wow! Okay, so, I can have my cake and eat it to. I can have both. I can be a Christian. I can continue affirming homosexual relationships—pursuing homosexual relationships—and there’s nothing wrong with that. God will bless that.”

So, I took this book, in the hopes of finding biblical justification for homosexuality; but as I read it, I had that book in one hand and the Bible in the other. As I was reading that book—and as it was going over the different passages in Scripture, and justifying, and saying how it didn’t condemn it—I would go to the Bible. I would read the entire paragraph, or the entire chapter, or that whole book that it was talking about. I believe it was a true miracle of God—that it was the Holy Spirit that indwells within us—that convicted me that this was, not only a distortion of God, but it was a distortion of His Word.

So, I couldn’t even finish that book. I gave it to the chaplain, and I just read through the Bible. I went through every verse, every chapter, and every page of Scripture—I—looking for anything to justify—to have a positive, to bless homosexual relationships—monogamous, adult-consensual homosexual relationships—but I couldn’t find anything.
...
There is a passage that we see three times—you know—once in the Old, twice in the New—where it says, “Be holy for I am holy.” I realized that God wasn’t saying, “Be heterosexual for I am heterosexual;” but He didn’t say, “Be homosexual for I am homosexual,” either. I mean—because what does heterosexuality mean? It means being attracted to the opposite sex—which then could condone adultery, fornication, and lust—all these things.
So, I thought, “Even if I became straight, I would still need to submit my life, my thoughts, and my passions to the lordship of Jesus Christ.” So, I thought, “Even if, somehow, there was this shift from going from gay to straight, I would still need to pursue holiness.” That is why I realized that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality—that shouldn’t be my goal—but the opposite of homosexuality is holiness.

I needed to pursue holiness. We all need to pursue holiness. It does not matter what your proclivities are. God has called us to live a life of holiness, not on our own strength, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. That was the beginning of me realizing that this is what God is calling me to—not to focus upon my orientation, as the world would call it—not focusing upon, “What are my temptations?—” but focusing upon living a life of purity and holiness, regardless of whether these temptations and struggles go away or not.
...
I was not just having a few partners every week. It would be daily. It was hedonism to the extreme. To say that God was saying, “No,” to responding to those things was, I believe, really the hand of God.
...
Then, the last thing that God was convicting me of was just the hold that sex had on my life—and the need for intimacy, and physical intimacy, and then, also, my sexuality—how that was such a big part of my identity. I realized that I had put my identity in the wrong thing—in my sexuality.

The Moral Issue - To the Gay Side
Doug Mainwaring also writes,

As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.

I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.

During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.

I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn't diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.

Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.

When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.

Now, Mainwaring didn't take the Bible into account. But as a Christian, I do. First, I need to clarify that we identify homosexuality a little differently than the Bible defines it. The Bible defines it as the act of sex itself, not the attraction to members of the same sex. So if you define homosexuality as being attracted to someone of the same sex and you say there is nothing wrong with that, I agree. There is nothing wrong with that. But as with any feeling, the proper question is not, "How can I justify my feelings?" it should be, as with any sexual feelings we experience, "What should I do with these feelings? Should I obey them or not?" Human beings are distinct from animals. We are made in God's image with the ability to choose between right and wrong. We are not the victim of our urges and attractions. We cannot use a “I feel, therefore I am” standard. Urges towards co-workers do not justify adultery. Strong feelings of love and attraction toward siblings do not justify incestuous behavior or “marriage.” Adults are expected to govern their sexual behavior. But if you struggle with homosexual feelings or attractions, you should act on them because you simply “must be gay”? (Some of this is paraphrased from one of John Stonestreet's commentaries.)

This issue goes deeper than just our sexuality. I'm gonna quote a bit from the book Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes by Brandon O'Brien and E. Randolph Richards talking about the kind of culture we have been raised in.

"As teens and young adults in the 1970s, many turned away from the activism of the previous decade and became focused on themselves. They wanted to have fun, be fulfilled and self-actualized and enjoy life. This is the generation responsible for the pet rock. Perfect for a self-centered generation, the pet rock didn't need to be fed, walked or loved."
...
Many Gen Xers were latchkey kids... In many ways, then, they raised themselves, with the help of afterschool specials that taught them they were special, unique and important. Reared on a steady diet of self-esteem and positive reinforcement, at least at school and on television, they are just as likely to consider themselves the center of the universe.

...

[B]ecause the Gen Xers' parents (Boomers) weren't very involved in their lives, parents of millenials tend to over-parent... This constant attention means the millenials have a strong sense of self-esteem (verging on narcissism, some would say), a strong sense of entitlement (because they've always gotten what they wanted) and don't take criticism very well."

According to sociologist Christian Smith, the average teen doesn't view humans as existing to do the will of God, rather they view God as existing to meet human needs.

Researcher Jean Twenge says that narcissism in college students has risen 30 percent in 30 years. She defines narcissism as “a need to pump yourself up with praise and approval in order to feel okay.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/april/misusing-the-bible.html

When we talk about love we must remember that "[L]ove is the movement out of narcissism. The true foe of love is not hate but egocentrism, for hate can often be rechanneled back into love, but egocentrism prevents us from ever moving out of ourselves toward the other."

Dr. Lou Markos

"In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships. Redefining marriage would put a new principle into the law—that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is."
Ryan T. Anderson

Conclusion: One of the problems in this country is the idea that men and women are the same in virtually all respects. This of course is simply not true. We are of equal value, but also uniquely different. But to a society that believes were are not different, same-sex marriage is only a logical conclusion to that. Our country also has little value of children as seen by the legalization of abortion, the rising divorce rate, and the rapidly declining birth rate. So the idea of marriage for the sake of family and children has been lost long before the same-sex marriage debate. At some point marriage went from being about self-sacrificial love to self-fulfilling "love" (which of course, isn't really love at all). Marriage became about personal satisfaction, not the betterment of society. You see, homosexuals are not responsible for "ruining marriage". Heterosexuals are.

"To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense? If you don’t trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? In any truly personal relationship, the other person has to be able to contradict you."
Timothy Keller 

Most importantly, Christianity is not about cleaning yourself up in order to be pleasing to God. I want people to realize their sin so they see their need for salvation.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Whether you're gay or straight, Jesus said whoever looks with lust is guilty of adultery already? If God judges you by the Ten Commandments would you be guilty or innocent? I know I would be guilty. If you are guilty where would you go? Heaven or hell? I know I'd be in hell. But that's just the bad news. The Gospel is "good news".

The name Jesus means "the LORD saves". Christianity is the only faith that says God saves. All other religions believe you must work to earn your salvation. How wonderful is that! The Supreme Court first start looking over DOMA and Prop 8 during Passover, which remembers when the LORD passed over the sin of his people, not because they were better than those pagan Egyptians, but because they simply trusted him and his sacrifice. So trust him. Be humble and acknowledge your sin before him and ask him so save you and he will.

Jim Gordon, The Dark Knight Rises

Why Republicans Should be on the Other Side of the Immigration Battle

Why do Immigrants vote Democrat?
Republicans always ask, "Why do Hispanics and immigrants always vote Democrat?" They're often baffled that even though they share so many of the same values they seem to be single-issue voters on immigration. Why is that? Imagine you are an immigrant. You're here legally and you do your part in voting. But you have a lot of friends and relatives who are not here legally. You don't resent them for it, of course, because they're family. And you know what it's like to get through the immigration process yourself. Your friends and family here illegaly are not breaking any laws other than being here.

Now, it's time to vote. You have one candidate saying that your friends and family are criminals for breaking the law! In fact, they should be deported back to their home countries, torn from their families, reduced to their former life of poverty. And then you have another candidate saying, "Yeah, I'm gonna NOT do that. You're friends and fam are alright with me! ;)"

Hmm... Let's see... Who would you vote for?

Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. See, Republicans, this message is for you. And this is coming from someone who votes Republican. I can't stand the Democrats and what they stand for, and despite their lip-service to immigrants, they've done little until now to help the situation.

True Conservatism
As a conservative, you don't trust government. Government is too big, has too much power, spends too much money, it's inept and passes too much regulation. So why are you pushing for government to have more power over immigration, get bigger, spend more money, and pass more regulation? Ever considered that the government is actually the source of the problem and not the lack of it?

The problem with immigration is over-regulation. Deregulate it, and you fix the problem. But most Republicans think the solution is more regulation. This is why Republicans need to stand with immigration reform. Not to pander for votes, but because this is the small-government solution.

A Free Labor Market
Illegal immigration is a natural response to the free market and needless regulation. Our immigration laws are set up so that bureaucrats decide who needs workers and who doesn't. Often they don't acknowledge industries that do need workers because of jobs that Americans can technically do, but don't regardless. So those jobs are actually in need of immigrants, but immigration law does not acknowledge that need because of the way it's worded, so it keeps unskilled immigrants out. Bureaucrats don't understand that it's not their job to decide who can work where. The free market takes care of it. This is why our economy is largely held afloat by illegal immigrants.

Why don't they just get in line like everyone else?
How many of you even know what that line looks like? Or how many year or even decades it would take to get through it. You try navigating through our immense and non-nonsensical immigration law sometime. Reason.com made this cartoon showing just how hard it is. Have fun.

It's no wonder people come here illegally. As you can see the door is not even open to a lot of people, for silly bureaucratic reasons. That's why they come here illegally. What's the point in keeping them out? By making legal immigration so difficult, we've created a larger "black market" of people coming here by more degrading means. Under the current reform being proposed, illegals have to wait 13 years to get citizenship! And people call that amnesty? This is government bureaucracy at it's worst. Making legal immigration even more difficult isn't going to solve the problem, it's going to make it worse.

When I say the door is closed, I mean our immigration law is set up to not allow unskilled workers in, even when we have many industries that are in need of unskilled workers. We benefit from this illegal hiring because it keeps the costs of many goods and services illegal immigrants provide down for us. I remember seeing a report on the news about a small town that kicked out all their illegals. The town pretty much shut down after they did that. They actually begged them to come back.

But I'll have to learn Spanish! Why don't they learn English like they're supposed to!?
Whining about people not learning English shows bias and racism in the minds of Hispanics. Now, I know conservatives are not racist. I am a conservative and a minority. But you have to understand that that's how people see you when you whine about stupid stuff like that. You say you don't wanna sound racist? Too late. Illegals don't learn English because they come here uneducated and don't even know their own language well.

(And if you're worried about having to learn Spanish everywhere, don't. Most children of immigrants don't even speak their native language. So by the second generation, immigrants are speaking English.)

Immigrants are stealing our jobs!
Yeah, I just really wanted to pick grapes in California, but that darn illegal took mai job! And my buddy reeeeally would've mowed lawns for a living if it weren't for those stupid illegal aliens!

The notion that they steal jobs is ignorant of how the free market works. Dennis Michael Lynch says that we don't need low-skilled immigrants. Nonsense! If it weren't for low-skilled immigrants, especially illegals, we'd all suffer. It's true *some* Americans seek those low-skilled jobs, but there are not nearly enough to fill the void. Our immigration laws interfere with the free exchange of employers and willing employees.




They're gonna ruin the economy! They don't pay taxes and drive up the cost of welfare!
Most of the other arguments against immigration aren't actually specific to immigration. You could make the same arguments against new people being born, or people moving from one city to another. They're arguments against welfare.

Most illegals do pay taxes and they can't take advantage of state benefits. Alex Nowrasteh writes,

A recent study in the journal Health Affairs shows that in 2009, immigrants paid $13.8 billion more into Medicare Part A than they received in benefits. Noncitizens were responsible for $10.1 billion of that $13.8 billion surplus. By contrast, native-born Americans drew $30.9 billion more from the system than they contributed.

It seems us legal citizens are more of a burden than illegals are.

But don't they cause more crimes?
That's not what the stats show. There is a very tiny percentage of illegals that are here who criminals. Statistically, a greater percentage of actual citizens commit crimes than illegals. Obviously, those people should not be allowed in. But when our law is set up to not let so many people in who have committed no crime, it's difficult to find and figure out who the people are who we really need to keep out.

Wouldn't a fence and a strong, secure border solve the problem?
Does outlawing guns stop gun crimes? Do we really need a fence to keep us safe? And just when are we "safe" enough? This talk of building a fence makes us sound like Communists. This is not what free countries do. We already have laws against people committing crimes, and if they come here and do that they'll be arrested and thrown in jail. Isn't that better than kicking them out and having them commit a crime somewhere else where they may not even be thrown in jail?
Kirsten Powers said,

there will never be a point where the border will be certified as being safe as Republicans want to be because there are so many Republicans who don't want these people coming into the country. So, I just think it sets up an impossible barrier to entry for immigrants... I also don't really want to live in a country that has a fence around it

I agree. Don't you realize how bad and, frankly Communist it sounds to harp about building a fence? And before you try to attack me for agreeing with a Democrat, remember that's a logical fallacy: and ad hominem/personal attack. It's the actual argument that matters.

What does the Bible say?
Isn't it interesting how Conservative Christians have a biblical basis for most political positions, but none for opposing illegal immigration? Maybe that's because the Bible contains numerous passages outlining the duty of the faithful to treat aliens with charity. Don't believe me?

Bill King wrote for the Houston Chronicle,

A FEW months ago I was in church listening to our pastor’s sermon. He was describing a feast where the prophets had sent out word for all the people of Israel to come together. Interestingly, the invitation to the feast specially included all of the “aliens living among you.”
When I got home I got an electronic version of the Bible and did a search for the word “alien.” To my surprise, the search turned up dozens of references. It seems that the issue of immigration has been on people’s minds for some time.

A copy of the passages can be found at http://www.billkinghouston.com/scripture. Most are in the Old Testament and while the message varies, the underlying theme is an admonishment to treat aliens living in your land with tolerance and charity. Frequently, they are grouped with widows and orphans, and the passages charge us with an affirmative duty to see to their well being. In many of these passages, originally written to the Israelites, they are reminded that they will do these things because they once lived in the land of Egypt.
There are two passages that I found particularly compelling. First is Exodus 12:49: “The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.”

Now, it's important to remember that we are not ancient Israel, nor are we subject to their laws. But we can certainly glean some principles from them.

The Human Factor
Understand how cruel and inhumane it would be to send a lot of these people back or tell them they can't come. A lot of these immigrants are fleeing oppressive socialist governments. They came from places where they're living off rice and beans. I'm not kidding. They often don't have any access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Cubans are fleeing from Castro, whom to call crazy and evil would be an understatement. Castro will arrest and sometimes execute anyone who dissents against the government and sometimes Christians. I personally have a friend from Cuba who would be executed immediately if her family ever went back. Our immigration law says that Cubans who come by sea have to be sent back, but if they come by land they are given protection. WTH kinda law is that? This is how stupid our immigration law is. Why on earth would you oppose immigration reform? Many people already have to wait up to 38 years to get their citizenship under the law we have now. The proposed "amnesty" is almost the same as the law we already have. Real people are suffering because of these silly, anti-free market laws.


Republicans are coming across as hypocrites. You want fewer laws all the time and consider our new health care law unjust and understand the less gun regulation is good, and you're right! So how is it that when it comes to immigration, Republicans are all of a sudden say, "MORE LAWS! ENFORCE THEM AT ALL COSTS!"? Right, because the laws we already have are doing wonders...There should be free trade in labor as well as goods and services. This is why we need immigration reform.

Freedom

Someone told me, "If you read the bible, God was big into slavery and killing. Not so much into freedom."

If you actually read the Bible instead of repeating what others have told you about it, you'd know there is nothing in the Bible that promotes slavery. It is true that there are no laws that make it illegal. But actually, a true libertarian would argue that slavery should be regulated rather than outlawed. What I mean is, we already have basic laws against abusing people. Slavery should fall under those categories of abuse. Today we have more slaves than when slavery was legal. So does passing a law automatically get rid of it? Now, I'm not advocating the legalization of slavery. It violates Genesis 1 and 2. God was addressing a reality of the time in a practical way to protect the dignity of slaves, and during that time slavery was much different than it was in the modern Western world. This link talks about it more as well. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm

The Bible says murder is wrong and commands all mankind in Genesis not to kill each other. God is the only one in the Bible who has ultimate authority to give live or to take it. Think about it like protection of private property. All life belongs to God, so he has a the right to distribute it as he sees fit.

People like to criticize the Bible's rules with one hand while they use the other to support the passing of 10,000 pages of legislation in the U.S. every month. The Bible only has a few hundred rules in it, and most are exclusively for Israel. Gentiles were not bound to those rules. There is far more freedom in the Bible than in any man-made government.


In fact, the Bible is all about freedom. Freedom is the end goal for us in God's plan.
Paul says, 

"that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

"Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—"

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

And Peter says warning of false teachers,

 "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved."

"If the law does not lead us to redemption, it will lead us to despair... The very law that has been given by God to prove to me that I need a savior, becomes in the hands of external religion a mechanism to prove to me that I don't need a savior."

- Alistair Begg

Under a big government, we are slaves to the law. But even without it, we are still slaves to our sin. True freedom--true liberty can only be achieved through the freedom given through Jesus.

Is God a Libertarian?

In this blog I'll be discussing how libertarian principles can be found all throughout Scripture. You see, in the beginning, there was only one regulation. God's original plan for us was freedom. But we exchanged that freedom under God for slavery to man and sin. Too much faith in government is rebellion against God. It's faith in man's authority and ability to fix the world over God's authority and his plan to fix it. It's the same lie the serpent told Adam and Eve. Nothing's changed.

Visit the Facebook page.