Â© 2011 There was a time when I considered myself something of a libertarian.
I never liked the label "conservative." Conservatives for me were â€¦ well â€¦ too conservative, for lack of a better way of saying it. I actually wanted to shrink the federal government down to a size reflecting its strict constitutional limitations. Not many conservatives actually believe that. And even fewer act on those convictions when they have the chance.
So, for awhile in my life, I considered myself a "Christian libertarian."
But not many libertarians, I found, agreed with me about protecting our borders, a clear constitutional imperative of the federal government under the Constitution. Most of them were open-borders utopians.
Most libertarians also have utopian notions about drugs, too. I agree that the federal government's war on drugs has been a failure from the get-go. I can't even understand how a guy like Bill Bennett is taken seriously as a conservative after presiding over the failed drug war as the "drug czar" and after expanding the Department of Education when he had the chance to dismantle it. But that's another story for another time. I wouldn't mind the drug war if it meant shooting on sight all drug smugglers found entering our country. Instead, the Bush administration prosecuted two heroic Border Patrol agents for wounding one with a gunshot in the buttocks, for heaven's sake. But, again I digress.
What is irking me today is a press release I got from the Libertarian Party last week.
You can read here â€“ and weep.
The official position of the Libertarian Party is that the most important cultural institution necessary for self-government â€“ namely marriage between a man and a woman â€“ is some kind of archaic anachronism, an inherently discriminatory and oppressive enterprise.
Read more: The trouble with libertarians http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=310397#ixzz1P9iyq5Nl