Where does the "Libertarian" label come from?

Your fixation on the "regulating morality" tag is problematic. If, because I feel that there are individual choices and "liberties" that are outside of the government's authority to dictate to me, or anyone else, I am a "Libertarian" then so be it. I have certainly heard worse labels used to describe me from you, that's for sure.

I am not arguing that the government hasn't the authority to regulate "moral" choices to a degree... I don't know anyone that does, short of a full-blown anarchist (and I don't know any of those). I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to practice their religious beliefs as they best see fit... but that doesn't mean some cult of Kali can abduct children off the street so they can be sacrificed to a god of death, because that violates the rights of the children being sacrificed. I am fully in favor of government protecting everyone's right to acquire goods and wealth that they value and need... but if the means by which it is acquired is the forcible and violent theft of someone else's goods and wealth, then the rights of those being robbed and stolen from need to be protected as well.

When one individual or group's actions infringe on another's rights and privileges, then it is the responsibility of government to intercede on behalf of the latter. This sort of definition of our Constitutional system makes me a Libertarian, and not a Democrat or Republican? Aren't you a card-carrying Republican that routinely espouses the virtues of smaller, less intrusive government control and regulation? How is this different?

Okay, well... that aside, let's address your latest points:

it is ERRONEOUS in the extreme for you summarily judge all individuals attempting suicide as unable to make sane judgments, thus their right to death is justifiably denied them. What about those with a chronic, debilitating, painful illness? Could they not be in full control of their mental faculties?

As you clearly say in the quote above, NO, they cannot be summarily determined to have "full control of their mental faculties" because the illness you are describing in your example is "chronic" (constant; long-term; without end) and "debilitating" (to make weak or feeble; to reduce beyond normal capacity). I can sympathize with such cases, even empathize with them, but I am confident that modern medicine has the means to alleviate many of the symptoms and side effects to such conditions... not the least of which is pain medication and physical therapy.

This is a moot point to argue anyway... illegal or not, no punitive action can be taken against a successful suicide, and any unsuccessful suicides are treated as "developmentally challenged" (i.e. "potentially crazy") persons anyway, without exception. The illegality of the act is to deter people from "assisting" or "promoting" suicide where it isn't (or shouldn't be) a viable option.

We are talking about 3 consenting adults that don't want to bother anyone, just want to live their life, pay their taxes, worship their God and raise their kids. Are you telling me that if you wish to engage in this that BY DEFINITION you are mentally deficient to the point of being "incapable of making decisions?"

You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years, most notably Reynolds v. United States, where it was determined that the polygamist state of marriage violated the rights of the various wives and their dependant children. This was a powerful enough decision by the SCOTUS that even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted the anti-polygamist position it promoted, despite the divinely-revealed truth passed on by Joseph Smith that polygamy was "God's Law". I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise. Furthermore, the laws against polygamy are STATE laws, and regulation and enforcement of the laws is left (almost) exclusively to the individual States, which is something I think we can both agree is a good thing.

And as such you STILL have not explained why it is "okay" for the government to "discriminate" against 3 consenting adults that are NOT set on injuring a third, or under age party and NOT "insane", or "emotionally disabled."

I think I have done my best with the above. The SCOTUS determined the practice to be un-Constitutional, and that determination has remained unchanged or challenged since 1878. A marriage amendment defining marriage as "one man-one woman" will settle the question just as quickly as it will the gay marriage issue.

To sum up (and I think it's time to get back on track here):

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which made "one man-one woman" Federal law. My point was that the SCOTUS, in my opinion, is poised to shoot this legislation down based on the 1,138 special privileges that Act entitles to married couples, but denies to all "other" couples. If the conservative movement wants to continue to work towards defending traditional marriage, then it must find a way to eliminate or greatly reduce those "special privileges" so that the "other couples" don't have a Constitutional axe to grind anymore. All I have EVER maintained through this whole thread was that I DO FEEL that the status quo is discriminating against those individuals choosing to practice a same-sex relationship by denying them the same level of opportunity based on nothing more than their sexual orientation, which is clearly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is my stated, clear opinion. I offer it as an explanation for the position I have taken in regards to gay marriage, but NOT as proof positive that anyone else is WRONG.

I can't be any clearer than that.