The State of Gay Rights

There's still a rocky road ahead.

America now has a gay-rights majority. Gallup reports that for the first time ever, most people—53 percent—favor legalizing same-sex marriage. That's up from 27 percent just 15 years ago. The nation has moved, and it's not going back.

It's nice to think that in a democracy, public policy will soon follow public opinion, with same-sex marriage becoming the norm, not the exception. But that's not how democracy works in a big, diverse federal system. On this emotional issue, the citizenry is divided, and marriage laws as well as politics will reflect that division for a long time to come.

The good news is that changing sentiments have already begun to alter the traditional conception of wedlock. Five states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage. Another 13 offer civil unions or domestic partnerships with some or all the benefits of marriage, according to Lambda Legal.

But the resistance is still strong and broad-based. The recent jump in support for same-sex marriage, Gallup notes, came entirely from Democrats and independents. Among Democrats, support now stands at 69 percent, with 59 percent of independents agreeing.

Republicans have not changed their minds. Only 28 percent are in favor—the same as last year.

Realistic conservatives can't expect to prevail in the long-term battle for hearts and minds. Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, recently said, "We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. ... We've probably lost that."

Public support for gay rights is even higher on other issues. Some two-thirds of Americans support granting gays access to civil unions. An ABC News/Washington Post survey last year found that 75 percent of Americans think openly gay individuals should be allowed to serve in the military—including a majority of Republicans and white evangelicals.

Yet the two parties remain at odds over the issue. Although Democratic officeholders have been cautious in embracing same-sex marriage, they generally favor civil unions, at least. Barack Obama lifted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

The 2008 Republican national platform, by contrast, asserted "the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service" and endorsed a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The current crop of presidential candidates is almost unanimous in sticking to that hard line. The notable heresies: Former Utah Gov. John Huntsman signed a civil-union law, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas voted to repeal the military ban.

Given the growing sentiment in favor of equality for gays, the Republican Party might seem to have two choices: Get in line or get beat. In fact, there is every reason to think that for the foreseeable future, the GOP will continue to reject gay rights—and ample grounds, alas, to think it can do so without any real political penalty.

One reason is that most people who support same-sex marriage usually wouldn't vote Republican anyway. So Republicans need to make sure they retain their appeal to those (45 percent of Americans) who oppose it.

Another is that in many of the states where the GOP is strongest, gay rights are far less popular than they are nationally. In Texas, same-sex marriage gets only 30 percent support. In Utah, it's 22 percent. The states that provide it, by contrast, are mostly places where Democrats flourish, like Vermont and Massachusetts.

It's safe to assume that gay marriage will continue to spread in the coming decades, and it's safe to assume that opponents will not be able to get a constitutional amendment. But it's also safe to assume that many or most states will continue to forbid it. Connecticut and Iowa are one thing. Alabama and Arizona are another.

The other thing Republicans have going for them is that most people don't base their votes on this single issue. In the 2010 elections, 31 percent of gays voted for GOP congressional candidates.

Why? Because they place greater importance on other issues. Voting for a candidate is like choosing a cable TV package: Just because it's the best of the options doesn't mean you like everything it includes.

The recent emergence of a majority that favors same-sex marriage constitutes a turning point. So did the battle of Gettysburg—and at that moment, the Civil War was only about half over. The outcome of the gay-rights fight may be discernible on the horizon, but there's a lot of fighting ahead.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Yes, there is a difference between telling a pollster, "sure I support gay marriage" and voting on the issue. And our elites have a long standing habit of ignoring the public will on issues. If the majority really counted, we would have a much different immigration policy for starters.

  • Otto||

    John, our current immigration policy is not very loose. Certainly not compared to historical levels.

  • rather||

    but the government is 'loose', or based on what will benefit the legislator's future.

    People have not changed but representation has become a blatant game of wealth gathering

  • ||

    Regardless, if the majority had its way it would be much tighter than what it is.

  • Nomic||

    From what I've seen immigration law is tight, but immigration policy is loose.

    This creates a situation where you have a lot of otherwise honest people breaking the law. Prosecutorial discretion (which usually smells like persecutorial discretion to me) then becomes the standard, which means you never know where you stand.

  • JohnD||

    The policy may not be loose, but the enforcement sure as hell is.

  • JoshINHB||

    Yes, there is a difference between telling a pollster, "sure I support gay marriage" and voting on the issue

    if that statement is accurate it means that opposition to gay marriage is becoming socially unacceptable somewhat like racism.

  • Neu Mejican||

    If the majority really counted, we would have a much different immigration policy for starters.

    You mean, of course, that it would be easier for people to immigrate here and work, right? That there would be a clear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the country, right? And that there would be stricter enforcement of laws keeping people from coming here. And that we would limit the numbers of people coming here to work. Right?

    If there was ever an issue where the "majority opinion" is muddled, it is immigration.

  • KPres||

    I don't support state sanctioned gay marriage. I support the state removing it's fat carcass from the issue, allowing supposedly free people to contract with whomever they choose.

  • Nomic||

    Amen, Brother!
    Do I think the state should recognize gay marriage? No.
    Do I think the state should recognize straight marriage? No.
    Marriage became a formal state institution as a means of protecting patrilineal succession. It's time it recedes to its social function roots.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As long as we continue to encourage the state to make up rights to be handed out to select groups, there is no equality.

  • Otto||

    The state has granted differential benefits to those who get married. Now, gay people are demanding access to those benefits. The first condition should have never happened, but so long as it exists, it's hard to see why they should be excluded.

  • KPres||

    IF the second condition were a stepping stone to correcting the first, I might agree.

    However, this isn't an issue like the welfare state, military spending, or the Federal Reserve, which are entrenched to the point that changes to the status quo would have profound secondary effects. The state could easily remove itself from marriage tomorrow and society would adapt almost immediately. That being the casee it's hard to understand why a libertarian would fall back on the pragmatic concession, unless their real agenda was to use the state to promote a particular moral position.

  • ||

    Libertarians always say this but I don't think it is all that obvious that the state grants favored status to married people in anything other than immigration law. What do you get for being married? You get screwed on your income taxes. You get the state telling you that your partner automatically owns half of everything you own. You have to hire a lawyer and go to court to end the relationship. Is there any other private relationship that requires an order of the court to end?

    Marriage doesn't mean anything in many child custody cases since step parents rarely get visitation rights. The problem for gay couples is that parental rights do not extend to non-biological parents absent adoption. But that is an adoption issue not a marriage issue. Let both gay partners adopt the children and there is no need for a marriage since they are both parents of the child. They are then just like any other non married or married couple fighting it out for their kids.

    There is always the jackalope like story of someone denied visiting rights at the hospital. If this is a problem, and I don't believe it is, it is no bigger problem for gays than it is for the millions of hetero couples who live together out of wedlock. Odd that throughout the 1980s and 1990s when living together out of wedlock become normal and unremarkable for hetero couples, this problem never seemed to arise. And again, if it is such a problem, why not just change the visitation rules so non married couples of all types straight and gay don't get screwed?

    When you think about it, state sanctioned marriage really doesn't mean a whole lot. And in fact, it is really net negative for the people who do it. If you take out religious and immigration reasons, I can't think of a single practical reason why anyone would want to legally marry their spouse rather than just live with them.

    Gay marriage is nothing but the worst sort of culture war with both sides torturing each other over very little.

  • KPres||

    "Libertarians always say this but I don't think it is all that obvious that the state grants favored status to married people in anything other than immigration law."

    OK, but even if it's a purely symbolic issue, since our position is decidedly from the other two, why shouldn't we use it as a wedge as well?

    It's funny, Reason's recently been pushing the idea that libertarian = independent. Why then, do they always join with the left on this cause? Strategically, you couldn't find a better issue to sell people on freedom:

    a) Society is trending to the left on this, and the utilitarian outcome for us is the same as the left, meaning they have no convincing rhetorical firepower against us.

    b) Conservatives, who know they're going to lose, would see our position as a fall-back, so while they may not support gay marriage, at least they won't have to condone it, financially or symbolically.

    The reality, of course, is that our position has universal appeal because freedom works, and this is the perfect issue to prove that.

  • K S||

    Those are my thoughts. As I show my conservative friends how government is entrenched in their marriage, they are often horrified. If marriage was purely a religious or social structure, then anyone could get "married" provided they found a church or whatever other institution to do it. This removes the moral quandaries conservatives find themselves in, and opens up other kinds of associations like polygamy while not allowing it to fall back to the slippery slope of "man marrying bicycle" argument i often hear because he could do that but to what benefit? You can't have a contract with a bike for those who wish to protect themselves legally from the fallout of the relationship breaking up.

  • free2booze||

    "When you think about it, state sanctioned marriage really doesn't mean a whole lot."

    It's about government entitlements.

  • KPres||

    I'd say it's all about self-righteous moralist douchebags wanting to lord over everybody.

  • ||

    What entitlements? They screw you on your taxes. They make you go to court to end the union. They mandate what shares each side gets. Just what the hell are these entitlements? Again, there is no rational reason to get married sans immigration. And you could and should fix immigration law to where you don't need a piece of paper to get into the country.

    Why do libertarians hold onto this myth that married people get government entitlements when the truth is in fact mostly the opposite.

  • ||

    The only one I can think of is SS. If a couple is not recognized as married, survivors don't get any of the deceased's benefits.

    Which is a conundrum. Personally I hate to see any entitlement expanded, esp. one like SS which is going broke. OTOH, fair is fair and its not right to arbitrarily exclude certain couples from a benefit while allowing others to receive it.

  • despindle||

    Government benefits of being married:
    1) Lower taxes if one partner does not work or earns substantially less than the other, particularly if the lower earning spouse has children from another relationship.
    2) No inheritance tax on anything left to a spouse. (huge benefit for wealthy married people)
    3) Social Security survivor benefits. (huge benefit for elderly of limited means)
    4) Social Security death benefits
    5) Survivor veterans benefits
    6) The right to make medical decisions for your incapacitated spouse.
    7) The ability to file for federal bankruptcy jointly
    8) Immunity from testifying against one's spouse
    9) Immigration benefits
    10) Various real estate benefits
    ...plus more that I haven't thought of.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's about using government to force recognition of same sex unions being equal social status as opposite sex unions.

    That is why proponents of same sex marriage will accept no compromise that does not involve the word "marriage".

    It's not about entitlements or legal status, because then a compromise that did not include the word "marriage" would be acceptable.

    It is about using force of government to change social opinion.

    Not very libertarian if you ask me.

  • Tony||

    Government should enforce equal rights. It's better than government enforcing second-class citizen status for certain demographic groups.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government doesn't enforce rights.

    Government protects rights by not infringing upon them.

    Anything referred to as a "right" that requires government enforcement is not a right, it is an entitlement.

    BTW Tony, I consider you to be a second-class citizen not because you suck dick, but because you are an irrational moron.

    Go suck a dick.

  • Tony||

    Rights can be entitlements. You guys seriously need to get away from this magical thinking bullshit on rights. They don't exist in the fabric of the universe, which is just a convenient way for you to claim extra-special legitimacy for the rights you like anyway. You evidently don't think all people have equal rights to enter marriage under the law. Where is that written?

  • KPres||

    "You guys seriously need to get away from this magical thinking bullshit on rights. They don't exist in the fabric of the universe, which is just a convenient way for you to claim extra-special legitimacy for the rights you like anyway."

    Regardless of whether they exist in "the fabric of the universe" (whatever the hell that means), if they don't supercede the state, then the concept of rights has no meaning, because according to that logic, if the state decides to take it away from you, then you no longer have a "right" to it.

    For example:

    If rights are only granted by the state, and the state currently doesn't grant gay people the right to marry, then gay people have no underlying right to marry, and you have no underlying justification behind your argument that their rights are being violated.

  • Tony||

    if the state decides to take it away from you, then you no longer have a "right" to it.

    Isn't that exactly how it would be? What's a right that nobody can practice? It's a figment of your imagination. How are people supposed to agree upon what constitutes the rights that precede government?

    you have no underlying justification behind your argument that their rights are being violated.

    There is no justification for any right that doesn't address actual law. What else is there? Appeals to the gods?

    The right to gay marriage exists in the constitution, 14th amendment, due process and equal protection clauses (one could argue).

    I'm not known to defer to the constitution as a sacred text on theoretical discussions of policy. But I happen to believe that due process and equality under the law are good ideas.

  • KPres||

    "Isn't that exactly how it would be? What's a right that nobody can practice? It's a figment of your imagination."

    I'm not digging into philosophy today, because I don't feel like it, but I'll just give you this:

    Perfect circles don't exists exist except in our imaginations. Does that mean the idea of a perfect circles doesn't have an effect on human life? Or that you can call a square a circle and still be correct?

    Similarly, I don't have to find "rights" existing in the natural world for the concept to have meaning within the social sphere.

    I realize this doesn't prove that my ideas about what the specific rights are is correct, but I do have justifications, beginning with self-ownership, which is not as easily dismissed as you try to imply.

    I also know that your concept of rights is on pretty weak ground, and that your political approach (I won't call it a philosophy) is ultimately built on your conceptions as well, so when you go and say "hey, you guys should get off this rights schtick", well, all I see is your glass house.

  • Tony||

    I don't think perfect circles have any meaningful application for humans, but they are certainly more theoretically useful than natural rights, which are Platonic forms of things that are themselves abstract concepts. At the center of any claim to the existence of a right is a moral axiom (such as self-ownership). That's true of rights you claim are inherent and those that only exist if codified. The problem for me is not so much belief in magic, it's the implication that concrete natural rights are prone to becoming objects of worship rather than tools in the advancement of human well-being.

  • Ray Pew||

    Isn't that exactly how it would be? What's a right that nobody can practice?

    An argumentative proposition that is logically supported. The claim of a slave to be free from bondage surpasses any refutation that his/her captors may generate.

    How are people supposed to agree upon what constitutes the rights that precede government?

    How do they agree upon such "rights" BEFORE they enact them into law?

    There is no justification for any right that doesn't address actual law. What else is there? Appeals to the gods?

    Reasoned argumentation. The proposition is more logically plausible than any other proposition. Rights are not things; they are logical propositions.

  • Tony||

    The claim of a slave to be free from bondage surpasses any refutation that his/her captors may generate.

    What do you mean by surpasses? Isn't the only relevant issue whether the person is actually free or not, and whether that freedom is legally enforced?

    How do they agree upon such "rights" BEFORE they enact them into law?

    All laws serve the purpose of illustrating consent. Even if you don't agree with the law, you still must accept its legitimacy. Without codifying rights all you have are opinions.

  • KPres||

    "Government should enforce equal rights. It's better than government enforcing second-class citizen status for certain demographic groups."

    Your position is the lesser of two evils. Mine is no evil at all.

    Therefore you win the debate? Gotcha.

  • Tony||

    No yours is evil and mine is good. Government either recognizes equal rights or it doesn't.

  • KPres||

    In what way would a gay persons right to marry be infringed upon if the state were not involved?

  • Tony||

    As long as the law recognizes straight and gay couples in an equal way, I don't have a problem. But the state is involved and probably always will be. The only thing this debate is about is legal entitlements. Anyone can call himself married to anyone or any number of people or a houseplant. The issue is equality under the law.

  • KPres||

    "As long as the law recognizes straight and gay couples in an equal way, I don't have a problem. "

    Then why did you say my position was evil? Under my plan, the state would be equally uninvolved in both gay and straight marriages.

  • ||

    "It is about using force of government to change social opinion.

    Not very libertarian if you ask me."

    Agreed. But I think that's where the two types of libertarians diverge. The progressive type that believes society can and should progress by adhering to an elite vision VS the tragic type that thinks human capability is limited and there are trade offs with every possibility. I think most people who want gay marriage wouldn't dream of considering the possible trade offs for society because it corresponds to the current elite vision.

  • ||

    using government to force recognition of same sex unions being equal social status as opposite sex unions

    Well, this homosexual has noted that the people who support a government-forced unequal social status for him and his (potential) relationship sure seem to view him as "fully equal" when it comes to the liabilities side -- including paying all those taxes to support spending programs and lower tax rates for the "socially superior heterosexual unions."

    So you'll forgive me if I object.

  • ||

    I agree, the hospital visitation issue is sort of a red herring. But a lot of gays remember the 80s/90s when their friends/partners were dying of AIDS and many of them were denied visitation by the patients' families, many of whom reacted badly to the often sudden news that their offspring were both gay and dying of AIDS. That was a long time ago but stuff like that is hard to forget.

  • KPres||

    In a free society, you should be able to choose whoever you want to have visitation rights.

    If my closest association is a platonic friend, should they be not be able to visit me?

  • free2booze||

    This is why I take issue with labeling same-sex marriage as gay "rights". Of course, everyone should have the freedom to define their relationship, and co-habitate with who ever they choose.

    Same sex couples are fighting for the the same government defined benefits provided to straight couples. Government can't create "rights", only law.

    This is not meant to be an argument against same-sex couples receiving legal recognition of marriage, just commentary that we should avoid using the language of government created benefits as "rights".

  • ||

    Gay people deserve the same right to go into a higher tax bracket, and have to get a judge's permission to break up.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The point you're making is missing the point that free2booze is making. You're calling it a right but it's not. A right in this context is something you possess whether the state exists or not. The state cannot give you a right, it can only infringe upon it.

    Whether you see the legal and financial benefits (and penalties) as significant, they exist and are apparently coveted enough to be made an issue.

    As I stated yesterday, absent of any tangible benefits, the only reason to demand expanding the group of individuals to which marriages are certified is for some kind of "marriage license as cultural acceptance" idea. It seems wrongheaded thinking for anyone calling himself a libertarian.

  • sarcasmic||

    Using force of government to redefine marriage from "husband and wife" to "gender neutral spouse and gender neutral spouse" is social engineering of the highest order.

    I thought libertarians opposed social engineering.

  • Tony||

    How does it feel to be in the minority opinion on an issue of individual freedom and equal rights? I don't get why you get to call yourself a libertarian and I don't.

  • ||

    Tony you probably would be dumb enough to marry your boyfriend to go into a higher tax bracket and watch him take you to the cleaners in divorce court.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe in marriage for myself, but I do believe in everyone having the same rights to make that decision.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't get why you get to call yourself a libertarian and I don't.

    You've been calling yourself a libertarian this whole time? By all means, don't let me stop you.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For the record, I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage. More power to you. And I don't have any more a problem with individuals getting a license for same-sex marriage than I do with persons getting licensed for any other flavor of marriage. That's not my argument.

  • Tony||

    Your argument seems to be about natural rights, which I think is irrelevant. Tax code and legal benefits are state-granted entitlements. Call them whatever you want, if they are being denied to certain groups of people for no defensible reason, it's unconstitutional.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Call them whatever you want, if they are being denied to certain groups of people for no defensible reason, it's unconstitutional.

    I don't know about unconstitutional, but it's not right. The only two remedies available are to open the marriage benefits to all persons regardless of sexual orientation or marital status (polygamists, single persons, hetero roommates, long distance penpals, etc.) or number of participants, or to do away with the special benefits club altogether. You know which I prefer, for many reasons.

  • Tony||

    I'm currently one of the most libertarian people here.

    But this is exactly why I prefer being a liberal. We actually care about civil rights, and aren't distracted by the fact that there is a millionaire somewhere who is being taxed.

  • KPres||

    The state prevents gay people from technically getting married, but still allows all the meaningful elements of a sexual relationship = big issue.

    The state takes 45-50% of somebody's income every year = non-issue.

    Whatever you say, boss.

  • sarcasmic||

    "I'm currently one of the most libertarian people here."

    LMAOROTFF

  • free2booze||

    No one is being denied rights. Who is preventing a same sex couple from building a life together as they see fit? No one.

  • Matrix||

    f2b, somehow he equates tax privileges to rights...

  • Tony||

    Who is preventing a same sex couple from building a life together as they see fit? No one.

    It's just that straight couples get lots of rights and benefits under the law. Maybe "as they see fit" should include the right to access these same rights and benefits? What possible reason is there to deny them?

  • free2booze||

    Great. So let's make the tax code blind to marital status, and either abolish the entitlement system, or structure it so that individuals are free to bequeath their benefits to whom ever they choose.

    Everybody wins.

  • K S||

    You have missed the point, how about removing the benefits altogether? How is that unfair to homosexuals? This would help single people as well. So I fail to see your point, except that you want more people under our entitlement system; you want more people beholden to the government.

  • Tony||

    Removing the state's involvement in marriage is not a viable possibility, so the argument amounts to ignoring the civil rights disparity in favor of an irrelevant distraction.

  • K S||

    Why isn't it a viable possibility? Simply because you don't want the state uninvolved? To me, the fact the government entered into the marriage picture is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, violating both the establishment clause by a religious ceremony as a legal entity and the free exercise clause by determining what needs to be said and done to make it official at a wedding. Why aren't you outraged about that?

    And I have no problem with them legalizing gay marriage, even have signed petitions, so quit assuming so much. I simply don't think it goes far enough. What about polygamists? There are all different kinds of marriage possibilities out there, where are their rights?

  • akn||

    The Texas and Montana GOPs would certainly like to prevent same sex couples from doing just that.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....9243.shtml

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/c...../wingnuts/

  • bilbo||

    what does "minority opinion" have to do with any of this.

  • mr simple||

    But how else will we know how to live if the state doesn't explicitly mandate or forbid all actions?

  • rather||

    the few who represent the many have decided the many are wrong.

  • KPres||

    So? It's entirely possible that the many are wrong.

  • KPres||

    I suppose you think it would be perfectly OK if the few who represent the many had decided the few were wrong?

  • rather||

    you just want to argue; fish elsewhere

  • KPres||

    No, I want to expose the reasons why real political freedom is superior to state sanctioned "equality".

  • rather||

    I want the state to sanction equality because I do believe that it is the best way to guarantee rights for all.

    While they have failed with gay rights, it will happen. In this respect, gay rights will mimic the legislative guarantees of civil rights legislation

  • KPres||

    In what way would homosexual's "rights" be infringed if the state were not involved in marriage?

    Surely there would be a whole host of churches of virtually all religious persuasions willing to provide the ceremony.

  • free2booze||

    No law exists banning from gay relationships, or from cohabitating. If either existed, then gays could claim they are being denied their rights. Entitlements and tax treatment are not rights, they are benefits.

    I don't oppose same-sex couples from receiving the same state provided benefits as straight couples, but the issue has nothing to do with rights.

  • this subject is stupid||

    Unless you want to redefine marriage then you hate homosexuals.
    It is impossible to support "the same state provided benefits as straight couples" without also wanting to redefine marriage.
    Impossible.
    Obviously you hate homosexuals.
    Separate but equal!
    Separate but equal!
    Why do you hate homosexuals?
    Did a fag beat you up when you were little?
    Pansy!
    Sissy!
    Fag hater!!

  • mr simple||

    with same-sex marriage becoming the norm, not the exception.

    Same sex marriage for everyone!

  • J[o]h[nn]y L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]||

    I'm going to marry Steve Smith. Yay!!!

  • mr simple||

    Barack Obama lifted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

    Only after being sued by a gay republican group who got a judge to take their side. I'm not saying republicans in general (esp. elected leaders) are good on this issue, but let's dispense with this farce that democrats are good on civil liberties.

  • ||

    Obama didn't lift the ban: Congress did.
    As commander-in-chief, the president could have lifted it at any time by simply giving the order. But he didn't.

    [To be fair: passing legislation is much better, because it can't simply be countermanded by the next evangelical president.]

  • Michael S. Langston||

    In the US, a republic and not a democracy, simple changes in public opinion is not enough and for good reason.

    Public opinion is fickle and allowing changes in that state to move public policy quickly would result in chaos.

    Gridlock was built in, on purpose.... but given that, our system does allow change and seemingly any change the American people have wanted and pushed for over time, they have succeeded.

    Disclaimer: I like others here believe the government shouldn't be allowed to def
    one marriage at all & think so long as the terms continue to be the government is allowed to stamp approvals on this marriage, that business, this car, or that next new drug...or whatever.... we by definition allow politics and elections to control all those things.

  • this subject is stupid||

    Blah blah if you don't support gay marriage then you hate homosexuals blah blah if you don't want to redefine marriage then you hate homosexuals blah blah if you support civil unions but oppose redefining marriage then you support separate but equal and hate homosexuals blah blah agree with me or you hate homosexuals blah blah or you hate homosexuals blah blah blah

  • JohnD||

    "The good news is that changing sentiments have already begun to alter the traditional conception of wedlock."

    and why is this good news? because Chapman is a faggot?

  • this subject is stupid||

    You must hate homosexuals.

    You're a dirty hater.

    The only way to prove that you do not hate homosexuals, that you are not a dirty hater, that you don't wear Doc Martens and kick poor defenseless queens in the head while their fag hags scream in horror, that you didn't shave your head while saying a prayer to Hitler, that you're not a Jim Crow separate but equal racist homosexual hater, that you don't want same sex couples to have the same legal protections as opposite sex couples, that you think homosexuals are second class citizens, that you are a dirty racist hating homophobic hater, is to say you want gay marriage.

    Otherwise you are all those things and more.

    You dirty hater.

  • ||

    Closet case.

  • rather||

    I thought so too

  • ||

    If the majority of public opinion was all it took to dictate the law, then abortion would be FAR FAR more restrictive than it is today.

  • Neu Mejican||

    If the majority of public opinion was all it took to dictate the law, then abortion would be FAR FAR more restrictive than it is today.

    Hmmmm...???

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life," now 49% and 45%, respectively, in Gallup's 2011 update on U.S. abortion attitudes. This is similar to a year ago, when 45% were "pro-choice" and 47% "pro-life." However, it is the first time since 2008 that the "pro-choice" position has had the numerical advantage on this Gallup trend.
  • ||

    That's not what I said. There are lots of people who are pro choice who also support restrictions (waiting periods, informed consent, parental notification, second and third trimester procedures, etc etc etc).

  • KPres||

    From the SAME GOD-DAMNED Gallop poll:

    Since 1994, Gallup has also asked those who think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances to say whether it should be legal in "most" or "only a few" circumstances. On this basis, Americans are rather conservative in their stance on abortion, with 61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances. By contrast, 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances."

    Do you read anything or just browse the headlines at the Huffington Post?

  • Neu Mejican||

    I don't read Huffington Post.

  • Neu Mejican||

    61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances. By contrast, 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances."

    So as you move towards the middle on the spectrum of opinions, you get people who are pro-choice that think there should be restrictions. That results in a shift of 12% points when it comes to the question of whether abortion should be legal in ALL or MOST circumstances. About what would be expected. I don't think this translates into -

    "If the majority of public opinion was all it took to dictate the law, then abortion would be FAR FAR more restrictive than it is today."

    You are free to interpret the numbers that way if you want. I don't think the poll's result support that view.

  • ||

    Pillsbury dough boy? Gay as a tangerine.

  • Tony||

    Gallup reports that for the first time ever, most people—53 percent—favor legalizing same-sex marriage.

    How bizarre that the majority of comments on a libertarian blog are in the anti-equal-rights minority.

    But you're for freedom because you're for lower taxes. Such courage you people have in your crusade to defend liberty.

  • Kevin||

    Can we please stop showing that stupid Simpsons pic everytime gay marriage comes up. It just reminds me how far that show has fallen.

  • sarcasmic||

    I once supported same sex marriage when I thought it was about non-interference.

    I thought same sex marriage was about not interfering with same sex couples' desire to visit each other in the hospital, file jointly on their taxes, and other legal bullshit that goes along with being married.

    But then I saw that that was not what it was about. It is about changing society. It is about social engineering. It is about forcing the concept of same sex marriage upon those who disagree. It is about "civil rights", which has become code for "I'm gonna take you to court".

    When I realized that it was not an issue of liberty, but one of force, I changed my mind.

  • Tony||

    It's about equal rights under the law. If you want to call that "forcing a concept" on people who don't agree, fine, but it's every bit as much government force to restrict marriage equality. Having the Christians' definition of marriage forced on everyone is not any better. Besides, as has been very much demonstrated in court, no one has ever explained what harm comes to straight people by allowing gay marriage. The only objections to gay marriage originate in religion and are thus not legitimate in US law.

  • bilbo||

    why single out christians, muslims are more intolerant of gays then christians. I believe the muslim notion to deal with gays are death arent they? If im wrong about islam and gays please correct me.

  • Tony||

    Conservative Muslims don't have much influence over social policy in this country.

    But thankfully the Christians are indicating that they're going to wave the white flag. Apparently that just leaves "libertarians."

    What a disgrace this thread is.

  • bilbo||

    so then if the govt recognizes same sex marriages. would that then force churches who disagree with the idea to "marry" same sex couples? what then transpires is, separation of church and state. and reducing the rights of one group to boost the rights of another. By this i mean forcing a group to waive their rights of beliefs to accommodate another group.

    this later idea is happening now just in reverse, which i think is wrong. However i cant accept the idea that giving gays protected status is a good thing.

    Im asking for a clarification of your "that just leaves libertarians" because im pretty sure libertarians could care less what two consenting adults do is of any concern of theirs.

  • Tony||

    would that then force churches who disagree with the idea to "marry" same sex couples?

    No. Churches have always and will always be able to discriminate in who they allow to be married under their roofs.

  • KPres||

    "No. Churches have always and will always be able to discriminate in who they allow to be married under their roofs."

    I am willing to bet money that within the next 10-15 years, the left will be pushing that churches be forced to marry gay people.

  • Tony||

    I think the First Amendment trumps here. And hypothetical scare scenarios are no justification for denying equality under the law.

  • KPres||

    Of course not. My position doesn't deny anything, though, so that's a strawman.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think you'll find that the vast majority of those who oppose the redefining of marriage have no problem at all with same sex couples receiving the same benefits under the law as opposite sex couples. It is the means of extending those legal protections that they oppose.

    So it's not about "equal rights under the law", it's about using government force to change how society views the term "marriage".

  • Tony||

    No, it's about using government force to ensure equal rights under the law. Nobody is trying to brainwash you or make you change your opinion about anything.

    What this empty slogan actually means is that you don't want gays to have equal rights because it makes you uncomfortable, and government force should protect your small-mindedness before it should enforce equal rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    No Tony, it is about using force of government to make society hold same sex couples in the same social status as opposite couples by redefining the word used to describe an opposite sex couple to include same sex couples.

    Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

    It is blatant social engineering, and not very libertarian at all.

  • Tony||

    It's equally social engineering to accept conservative religion's definition of marriage and force it on everyone. It's not the default, and policy based only on religion is not constitutional. We're talking about the rights and benefits that come with marriage under the law. There is no justifiable secular reason to deny these to gay couples when they are available to straight couples. It is entirely about equal rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    As I said before, the vast majority of those who oppose the redefining of marriage have no problem with same sex couples having the same legal status as opposite sex couples. They just want same sex couples to call it something else.

    Because your side absolutely refuses any compromise that does not included redefining the word marriage, I can only conclude that the word marriage is more important than the legal bullshit associated with it.

    Therefore it is about a word, not about rights.

  • Tony||

    Take up your weird obsession with a word's definition with Webster's dictionary. If the exact same legal language doesn't apply to both straight and gay couples, it's not equal rights. "Separate but equal" is not equal. I don't care what words are used, as long as they are the same. I fail to see what your odd hangup over a word has to do with anything. Any meaningful legal distinction to protect your precious word would imply an unequal situation.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know why you refuse to be honest in the matter and admit that it's about a word.
    You try to dismiss my argument as a "weird obsession", yet the core of your argument is that same sex couples aren't afforded equal rights unless the right to use that word is part of the deal.
    Why is that word so precious to you?
    Is it because of how society views marriage, and because you want same sex couples to be viewed the same way?
    I think so.
    I think that social acceptance is more important than that bullshit about legal rights.
    Society won't accept you on its own, so you want to use government to accelerate the process by redefining marriage.

    Poor baby.

  • Tony||

    This very article shows that more people agree with me than with you. So equal rights advocates are winning the "social acceptance" battle anyway.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you admit that "equal rights" (same sex couple treated the same as opposite sex couple by the government) and "social acceptance" (redefining marriage from 'husband and wife' to 'spouse and spouse') are two separate issues?

    Good.

    Now can you admit that it is possible to support same sex couples having the same legal status as opposite couples but oppose the redefining of marriage?

    The only problem with that is that then you would be forced to admit that opposing the redefining of marriage is not motivated by opposition to extending legal protections to gays, and your whole ad hominem argument that all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in hatred fails.

  • Tony||

    So you admit that "equal rights" (same sex couple treated the same as opposite sex couple by the government) and "social acceptance" (redefining marriage from 'husband and wife' to 'spouse and spouse') are two separate issues?

    Separate legal language for gay and straight couples is not equality under the law. Your hangup on a word doesn't trump that, sorry. We can call it whatever you like, I don't care, as long as the law is the same.

    your whole ad hominem argument that all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in hatred fails.

    Litigation has demonstrated that there is no rational secular reason to deny equal marriage rights--it's all based in religion. No one's been able to demonstrate the harm that comes from legal equal rights here, so there's no reason to deny them.

    This focus on the word "marriage" may not have anything to do with hatred, but it does have to do with wanting to keep heterosexual marriage in a superior legal or cultural position. If you let the matter of the word trump everything else, then you are not in fact arguing for equality.

  • sarcasmic||

    "but it does have to do with wanting to keep heterosexual marriage in a superior legal or cultural position."

    Recognizing that two things are not the same does not require saying one is superior to the other.
    We use different words for apples and oranges. Does that make one superior and the other inferior?
    If someone wanted to start using the word apple to describe oranges as well, and someone else disagreed, would it be out of hatred for oranges?
    If the word apple were redefined to mean an apple or an orange, would the word have more meaning or less meaning?
    Of course the proponents of redefining apple would say that apples and oranges are equal. They are both fruit after all, and to use different words to describe them can only be born out of fear, hatred, or an irrational belief that apples are superior to oranges.
    It would be silly to want the word "apple" to only mean a fruit from the apple tree, instead of a fruit from either the apple tree or the orange tree.
    Using different words to distinguish different things is irrational.
    Smurfity smurfing smurf.

  • Tony||

    Why do you give a shit if not to establish heterosexual marriage as the norm and something superior in law and culture to gay marriage?

  • sarcasmic||

    Treat them the same as far as government is concerned, but use a different word or term.

    Why do you give a shit if a different word is used to distinguish between an opposite sex pairing and a same sex pairing?

    Why must the same word be used to describe two things that are obviously very different from each other?

  • sarcasmic||

    "If you let the matter of the word trump everything else, then you are not in fact arguing for equality."

    That is exactly my point.

    The proponents of same sex marriage will accept no compromise that does not include redefining marriage.

    Therefor I must conclude that they care more for the word than for the rights.

  • free2booze||

    I agree with you, that society is much more accepting of same-sex relationships, which is fantastic.

    The poll was limited to a choice of whether or not same-sex marriage should be illegal. The question that wasn't in the poll, was whether or not same-sex unions should be defined as marriage, or as a civil union. Until that poll comes out, then the social acceptance question remains unanswered.

  • bilbo||

    No, it's about using government force to ensure equal rights under the law-tony

    just say you want to be able to sue for reparations or become a protected status class to receive special considerations for jobs and favors by the govt. Because thats what youre arguing. Forcing religious groups to adhere to idea is just as wrong as religious groups forcing the idea on others. tony your argument appears to only be nothing more then your group reversing roles as a "master/servant" and that really doesnt make much a argument for equality huh.

    Personally its none of my business if you want to marry a same sex partner or a goat (but only if the goat is a willing participant)

  • Tony||

    Nobody's forcing religious groups to do anything! What gave you that idea? If churches don't like gay marriage, they don't have to perform them. If individuals don't like the idea of gay marriage, they don't have to get gay married.

  • free2booze||

    If it's about equal protection, than the supporters of same-sex unions shouldn't care if the it is called a civil union, or marriage, as long as same-sex couples receive the same benefits as straight couples.

  • ||

    supporters of same-sex unions shouldn't care if the it is called a civil union, or marriage, as long as same-sex couples receive the same benefits as straight couples

    And you shouldn't care if your political party is banned from electing candidates to the Senate, so long as members of your political party can run as members of other political parties for the Senate, right?

    I mean, what's in the name?

  • ||

    "blah blah blah ... gays ... blah blah "

    "We need to support the gays! They're people too! More welfare! More government! Group rights!"

    Racism is insidious. Political homosexism is racism.

    Homosexism is fetish and thus mind disorder as all mind disorders are, albeit a harmless one.

    Granting political privilege on the basis of sexual fetish would be a most bizarro act of a people and lacks any proper act of enlightenment.

  • Tony||

    No legitimate psychological body defines homosexuality in this way. Maybe homophobia is the mental disorder. And it's not harmless.

  • ||

    Is there a gay gene? No.

    Thus, no physiological basis for homosexism exists.

    Therefore, as all start with the tabla rasa, homosexism, a sex fetish and thus mind disorder, is learned.

    Game. Set. Match.

  • Tony||

    If we start with tabula rasa, then you must have at some point consciously chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex. When was this point for you?

  • ||

    There's no "straight gene" as well.

    Humans are designed straight out of the box to be straight. To deny such obvious truth amounts to foolery.

    It is what happens during childhood development to some that they become gay.

    Yet, you didn't need to kick up your heels and throw a tizzy, buddy.

    Notice how I have not placed any judgment or condemnation, what many would say "value judgment," on the fetish of homosexism.

    Yet, no sexual fetish should provide the basis for securing extra political privileges, which is what homosexists seek, exactly.

    In the end, the Homosexism Movement seeks money. They want the status of marriage so that they qualify for survivor death benefits through Social Security; and of course, once having marriage status, they would qualify for any benefits conferred upon their spouses.

    The "gay marriage" war has nothing to do with private preferences or tolerance or rights. It's all about extra political privileges sought merely over a bizarre, but rather harmless sexual fetish.

  • Tony||

    You're just wrong on scientific fact. Homosexuality exists in stable proportions in thousands of species, and there are compelling hypotheses for why it is adaptive.

  • ||

    Homosexism NEVER exists in animals. Where did you get that silly, false belief Tony?

    Malformed aminals that cannot process proper signals for mating doesn't make the homos, Tony.

    That scientists talk in metaphor for the layman, e.g., "coupling, pairing, homosexuals" doesn't make it so, scientifically, Tony.

    And you amuse Tony. Merely saying "you're wrong" doesn't make it so.

    Writing the phrase "scientific fact" does not make you the keeper of scientific fact, suddenly.

    In fact, you have suffered a case of cognitive dissonance only right now. In face of truth, you have arises to defend your false beliefs.

    Overwhelming biological evidence shows that humans have been designed for heterosexual reproduction. Case closed.

  • ||

    Homosexism is a sex fetish and as a fetish, mind disorder, albeit a relatively harmless one.

    The APA is a political organization that designs a diagnostic manual in effort to secure business for its members.

    Next.

  • ||

    The Bremerhaven Zoo has six malformed penguins that cannot process proper signals for mating.

    Yet, somehow by the mere metaphorical use of the words "gay penguins", "pairs" and "proud parents" proves what exactly, only that humans are gullible to persuasion through propaganda.

    Never are animals parents; nor are animals gay. No animal of any kind exhibits sexual fetish addiction.

    Further, having penguins in captivity is not natural and no one should expect to see normal penguin behavior observable in the wild to arise under caged condition.

    Also, by instinct male penguins nurture chicks. It's not a gay thing for male penguins to nurture chicks.

    It is sad but predictable that humans with political agendas go to great lengths through political theater to deceive the gullible and convince the gullible of all manners of things.

    All who claim that 1,000s of species are homosexual fail to acknowledge that nearly all are BIRDS and birds are not mammals, and as such, not even close to humans.

    Yet, defect in processing mating signals, an instinct, has nothing to do with a sex fetish that only humans can acquire.

  • Tony||

    Who has the political agenda, those who agree with established scientific literature on this subject, or you, who persistently ignores it in favor of your own hypothesis which can only lead needlessly to unequal treatment of gays?

  • Tony||

    Here's a place where you can educate yourself.

  • ||

    You continue to amuse, Tony.

    Your false beliefs can never squeeze their way into the realm of truth.

    Merely because you continue to enjoy being indoctrinated doesn't change reality.

    A sexual fetish however harmless never is going to be normal no matter how hard many try to make it so through decreed laws and through propaganda.

    Regardless of how forceful some bully others in trying to accept counterfactual reality whether through insidious persuasion through propaganda or through painful brute force of law, no effort is going to change what contemporary humans know to be distorted, grotesque, caricature human behavior, however harmless such behavior is among adults.

    While no man or woman should concern himself or herself with what adults do in their private lives -- with Private Homosexism, all should be alarmed at Political Homosexism.

    For Political Homosexism is another kind of Racism, that is, living by racing for the spoils of collectivist political privilege that comes at the expense of the defenseless individual.

  • KPres||

    Equal rights under the law is a concession to the state, for times when the "necessary" outweighs the "evil" part of the "necessary evil."

    So please, tell me why it's necessary that the state be involved in marriage?

    I thought so.

  • Tony||

    I don't know that it is necessary. Of course, without the state it's just a meaningless label. (Contractual relationships require the state!)

  • KPres||

    Good point about contractual relationships. However, if it's just a meaningless label, then are you opposed to the civil union compromise? If civil unions aren't sufficient, then obviously the label is not meaningless!

  • Tony||

    I don't think "separate but equal" is acceptable as a compromise under the US constitution. Public opinion is moving inexorably toward acceptance of full equality, as this article shows. No reason to compromise.

  • KPres||

    What if they were all called civil unions by the state (in order to symbolically remove the religious element)? Would you accept that?

    The label is meaningless, right? And it would all be equal.

  • Tony||

    Yes I would accept that. I don't think people are gonna go around calling themselves "civilly unioned" though. Marriage is just a word, no reason to endow it with supernatural powers.

  • KPres||

    Fair enough. As long as the state isn't pushing a personal moral position, I don't care what you call it either.

  • free2booze||

    If marriage is just a word, then why do you care what legal term used to define a same-sex union, as long as the term includes the same legal protections?

    The legal term doesn't define your relationship, only you do.

  • sarcasmic||

    "If marriage is just a word, then why do you care what legal term used to define a same-sex union, as long as the term includes the same legal protections?"

    That's the big lie. They say it is about legal protections, when in fact it is about using the word "married" and having the ability to take people to court over it.

    Two distinctly different issues. Legal protections, and the name given to the means of providing those protections.

  • free2booze||

    Until a same-sex couple can develop the biological ability to produce another human being, that shares both of their DNA, and is delivered from one of the parents major orifices, then the two forms of union can never be defined as equal.

  • Tony||

    Infertile straight couples are allowed to wed any time they please. Not a compelling argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some opposite sex couples cannot produce children. That is the exception, not the rule.
    No same sex couples can produce children.
    None.
    That is a rule with no exceptions.

    I hardly see "infertile opposite sex couples can marry therefor same sex couples should be able to marry" as a compelling argument.

  • ||

    "biological ability". Every straight couple, unless they have taken preventative measures, have the biological ability to reproduce.

    Yes, there are individual circumstances that may cause a couples reproductive ability to be impaired. However, the necessary anatomy and hormones are still present, meaning that the potential for reproduction exists.

  • MOI||

    I have heard this argument before. The Real (tm) purpose of marriage is to have a legal and societal framework available to those couples who may accidentally get knocked up. I say "accidentally" because people who are sterile aren't denied a marriage contract, nor are those who are well past the age of bearing children.

  • ||

    The Real (tm) purpose of marriage is to have a legal and societal framework available to those couples who may accidentally get knocked up.

    Pretty much. How else do you explain the universal practice of unions, between a man and a woman, over the course of recorded human history? And please don't suggest it has anything to do with religion, because marriage has existed through out societies, that share no common religion or culture.

    Infertility, unless due to an illness, genetic defect, or medical procedure, only means that it is difficult for a couple to reproduce, but not impossible. Infertility is normally due to hormonal deficiencies. This can make it tough to reproduce, however, the necessary "tools and ingredients" are still present, meaning that the potential for reproduction exists.

  • Tony||

    So we ban postmenopausal women from marrying?

  • Tony||

    To me the relevant point is that as freedom lovers you should not be digging for every pathetic and easily shot-down excuse for denying equal marriage rights, you should be erring on the side of equality. But libertarians don't really care about equality. They actually based their philosophy on the tacit assumption that some people are a master race and everyone who's not deserve to be punished for their crime of not being born into the master race. And that's why I'm a liberal.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hey Tony -
    When have I or anyone else here said that homosexual same sex couples should be denied the same legal protections that are given to opposite sex couples?

    The issue is over what to call the union.

    At the moment the union is called "marriage" for opposite sex couples, and the legal bullshit accompanies that name.

    Opposition to using the word "marriage" to describe same sex homosexual unions does not mean that the person opposes extending the same legal protections afforded to opposite sex unions to same sex unions.

    It means that they do not want to use the word "marriage" to describe two people of the same sex playing house.

    The word "marriage" means something.

    When I say "I am married" I am saying that I am in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, we may have children, and we are subject to the dynamics associated with a relationship between members of the opposite sex that does not happen between members of the same sex. It is something that others can relate to. It means something.

    Redefining marriage takes all that away.

    Objection to having that taken away is not rooted in hatred, a feeling of superiority, or a desire to deny anything.

    Redefining marriage is a means of having the government treat same sex unions the same as opposite sex unions, and opposing the means does not automatically mean one opposes the ends.

  • ||

    And, since Tony already stated up thread

    "Marriage is just a word, no reason to endow it with supernatural powers.

    He shouldn't have any objection to naming a same-sex union, something other than 'marriage'.

  • ||

    naming a same-sex union, something other than 'marriage'

    Because government should be deciding what individuals' relationships are called -- that's the True Libertarian Way!

  • Tony||

    sarcasmic, nobody is going to put a gun to your head and make you use a word in a way you don't want to. Who is the victim of this definition changing? I simply don't understand your point. You can call gay unions anything you want. The only relevant issue is how the law treats them.

    But by saying that the word "marriage" must be restricted to the hetereosexual variety means that you don't view the unions as equal things. If you did, it wouldn't matter to you.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't view them as the same thing, just as I don't view apples and oranges to be the same thing.
    Because I think there should be different words to describe the fruit of different trees mean one is more or less equal than the other? Of course not. That's a stupid question.
    Different words for different things.
    Should same sex unions and opposite sex unions be treated equally by the government? Yes.
    Are they the same thing? No.
    Does recognizing that they are not the same thing mean one is better or worse than the other? No. It means they are not the same.
    I do not want the word that describes the unique relationship that I, as a husband, have with my wife, to be used to describe two men or two women playing house.
    It's not the same thing!
    Why is that so difficult to understand?
    Different words for different things.

  • ||

    I do not want the word that describes the unique relationship that I, as a husband, have with my wife, to be used to describe two men or two women playing house.

    And you want the government to use armed men with guns to enforce your "definition" and the superior class status that you irrationally believe you possess.

    Which, sorry to say, isn't libertarian.

  • sarcasmic||

    "The only relevant issue is how the law treats them."

    OK, fine.
    Then why must the law use the same word?
    Why can't the law use different words?

    A sedan is not a hatchback, yet they are treated equally as vehicles under the law.
    You are insisting that hatchbacks be called sedans in the name of equality under the law, and that anyone who disagrees doesn't feel hatchbacks to be equal to sedans.
    Don't you see the stupidity in your argument?

  • Tony||

    As long as blacks-only schools have the same standards as whites-only schools, we have equality!

  • sarcasmic||

    The argument that opposition to redefining marriage is the same as racism is one of the reasons I left the same sex marriage camp, because I recognize it to be a false argument and I will not ally myself with fallacious liars.

  • ||

    opposition to redefining marriage

    Oh come now, not this old canard.

    "Marriage" has been redefined dozens of times just since the 1930s, primarily by the people who now claim to be "opposed to redefining it."

    No fault divorce, legal remarriage, an end to legal sanctions for adultery, and secular marriage are all relatively recent inventions that are much more disruptive to the idea of "traditional marriage" than changing the gender of one of the two spouses.

    Just admit that you're not into gay people and believe yourself superior to them. You're using your own class beliefs to justify the statist authoritarian's urge you've got to use government power to prevent people from living as they choose.

  • ||

    Then why must the law use the same word?
    Why can't the law use different words?

    For the same reason that emancipated former slaves, and women post-suffrage, were referred to as "citizens," despite citizen up until that time meaning "white male."

  • ||

    lol, wow that dude really cracks me up sometimes.

    www.real-privacy.int.tc

  • bilbo||

    im confused, gays are no different then anyone else. Why do they need special rights? And by this i mean, they have no more or no less rights then anyone else....

  • Tony||

    That's all anyone is talking about, equal rights. Currently in most jurisdictions they are not allowed to marry whereas straight people are.

  • bilbo||

    so, if they are granted special protected status. ergo the govt has deemed them a "lesser" class and laws protect them supposedly lift then into equal status. which negates the idea of we are all equal.

    if they wish to marry, i dont think in all honest the govt can really not uphold the issue since its a mere contract where two willing persons mutually enter into a partnership.

    if this issue is a way to force people who dont agree with the idea then its a waste of time.

    But we all know now that cameron diaz says marriage is a dying institution, why would gays want to enter into this failing concept. If the gospel of diaz says so then by all means it must be true........

  • Tony||

    Nobody is forcing anyone to change their minds about anything. But people's homophobia is not something that should be endorsed in government policy; equal rights is. If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

  • KPres||

    "But people's homophobia is not something that should be endorsed in government policy"

    Agreed!

    Nor should their non-homophobia.

  • Max Stirner||

    Obviously something like marriage is emotionally charged. Most social issues are. My suggestion is that we legalize gay marriage, make everything equal, then once everyone's calmed down, THEN remove the state from the equation. I think that would be the best incrementalist way to look at it. Look, religious people think there's a "war on marriage." I doubt you're going to convince them to give up ALL marriage rights defined by the state. It's too emotional a debate. Instead, legalize it, then when everyone's not so invested in the debate, work on separating it from state. Promise gays and atheists they can get their own private marriages, not defined by the state. Religious people can get married in a church, everything's fine. I think it's more important to legalize gay marriage, even temporarily, just to get the libertarian foot in the door.

  • ||

    If government were not involved in issues it has no business being involved in, there would be no "gay rights" issues at all. I don't think gay marriage should be legalized anymore than I think medical marijuana should be. The government should not have anything to do with either of these issues at all. Who you marry, what you smoke, it should not matter what the public thinks or wants or cares about. It's none of "the public's" fucking business.

  • ||

    Steve Chapman has suffered a fail. Clearly, Steve Chapman does not get at all what libertarianism is.

    Rights? Those aren't rights, those are privileges, privileges conferred on those who are members of a group.

    Homosexists seek privileges to gain money from taxpayers.

  • Tony||

    It seems that libertarianism is about denying the maximum number of rights and the maximum amount of equality to the most people.

  • KPres||

    Don't single people have the right to the same tax status/tax advantages as married people?

    I thought you believed in equality under the law?

    Why do you want to deny single people their rights?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Eeent Eeent! Thank you for playing!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "There's still a rocky road ahead."

    Hahahaha- is it the Hershey Highway?

  • Dennis||

    Why is a mental illness a right in the case of being gay. Most other mental illnesses are treated.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    The American Psychological Association stopped considering homosexuality a disorder in 1973. Might be worth thinking about.

    On what basis do you call homosexuality a mental illness.

  • ||

    Homosexism is a sex fetish and as a fetish, mind disorder, albeit a relatively harmless one.

    The APA is a political organization that designs a diagnostic manual in effort to secure business for its members.

    Next.

  • Josef Stalin||

    It seems I have taught you well, comrade.

  • ||

    Barack Obama lifted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

    Correction: Congress did that.

  • Personal Responsibility||

    Um, just a thought to throw out there, but if marriage is a biblical term defining the mutual contract as a union between a man and a woman then it seems that the government's enforcement of it is unconstitutional by the 1st Amendment. No new argument there, I'm sure we all agree. What I don't get is where are the religious as well as the atheists challenging this? If you are religious how can you accept that marriage has been taken away from your faith and been given control of by the government? You now have to receive the state's permission to marry, and pay the state for that permission, to do something your faith gives you the right to do. If you're an atheist, how is it you can accept a religious concept being forced on you in order to receive the same rights and privileges extended to the religious? While I, as many of you, agree that the state should not be involved in this issue of how you live your personal life, I accept that they are in it and most likely will not be taken out of it. At least not anytime soon. However, I offer a compromise. The religious, the atheists, and the gays come together and form an alliance to have marriage removed from the law, and replaced with civil union, with all the same rights and privileges that the former term carried. The sanctity of marriage would then be preserved, however that may be defined by the individual and their beliefs, and equal rights would be granted to everyone, seeing as the civil union does not discriminate against one set or another. You want a marriage, you have that personal freedom now. You don't want to acknowledge another couple's marriage, great, that's your freedom too. But, the civil union must be acknowledge and provided equal access. Just my thought. But it would seem to make this whole debate moot.

  • ||

    How come all the libertarians I know who claim that they oppose government licensing of marriage -- and demand that gay people be at the "vanguard" of this revolution -- are in a state-licensed marriage?

  • Pariuri Online||

    This is not something good, we must stop promoting this stuff

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • ugg delaine||

    ThaNk U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement