Both Left and Right Are Afraid of Change

Social experiments don't sit well on either side of the aisle.

It’s a long drive from the foothills of Pittsylvania, Virginia, to the footsteps of the Supreme Court. The distance separating the environmental left from the religious right might seem greater still. But appearances can be deceiving.

Consider one of the main arguments being used in two contentious disputes: gay marriage and the fight over whether to lift Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Nelson Lund—a law professor at George Mason—terms gay marriage “A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It.” He argues that while a number of groups have filed briefs insisting gay marriage will do no harm, “these assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific assessments” of their effects. The Supreme Court, he concludes, “cannot possibly know that it is safe” to take the “irrevocable step” of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Social conservatives say this a lot. Gay marriage is “a social experiment that needs no special protection,” according to the author of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage there. It is a “radical social experiment,” according to evangelical leader Gary Bauer. No—it is “the most radical social experiment in U.S. history,” according to National Review’s Dennis Prager.

All right, it’s an experiment. But why is the experimental nature of gay marriage assumed to be a bad thing? Conservatives rarely say; they treat its badness as a given. Yet if current evidence provides little reason to think the experiment will turn out well, then by the same token the evidence provides little reason to think it will turn out badly. So why the long faces?

To be fair about it, some social experiments do turn out poorly. (Communism, for glaring instance.) But many—e.g., the American Revolution—turn out rather well. The Heritage Foundation, which warns that the U.S. should not “institutionalize a social experiment” in the gay-marriage case, calls “the American experiment . . . a political miracle.”

Conservatives also exhibit a fierce loyalty toward Israel. And so they should. But what do you call plunking down a democratic Jewish state amid a bunch of hostile Arabic autocracies, if not a radical—and highly dangerous—experiment?

Social conservatives are not the only ones who treat novelty as a disqualification when it suits them. Those opposed to lifting Virginia’s ban on uranium mining also make the same point, over and over.

Uranium mining would be “a risky experiment,” according to the Sierra Club’s Mary Rafferty. It would be a “dangerous experiment,” says Chris Miller of the Piedmont Environmental Council, adding that “the risks . . . have never been addressed.” Mining uranium would be “a very dangerous experiment affecting the health, safety and welfare of millions of people for the profit of a few,” insists Bill Speiden of the Orange County Farm Bureau. Trieste Lockwood, who runs the Power and Light program for the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, calls uranium mining “a risky experiment” and adds: “It hasn’t been done before in Virginia.”

Uranium mining is not the only thing environmentalists denounce as a dangerous experiment. Others include fracking, genetically modified crops, and irradiating food to prevent spoilage. The environmental movement has even institutionalized fear of the new in the doctrine of the Precautionary Principle, which (in one formulation) argues against pursuing course X unless X is demonstrably safe, and (in another) suggests adopting preventive measures to forestall harm even if in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Recoiling from new technology is not the sole province of the left, however. Some years ago Pope John Paul II denounced cloning as a dangerous experiment. You could argue (and Virginia Postrel does, in The Future and Its Enemies) that for all their differences the left and right often are united against the perceived threat of change.

In his comments on cloning John Paul II noted that technological change is not a priori good. For that matter, neither is social change. But neither is either of them a priori bad. To say that gay marriage is “brand new,” or that uranium mining “has never been done before in Virginia,” is really just an appeal to fear of the unknown. Precisely the same could have been said of every human innovation, from flint arrowheads to women’s suffrage.

If mere novelty were a reason for not doing something new, then nothing new would ever be done. Are the results of an experiment uncertain? Of course. But that is simply the definition of an experiment—not an argument for avoiding one.

This article originally appeared in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

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.

  • ||

    I thought we gave Change (and Hope) a chance and it failed miserably. But I guess we could keep trying until we get a libertarian President. Change we can believe in!

  • ||

    Why would they change anything? The status quo is statism, statism, and more statism. It's working out perfectly for TEAM BE RULED. Whatever they did to get here, it was the correct move for them. And that move, of course, was...having government. Because this is where it always ends up. And we've got more to come.

  • Counterfly||

    Hey, you put it in the hands of "The People" and look what happens.

  • ||

    I appreciate the anagram, but it lacks flow.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Change is coming.

  • $park¥||

    The Supreme Court, he concludes, "cannot possibly know that it is safe" to take the "irrevocable step" of legalizing same-sex marriage.

    I sure am glad that Nelson Lund is only thinking of my safety.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Concern troll is only concerned for our safety.

  • Dweebston||

    Since when is allowing consenting adults to freely contract for certain mutual, exclusive privileges an "unparalleled" social experiment?

  • ||

    freely contract for certain mutual, exclusive privileges

    I sure wish I could freely contract with another person to mutually extract privileges from everybody else. It may not be unparalleled, but it certainly is novel in the realm of contracts.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I've even heard the "Nothing should ever be done for the first time" argument from gay-rights advocates. There's no way that that could later bite them on the ass, no sirree Bob.

  • Brandon||

    Krugman: California is doing great and the people who said it was bad have been proven wrong, not because of any indicator or statistic, but because it is now a one party state. I shit you not, he actually wrote this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04.....html?_r=1&

    April Fools joke?

  • $park¥||

    Real intellectuals don't make jokes. And reality has a liberal bias.

  • Ronny Paulino||

    Op-ed needs a new title.

  • phandaal||

    Ah, good, he's found his scapegoat. So when the inevitable decline of California reaches its conclusion it will be the fault of a Republican minority hamstringing the noble Democrats.

  • Brandon||

    And on the same day:

    CA Considers red-light tickets that you can't fight.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new.....t#comments

  • Almanian!||

    And yet there will be those who mock me for saying, once again, "Fuck California."

    But, seriously, fuck California.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Supporters of the bill, however, argued that the objective is not to punish drivers, but to stop motorists from running red lights.

    If this were actually true, why not just pull or suspend the licenses of people who run red lights instead of taxing them $500 at a time? After all, driving is a privilege, not a right.

    “Last year in California, probably 600 pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents,” said David Grant, of California Walks, an organization that advocates for safer walking communities. “Half those people would be alive today if we actually enforced the laws we’ve got.”

    Wow...nothing dishonest about that statement. Rather than say "300 people were killed by people who ran red lights", he says "600 people were killed in traffic accidents. Now divide that in half" knowing that the idiots in California are too stupid to do math.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm puzzled that he thinks red light laws are currently unenforced.

  • Rhino||

    a) suspending their licenses doesn't mean those people won't drive.

    b) if they do stop driving, you'd get less revenue from bad drivers.

  • PapayaSF||

    Krugman trumpets the "projected surplus" seemingly without realizing that Sacramento has a history of over-optimistic budget projections.

    Apparently "CA is Back" is the NYT Meme of the Week, but as the excellent Walter Russell Mead points out:Fittingly, the same day Egan’s hymn was published, the California State Auditor reported the state’s net worth – its assets minus its liabilities – at negative $127.2 billion. Also reported were $167.9 billion in long-term obligations, not including $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health care, or those for state employees’ future pensions.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Unemployment in California remains high, but it’s coming down — and there’s a projected budget surplus, in part because the implosion of the state’s Republican Party finally gave Democrats a big enough political advantage to push through some desperately needed tax increases. Far from presiding over a Greek-style crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown is proclaiming a comeback.

    Yeah...that first one is an outright lie and that second part (projected budget surplus) might as well be filed under "Wishful Thinking."

  • Randian||

    This one also kind of took me back:

    California’s longer-term economic growth has slowed, too, mainly because the state’s limited supply of buildable land means high housing prices, bringing an era of rapid population growth to an end.

    Limited supply of buildable land? Wha?

  • Virginian||

    It's been artificially limited by environmentalism and "smart growth" laws, but yes it is limited.

  • wwhorton||

    If I drove California's length down the east coast, I'd pass through six states. Living in southern California for about a year and driving often, the two major characteristics I noticed, besides everything being 30 minutes away from everything else, was the flatness and the emptiness. The only way Paul Krugman, who lives on the other end of the same Megalopolis as I do, could possibly think that California has less available land than we do is if he'd never even seen pictures of the place.

  • ||

    Who says the Nobel committee has lost credibility?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Yet if current evidence provides little reason to think the experiment [of SSM] will turn out well, then by the same token the evidence provides little reason to think it will turn out badly."

    Isn't there some kind of scientific protocol against involuntary human experimentation? Why, yes, I believe there is. SSM is admittedly an experiment on humans, and as for the involuntary part, just ask the bakers, T-shirt makers, etc., etc. whether they're allowed any voluntary choice in the matter.

  • $park¥||

    Gay marriage is bad because the government won't let people make business decisions. What a novel argument!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I've finally found that quote I was looking for:

    "If you think you can think about a thing inextricably attached to something else without thinking of the thing which it is attached to, then you have a legal mind" - Thomas Reed Powell.

    http://www2.dallasbar.org/memb.....ssue_id=41

  • Randian||

    You still haven't explained what that quote means in this context.

  • $park¥||

    I suspect his line of thinking goes something like this:

    Anti-discrimination laws will always exist.
    Gays are protected by anti-discrimination laws.
    Since gays are protected and anti-discrimination laws will always exist, the government will force people to do business with gays.
    If you can't see that the government will force people to do business with gays because anti-discrimination laws will always exist, then you have a weird ability to extricate one bad decision from another to which it is inextricably bound.

  • Randian||

    Well I can see it as foreseeable that people will drink themselves to death, but that doesn't mean I support Prohibition either.

  • ||

    That's a fair comparison too, since the government forces people to drink in accordance with the repeal of prohibition...

  • SugarFree||

    "If we sell knives, people might get stabbed. Selling knives in an irresponsible social experiment."

    "Knives are useful for many things, not just stabbing humans."

    "But what about the people that will get stabbed?!? You are objectively pro-stabbing!"

  • Almanian!||

    But Brando has what plants crave - it has electrolytes.

  • Dweebston||

    Two Idiocracy references in as many threads? For shame.

    My brother insists that Idiocracy is a prescient vision. He believes this to the point of personal despair. It's what, in part, informs in progressive leanings: not just that the general milieu is repressed by its affluent betters, but that people are literally growing too stupid to care for themselves. He's not in the least dissuaded by the fact that these same supposed mental inbreds manage to game the nanny system so cleverly devised by their political minders, and will eventually run it into the ground. Their rational decision to forego labor in favor of taxpayer-funded handouts is somehow still evidence in his favor.

  • Dweebston||

    ^his, not in

  • Andrew S.||

  • Randian||

    That's one of the few worthwhile xkcd comics.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " but that people are literally growing too stupid to care for themselves. "

    Too stupid to care for themselves, but smart enough to vote to control the lives of their betters who aren't too stupid?

  • ||

    There's no logic like fundie logic.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So someone who wants to fine a florist for refusing to help out at a gay marriage ceremony is like someone who wants knives to be illegal? Otherwise, I don't get the comparison.

  • SugarFree||

    Of course you don't.

  • ||

    It's a shitty analogy, so maybe that's why. Public accommodation strips the element of choice from the one, but not the other. Do you see why that makes the two things different?

  • phandaal||

    Makes total sense.

    If this comes to pass then my current heterosexual marriage will become a gay marriage, completely against my will. I'm not sure which of us will have to change their sex, but my wife and I will probably just Rock Paper Scissors for it. That, or hide from the Gayness Enforcement Brigades and engage in scandalous (and therefore much hotter) heterosexual intercourse.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't worry, you're completely safe just so long as you don't sell goods or services to the public, in which case the government will reserve the right to second-guess your business decisions as to helping out with someone else's marriage ceremony - so if you are hesitant about catering a dinner to celebrate a polyamorous mass-wedding ceremony, you're just a bigot who should be fined and penalized.

  • phandaal||

    Oh, someone will be getting serviced alright.

    HEYOOOOO

  • ||

    catering a dinner to celebrate a polyamorous mass-wedding ceremony

    How does one score an invite to the afterparty on that? polys know how to get down.

  • phandaal||

    My wife and I were married in Iowa, where weddings can be as gay as anybody wants them to be. I've yet to see or hear of people being forced to cater or provide any other service to a gay wedding, nor have I seen mass orgies in the street (except when I visit Iowa City; they're special people in that town).

    There's also the fact that gay couples tend to have more disposable income than straight couples, and people who provide goods and services like money. Or so I hear, anyway. If some bigoted yahoo won't put out a hot plate for the gayz, somebody else will step up with their cash register ready to go.

    In any case, homosexuals have been marrying each other for decades now, as others have said below. They can already have "polyamorous mass-weddings," they just can't get the state to recognize their unions.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I've yet to see or hear of people being forced to cater or provide any other service to a gay wedding"

    Probably because you haven't looked at any of the links at Reason or H&R.

  • ||

    they just can't get the state to recognize their unions.

    And that's the part that brings up public accommodation issues and strips business owners of choice, same as in every other realm that public accommodation touches. There's a reason why Barry Goldwater rightly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You might want to Google the origin of the popular term "You can't legislate morality".

  • grey||

    Okay, but we can try? Drug War = Legislative Morality Magic in Progress

  • ||

    Let me help you out with those people being forced to cater or provide any other service to a gay wedding, btw:

    http://www.redstatereport.com/.....n-churchs/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....10076.html

  • ||

    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thes.....sued_f.php

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/.....?mobile=nc

    I don't want to get spam-filtered with too many more links, but Google is your friend

  • grey||

    Polys are somehow boring and drama magnets all at once, you're asking for the wrong after party. Two words: Desire Pearl

  • ||

    so if you are hesitant about catering a dinner to celebrate a polyamorous mass-wedding ceremony, you're just a bigot who should be fined and penalized.

    No, let me fix that for you.

    so if you are hesitant about catering a dinner to celebrate a polyamorous mass-wedding ceremony, you're just a bigot who should be fined and penalized.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Bigots have no rights which the majority is bound to respect!

  • grey||

    Bigots must be punished by the State. All we need are people who can decide who is a bigot. We will never find anyone so arrogant and unprincipled to take that job.

    Never happen. Nobody like that. Nope.

  • wareagle||

    people consenting to a contract sounds like the opposite of involuntary. As to the bakers, etc., their right to free association is just as legitimate.

    you get that most people here tend to oppose govt force on things, right?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What I get is that certain people here are willing to cheerlead for SSM bills even though they are aware that, simply as a practical matter of causation, this will lead to more restrictions on private business.

  • ||

    I wonder when you'll figure out that your latest retarded fundie argument against SSM is just as retarded as the last. I figure it'll take you a little while, just like it always does.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wow, your use of the words "retarded" and "fundie" totally refuted my arguments - I am speechless and helpless against the force of your eloquent and compelling arguments.

  • wareagle||

    if people are cheering for anything, it is for liberty and for people being able to make decisions for themselves without govt coercion. This includes the ability to private business to NOT associate with people whose money it does not want.

    More than one person here has stated being on board with SSM and just as opposed to the potential lawsuits. Support for SSM does not mean support for restrictions.

  • ||

    simply as a practical matter of causation

    Citation needed. There are simply too many states that already consider sexual orientation protected from discrimination and don't recognize gay marriage for this to be true.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But for those states to force private businesses to recognize same-sex marriage, they'd have to admit they're forcing a behavior on others which they refuse to impose on themselves.

    You're also forgetting this story which I've linked to before:

    "The owner of Discover Annapolis Tours said he decided to walk away from $50,000 in annual revenue instead of compromising his Christian convictions when same-sex marriages become legal in Maryland in less than a week. And he has urged prospective clients to lobby state lawmakers for a religious exemption for wedding vendors."

    http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....lley-owner

  • ||

    But for those states to force private businesses to recognize same-sex marriage, they'd have to admit they're forcing a behavior on others which they refuse to impose on themselves.

    Yeah, that's never happened before.

  • ||

    they'd have to admit they're forcing a behavior on others which they refuse to impose on themselves.

    Is that like the way people who oppose same sex marriage feel it's ok to impose testifying on their partner on gay couples but want to be protected from testifying on their spouse?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Is that like the way people who oppose same sex marriage feel it's ok to impose testifying on their partner on gay couples but want to be protected from testifying on their spouse?"

    Absent a grant of immunity, I don't see how the Fifth Amendment allows people to forced to testify against their lovers, any more than it allows people to testify against their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters or sons.

    Of course, I acknowledge if there's a grant of immunity, you can be forced to testify against your father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or lover.

    There's a special privilege for spouses, such that even with a grant of immunity you can't be forced to testify against them, while you *can* be forced to testify against mother, brother or son under an immunity grant. Which begs the question of why the marital relationship is more important than the parental or sibling relationship.

  • Randian||

    Let's say that a guy gets his kicks by abusing his kids. If he doesn't have his kids to abuse, he will inevitably go out and start barroom brawls.

    Does that mean we should let him keep beating his kids?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wait, what?

  • Randian||

    It's a simple question.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't really get the reference to child abuse, except that people who disagree with you are the moral equivalent of child abuse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Inapposite analogy. Abusing kids and barroom brawls are both coercive acts. Not getting a piece of paper from govt is not coercive.

  • Randian||

    It's a commentary on inevitable injustices. And to say that there is no injustice in arbitrary discrimination means you believe the government can engage in racial and gender discrimination for no good reason.

    Libertarians oppose the expansion of welfare, for example. That does not mean this libertarian wants the government to deny welfare to Asians but grant it to others. That's a dangerous way for government to act.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That has nothing to do with libertarianism though; it's an equality concern, not a liberty one.

    Indeed, one could argue that it's more libertarian to deny welfare to a certain race since that lessens the coercion required to pay for welfare.

  • Randian||

    Indeed, one could argue that it's more libertarian to deny welfare to a certain race since that lessens the coercion required to pay for welfare.

    So tax breaks for green energy are kosher under libertarianism, right?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Libertarianism is against an income tax to begin with; once you already have an income tax it's not immediately clear how to partially remedy the situation in a pro-liberty way.

  • Randian||

    I can tell you I am not in favor of cutting it to 0% for white people only. I don't think that conflicts with my libertarianism, either.

  • grey||

    I find it beyond preposterous to think a gay wedding can't get a gay cake in any town in America. If they can't, I'll start a new business and sell them all the fucking cake they want. Pink tuxedos, Cher cover bands, rainbow candles, whatever consumer good they want I will sell and so will millions of others. I can't believe we even have to spend time rebutting this kind of weak ass argument.

  • Doctor Whom||

    The bakers and the like should be free to deny services for any marriage of which they disapprove, not just SSM.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "...we have already seen "florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage." It may become difficult to remain in business without accommodating same-sex ceremonies. I haven't heard any serious discussion of passing laws that would acknowledge any right of refusal. If the same-sex marriage movement persists in comparing itself to the civil-rights movement, I don't see how there could be any....

    "From the strictly libertarian point of view, traditional marriage is a practice consistent with general human behavior and biology, seriously opposed by only a very small minority of the population. A relatively minor amount of force is needed to maintain this practice, especially since civil-union arrangements and voluntary corporate polices have extended most of the practical benefits of marriage to same-sex unions. Changing the definition of marriage will require the deployment of much more force against a far larger segment of the populace - public opinion polls suggest they becoming a minority, but it's a sizable minority."

    http://www.breitbart.com/Insta.....compulsion

  • ||

    From the strictly libertarian point of view, traditional marriage is a practice consistent with general human behavior and biology, seriously opposed by only a very small minority of the population.

    Protip: phrases like "seriously opposed by only a very small minority of the population" are a tipoff that this is not, in fact, "[f]rom the strictly libertarian point of view."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Protip: ad hominem attacks are an invalid form of argument.

  • ||

    Let me try, Tulpy-Poo: you're an idiot. How was that?

  • ||

    I spent enough time arguing about this with Eduard last week, Tulpa, but I appreciate the help.

  • SugarFree||

    We get it, you hate fags. Oops, sorry... The Pope told you to hate fags because you can't think for yourself.

    The dead horse you're beating is also made out of straw.

  • sarcasmic||

    We get it. The only possible reason why one might oppose redefining marriage is hatred. That's it.
    And the only way to prove one is innocent of hatred is to support redefining marriage.

    Funny how this issue turns some libertarians into emotional progressives.

  • ||

    Exactly, sarcasmic, and it's good that you can see this about yourself. You're making progress.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly, sarcasmic, and it's good that you can see this about yourself. You're making progress.

    Shorter Epi: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaah!

  • SugarFree||

    CatholicTroll doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on anything.

    If you notice, he never even attempts to argue getting rid of state-recognized marriage, but rather just keeping the gays away from it.

    And your and his concern about secondary effects are completely absent when you both advocate for a huge expansion of government force in order to ban and police against abortion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ah, yes, the most important civil liberty of all - the right to kill your children in the womb.

    Because all libertarians are totally on the same page with that issue, not even regarding it as worthy of debate. No, all *real* libertarians want a right to abortion.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, at least you admit to not having counter-argument.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SugarFree| 4.1.13 @ 1:21PM |#

    Well, at least you admit to not having counter-argument.

    You haven't had an argument for years, SF.

  • ||

    You haven't had an argument for years, SF.

    Comedy self-unawareness gold.

  • SugarFree||

    Thank Jebus The King of Facile Analogies has show up to show us the error of our ways.

    You're a joke, Tulpa. And not even a very funny one.

  • ||

    Are you even a real person, or just some Catholic AI programmed to think only about abortion and homos? You're like Nomad, except your creator wasn't Jackson Roykirk, it was the Pope. Do us all a favor and sterilize yourself.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    First, do you think any *serious* catholic would waste time here? Unlikely, so you're left with the scrapings of the Catholic world, like me, to debate you.

    What you should be worried about is that the scrapings and off-scourings of the Catholic world are causing you such heartburn. What if a genuine serious Catholic should drop by? You'd be screwed.

  • ||

    It's true, SCRAPINGSBOT 3000. All of us here cower in terror at the thought of a TRUE CATHOLIC showing up and putting us in our heathen places. Thanks for shielding us from whatever passes for intelligent Catholic thought. Your selflessness is noted.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "If you notice, he never even attempts to argue getting rid of state-recognized marriage, but rather just keeping the gays away from it."

    If we've actually gotten to the point where the government is determined to decree and enforce an ass-backwards definition of marriage, then one option would be to attempt a deregulation of that institution - a *real* deregulation, involving the complete and unequivocal right of private parties to define marriage for themselves without being second-guessed by a government agency.

    I say this solution is second-best because recognizing true marriage - a pre-political institution - would be better than pretending there is no distinction between marriage and non-marriage. But if the former option i closed off, the latter option looks a lot more appealing.

  • ||

    Why do you not take the government's recognition of millions of marriages you don't think are "true" ones as a sign that "the former option is closed off"?

  • SugarFree||

    "If fags can get married, I say get rid of marriage altogether."

    Gosh, I can't imagine why people think you're a bigot.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "get rid of marriage altogether."

    Yes, because without government recognition, marriage doesn't exist.

    I guess I hold the libertarian position on this question, and I affirm that marriages can exist even *without* government recognition.

  • SugarFree||

    Back pedal faster.

  • ||

    "recognizing true marriage"

    As defined by who? You? Why do you get to decide this?

  • grey||

    Wouldn't a lower income tax rate 'partially remedy'? I a thief takes half my money instead of all, Ive be

  • ||

    I wish the pope had told him to be so angry about all the Catholics forced to act like remarried people are married to their new spouses.

  • ||

    Do you suppose he's going to go out and wash prisoners' feet like the new Pope?

  • Doctor Whom||

    I used that argument in The Washington Post. Instead of providing a substantive argument, someone immediately played the "You're persecuting us for our faith" card.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Please refer to my comments about no-fault divorce. Thank you for your concern-trolling.

  • ||

    It will be concern-trolling when I see you campaigning as strongly against all non-Catholic marriages.

    Or just against fucking anti-discrimination laws, which we all disagree with.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Are you aware that the Catholic Church recognizes most non-Catholic marriages (that is, marriages among non-Catholics)? The only time it wouldn't recognize such a marriage is if there was some kind of force, deception, divorce or polygamy involved.

    Have you actually done any research into the views you are rebutting?

  • SugarFree||

    force, deception, divorce or polygamy

    Or fags. You forgot fags. Those dirty, luscious fags with their forbidden buttsecks.

  • ||

    Are you aware that the Catholic Church recognizes most non-Catholic marriages

    Thank Christ. I was up late nights worrying whether the Catholic church recognized my marriage.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Or just against fucking anti-discrimination laws, which we all disagree with.

    We also disagree with estate tax laws -- except when they provide a convenient bloody shirt to wave around for our pet causes.

    When I say "repeal the fucking estate tax" as a solution to the current case before SCOTUS, I'm told to shut up since "that law isn't going away."

    But when we talk about anti-discrim laws being used against SSM opponents, we're told to shut up and change those other laws.

  • ||

    But when we talk about anti-discrim laws being used against SSM opponents, we're told to shut up and change those other laws.

    Because those laws are doing what you're complaining about whether there is SSM or not.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ?????

    .....and the estate tax law DOESN'T?

  • ||

    Stop making sense, nicole. You know it just makes Tulpy-Poo cranky. How else is he supposed to go FULL CONTRARIAN?

  • ||

    What would half contrarian even look like?

  • ||

    Tulpa is contrarian on the right side. All his people are contrarian on the right side.

  • ||

    What would half contrarian even look like?

    Something like this, I hope.

  • ||

    Something like this, I hope.

    Didn't work, but by the file name I think I get the cut of its jib.

  • ||

    Copy and paste the URL into your address bar if you really care to see it. They disabled hotlinking, I guess.

  • ||

    Wow, those medievals knew how to have a good time, no?

  • Randian||

    But when we talk about anti-discrim laws being used against SSM opponents, we're told to shut up and change those other laws.

    Let's say that a guy gets his kicks by abusing his kids. If he doesn't have his kids to abuse, he will inevitably go out and start barroom brawls.

    Does that mean we should let him keep beating his kids?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This makes no more sense than the first time I saw your remark.

  • Randian||

    Let me break it out to you more abstractly: does the existence of a possible future injustice mean you can continue to exercise a present injustice?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's not a *future* injustice. The bakers, bed-and-breakfast owners, etc. are being persecuted in the *present.*

    I bet you don't know anyone with scruples against SSM. Just like those people who don't see the problem with sodomy laws because they don't think they know any gays.

  • Randian||

    Then I oppose that present injustice without recognizing that we have to perpetuate a different present injustice to fight it.

    In other words, I am opposed to welfare, but that doesn't mean I support kicking black people off of welfare exclusively.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Depends on the relative weights of the injustices and the availability of methods to remove both injustices. The "injustice" caused by the combination of DOMA and the spousal estate tax exemption is not even a coercive one, while the injustice of forcing caterers to cater gay marriage ceremonies is coercive.

    Do you support SCOTUS repealing the spousal exemption from the estate tax and leaving DOMA alone?

  • Randian||

    I don't support SCOTUS "repealing" anything.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    God your semantic obsession is annoying sometimes.

    Fine; do you support SCOTUS striking down the spousal exemption but letting DOMA stand?

  • Randian||

    On what grounds?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    On what grounds?

    The same grounds you want DOMA struck down on: because it unequally affects persons of non-heterosexual persuasions.

    (I don't agree with that reasoning but I also don't think there's any constitutional problem with DOMA and the spousal exemption)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The harm of being forced to close your business or give up your freedom of assoc is much larger than the harm of not getting a pat on the head and a govt certificate of approval for your sex life.

  • Randian||

    The harm of being forced to close your business or give up your freedom of assoc

    Who's asking for that?

    And what about gay folks' right of association?

    And what about a government that arbitrarily discriminates for no discernible purpose?

    Would you have said the same thing about miscegenation laws?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What significant association (beyond a govt piece of paper) is currently forbidden/required for gays?

    I'm not convinced the anti-misceg laws were inherently unconstitutional. Given the regime at the time had several laws forbidding unmarried couples from doing things married couples did, one could argue that either those other laws had to go or anti-misceg had to go (constitutionally). But if we had the situation we have now, where unmarried couples are essentially on equal footing, I don't think Loving is correct.

  • Randian||

    And what about a government that arbitrarily discriminates for no discernible purpose?

  • SugarFree||

    Then get rid of the accommodation laws, like the estate tax. Oh wait, you already contradicted yourself.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Then get rid of the accommodation laws, like the estate tax.

    I'd love to.

    Maybe SCOTUS should strike down the estate tax spouse exemption and leave DOMA intact. Would you approve of that eventuality?

  • $park¥||

    The harm of being forced to close your business or give up your freedom of assoc is much larger than the harm of not getting a pat on the head and a govt certificate of approval for your sex life.

    The government is going to wield its cudgel anyway so it should just continue to keep the gays down instead of putting it away.

  • Randian||

    When I say "repeal the fucking estate tax" as a solution to the current case before SCOTUS, I'm told to shut up since "that law isn't going away."

    Who said that?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Several people.

    Do you support SCOTUS striking down the estate tax spouse exemption and leaving DOMA in place? If not, you're one of them.

  • Randian||

    What? Why?

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's odd that Christians don't view eating shrimp and lobster negatively with the same vehemence, or at all, as they view gayness. A la carte Christianity must be fun.

  • SugarFree||

    A la carte Christianity must be fun.

    Wait, wait... I know the next line.

    "I'm an atheist and I'm against SSM because mumble mumble."

  • ||

    Hey, mumble mumble is a legitimate argument if you don't think about it!

  • ||

    BP, the Paul was all about not freaking out the squares for the sake of pulling in converts. Early Christians skewed fairly revolutionary and Paul put the kibosh on it. As far as the kosher food laws, most people take Peter's vision to exempt them from that. Even Paul suggests that it's ok to eat food that's been sacrificed to idols so long as one doesn't know the provenance.

    Acts 10:10-15 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

    Romans 1:26-27 For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Another guy who learned his early Christian history by watching A&E specials.

    Paul had very little influence on Judean Christians, yet they notably refused to participate in the revolt against Roman rule in 67-70 AD. Doesn't sound like a very revolutionary bunch.

  • ||

    Another guy who learned his early Christian history by watching A&E specials.

    Hey Tulpa, if by A&E special you mean raised by Evangelical Christians who put me in Bible camps every summer and who had to attend Bible classes multiple times per week, then yes, you're correct, but I'm assuming that's not what you mean.

    Some early Christians began to reject culturally normative social hierarchy and traditional social roles (which makes them revolutionary). Judean Christians were only one early Christian community. The Pauline Epistles explicitly tell various communities that they need to tone down their behaviors because they are freaking out the squares.

  • ||

    jesse, if you haven't learned yet that Tulpa will talk out his ass on any subject without the slightest embarrassment that he has no fucking idea what he's talking about. Somehow, he thinks being Tulpa makes him an expert on everything.

    Hey Tulpa, tell us about address parsing. That never gets old.

  • $park¥||

    Somehow, he thinks being Tulpa makes him an expert on everything.

    I wonder if that's a TEAM RED thing. I can think of a couple others who do the exact same thing.

  • ||

    being Tulpa makes him an expert on everything.

    He certainly nailed my upbringing to a T. A&E learned me some Bible more than reading it cover to cover multiple times ever did.

  • JW||

    A&E learned me some Bible more than reading it cover to cover multiple times ever did.

    I told you that watching A&E made you gay!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He certainly nailed my upbringing to a T. A&E learned me some Bible more than reading it cover to cover multiple times ever did.

    If you read the Bible cover to cover I'm puzzled as to how you think Paul wrote Acts.

  • ||

    If you read the Bible cover to cover I'm puzzled as to how you think Paul wrote Acts.

    I was citing Acts in reference to Peter's vision. Paul's acceptance of food sacrificed to idols shows up in the epistles. I'll grant that the layout of my post was less than optimal.

  • SugarFree||

    Don't worry about it, jesse. Tulpa is in the Top 5 commenters who like to spout off about shit they have no clue about. You have to appreciate him, because he's here to save us from ourselves. If only we'd listen to the sage advice of the LAST SANE MAN ON EARTH!

  • SugarFree||

  • ||

    DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT ERICA DURANCE

  • ||

    Excellent PWNAGE, jesse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hey Tulpa, if by A&E special you mean raised by Evangelical Christians who put me in Bible camps every summer and who had to attend Bible classes multiple times per week, then yes, you're correct, but I'm assuming that's not what you mean.

    You're not helping your case much here. Evangelical Christians are some of the worst offenders for editing the history of the early church to make it less Catholic/Orthodox -esque.

    I know evangelicals who only read the King James Bible because they think it's the original text.

  • ||

    Dig that hole, Tulpy-Poo! Holy shit, you just can't help it, can you? This is quality entertainment.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Never thought I'd see the day when Epi stood up for the veracity of evangelical Christianity, but here it is. Sweet.

  • ||

    AHAHAHAHAHAHA

    If that's what you think I'm doing, you're either even stupider than I thought or your ability to fantasize is even greater than I thought. Or both. Come on, Tulpy-Poo! Reach a new low!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't think it's your intent; you're just glibly flailing about and grasping any straw you can.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The Pauline Epistles explicitly tell various communities that they need to tone down their behaviors because they are freaking out the squares.

    Cite? It better not be the one where he's ranting about the guy having sex with his stepmother.

  • ||

    I think the most obvious one is 1 Corinthians 6:12

    All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

    I hope you don't mind if I don't feel like digging up every example of Paul curbing gender non-conformity, sexual license or rejection of master-slave relationship in the NT

    Evangelical Christians are some of the worst offenders for editing the history of the early church to make it less Catholic/Orthodox -esque.

    I'm totes not gonna rehash the Reformation with you Tulpa, I've read the Bible for myself and disagree with many of the interpretations laid out by my family's church, so I'm familiar with the material and have taken a critical eye to it. Beyond that I was agreeing with a conservative interpretation of the New Testament in my first post about the Bible, so I'm not entirely sure why you're coming out hard against me on this.

  • ||

    so I'm not entirely sure why you're coming out hard against me on this

    This is not likely to be the last time you're not sure why this is happening.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This is not likely to be the last time you're not sure why this is happening.

    I don't take it easy on people just because they happen to agree with me. That's a TEAM thing and I'm surprised that you would insist on it.

  • ||

    I'm not suggesting you take it easy on people, I'm just thinking back to the number of times we have actually agreed about something but you have acted like we disagreed, for no discernible reason. Like here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I hope you don't mind if I don't feel like digging up every example of Paul curbing gender non-conformity, sexual license or rejection of master-slave relationship in the NT

    I don't mind, but I wanted to see what kind of stuff you were talking about. Rejecting sexual license and homosexuality hardly requires an ulterior motive for a reformed Pharisee like Paul; there's no reason to believe he's worried about some external "squares", he's more likely giving his heartfelt opinion on the matter.

    I mean, the Old Testament contains rant after rant against deviant sexual behavior; that's hardly evidence that early Jews accepted sexual deviance, but rather that people of every stripe in every era are horny-ass mofos who need constant reminding to keep them from rubbing their genitalia on everything that moves.

  • ||

    Most OT proscriptions on behavior link it to outside influence. "The pagans do x so we don't." The Deuteronomists were extremely concerned with creating distinctness between Jewish and Canaanite culture.

    Paul is concerned that new Christians are taking license with their "freedom in Christ" which he couches in terms of alienating society at large, a group he hopes to convert to Christianity. I have no doubt that his rigid religious background influenced his sensitivity to such issues.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not a Christian, but gotta utter a big "huh?" to BankedPeguin's comment. If the Torah must be taken entirely or not at all, I remind him it also says "thou shalt not kill" so I wonder if he's similarly perplexed by Christians' opposition to murder given that they eat pork.

  • ||

    trolling

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • sarcasmic||

    Changing the definition of marriage will require the deployment of much more force against a far larger segment of the populace

    Yay! More force! Go libertarians!

  • JW||

    Can't you just post Daily Fail links to hot babes?

    This line of reasoning is making you look exceptionally stupid. "If these people are allowed to practice a fundamental human right currently denied to them, the oppressive public accommodation laws will go completely unchanged."

  • sarcasmic||

    I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again.

    I supported SSM when I thought it was about equal legal protections for same sex couples.

    At some point I saw that no compromise that included equivalent legal protections would be accepted without redefining the word.

    That tells me that it was not about equality under the law, and instead was about government force behind the definition of a word.

    Since I do not support the initiation of force against people for what they believe, NAP and all that, I had to withdraw my support for SSM.

  • Randian||

    I supported SSM when I thought it was about equal legal protections for same sex couples.

    And for libertarians, it still is.

    At some point I saw that no compromise that included equivalent legal protections would be accepted without redefining the word.

    By who? Are the beliefs of some to be imputed to the beliefs of all?

  • sarcasmic||

    And for libertarians, it still is.

    Randian pulls a True Scotsman for the win!

    Go fallacies!

  • Randian||

    Whatever you say.

    Should government be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender? Yes or no?

  • JW||

    Since I do not support the initiation of force against people for what they believe, NAP and all that, I had to withdraw my support for SSM.

    So, what other human rights should we give back to our masters, since the all-consuming state will abuse those as well, in the name of egalitarianism?

    Surely you have a List of Revocation ready.

  • sarcasmic||

    People have a basic human right to use government force to change the definition of words when they don't like what they mean?

    I didn't realize that libertarians were so politically correct that they would use force to change the definitions of words.

    Very interesting.

    I assume then that you have a long list of words that require government force to change the definitions to something that doesn't hurt your fragile emotions.

    Please share!

  • Randian||

    You aren't even close to making sense.

    Should government be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender? Yes or no?

  • sarcasmic||

    Should government be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender? Yes or no?

    I do not accept your premise that opposition to redefining marriage is rooted in discrimination.

    I also do not accept your premise that redefining marriage is the only possible way to give same sex couples equivalent legal protections as opposite sex couples.

    As far as I'm concerned your argument is fallacious because it is based upon faulty premises.

  • Randian||

    "redefining" a legal term is the only way to implement equality before the law.

    The problem is that you are merging the social use of the word marriage with the legal term.

    And the fact is that you cannot object to the question on the basis of how I might use it - just answer it.

  • sarcasmic||

    The problem is that you are merging the social use of the word marriage with the legal term.

    Isn't that the point?

    Isn't the whole point of changing the definition of the legal term to change the social use of the word?

    That is why I oppose it. It's social engineering.

    I thought libertarians opposed social engineering.

  • Randian||

    Isn't the whole point of changing the definition of the legal term to change the social use of the word?

    NO.

    Some people may be driven by this, but one does not necessarily follow the other.

    No libertarian is going to force you, sarcasmic, to call a gay union a "marriage" if you don't want to call it that.

    But if the State of Ohio defines marriage in gendered terms (it does), then I want the legal definition of that word to change.

    I don't care if the social definition changes or not. But the government should not be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

  • sarcasmic||

    The contract is named after a term that socially means "husband and wife."

    If you don't like it, then you should find something else to call it.

  • Randian||

    The contract is named after a term that socially means "husband and wife."

    If you don't like it, then you should find something else to call it.

    The State can find something else to call it or stop arbitrarily discriminating against its Citizens on the basis of gender.

  • JW||

    What in the fucking fuck are you talking about?

  • JW||

    That was to sarc.

  • Zeb||

    Why should the traditional definition be privileged? As I have pointed out to you 8000 times, gay people already get married. That ship has sailed.

  • SugarFree||

    But it's a word, Zeb! A word! A word that has never meant anything different in the history of forever or anywhere else in the world! A WORD, ZEB!

  • ||

    You know, I just realized that if I bury my argument in semantics, I can avoid actually addressing the issue itself! Why didn't I think of this before?

  • JW||

    You know, I just realized that if I bury my argument in semantics, I can avoid actually addressing the issue itself! Why didn't I think of this before?

    Why not? That's how you justified your sexual relationship with your sister.

  • ||

    It's not incest if it was all sodomy!

  • ||

    It's not incest if it was all sodomy!

    No big-eared, small-handed babies? No problem!

  • JW||

    It's not incest if it was all sodomy!

    See? How hard was that?

  • SugarFree||

    Never mind that the same people so worried about changing the definition of MARRIAGE are completely for changing the definition of words like PERSON and MURDER.

  • ||

    fundamental human right

    Rent-seeking, though it may be timeless, is not a "fundamental human right", regardless of one's gender. No one's right to fuck who they want to fuck or love who they want to love is impugned by denying them the ability to reach into society's collective pocket because the state gave them blessing to do so. Which is why the entire institution of civil marriage is an unmitigated crock of shit.

  • Doctor Whom||

    There are still people who oppose interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, or remarriage after divorce without an annulment. I guess those people are SOL, huh?

  • ||

    The best part is that Eduard is even one of those very people.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Really? I'm against the validity of interracial marriage and interfaith marriage? Care to produce some evidence?

  • ||

    Give me a break, Eduard, we all know I was referring to "remarriage after divorce without an annulment." And I have spent many, many years in Catholic religious education classes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Your term "one of those very people" was, to say the least, somewhat vague, especially in response to a comment about "interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, or remarriage after divorce without an annulment."

  • wareagle||

    It may become difficult to remain in business without accommodating same-sex ceremonies.

    that, in fact, may be true much as it may have been that in Rand Paul's view of the CRA, private business may have suffered by not accomodating black patrons. Regardless, that decision is up to business owners to make.

  • Zeb||

    So presumably Eddie is crusading to repeal straight marriage laws.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sure, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind getting rid of many of the straight marriage laws, especially no-fault divorce.

    Or do you think that when a husband and wife solemnly promise to we united to each other "until death do us party," one party to the contract can unilaterally abrogate it?

  • Almanian!||

    ED - show us on the Marriage Certificate Doll where the priest touched you....

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ask your mother to wash my jock strap and mail it back to me.

  • Zeb||

    "until death do us party,"

    Woo, party!

    But seriously, not everyone has to make that promise when they get married.

    This is the thing about those opposed to SSM and other innovations that really gets me. The definition of marriage has already changed significantly from what you think it should be. DIvorce is easy and gay people get married, no matter how much you protest. It isn't (necessarily) a life-long spiritual committment. It is a convenient contract with certain privileges that allow two people to be more like one person for a number of legal purposes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    By all means, as a practical matter, let heteros make a promise to be together "until stress do us part," and let same-sex couples do their marriage ceremonies.

    The question is whether the government will recognize these various alternative arrangements. And that question, in turn, depends on whether marriage is just a lifestyle choice, or a prepolitical institution which (despite all the concern-trolling over sterile couples) has a key purpose of producing children.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Gay people already get "married," and have for years. There is no experiment here. They just want their marriages to be treated the same as heterosexual marriages.

    Yes, it may lead to an additional category being added to laws that restrict free association. But again, that's hardly experimental, those laws have been in place for decades now.

  • wareagle||

    Yes, it may lead to an additional category being added to laws that restrict free association

    isn't that supposed to be a bad thing?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But again, that's hardly experimental, those laws have been in place for decades now.

    So have the estate tax laws, but you guys are trying to leverage those to force federal recognition of SSM.

  • Zeb||

    What? So repeal estate taxes and anti-discrimination laws for private businesses and individuals.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SCOTUS could completely solve the problem in the current case by repealing the estate tax, or at least the spousal exemption privilege, while letting DOMA stand.

    Somehow I don't think Reason would be happy about that, because it would take away the bloody shirt they were having fun waving.

  • SugarFree||

    because it would take away the bloody shirt they were having fun waving

    BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH CATERERS?!?!?!?!?!?!?

  • Randian||

    I mean, I still want to know if government can arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, technically the equal protection clause only applies to state govts, not the feds.

    nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It applies to federal actions as well, via the Fifth. Well, usually, unless the Court gets a bee in its bonnet.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The second part has zilch to do with the Fifth amendment.

  • Randian||

    Not according to the law.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Do you mean the actual law or SCOTUS jurisprudence? If the former, I'm calling BS; if the latter, that's irrelevant, as SCOTUS jurisprudence says a lot of silly things.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I mean, I still want to know if government can arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

    Arbitrarily no.

    They have to have a rational basis, which only means a convincing argument.

    So what's the rational basis for government privileging married couples?

  • Randian||

    So what's the rational basis for government privileging married couples?

    Hell if I know. Is that relevant?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You are arguing to expand that privilege, I;m asking on what rational basis you want to do that.

  • Randian||

    SCOTUS is without any sort of legal authority to end the spousal exemption to the estate tax. What do you want them to do next, eliminate Married Filing Jointly?

    They aren't dictators.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Come on, Randian. If they can strike down DOMA they can strike down the estate tax exemption. Indeed the latter requires less stretching of the jurisprudence since it's the immediate cause of the plaintiff's complaint.

  • mgd||

    They can't strike it down unless it is brought up as a question to them in a case.

  • JW||

    "I'm showing my support for liberty, by advocating against liberty and not against the shitty laws that are causing the problems in the first place!"

    Pure. Fucking. Genius.

  • Almanian!||

    Change is bad, mm'kay?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Ah, Reason's idea of balance. A couple of impotent bloviators on the right vs. leftist envirowackos who've already written their fear of change into the law in most of the developed world.

    Most of the animus against SSM on the right is not simply "fear of change", it's disgust at the direction the change is heading.

  • Zeb||

    And buttsex.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That too. But that's not fear of change.

  • phandaal||

    So much buttsex.

  • ||

    Uh, what? SSM is currently illegal most places, remember?

  • LEONA||

    If you think Lucille`s story is surprising,, four weaks-ago my daughter basically made the small fortune of $6714 putting in a fourty hour month in their apartment and there classmate's half-sister`s neighbour has been doing this for eight months and worked and got paid more than $6714 part time at there labtop. use the guide on this link, and go to home tab for more detail--- http://www.JUMP30.COM

  • SumpTump||

    Now thats what I am talking about. Wow.

    www.GimmeAnon.tk

  • izzyabby||

    I intend to be the B in LGBT and immediately apply for a marriage license for myself and a man and a woman. Who's going to deny me my state given rights?

    Lots of upside: I'll be famous for doing nothing other than being a sexual deviant and very possibly receive a federal grant to study division of household chores in a 3 way marriage.

    I may have given some weirdo big ideas. Sorry.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't forget to lobby for government supplied birth control.

  • ETremens||

    Both sides of the isle?

    The word is aisle. A-I-S-L-E.

    Maybe you were talking about an island.

    Maybe one of the experiments you were talking about is a spelling experiment.

    Maybe I'm an Internet creature caricatured as a schooma'rm by people who can't spell.

    See? It isn't your fault.

  • izzyabby||

    Is a spelling police position a union job?

  • Combaticus||

    It's "grammar Nazi," and it's a volunteer position. For some of us, it's a blessing AND a curse.

  • Combaticus||

    Either side of the isle? Which island do you mean?

  • izzyabby||

    Never forget...

    Hukd on fonix wrkt fer me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " He argues that while a number of groups have filed briefs insisting gay marriage will do no harm, “these assurances have no scientific foundation."

    Of course, one could just as well say that single parenthood is an experiment, the data is in, and it's failed.

    Should divorce be illegal too? Should out of wedlock births be illegal?

    Maybe children of gay parents will have it better, maybe they'll have it worse. Either way, I'm not interested in the government socially engineering families. I wish it was out of the marriage business altogether, but if they're in it, I don't want them deciding what marriages are approved of. Let people marry, or not, divorce, or not.

  • ||

    I wish it was out of the marriage business altogether, but if they're in it, I don't want them deciding what marriages are approved of.

    Uhhh... as long as the government is in the marriage business it will be deciding "what marriages are approved of" - that's the entire function of the government's involvement.

  • Joao||

    I follow and admire Libertarianism.

    Marriage will, however, always be attached to state permission. Consider plural marriage, for instance...OUT! That is, barring an effort to neutralize marriage law and taxwise a la Rand P.

    Gay marriage is made up. It only makes sense to be monogamous when promiscuity brings AIDS upon a community. Soon enough, there will be a cure for AIDS. Then what? When everybody's humping everybody, why marry, except to put it in other peoples' faces that you can.

    Homosexuality is about society and sex, which is none of my business, so don't push it on me. And don't say that you aren't, and since you won't admit it, just go away. Let be.

  • Calidissident||

    "Homosexuality is about society and sex, which is none of my business, so don't push it on me. And don't say that you aren't, and since you won't admit it, just go away. Let be."

    Says the guy who explicitly states that he wants to force his definition of marriage (and accompanying legal privileges) on everyone else

  • ||

    Says the guy who explicitly states that he wants to force his definition of marriage (and accompanying legal privileges) on everyone else

    Expanding that definition and accompanying legal privilege by 1 is the exact same thing. Just wait and see how conservative gays can be 20 years from now when the bevy of useless, non-gay rabble against whom the institution of state marriage still discriminates hijacks their arguments and heads for the Supreme Court; or worse yet, some cheeky nonconformist actually makes a serious run at doing away with the civil institution altogether, taking their precious benefits with it (ironically, this challenge to the concept of marriage will most likely come from the religious right after they realize that homo-marriage is the law and there's no going back. Those salty ham tears will be delicious).

    As long as marriage is defined by the state and is inaccessible to any person, someone's definition of marriage will be forced on someone else. Which is why anybody who actually gave the tiniest sliver of a fuck about equality as anything other than a buzzword would oppose expanding an inherently discriminatory piece of shit legal concept and advocate for repealing it, as with all manner of other shitty laws.

  • Alton543||

    If you think Ralph`s story is unimaginable..., 5 weeks ago my dads best friend basically brought home $4072 sitting there a thirteen hour week from their apartment and the're classmate's half-sister`s neighbour was doing this for 5 months and worked and got paid more than $4072 part time from a laptop. use the information available on this page, http://www.wow92.com

  • chenzhong||

    Ah, good, he's found his scapegoat. So when the inevitable decline of California reaches its http://www.celinebagsaleuk.com/ conclusion it will be the fault of a Republican minority hamstringing the noble Democrats.

  • rxc||

    "Progressives" are surprisingly resistant to change that they do not agree with.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement