New at Reason

David Weigel | May 31, 2006

Jonathan Rauch explains why the GOP is so dead-set on passing a gay marriage ban.

Comments

|5.31.06 @ 8:45AM|#

It just goes to show - marraige should not be the purvue of the states. I think it's time we simply let "marraige" be performed in churches and "civil unions" with ALL the same rights take place in other venues and whoever chooses to get "married" or "civilly united" can do so. There are churches tyhat will marry gays. Fuck the states. This is a violation of the commerce clause. Marraige and civil unions MUST be respected state to state, lest we become no better than the fuedal masters that drove us to America in the first place.

JMJ

|5.31.06 @ 8:50AM|#

Maybe it's a bit early, but how is anything you typed before the sentence "This is a violation of the commerce clause" a violation of the Commerce Clause?

|5.31.06 @ 8:51AM|#

It's sad that they're pushing for a ban on gay marriage as a way to win votes. I've heard that income used to be the best predictor of voting behavior. Which was nice because it was rational and predictable and it all came down to dollars and cents and stuff that you can figure out with numbers. Now they say that church attendance is actually the best predictor of voting behavior. Income is still a good predictor, but church attendance is supposed to be a better predictor.

Which is sad on two levels. On one level it means that it all comes down to symbolic things like gay marriage. It's no longer rational. Yes, yes, I know, many here would argue that leftist economics was never rational, since in the long term it doesn't create prosperity. And that's a good point. However, at least it was rational in the short term: You vote for this guy and your taxes and benefits will work out to this number, you vote for the other guy and your taxes and benefits will work out to that number.

On another level, even worse from my perspective, it's sad that the less tolerant of the various modern brands of Christianity seems to have won out. Modern Christianity offers all sorts of brands: There's the "Jesus just cared about peace and love brand", there's the "Jesus hates teh gay" brand, and various others. I'm a big fan of the peace and love brand, not such a big fan of the "Jesus hates teh gay" brand.

Incidentally, the stuff about predictors of voting behavior is just stuff I've seen in various news reports. Does anybody know of an actual study on the subject, one done by real statisticians?

|5.31.06 @ 8:53AM|#

Wait, JMJ, did you mean the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

|5.31.06 @ 8:54AM|#

Jersey, keep making posts like that and you are going to have to start calling yourself a liber! I agree 100%.

MP|5.31.06 @ 9:05AM|#

This is a violation of the commerce clause.

And to think, I thought it was a violation of the right to bare arms?

|5.31.06 @ 9:14AM|#

In line with Rauch's statement smoke and mirrors argument is my observation that one of the few things brings a significant proportion of all faiths together is their dislike of homosexuals. Thus the smoke and mirrors approach is not surprising.

|5.31.06 @ 9:18AM|#

In 2004, the amendment garnered only 48 Senate votes

You mean House votes, right?

|5.31.06 @ 9:21AM|#

No, you meant Senate votes. A gay marriage ban got nearly half the Senate? Sad.

|5.31.06 @ 9:31AM|#

Oops! I meant full faith and credit! Sorry!

JMJ

Dave W.|5.31.06 @ 9:35AM|#

This is a violation of the commerce clause

I don't know whether JMJ meant fair faith and credit clause or not. However, as the economic consequences of marriage become more and more pronounced to due healthcare and taxes becoming bigger line items in everybody's personal budget, then marriage does become more and more "commercial" under the traditional understanding of commerce. I can understand dowries and imputed labor not counting as "commerce," but health insurance and income tax payments are commerce -- under anybody's reasonable definition of commerce.

Question 4 JMJ: wouldn't you rather make it illegal for employers / insurers / tax collectors to discriminate based on marital status, rather than more narrowly helping the subset of people who do want to be in a civil union? Why should someone get the shaft for wishing to remain single?

Warren|5.31.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Couple a quick points:

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Republicans don't give a flying flaming fuck or a rolling donut about federalism.

And I can't believe I'm saying this but... with the "full faith and credit" amendment, and I'd also throw in the "equal protection clause", I agree with Jeerrr, with J J J I concur with the points made by the Atlantic coast commenter at the top of this thread.

|5.31.06 @ 10:18AM|#

Question 4 JMJ: wouldn't you rather make it illegal for employers / insurers / tax collectors to discriminate based on marital status, rather than more narrowly helping the subset of people who do want to be in a civil union? Why should someone get the shaft for wishing to remain single?

Dave,

Of course, you should not be able to discriminate against fellow citizens for any reason if you utilize public services. Now, if you own and operate a restaurant in the middle of the woods where there are no police, schools, roads, sewars, etc, than you can do as you please. But if you use taxpayor funded services than you can not discriminate against those taxpayors. Period.

I agree, however, that we should be very careful about tax breaks for the married, etc. It is indeed shafting the single.

JMJ

|5.31.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Warren, that was hard for you, wasn't it?

|5.31.06 @ 10:29AM|#

I just thought of something. The Republicans are obsessed with crapifying the Constitution with their pro-flag and anti-gay amendments, right?

So why don't they roll them into one "Fag-burning Amendment"? That should get all their little jimmies standing tall.

|5.31.06 @ 10:43AM|#

Watch out Mr Nice Guy.... don't give them any ideas.
(Good one though)

fyodor|5.31.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Interesting rationale on anti-discrimination laws from JMJ. If the government provides your property with services, then it can control how you use your property. Dovetails nicely with Julian's post the other day about how social services may help breed resentment toward immigrants.

Warren|5.31.06 @ 10:58AM|#

SmokingPenguin
Indeed. But I feel better now because he's back to saying obscenely stupid stuff like;

Now, if you own and operate a restaurant in the middle of the woods where there are no police, schools, roads, sewars, etc, than you can do as you please. But if you use taxpayor funded services than you can not discriminate against those taxpayors.

Which is the same two step the Bush administration uses to get around privacy. First requiring banks and phone companies to turn over records on customers, then claiming their customers have no expectation of privacy because the records are handled by a third party. In JMJ's version, if you want to open a restaurant anywhere near people who eat, you have to deal with municipal water, sewage, and power. BUT if you dare plug in a lightbulb, you forfeit whatever liberties you thought you had and the state can tell you how to run your business.

|5.31.06 @ 11:00AM|#

Fyodor, that's not my reasoning, genius. What I meant comes down to a concept related to taxation with representation. The point is - if you use the people's taxes for your business - your priviledge to make a profit from the services provided by your fellow taxpayors - than you can not discriminate against those people that are sharing the burden of those services. This is about a REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZENS THAT PAY FOR IT, YOU FRIGGIN SHORTSIGHTED LOONY.

JMJ

fyodor|5.31.06 @ 11:14AM|#

I called JMJ "interesting" and he called me a "loony"! Is there no civility anymore? :-)

|5.31.06 @ 11:20AM|#

It looks like Jersey's medication wore off between 08:45 AM and 11:00 AM.

Went straight from sensible to batshit crazy.

|5.31.06 @ 11:21AM|#

Warren,

"Which is the same two step the Bush administration uses to get around privacy."

Nice try at the bait n switch. One has to wonder who instilled you people's debating ethics...

"First requiring banks and phone companies to turn over records on customers, then claiming their customers have no expectation of privacy because the records are handled by a third party."

Technically speaking, it's true. But the government needs a warrant to do this, which Bush didn't get. The government has to have a reason to something - a complaint, a complainant. The American people didn't rise up and demand calls be traced. Bushco did that on their own - and without full vetting in the other two Branches. So, yo comapare what I said to what Bush is doing is a piece of sleazy lying bait n switch crap.

"In JMJ's version, if you want to open a restaurant anywhere near people who eat, you have to deal with municipal water, sewage, and power."

No, genius, I said that if you enjoy taxpayer services, and are priviledged to profit from it, you must honor the rights of the other taxpayers that give you your services and profit. Only a moron wouldn't get that.

It's not the state telling you what to do - it's the taxpayers.

You libertarians make yourselves look like sleazy scum when you engage in this sort of argument. The right to be a scumbag - that's what you want, huh?

JMJ

|5.31.06 @ 11:25AM|#

Profit is a "priviledge"?

The Underwear Gnomes definitely need to visit this clown...

|5.31.06 @ 11:26AM|#

This is why you guys will NEVER win national office. Get real.

JMJ

|5.31.06 @ 11:40AM|#

The priviledge, Mr Nice Genius, is the ability to use public commons, institutions and infrastructure to operate a business and make a profit. If you want to operate a business in the woods with no public commons, institutions and infrastructure, then you should be able to do as you please as long as no one gets hurt. Have fun in the middle of the woods! (I'm sure you'll make a fortune!)

JMJ

|5.31.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Actually, this thread has gone from "interesting" to "fucking hilarious". I was enjoying the new, improved JMJ, then realized how much I was going to miss the psycho.

|5.31.06 @ 11:49AM|#

What the hell are you missing here, JF? What am I saying that is so far out to you people?

JMJ

VM as Paris Hilton|5.31.06 @ 12:01PM|#

I for one would like to see JMJ dressed up as Reason Pillow Girl. The froth and spittle would be soooooooooo hot.

Dave W. (?)|5.31.06 @ 12:09PM|#

I don't know that Jersey McJones isn't the Reason Pillow Girl and you don't either.

|5.31.06 @ 12:10PM|#

What the hell are you missing here, JF? What am I saying that is so far out to you people?

Have you guys seen Office Space?

It reminds me of the bit where the guy out of scrubs says 'What would you say you do here Bob?'

And Bob responds 'What's wrong with you people??!?! I take the specs from the customers to the engineers. I have people skills!!!!'

grylliade|5.31.06 @ 12:19PM|#

Of course, you should not be able to discriminate against fellow citizens for any reason if you utilize public services. Now, if you own and operate a restaurant in the middle of the woods where there are no police, schools, roads, sewars, etc, than you can do as you please. But if you use taxpayor funded services than you can not discriminate against those taxpayors. Period.

So it was wrong to serve blacks under Jim Crow laws? Let's say I owned a restaurant in Mississippi in, say, 1930. According to your logic, I have to follow what the majority of my fellow taxpayers think is right. So if I wanted to run a restaurant out in the middle of the woods, unconnected to roads, electricity, sewers, etc., where blacks and whites could eat together, then it would be okay. But if I wanted to run one in town, where I have access to public commons, then I'd have no moral standing to challenge what my fellow taxpayers say I can do with my business.

|5.31.06 @ 1:11PM|#

No, Gry, this is not a matter of democracy, this is about representation. Constitutional Rights are not up for a vote. If you do business with public services than you must accept doing business with that public.

You guys can squirm around this all you like - but all you're doing is making yourselves look bad.

JMJ

R C Dean|5.31.06 @ 1:19PM|#

But if you use taxpayor funded services than you can not discriminate against those taxpayors.

Does this mean I have to open my house up to any "taxpayer" who wants to move in? Since, after all, as a city dweller I use taxpayer funded services.

Oh, I see, Joisey only wants to control businesses. But his rationale for controlling business applies equally to people's homes and private lives. No surprise, really.

I said that if you enjoy taxpayer services, and are priviledged to profit from it, you must honor the rights of the other taxpayers that give you your services and profit.

Since I don't have any choice as to whether I use "taxpayer" services like cops, roads, sewer and water, how is this not a statement that the state can force me to do whatever it wants?

And just what are these "rights" of other taxpayers, Joisey? As a taxpayer myself, don't I have the right not to do business with them if I don't want to?

|5.31.06 @ 1:24PM|#

It seems that Frist wants to be Presisdent really bad.
I don't understand the rational behind banning gay marriage (other than for religious reasons). Usually, if an opposing party comes out with a domestic policy I can see where they are coming from (helping the poor, cheaper healthcare, better education, etc.) even though I disagree with how they are going about it. I would give the Republicans much more respect if they would just come out and say "I beleive in the Bible, it reads that being a homosexual is wrong, therefore I want to ban gay marriage at the federal level..."
Politicians are always trying to explain the gay marriage ban amendment in a non-religious way which really pisses me off.

Note: The Democrats are just a bad.

|5.31.06 @ 1:29PM|#

Oops! Note: The Democrats are just as bad.

KipEsquire|5.31.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Rauch is playing a little too fast and and loose with his "bigots shouldn't panic" thesis.

For one thing, his flippant pronouncement that "DOMA is almost certainly constitutional" is hardly a widely held view, and he is wrong to suggest that any federal court has reviewed it on substantive grounds -- the dismissals have all been for lack of standing.

Also, two years is hardly a long time for the "Massachusetts chaos" to present itself -- especially considering that non-resident same-sex couples cannot get married in Massachusetts. And why should Massachusetts gays be martyrs by leaving the state?

There will definitely be "chaos" further down the road. We are already seeing it in interstate gay adoption cases, and interstate gay marriage litigation will follow in due course.

But in the end the bigots will of course lose.

|5.31.06 @ 2:00PM|#

Hey, I am weighing in late here, but I do not believe that the states should decide gay marriage. Who really cares which state he lives in? Jobs and family drive most of our choice over where to live, and why should that roll of the dice decide what freedoms one is allowed to enjoy? We don't let states decide whether we should have free speech, etc., so why should we allow states to make this choice (or abortion for that matter). Focusing on this clause or that clause makes it seem as if the constitution is the true authority, rather than a reflection of what we believe to be right. When choosing new amendments or interpretations of the original, libertarians ought to be concerned about what is right, not what is written.

MP|5.31.06 @ 2:45PM|#

When choosing new amendments or interpretations of the original, libertarians ought to be concerned about what is right, not what is written.

What's right is that the state shouldn't be involved with dictating the terms of contracts between individuals. But I see no reason to enter into a discussion of libertopia at this time.

|5.31.06 @ 2:55PM|#

I personally don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at the state or at the federal level.

From the perspective of a single guy who does not aim to get married to anyone of the same sex, nor to anyone of a different sex;

Those of you who agree with the same sex civil marriages; what about poligamy, or marriage to an underage person? If not why not. What are the rules and why?

I mean, I don't really care, I am just curios. I could say that why discriminate against single people, but I don't really feel discriminated against. I am just curios to what rules you think there should be and why.

Oh, and more to the point why should I agree with you?

|5.31.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Those of you who agree with the same sex civil marriages; what about poligamy, or marriage to an underage person?

The state is involved in marriage because there are certain advantages to getting married that can only be enforced by the state. I have no desire to get married, but if I did, I am not sure I would want to do without those financial and medical advantages.

As for polygamy and the underaged: why bring these cases into the discussion? There's no logical connection between same-sex marriage and wanting to marry a child or wanting to have six wives, other than being currently illegal. All three are very different circumstances with their own sets of issues and have to be dealt with separately.

|5.31.06 @ 5:28PM|#

I'm not sure about the Commerce Clause, but in my point of view a gay marriage ban would fly in the face of the First Amendment. How can a conservative Christian "marriage" (monogamous, heterosexual, and "blessed" by their deity) be essentially written into law and NOT fly in the face of Freedom of Religion? If sanctioning only hetrosexual unions is not an "establishment of religion," then I'm a Chinese jet pilot. Also, what about the "free exercise thereof" of progressive churches that do perform gay marriages?

|5.31.06 @ 6:14PM|#

I daresay that the reason polygamy is illegal right now is due to the huge anti-Mormon feelings of most of America circa 1890. Federal legislation was introduced to ban the practice of Mormanism. And it failed. (There would be some serious 1st amendment issues if it had passed, but it didn't, so it's a dead horse.) So they just banned polygamy instead.

Things only change when there's enough public support to revisit an issue. And there just isn't enough public support for polygamy.

Same sex marriage has the advantage of decent political support; Mormans didn't have any political friends at the time.

|5.31.06 @ 7:11PM|#

My point is that politically speaking, the comparison between polygamy and same sex marriage isn't entirely inappropriate. It's just fortunate that as dire as things seem with public attitudes toward same sex marriage, they aren't as bad as the anti-Mormon attitudes of a century ago.

|5.31.06 @ 8:09PM|#

"Lyndon Johnson once said, "Hell, give [a man] somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." "

This is true.

God, how did people become such worthless fucks?