Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
McClintock!
A little
while ago I sat down for American Spectator meet-and-greet
with California State Sen. Tom McClintock, the Republican candidate
for an open, northeast CA seat abandoned by the corrupt John
Doolittle. McClintock is a sort of rock star in Republican circles
for two reasons: his long-time anti-tax activism (he's gotten
almost every Republican in the State Senate to sign a no-tax
pledge) and his quixotic
2003 run in the gubernatorial recall. In 2002 and 2006 he'd
lost heartbreakingly close races for statewide offices, so his
chances at advancement looked non-existent until Doolittle quit and
McClintock entered the race for a House seat 418 miles away from
his Thousand Oaks home.
McClintock dismissed any idea that the "carpetbagger" charge would hurt him. "That's already been used against me, in the primary. And I won by about 16 points." He'd carried the district in two of his statewide races, and when I asked about his chances this time, he instantly recalled that political prognosticator Charlie Cook had increased the partisan slant of the seat from "Leans" to "Likely" Republican. Barring a Democratic landslide, he'll probably be a congressman.
"Democracies tend to drift off course," he said. "That's not new. But as a crisis approaches, Americans can sense a common danger and we always rise to the occasion." He saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between "authoritarians and libertarians," with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong.
I asked McClintock how he would have voted on the FISA bill. "I don't know," he said. "There are elements that concern me from a libertarian perspective. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights extends beyond these shores, but I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."
Jim Antle of The American Spectator asked what local enthusiasm was like for John McCain. "He wasn't my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice," said McClintock. "But we can damn well tell the difference between a fireman and a firestarter." He allowed that McCain was right on earmarks.
McClintock was the state chair of Fred Thompson's campaign, but before he took that role he'd said nice things about Ron Paul, comparing him to George Washington. I asked him about that. "Ron Paul energized a cross-section of voters with a clear message: We want our Constitution back, and we want it all back." Thus, the Washington (and Jefferson) comparison.
Where did McClintock disagree with Paul? "He had a problem with butterflies. At the debates, for example, he'd make a powerful statement, then... a butterfly would go floating by, and he'd be off onto something else." McClintock, like Paul, supported a return to the gold standard, "although I don't know how you get there right now."
Several of the journalists in the room noticed McClintock hadn't attacked Paul's foreign policy. Did he agree with that? "On part of it, I do. When we were attacked on 9/11, the president should have identified the countries that worked with al Qaeda and the Congress should have voted on an official declaration of war. By failing to do that, we created this tug of war between Congress and the president, which is something we should have learned to avoid after Korea, after Vietnam."
One more note of pessimism: "If the worst case scenario is greatly increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a President Obama, we can deal with that. Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us eight years of Ronald Reagan. I think when you look back that wasn't a bad trade."
UPDATE: Also, I asked McClintock which way he'll vote on California's anti-gay marriage initiative. "I'll vote for it and I'll work to help it pass," he said. "I make no moral judgments about homosexuality, but marriage is a natural institution meant to bring children into this world and inculcate them with social customs." What was the effect on California, so far, of the gay weddings? "It's another step in the deterioration of marriage. We've seen it deteriorated by welfare laws that make fathers' incomes disposable. We've seen it with no-fault divorce laws."
|6.24.08 @ 11:17AM|#
You should ask the man about the gays. He may be attuned to small-government conservatives in California, but he is no friend of civil liberties.
|6.24.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Is this a joke? I thought for sure McClintock (when I read the title) referred to a word that was being used to describe McCain-Clinton-and Barack Obama...
|6.24.08 @ 11:32AM|#
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
|6.24.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"Father's income disposable"? All income is disposable. I suspect he meant to say "dispensable". With welfare payments, you can dispense with getting income from the father.
|6.24.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Good call, Scott. Thanks for the followup, DW.
McClintock's views on marriage, all marriage, are indistinguishable
from a theocon. Anti-tax is nice, but ain't enough.
|6.24.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Okay, "reason sucks" guy. When you come into every thread that mentions Ron Paul to say "reason sucks," that's one thing. But when you fill over a page with repeated cut & paste, you're just spamming. Please knock it off.
|6.24.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Does the "reason sucks" guy just do a search for "Ron Paul" and start gibbering in the comments? Because in the actual post, the likely incoming GOP congressman praises Paul (taking shit from pro-war conservatives for doing so) and wishes he was a better speaker.
jane the pain|6.24.08 @ 11:44AM|#
DW, why did you have to wait until asked about McClintock's views on gay marriage to tell us? Was that your thumb on the scale, perhaps?
the innominate one|6.24.08 @ 11:45AM|#
David, I note that you fail to note that the "corrupt John
Doolittle" is a republican. Shilling for the GOP again? ;)
Also, "Doolittle" is the ideal name for a libertarian politician,
am I right?
|6.24.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Where did McClintock disagree with Paul? "He had a problem
with butterflies. At the debates, for example, he'd make a powerful
statement, then... a butterfly would go floating by, and he'd be
off onto something else."
Exactly. It's too bad RP didn't have someone with this amount of
sense working for his campaign, instead of surrounding himself with
family members and worshippers. Maybe then he wouldn't have looked
like such an unprepared wingnut whenever he faced a tough
interviewer like Tim Russert.
Also, I asked McClintock which way he'll vote on California's
anti-gay marriage initiative.
The marriage initiative is not anti-gay.
|6.24.08 @ 11:51AM|#
C:\Pot said:
The marriage initiative is not anti-gay.
Do you agree that an anti-civil unions effort would be?
|6.24.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Speaking of "butterflies", I see the "gay marriage = #1
libertarian issue" contingent is out in full force.
So you don't have a problem with eternal wars in the Middle East,
income taxes that top out at 100% of income, state-run media,
nationalized health care and industry...as long as two men can hang
a marriage license in the room where they sodomize each
other?
Priorities, people.
Pottsy|6.24.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Nobody ever wins a purity test. Nobody.
True enough, but if being anti-tax is a libertarian's only
qualification for a decent candidate, then they get what they
deserve.
|6.24.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Pottsy,
I agree superficially, but McClintock is libertarian on far more
issues than taxes.
the innominate one|6.24.08 @ 12:00PM|#
The marriage initiative is, in fact, anti-gay-marriage.
crimethink, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, by which
I mean you're a twit in any incarnation
|6.24.08 @ 12:00PM|#
When we were attacked on 9/11, the president should have
identified the countries that worked with al Qaeda and the Congress
should have voted on an official declaration of war.
Two points for procedural justice. Called foul for thinking 9/11
was about nation-states.
|6.24.08 @ 12:01PM|#
He wasn't my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice
Given the lack of enthusiasm in McCain's base, that quote may make
it into his political ads this year.
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 12:04PM|#
as long as two men can hang a marriage license in the room
where they sodomize each other
I note that you didn't say something more neutral like "have sex
with each other". Why is that, I wonder?
reason sucks|6.24.08 @ 12:07PM|#
@David Weigel
You're a douche and deserve to be hanged. Fucking asshole
traitor.
Dormouse|6.24.08 @ 12:11PM|#
You're a douche and deserve to be hanged.
Sometimes I wish douchiness was a capital
offense.
David Weigel|6.24.08 @ 12:11PM|#
You're a douche and deserve to be hanged. Fucking asshole
traitor.
What kind of comments does LewRockwell.com have, anyway? Ah, yes:
It doesn't have them. Wonder why.
|6.24.08 @ 12:12PM|#
"It's another step in the deterioration of marriage. We've
seen it deteriorated by welfare laws that make fathers' incomes
disposable. We've seen it with no-fault divorce laws."
I suppose he thinks he's being less offensive by recognizing that
there are also institutions that straight people use to erode his
concept of the institution of marriage, when in fact he is merely
equating two loving people wanting to be legally recognized in a
legitimate union with no-fault divorce and welfare.
|6.24.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Epi,
Probably because they can have sex with each other already, without
gay marriage.
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Can you link up the IP of "reason sucks" to any other screen names, Dave?
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Probably because they can have sex with each other already,
without gay marriage.
And a straight guy can sodomize his girlfriend (and they do, all
the time, Chris...orally and anally too OMG) already
without marriage. But they can still get married if they
want.
I'd still like your explanation for why you felt the need to use
"sodomize each other".
|6.24.08 @ 12:19PM|#
It shows how far outside of the mainstream the more hardcore libertarian principles are that in all of this gay marriage discussion, no one really talks much about why government is involved in deciding what marriage is in the first place. I mean in mainstream discourse, not hereabouts.
|6.24.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Just trying not to be drab, Epi. There's nothing worse than that. Sometimes you have to use colorful terms to get people's attention in journalism. Dave will back me up on this, right?
|6.24.08 @ 12:21PM|#
"I make no moral judgments about homosexuality, but marriage
is a natural institution meant to bring children into this world
and inculcate them with social customs."
I find this reasoning troubling nonsense. It
leads to all sorts of restrictions on who the state allows
to get married. I suspect he knows that it's B/S and is just
pandering to the intolerant retro Christian wing of his party at
the expense of a minority.
Not very admirable IMO.
|6.24.08 @ 12:22PM|#
"I make no moral judgments about homosexuality, but marriage
is a natural institution meant to bring children into this world
and inculcate them with social customs."
Uh huh, and I bet some of your best friends are niggers. Am I
right?
|6.24.08 @ 12:22PM|#
But they can still get married if they want.
Not necessarily. What if they're cousins? What if one of them is
already married?
C:\\Pot>|6.24.08 @ 12:25PM|#
OK, guys, so what is marriage for? It's existed for thousands of years, it must have some purpose. Hint: if your answer is "to certify that two people love each other" you're ignoring about 95% of the history of marriage where that wasn't considered important at all.
|6.24.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"the president should have identified the countries that worked
with al Qaeda and the Congress should have voted on an official
declaration of war"
They couldn't do that.
They keep insisting OBL and al Qaeda was responsible, however, CNN
interviewed him on 9-17-2001. It's funny though, all of our
military might and intelligence, and our government couldn't find
him but some stupid reporter from CNN could. If you look on the
FBI's most wanted web site, Usama Bin Laden isn't even wanted for
the attacks on 9-11. In fact, the FBI recognizes that seven of the
9-11 hijackers are alive and well. For some of which, our
government claims, their passports were found in the wreckage in
New York as well as at the Pentagon. So, how'd they survive these
plane crashes?
There's one simple solution: 9-11 was a lie. Now the Repuglicans
proudly use "terror" as a political device. You're okay with
that?
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 12:25PM|#
The marriage issue to me is like school prayer.
You want the state to sanction school prayer? Thats fine with me,
as long as everyone is included. that means you have to have
Christian prayers, Jewish prayers, Muslim prayers, and even
satanist prayers if someone in the school requests it. Don't want
little Timmy to hear prayers to the Dark Lord over the PA? Then no
school prayer at all.
Want the state to sanction marriage? Fine. But that means gays
couples, too. Don't like Harry and Dick getting married? Then get
the state out of it, but being heterosexual shouldn't get you
special government benefits.
robc|6.24.08 @ 12:25PM|#
two loving people wanting to be legally recognized in a
legitimate union
I oppose legal recognition* of all unions.
Marriage is a religous ceremony. Lets keep it out of the state's
business.
*in the sense of licensing
tarran|6.24.08 @ 12:26PM|#
What kind of comments does LewRockwell.com have, anyway? Ah, yes: It doesn't have them. Wonder why.
Mises.org has open commenting. Hell, they even have IRC channels
over there. Of course it's more focused on economic theory and less
on pop-culture, and is less entertaining than the threads here, but
they have some pretty substantive discussions on occasion.
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 12:26PM|#
C-Pot-
Marriage was about property rights, not children if thats what you
are getting at.
tarran|6.24.08 @ 12:30PM|#
In fact, the FBI recognizes that seven of the 9-11 hijackers are alive and well.
Really? Got any evidence for that claim?
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Marriage was about property rights, not children if thats
what you are getting at.
Exactly. Try again, Chris.
And spare us the "I was trying not to be drab" crap. You wanted to
use something that would (to you) devalue the act. If you were more
vulgar you would have said "while they pack each other's fudge" or
something.
|6.24.08 @ 12:33PM|#
True enough, but if being anti-tax is a libertarian's only
qualification for a decent candidate, then they get what they
deserve.
George W. Bush.
|6.24.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I see the "gay marriage = #1 libertarian issue" contingent
is out in full force.
Not doubting that you see things that way. The more mature and
subtle of us see it as an important issue, but not the primary or
only issue.
McClintock: I make no moral judgments about homosexuality, but
marriage is a natural institution meant to bring children into this
world[...] It's another step in the deterioration of
marriage[...]We've seen it with no-fault divorce laws.
Sounds like someone itching to meddle in peoples' lives. A wholly
un-libertarian position.
As stated above, this guy is a theocon, which makes him inherently
untrustworthy on any civil liberties issues.
|6.24.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Re: Bob | June 24, 2008, 12:25pm | #
Oh boy. A truther this early. What did Nostrodamus have to
say about this anyway?
|6.24.08 @ 12:41PM|#
robc-
I was merely talking about it in the way McClintock is interested
in it - which is as a state licensed institution. HE was referring
to people wanting to get legally married (which is what most people
want - they don't stop to think about whether or not the state
should be involved), not to people wanting the state out of
marriage.
Christopher Monnier|6.24.08 @ 12:47PM|#
> "...marriage is a natural institution meant to bring
children into this world."
No, actually the institution meant to bring children into this
world would be sexual intercourse.
|6.24.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Marriage was about property rights, not children if thats
what you are getting at.
Among the wealthy, perhaps. Historically, the vast majority of
married couples owned zero property.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Heh - I was all about to comment something boring to the effect of "who trusts a Republican 'no tax' [I assume that means no *new* tax] pledge" when the comments got all gay anyway, and not only that, but the trolls are out in full force and there's some nut with Ron Paul issues too. Whew!
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Well C-Pot, since almost everyone owns property in a 21st
Century developed country, it sure as hell is about property
now.
And since children and wives were counted as property historically,
really it was STILL all about property.
|6.24.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Tonio,
You took McClintock's disagreement with you on that one issue and
extrapolated it into him being an enemy of civil rights in general.
This only makes sense if you consider gay marriage to be the
keystone issue of civil rights.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Actually I'm glad Weigel and/or Scott raised the gay thing because I'm tired of Republican claiming to be libertarian when they're not. Teh ghey seems to be a pretty good barometer for whether someone's actually serious about liberty or not.
|6.24.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Rhywun,
Funny. I bet a polygamist would think that whether one supports
polygamy is a good barometer, too.
|6.24.08 @ 12:54PM|#
You took McClintock's disagreement with you on that one
issue and extrapolated it into him being an enemy of civil rights
in general. This only makes sense if you consider gay marriage to
be the keystone issue of civil rights.
It just means that he's not trustworthy. That line of thinking
isn't particularly based in either freedom or reason, and who knows
what whacked-out system he actually uses for determining what is
and is not moral - what we do know is that it's not the same system
we use, comprende?
|6.24.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Funny. I bet a polygamist would think that whether one
supports polygamy is a good barometer, too.
That's fer sure! Next they'll be wanting to marry their dawgs!
Roberto Leibman|6.24.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Living in his district (and being chair of the county LP) I'm
really ambivalent about McClintock. He's better than DoLittle, and
I'm glad he beat Ose (more of a neo-con). But he did so on a
campaign of "I'm the most conservative of the two", i.e. not on
positive "I'm more pro-freedom". I've tried to contact him, since
we (almost purposefully) are not running an LP candidate against
him to see if he'd like our endorsment, but have received no
reply.
And Charlie Brown (the Dem running against him) is not too bad, he
would be a relatively good democrat because he'd be in a 60%
republican district, he'd be more likely to compromise the liberal
fiscal policy while keeping the liberal social policy, he's also
local and a nice fellow (I've talked to him a few times,
particularly last time he ran against DoLittle)
|6.24.08 @ 12:57PM|#
NNG,
Well C-Pot, since almost everyone owns property in a 21st
Century developed country, it sure as hell is about property
now.
You're moving the goalposts. We were talking about marriage
historically, not the trappings that are currently attached to
it.
And since children and wives were counted as property
historically, really it was STILL all about property.
And if you define macaroni as including children, marraige was
actually all about macaroni!
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Should sterile couples be able to get married, C-Pot? I guess not using the "its for the children" logic.
|6.24.08 @ 12:59PM|#
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml
Here's the CNN interview too:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
Our government couldn't find him yet this stupid reporter from CNN
could interview him?
9-11 was a lie.
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 12:59PM|#
If the Church told you children were macaroni, somehow I think you would believe it.
|6.24.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Reinmoose,
That's not my point. Rhywun opposes polygamous marriage even as he
demands that gay marriage be recognized. A typical "freedom for me
but not for thee" position.
dhex|6.24.08 @ 12:59PM|#
and if you can define "bigotry" as "defending tradition" then
everything's groovy!
woo!
|6.24.08 @ 12:59PM|#
I thought the purpose of marriage is to be whatever the people getting married want it to be. Isn't that part of the libertarian argument of keeping government out of it?
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Funny. I bet a polygamist would think that whether one supports polygamy is a good barometer, too.
I have no intention of fighting this battle today. Do a site search
for "gay marriage" - I'm sure you've participated in some of these
battles already under a different name.
robc|6.24.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Reinmoose,
My point (badly written) was that you are fighting the wrong fight.
Keeping gays from having state sponsored marriage is actually a
step down the right path, which is keeping everyone from having
state sponsored marriage.
dhex|6.24.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Isn't that part of the libertarian argument of keeping
government out of it?
some people have blindspots when it comes to certain things; teh
gayz being one of them for otherwise libertarian folk.
we can consider this a "conservative hangover" of sorts, if you
want to be cute about it.
|6.24.08 @ 1:02PM|#
If the Church told you children were macaroni, somehow I
think you would believe it.
I've always based my arguments on non-religious principles here.
Accusing me of being a mindless drone for the opinions of others is
seriously uncalled for.
|6.24.08 @ 1:02PM|#
which is keeping everyone from having state sponsored
marriage.
HA! Like that's going to happen.
No Name Guy|6.24.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Fine, I apologize if your reason for opposing gay marriage isn't
religious.
If this isn't about religion, what is it about then?
Against state sponsered marriage? Me too! But its not going away.
If its going to be here, it should be for any two people that want
it. What skin is it off your back if thats made legal?
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Heh - I was all about to comment something boring to the
effect of "who trusts a Republican 'no tax' [I assume that means no
*new* tax] pledge" when the comments got all gay
anyway
Actually that happened when you and Tonio showed up, if we want to
be technical.
I bet a polygamist would think that whether one supports
polygamy is a good barometer, too
Your social conservatism really gets in the way of you being a
libertarian, now doesn't it.
|6.24.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Chris -
How has your marriage been weakened in the past couple of weeks?
Maybe when it comes time for you to file for divorce you can sue
the gay couple down the street for your legal fees, eh?
|6.24.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Rhywun,
To be precise, you wrote here and
other places that you wouldn't work to legalize polygamous
marriages, despite the fact you demand that the heterosexual
majority approve of gay marriage.
|6.24.08 @ 1:13PM|#
NNG,
It really doesn't affect me at all if gay marriage is
legalized...just like it doesn't affect you at all if Congress
votes to award a Medal of Freedom to Robert Mugabe.
Actions of the govt are not judged by the same standard as actions
of individuals and private entities. They may be unacceptable even
if they don't directly harm anyone.
|6.24.08 @ 1:14PM|#
despite the fact you demand that the heterosexual majority
approve of gay marriage
Nobody need approve of anything, Chris - especially from the more
libertarian side where the mere request is that you recognize their
right to do something you don't like.. that's the whole point.
|6.24.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Gays can get married in a liberal church if they want. I
obviously don't think govt should intervene to stop that.
That's not the issue here; rather, gays are demanding that the govt
interfere in a very specific way.
|6.24.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Chris -
If Christians (or traditionalists or whatever) don't want to give
rightful legal benefits to homosexuals or any other group, they
should stop taking their money. Until then, you have to include
them - otherwise it's a worse kind of stealing.
|6.24.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Reinmoose, the question of whether those benefits are rightly
applied to unprecedented arrangements disguised as marriages is the
fulcrum of debate here. But I can see I'm outnumbered and none of
us are going to convince each other.
My main point is, just because someone opposes gay marraige doesn't
make them unlibertarian, regardless of your opinion on that
issue.
|6.24.08 @ 1:32PM|#
I see. So two completely straight men or women are going to enter into a very difficult to break legally binding agreement with significant social stigma so that they can.... nope, I'm not following.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Actually that happened when you and Tonio showed up, if we want to be technical.
Um, no. Check again. I showed up after a couple dozen comments on
gay marriage were already made.
To be precise, you wrote here and other places that you wouldn't work to legalize polygamous marriages
Good. I don't have to repeat myself then. BTW, "not work to
legalize" is not the same thing as "oppose". And with that, I leave
the argument to you and your new handle.
dhex|6.24.08 @ 1:39PM|#
It really doesn't affect me at all if gay marriage is
legalized...just like it doesn't affect you at all if Congress
votes to award a Medal of Freedom to Robert Mugabe.
oh that's cute! i see what you did there!
|6.24.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Butterflies? Really?
I saw the Russert/Paul interview (in fact, I have it on tape), and
remain impressed by how well Paul stayed on point and held up
against Russert's interrogation, a feat he duplicated in several
subsequent media appearances. If Ron Paul is easily distracted, it
is hard to prove by evidence cited by McLintock. On the other hand,
as a California voter throughout his entire legislative career, I
have rarely been impressed by anything McClintock has said or the
way he said it. (He once offered "A Modest Proposal" to handle the
public school funding problem here in California, which I thought
was exceptionally apt, however -- credit where due, and you can
read a version at
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/McClintock/article_detail.asp?PID=292.)
McClintock comes of as mean-spirited to criticize Mr. Paul as he
did, a spirit that seems consistent with the one indicated by other
things he has said and written over the years. So he inspires no
confidence in this voter.
|6.24.08 @ 1:45PM|#
It really doesn't affect me at all if gay marriage is
legalized...just like it doesn't affect you at all if Congress
votes to award a Medal of Freedom to Robert Mugabe.
wow, your choice of language and metaphor really does speak for
itself doesnt it?
Gay marriage = medal for robert mugabe, eh?
What makes you unliberatarian is not your opposition to gay
marriage, because you havent presented any rational argument, but
that you let you bigotry (the eeeew factor) dictate government
policy.
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Um, no. Check again. I showed up after a couple dozen
comments on gay marriage were already made.
I was joking. The thread didn't become "gay" until the gay
guys showed up. Get it? (grumble people being too serious
grumble)
My main point is, just because someone opposes gay marraige
doesn't make them unlibertarian, regardless of your opinion on that
issue
But you clearly oppose them because you disapprove of them or think
they are "unnatural", and are willing to let the state keep things
the way you want it.
Sorry, not libertarian.
|6.24.08 @ 1:51PM|#
"It really doesn't affect me at all if gay marriage is
legalized...just like it doesn't affect you at all if Congress
votes to award a Medal of Freedom to Robert Mugabe."
Actually, given that the whole point of the push for gay marriage
seems less about human dignity and more about getting a paw into
the spousal benefits cookie jar, I think that a surge in gay
marriage would indeed affect quite a few people, especially when it
comes to paying higher taxes or product prices to subsidize such
benefits for gay public and/or union employees.
Don't get me wrong. I'm for leaving people alone to define their
families however they see fit, as long as it isn't at someone
else's expense. That said, we should be looking for more ways to
get more people off the mandatory benefits gravy train, not trying
to create a new class of passenger.
|6.24.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Does the "reason sucks" guy just do a search for "Ron Paul"
and start gibbering in the comments?
From my totally scientific, thorough, and otherwise undoubtedly
flawless investigation* of the results from a Google search on
"'reason sucks' site:www.reason.com", it certainly looks like
that's exactly what he's doing.
If the article doesn't include the name "Ron Paul," he doesn't
show. If it does, he does.
Can he be banned for spamming? He's certainly not adding to the
conversation in any way (though if the "traitor" post was authored
by the same guy, he obviously lurks to see what sort of response
his spam gets).
* A quick skimming.
|6.24.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Gay marriage = medal for robert mugabe, eh?
Hardly. Neither one harms anyone, though, just bestows govt
sanction where it may not be justified.
|6.24.08 @ 2:01PM|#
My point (badly written) was that you are fighting the wrong
fight. Keeping gays from having state sponsored marriage is
actually a step down the right path, which is keeping everyone from
having state sponsored marriage.
Sorry, that's crap.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, the state of Mississippi
discriminates on the basis of race in assigning public housin
units. Is the libertarian position going to be, we're against
all public housing, this is just a distraction?
No the proper response is BULLSHIT! If we're going to have the
damned system it better be run with respect for everybody's
rights.
Get it?
|6.24.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I saw the Russert/Paul interview (in fact, I have it on
tape), and remain impressed by how well Paul stayed on point and
held up against Russert's interrogation, a feat he duplicated in
several subsequent media appearances.
Watch Paul's response to Russert's question about the earmarks he
inserted into the transportation bill before voting against it
(knowing it would pass anyway). Paul darted around trying to avoid
the question for a minute or so, and was finally reduced to
blubbering about how that money was "stolen" from his constituents.
You and I know what he was talking about, but the average MTP
viewer is going to think he's a moonbat.
Then listen to him whine about how everyone asks him whether he
would run as a third party, to which Russert retorted that he had a
history of running as such in 1988, leaving the good doctor
speechless.
|6.24.08 @ 2:08PM|#
And with that, I leave the argument to you and your new
handle.
I probably need to change my email, too, since I can't make an
argument here without someone hitting me below the belt with
pot-shots at my religion.
Having handles makes things more fun and more humanizing, but
people should pay attention to the arguments and not so much the
people making them.
Geotpf|6.24.08 @ 2:14PM|#
So he hates taxes and gays. Just like 99% of Republicans. I also note he didn't say he was opposed to the Iraq war.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 2:17PM|#
grumble people being too serious grumble
Sorry, I trample over anyone with poor reading skills :)
the whole point of the push for gay marriage seems less about human dignity and more about getting a paw into the spousal benefits cookie jar
Which is really the same thing, isn't it? We dignify certain
relationships by granting them certain rights. The argument against
higher prices and such--in a time and place where state recognition
of marriage ain't going away--is really an argument against the
dignity of gay relationships.
people should pay attention to the arguments and not so much the people making them
My only point was I remember having the exact same argument with
you in the past - and I don't feel like rehashing it.
|6.24.08 @ 2:19PM|#
CPot -
Epi is right - you do let your bias dictate what you think should
and should not be government policy, and that is not libertarian.
You can not support gay marriage and still be libertarians. You
cannot, however, support institutionalized discrimination and be
libertarian. See the difference?
|6.24.08 @ 2:26PM|#
you do let your bias dictate what you think should and
should not be government policy, and that is not
libertarian.
Well then there are no libertarians. All of us have bias. The fact
that some people's biases arise from non-religious (or even
anti-religious) origins doesn't make them any less biased.
If my argument is weak, point out the weakness. Don't accuse me of
being the Pope's zombie.
|6.24.08 @ 2:30PM|#
To clarify, when you characterize my position as discriminating against homosexuals, you are tacitly assuming that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar in an essential way. This claim is not justified by any evidence from biology or history, any more than a religious claim that God opposes homosexuality is.
J|6.24.08 @ 2:40PM|#
The point, C:\Pot> (I prefer your old handle), is that the
seemingly most commonly held libertarian view is that even if we
are biased against something, we look the other way, because it's
up to the individuals involved as long as they don't hurt others. I
imagine there are libertarians pro gay marriage, even if they find
it morally reprehensible, because it's not their business.
Marriage is a contract with a funny name and special rules (I
think, I am no legal expert).
J|6.24.08 @ 2:42PM|#
It does not matter whether heterosexual relationships or homosexual relationships are different (or for that matter if there is a huge variance in heterosexual relationships). The two people entering into it agree to certain conditions, so many of us think that it doesn't matter what their gender is to the government.
J|6.24.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I have plenty of biases. I think it's dumb for people to get
married if they don't love each other and aren't really thinking
far ahead. I also don't think these should be enshrined in law
(even if they could be).
Well then there are no libertarians. All of us have
bias.
The libertarian bias is that no biases should be part of the law
(anarchist) or as few as possible (minarchist and up).
|6.24.08 @ 2:45PM|#
To clarify, when you characterize my position as
discriminating against homosexuals, you are tacitly assuming that
homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar
in an essential way.
The argument is that they should be identical in the eyes of the
government, and should be subject to the same benefits,
restrictions and legal attachments. If the government wishes to be
in the business of granting marriage licences or if you will
special contracts, then those contracts should be granted to two
conseting adults regardless of wether at night the penis enters the
vagina or the penis enters the rectum.
|6.24.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Don't get me wrong. I'm for leaving people alone to define
their families however they see fit, as long as it isn't at someone
else's expense. That said, we should be looking for more ways to
get more people off the mandatory benefits gravy train, not trying
to create a new class of passenger.
A very strained argument for denying equal protection to an
unpopular group while claiming to want equal rights for all. See
also Rhywun at 2:17 and Reinmoose at 2:19.
|6.24.08 @ 2:48PM|#
If my argument is weak, point out the weakness.
I havent seen an argument from you yet. What you said boils down to
gay sex is different then hetero sex and teh ghey cant have the
childuns.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 2:53PM|#
you are tacitly assuming that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar in an essential way
Other than babies - which have been shown to NOT be the main
purpose of marriage throughout history - they ARE essentially
equivalent.
|6.24.08 @ 2:55PM|#
To clarify, when you characterize my position as
discriminating against homosexuals, you are tacitly assuming that
homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar
in an essential way. This claim is not justified by any evidence
from biology or history, any more than a religious claim that God
opposes homosexuality is.
As noted above, that's not the issue.
Seems like you realize you're losing on the merits, and are
changing tactics.
And, it's up to you to prove your contention that "homosexual
relationships and heterosexual relationships are [not] similar in
an essential way." WTF do you mean by "essential way,"
anyhow?
Mainstream Christian thought (by the numbers) does hold that God
opposes homosexuality.
|6.24.08 @ 2:58PM|#
This feels just like yesterday when he wasn't arguing with me about what I was talking about, but kept insisting he was right.
|6.24.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Ah, Tonio, but that is the issue. If you're claiming that the
govt allowing X to do Y but not allowing Z to do W is unjust
discrimination, you are tacitly claiming Y and W are essentially
the same thing.
For instance, if I said that the govt is discriminating in allowing
men to buy condoms without a prescription but not allowing women to
buy birth control pills, I must show that condoms and birth control
pills are essentially the same thing.
|6.24.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Rhywun wrote:
"the whole point of the push for gay marriage seems less about
human dignity and more about getting a paw into the spousal
benefits cookie jar"
Which is really the same thing, isn't it? We dignify certain
relationships by granting them certain rights. The argument against
higher prices and such--in a time and place where state recognition
of marriage ain't going away--is really an argument against the
dignity of gay relationships.
--------------
Wrong, Rhywun. You are making the same logical mistake that people
do who think that, for example, ending the drug war will somehow
promote drug use, by "sending a message" to the youth that "we
approve drugs." That message would only be detected by a defective
receiver, as would the message, "Being gay is dignified," were the
government to force unwilling people (taxpayers and
legally-obligated private sector employers) to pay for benefits for
gay partners.
If a private company decides it is good business to pay spousal
benefits to gay couples, and if the prices and quality for their
products or services remain (or become!) more attractive to
customers as a result of that policy, great! But if not, customers
have the ability to make other choices in the marketplace. The same
is true for spousal benefits for heterosexual couples. If the
policy doesn't pay -- if "family friendly" companies can't compete
in the marketplace -- the companies will reduce or eliminate
spousal and family benefits, or they will go out of business as
customers abandon them.
Government and government-controlled companies (e.g., contractors
that must follow government employment rules as a condition of
their contracts), on the other hand, are a different matter
altogether. People are rarely free to quit paying taxes or
otherwise "contribute" to the revenues of government. Pensions and
employee benefits, vexing for private sector companies, are
becoming a crushing burden for state and local governments, and the
taxpayers who pay for it all. Amidst all the calls to try to
"rein-in" these expenses, along come the same-sex marriage
proponents, who understand very well that establishment of legal
spousal status for gay couples will exacerbate the financial
problems of the employee benefits and pensions situation. In fact,
it appears that they are counting on access to the public trough,
and that is where I lose a lot of sympathy for the movement. When
you actually count on the unwillingly surrendered contents of
another person's pocket to affirm the "dignity" of your
relationship, that's just f---d up.
I don't think that the government has any business authorizing or
subsidizing marriage. If people want polygamous, heterosexual, or
homosexual unions, or extended families through serial monogamy,
that's their business, not mine and not my government's. On the
other hand, the government certainly needs to recognize and respect
the voluntary relationships between people. Recognition and
respect, however, do not necessarily include "subsidy." Nobody has
the right to be subsidized at another's expense; those who claim
otherwise, and who lobby to enshrine their opinion into law, cannot
possibly be good libertarians of any sort, or perhaps even
worthwhile friends or useful allies of libertarians, can they? Just
asking.
|6.24.08 @ 3:51PM|#
For instance, if I said that the govt is discriminating in
allowing men to buy condoms without a prescription but not allowing
women to buy birth control pills, I must show that condoms and
birth control pills are essentially the same thing.
Bad analogy -- condoms are available to both men and women without
prescription; birth control hormones are available only with a
prescription but this equally affects both men and women. What we
have here is a situation where one group cannot "buy condoms" under
any circumstances, and the other group is societally encouraged to
"buy condoms" and provided all sorts of incentives both tangible
and otherwise for doing so.
|6.24.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages just as heterosexuals can. They just have no use for such marriages, just as women can't wear condoms.
|6.24.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Bob | June 24, 2008, 12:59pm | #
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml
Here's the CNN interview too:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
Our government couldn't find him yet this stupid reporter from CNN could interview him?
9-11 was a lie.
Oh, yes. And all those people who supposedly died on 9/11 are being
held in Area 51.
My cousin's wife's step-brother's boss's gardener's priest is a
confessor to one of the kitchen help there and she's seen them!
|6.24.08 @ 4:01PM|#
JAM: Conspicuously ignoring questions about equal protection,
and substituting fear-mongering about the huge and unfair cost of
spousal benefits for homos.
Again calling you on shallowly, transparently seeking to avoid
extending equal protection to an unpopular group, while giving
pro-forma condemnation to the existence of spousal benefits for
anyone.
You doth protest too much, methinks.
|6.24.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages just as
heterosexuals can. They just have no use for such marriages, just
as women can't wear condoms.
Blacks can get married to others of their own race just like
whites. They just have no use for such marriages, if they happen to
be in love with a white.
|6.24.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages just as
heterosexuals can.
(yawn)
They just have no use for such marriages, just as women can't
wear condoms.
Your (bad) analogy, not mine. And the issue is their freedom to buy
them.
FWIW, I know several women who do indeed wear condoms.
|6.24.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Jake, that's not what my point was. Read my 3:11 post.
Interracial heterosexual marriage is a different situation, because
biologically and anatomically speaking it involves the same type of
sexual activity as intraracial heterosexual marriage. This is not
the case for homosexual relationships.
Prebuttal: if marraige isn't about sex, then gays should have no
reason not to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Prebuttal: if marraige isn't about sex, then gays should have no reason not to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Wait, I'm confused. Is it "gays can't get married because of the
mechanics of their sex lives" or is it "gays can't get married
because they are incapable of experiencing any of the other
intangible benefits of marriage other than sex"...? 'Cuz either
way, your reasoning is completely unhinged.
Mike Laursen|6.24.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Prebuttal: if marraige isn't about sex, then gays should
have no reason not to marry someone of the opposite
gender.
Except, you know, that it would result in both marriage partners
being miserably mismatched.
|6.24.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Among the wealthy, perhaps. Historically, the vast majority of married couples owned zero property.
And historically, most poor couples didn't get married. They were
just considered married by common-law marriage; church weddings
were generally reserved for the wealthy, who needed such things to
clarify property rights and lines of descent.
Which is ignoring that marriage has meant different things at
different times to different people. What we mean by marriage
today, even between two heterosexuals, is very different from what
was meant by marriage even a hundred years ago, let alone two
hundred. Among the Puritans in Massachusetts, church weddings were
forbidden; marriage was only a state function, only
recognized by the church. Among the Anglicans further down the
coast in Virginia, church weddings were common among the upper
class, and served a religious purpose as well as a secular
one.
Marriage has come today to be primarily based on love, which has
its own set of problems. Given that it is so based, and given the
legal benefits that accrue to marriage, it is criminal to not allow
gays to marry. If you want to call it a "civil union," rather than
marriage, fine; just so long as the legal benefits are the same. I
guarantee you everyone will be calling it marriage in two decades
anyways.
The monstrous thing about not allowing gay marriage comes in
regards to those legal benefits. When it comes to legal decisions
about end-of-life issues, for example, gay partners of many
decades' standing can be left out, where parents who hate their
child's lifestyle may exclude the partner completely from the
decisions, or even from seeing their partner. Parents, after all,
if they're the closest living relative, could have that right
without legal recognition. There are myriads of other situations
that can come up that are parallel.
Sure, gay couples could go through all the hassle to set up powers
of attorney and all that. But why should they have to, when the
legal shorthand of marriage exists for just such situations?
Because you're put off by gay relationships? What basis, other than
"I don't think gays should be married," can you come up with for
denying them these rights? Think it's wrong all you want, but there
is no earthly reason to deny gays these legal
rights.
To clarify, when you characterize my position as discriminating against homosexuals, you are tacitly assuming that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar in an essential way. This claim is not justified by any evidence from biology or history, any more than a religious claim that God opposes homosexuality is.
They are similar in an essential way. The emotional and
sexual attraction and lifelong commitment is exactly the
same. EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no
difference, other than that gays can't have children. Well, you
know what? My parents can't have children either; my mom's too old.
Guess they should get divorced. My sister has MS and would have
complications from having children, so she and her husband have
decided not to have children; guess they should get divorced. Oh
wait, that's right, it's okay, because they're designed
for it or something. Tell you what, if you can tell me what the
relevant difference between gay and straight relationships is, I'll
concede the argument. Remember, the difference must be
relevant.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 4:36PM|#
PS. I wonder what percentage of those Californians who are going to vote against gay marriage are doing so out of libertarian principles. And I wonder if there are any other orthodox libertarian positions that align so neatly with those of social conservatives...
|6.24.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Ok, Chris -
I'm going to take your money and give it to other people to do
things that you'd like to do, but don't qualify for under my rules,
ok?
|6.24.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Tonio wrote:
"Tonio | June 24, 2008, 2:45pm | #
Don't get me wrong. I'm for leaving people alone to define their
families however they see fit, as long as it isn't at someone
else's expense. That said, we should be looking for more ways to
get more people off the mandatory benefits gravy train, not trying
to create a new class of passenger."
A very strained argument for denying equal protection to an
unpopular group while claiming to want equal rights for all. See
also Rhywun at 2:17 and Reinmoose at 2:19.
--------
Just so I am clear on this: Are you saying that the mandating of
spousal benefits is a legitimate form of "protection" to be
provided by government, which gay couples should also enjoy? That
failure to provide such benefits to gay spouses actually does them
harm, is a hardship on them, which legal "protection" is necessary
to redress? I'm all for government not disrespecting committed
homosexual unions by denying next-of-kin or inheritance status,
etc. Those kinds of things sound like "equal protection" issues to
me. But forcing one person to subsidize another's relationship or
choice of life partner goes way beyond "protection," and well into
"protection racket" territory.
The anti-discrimination, "equal protection" laws we have were
originally put in place to protect people who were wronged by
others owing to characteristics they did not choose and, for the
most part, could not change: age, race, sex, etc. Also, as there is
specific prohibition in the Constitution against government
establishing or favoring a particular religion, religious
orientation was included in the list of protected classes, even
though this quality is often something people CAN choose, or at
least can choose to change or abandon if they lose faith or find
something that is more inspirational to them.
Marriage is something else, entirely. Same sex marriage proponents
declare the right to marry as being universal, and demand "equal
protection" for that right as for the right to obtain food, shelter
or equal-pay-for-equal-work despite color of skin or the possession
of two x chromosomes. Yet, these days, in this society, people
typically freely choose to marry or not. They dissolve marriages,
enter into others, and so forth. Marriage is clearly not the
necessity that food, shelter -- or even a job, as means of
obtaining other necessities -- are. It is a discretionary state --
as is religion, true, but unlike religion, there is no
constitutional amendment that compels government to treat marriage
in any special way.
As long as nobody prevents people from getting married or from
legally dealing with each other as married people do -- next of kin
decisions, community property assumption, automatic inheritance
rights, right to decline to testify against the spouse, adoption
rights, etc. -- then isn't that "equal protection" under the law
right there? I completely support the recognition of such rights
for gay spouses. And if that were all that were being demanded --
simple human dignity under the law, in other words -- I would be
completely on board. But the issue of spousal benefits seems to
loom exceptionally large in this matter (even if all the propaganda
focus seems to be on "human dignity"). I think that amounts to a
demand to expand the sphere of non-libertarian conduct by the
government, which I cannot support.
Finally, I hope that "equal protection" doesn't become the
"commerce clause" for the 21st century. To judge by the way it is
being tossed around in the gay marriage debate, however, I think it
is a likely candidate to occupy that niche.
|6.24.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Prebuttal: if marraige isn't about sex, then gays should have no reason not to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Well, given that it is about love and a lifelong commitment to
another person in most cases, why would they marry someone
of the opposite gender?
For the record, I know of at least one lesbian in this area
(Knoxville, TN) who is happily married to a straight man. Maybe
she's actually bisexual; maybe it's just a matter of, as you say,
it not being primarily about sex. I just don't see any reason
not to extend the legal benefits of marriage to gays.
|6.24.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Okay, then. I claim that Y and W are essentially the same thing;
that marriage between two men or between two women is essentially
the same thing as between one man and one woman.
The sexual aspect doesn't enter into it, because marriage is not a
prerequisite for sexual activity. Neither is there a requirement
the other way 'round: sexual activity is not a requirement for a
marriage. Likewise with childbearing/childrearing.
Clearly, as a society, we have decoupled sex and reproduction from
the social institution of marriage. Ergo, there is no biological
reason whatsoever to bar same-sex marriages.
As to the argument that the cost is too great, I will agree that
the government has no place doling out benefits based on one's
marital status. However, as long as the government is doing that
for some, it needs to do it for all. The solution
is to reduce or abolish benefits across the board, not to
arbitrarily deprive some while benefiting others. So I also reject
the cost issue as cogent.
I think all you've got left is your own personal squick factor, and
since nobody's agitating for you to be forcibly subjected to an
impromptu "hot meat injection," I think you can safely set that
issue aside as well.
Mike Laursen|6.24.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Rhywun, recent polls show that most Californians don't care much about the issue and are willing to let the recent court decision stand. Backs up what I said in an earlier thread -- that it's very likely that the typical Californian that voted for the anti-gay marriage initiative a few years ago saw it for the first time when they stepped into the voting booth, and spent all of five seconds thinking about whether they were for or against.
Mike Laursen|6.24.08 @ 4:45PM|#
And I wonder if there are any other orthodox libertarian
positions that align so neatly with those of social
conservatives...
Support for home schooling and educational choice.
|6.24.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Actually, given that the whole point of the push for gay
marriage seems less about human dignity and more about getting a
paw into the spousal benefits cookie jar, I think that a surge in
gay marriage would indeed affect quite a few people, especially
when it comes to paying higher taxes or product prices to subsidize
such benefits for gay public and/or union employees.
Oh, I didnt realize 'teh ghey' pay less taxes then us straight
folk, because they unlinke the rest of the hetero population dont
have their hand in the 'spousal benefits cookie jar'. I mean it
would obviosly be detrimental to us anti-tax libertarians to have
them get the same benefits that they pay for like the rest of the
population. Right.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Support for home schooling and educational choice.
Good examples, especially the former.
But forcing one person to subsidize another's relationship or choice of life partner goes way beyond "protection," and well into "protection racket" territory.
So... in order for gays to secure the rights of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy, they have to be willing to first become good
little libertarians and demand that the government cease all forms
of redistribution? I guess they'll be waiting a very long time,
then.
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Once again, Chris has proven possibly more stubborn than joe in
twisting and shifting in order to continue arguing a point he has
utterly lost and has no sensible reason for in the first
place.
I just don't have the strength. At least joe's condescension and
obnoxiousness provide impetus to keep going, if just for the
entertainment. Chris is just a black hole of unwavering prejudice,
and it is tiring.
|6.24.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Tonio wrote:
JAM: Conspicuously ignoring questions about equal protection, and
substituting fear-mongering about the huge and unfair cost of
spousal benefits for homos.
Again calling you on shallowly, transparently seeking to avoid
extending equal protection to an unpopular group, while giving
pro-forma condemnation to the existence of spousal benefits for
anyone.
You doth protest too much, methinks.
----
And you seem to reveal your own agenda, or at least your attitude,
by using loaded phrases such as "fear-mongering" (when did I monger
fear?), "benefits for homos" (when did I ever use "homos"?), and
"shallowly, transparently" (as if I am trying and failing to
conceal something, yet my cards are on the table). If you want to
discuss the issue in a civilized way, with an eye toward solving
problems, fine. If you want to pretend to be civilized but use the
tactics of scorched-earth, marginalization politics to belittle
participants who hold views you oppose, and to obtain privilege for
some at others' expense, then go over and stand with the "American
Empire" neocons, who may even be able to give you some useful
pointers.
By the way, I do not just give pro-forma condemnation to spousal
benefits for everyone, I have actively opposed, argued, and voted
against government mandates of special benefits, whether it be
spousal benefits of any kind for anyone, the precise composition of
auto-insurance or health insurance coverage, etc.
Let's suppose my view prevails: Gays get full marriage status
EXCEPT that nobody has to pay involuntarily for gay spouses. Now
suppose that this energizes you to mount a successful retaliatory
campaign to eliminate ALL mandatory spousal benefits. ("I'll show
that shallow, transparent, protesting-too-much SOB what REAL equal
protection is!") Will I complain that my marriage rights and my
human dignity are somehow being diminished? No. I will work all the
harder to make the government smaller, so that it doesn't take as
much money out of EVERYONE's pockets, rendering the loss of
marriage subsidy as irrelevant. Work with me and other libertarians
to actually make things BETTER, rather than increasing the pain and
spreading it around, as privilege-seeking proposals tend to do.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Will I complain that my marriage rights and my human dignity are somehow being diminished?
No, but 275,000,000 non-libertarian heterosexual Americans most
probably will.
|6.24.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Work with me and other libertarians to actually make things
BETTER, rather than increasing the pain and spreading it around, as
privilege-seeking proposals tend to do.
Next item of business on J.A.M's 'liberatarian' agenda is the
withdrawal of marriage rights and rights of inheritance from blacks
and mexican populations. You know, so that we can decrease the pain
and have less of it to spread around.
|6.24.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Rhywun wrote:
"But forcing one person to subsidize another's relationship or
choice of life partner goes way beyond 'protection,' and well into
"protection racket" territory."
So... in order for gays to secure the rights of marriage that
heterosexuals enjoy, they have to be willing to first become good
little libertarians and demand that the government cease all forms
of redistribution? I guess they'll be waiting a very long time,
then.
----
They don't have to demand that government cease all forms of
redistribution. Why do you feel the need to offer a false
dichotomy? But they would stay on the compelling point of human
dignity and demonstrate their sincerity to attain same by not also
demanding an extension of spousal benefit entitlement.
As I see it, the same-sex marriage movement is a lot like the
monkey in the parable: Having reached for the nut in the trap
through holes just barely large enough to admit a hand, the monkey
won't let go and remains trapped, despite strongly desiring
freedom. I think that clinging to the nut of spousal benefit
entitlement under law undercuts the case for human dignity and
rather suggests that the real motivation is a grab for privilege,
and that as long as this question remains, same-sex marriage
proponents will have a much harder road to travel. It would be very
easy to prove me wrong: Let go of that point and see where the
moral high-road leads.
|6.24.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Val wrote:
"Work with me and other libertarians to actually make things
BETTER, rather than increasing the pain and spreading it around, as
privilege-seeking proposals tend to do."
Next item of business on J.A.M's 'liberatarian' agenda is the
withdrawal of marriage rights and rights of inheritance from blacks
and mexican populations. You know, so that we can decrease the pain
and have less of it to spread around.
-------------------------
Wow. I must have hit a nerve, to have attracted vicious,
unsupported ad hominem attack so quickly. You can go over and stand
by the neocons too, Val. Tonio needs the company, and you might
also learn something that you can use in your next smear.
|6.24.08 @ 5:25PM|#
J.A.M. -
What a crock of shit
"Prove to us that you aren't doing it just for the money by not
taking the money"
Why do they have to prove anything to you?
|6.24.08 @ 5:26PM|#
It's tiring for me too. But what you call a "black hole of unwavering prejudice" I call a "neutron star of tenacious integrity"
|6.24.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Rhywun wrote:
"ill I complain that my marriage rights and my human dignity are
somehow being diminished?"
No, but 275,000,000 non-libertarian heterosexual Americans most
probably will.
---
But you're ignoring the supposition of my argument -- that the
campaign to remove those benefits were successful, which entails
that those complaints either did not surface, or did not prevail.
Why might that be, you may ask yourself? Since we're just
supposing, I'll suppose that someone made the persuasive case that
a reorganization and downsizing of government, and major changes in
the tax code, allowed for net tax reductions that equaled or
bettered previous marriage subsidies, but which applied to ALL,
married or not.
Les|6.24.08 @ 5:32PM|#
I think that clinging to the nut of spousal benefit
entitlement under law undercuts the case for human dignity and
rather suggests that the real motivation is a grab for privilege,
and that as long as this question remains, same-sex marriage
proponents will have a much harder road to travel.
I think the road will be hard as long as two people who are in love
and want to marry each other are constantly faced with strangers
baselessly accusing them of being disingenuous about their love for
each other.
Episiarch|6.24.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Well, Chris, if you want to be as dense as a neutron star, that's your prerogative.
|6.24.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Reinmoose wrote:
J.A.M. -
What a crock of shit
"Prove to us that you aren't doing it just for the money by not
taking the money"
Why do they have to prove anything to you?
----
So you are saying it is enough about money to be a dealbreaker
then? And that you are arguing largely for redistribution of
wealth, or at least government control of same, in a libertarian
forum? Makes for lots of sparks, I guess, and more than a little
heat, as we've seen, but not much light.
As far as "proving anything to you," are you using "you" in the
singular or plural? If the singular, I suppose you don't have to
prove anything to this lone voter. But if plural, then that
probably refers to Rhywun's "275,000,000 non-libertarian
heterosexual Americans," who might be willing to do the right thing
and support simple human dignity, but not if they have to pay an
additional charge for the privilege. I'm just sayin'.
|6.24.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Wow. I must have hit a nerve, to have attracted vicious,
unsupported ad hominem attack so quickly. You can go over and stand
by the neocons too, Val. Tonio needs the company, and you might
also learn something that you can use in your next
smear.
Lol, I was trying to be snarky. You know using a little hiperboly,
to illustrate the idiotic position you are taking. A nerve was hit
indeed, but it wasnt mine.
Lets take another parllel here, James, the disrepancy between crack
and cocaine minimums. Should we continue sentencing cracks users
(predominantly black) to 50 times as much jail time as cocaine
users (mainly white), until the such time that all drugs are
legalized? Is it right for me, being white, to say, 'Fuck that, no
changes to drug sentencing until all drug laws are repealed. Maybe
this way the people will rise up and repeal those laws
faster.'
You speak to us from a dellusional self-perceived position of moral
superiority. You, a member of the benefting majority, feel that you
are taking a moral stance by not extending the same benefit as you
enjoy to members of an unpopular minority. So this minority has to
continue to live with a very real inequality and cary your burden,
while you do jack shit to cary theirs.
|6.24.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Merritt:
I consider that others have effectively rebutted you on the
merits.
I stand by my characterizations that your arguments were
fear-mongering, transparent and shallow. If you believe that's a
vicious, ad-hominem attack, then you're incredibly sensitive, and
out of touch with the reality of internet debate.
The phrase "homos" was my own, and not attributed to you. Don't see
how you a reasonable person could make that assumption. When I
quote someone, it's either in quotes or italicized.
Losing on the merits, so playing the victim card are we?
|6.24.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Les wrote:
"I think that clinging to the nut of spousal benefit entitlement
under law undercuts the case for human dignity and rather suggests
that the real motivation is a grab for privilege, and that as long
as this question remains, same-sex marriage proponents will have a
much harder road to travel."
I think the road will be hard as long as two people who are in love
and want to marry each other are constantly faced with strangers
baselessly accusing them of being disingenuous about their love for
each other.
-----
Speaking only for myself (since you quoted me), I didn't accuse
anyone of that. Rather, I said that the movement may have a problem
with a perception -- one which didn't originate with me and which
would exist and propagate without me, as it did before I became
aware of it. I offered one approach to dealing with that
perception, which was immediately deemed "a crock of shit" and -- I
suppose -- thus rejected by that person and some others here.
On the other hand, if gay couples were effectively discouraged from
marrying, or discouraged from fighting for legal status for gay
marriages because of the lack of one subsidy or another, then it
would be fair to question their commitment to each other or to the
movement, respectively, since many people, including yours truly,
have endured a lot worse to hold onto something worthwhile like
love and a family. Haven't you?
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 6:00PM|#
But you're ignoring the supposition of my argument -- that the campaign to remove those benefits were successful
Again, I don't see anyone in the "protect marriage" movement making
that argument. Not anyone being taken seriously, that is.
might be willing to do the right thing and support simple human dignity, but not if they have to pay an additional charge for the privilege
This presumes that homosexuals even have to ask permission of
heterosexuals to be allowed to marry. Some states have found that
indeed, they do not.
|6.24.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Val wrote:
Lets take another parllel here, James, the disrepancy between crack
and cocaine minimums.
---
Not a proper parallel, is it? If we reduce extreme sentencing, that
makes things better for all (unless you are of the drug warrior
mentality, which declares that the existence of any addict,
anywhere endangers society), without making things worse for anyone
(except the prison guards and drug warriors, perhaps, who might end
up with less work to do). If gay marriage, including spousal
benefit entitlements, becomes the law of the land, then some will
benefit at the expense of others, just as some now benefit through
heterosexual spousal benefit entitlements.
I mean, I get the point that you are calling my position extreme
and ridiculing me for that. But trying to say that my position is
the wrong one by pulling arbitrary extreme positions out of your
nether orifices and showing how ridiculous THEY are is just
junior-high school debate silliness, which I hope is not an example
of the kind of thing Tonio cites when saying that "others have
effectively rebutted" me on the merits of my argument.
Rhywun|6.24.08 @ 6:07PM|#
On the other hand, if gay couples were effectively discouraged from marrying, or discouraged from fighting for legal status for gay marriages because of the lack of one subsidy or another, then it would be fair to question their commitment to each other or to the movement, respectively, since many people, including yours truly, have endured a lot worse to hold onto something worthwhile like love and a family. Haven't you?
WTF? I don't spend my days worrying about whether heterosexuals'
motives for getting married are 100% orthodox. The barriers you're
setting up against gays just keep getting higher and higher.
|6.24.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Tonio wrote,
"Losing on the merits, so playing the victim card are we?"
----
Not at all; only evoking the old saying that he who resorts to ad
hominem attack has nothing better or more persuasive to say, and
has himself ceded the merits of the opponent's argument. Your most
recent posting did nothing to change that situation.
Finally, I've been involved with the "reality of the internet
debate" since it was being carried out on message boards loosely
connected by store-and-forward dial-up connections (most people not
being able to access the D/Arpanet at the time). What you call
"being incredibly sensitive," I label as "calling 'em as I see
'em," in what I hope is as civil a fashion as possible, given the
circumstances. The whole macho flash, in your face thing lost its
appeal a long time ago. But carry on if that makes you happy.
|6.24.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Rhywun wrote,
WTF? I don't spend my days worrying about whether heterosexuals'
motives for getting married are 100% orthodox.
=====
Me either. I do, however, like many libertarians, spend a
reasonable amount of time worrying about how to convince them to
give up marriage subsidy, and to reform government and the tax
system to make that subsidy irrelevant.
=====
Rhywun also wrote,
The barriers you're setting up against gays just keep getting
higher and higher.
=====
So you are saying that forgoing a marriage subsidy would be a
barrier to gays? That if I had the power to snap my fingers and
legalize gay marriage with all the rights and privileges EXCEPT
spousal benefits entitlement, you'd reject the package as
inadequate? Or that, after accepting the package, you'd immediately
start to campaign for spousal benefits entitlement instead of
trying to make such a thing unnecessary for anyone and sowing the
seeds for it to go away completely?
Again, arguing for ways to make the pie bigger and/or giving more
people access to it "just to be fair" isn't a good way to win
points in a libertarian forum.
You do make a good point about "spending one's days," however. So
having said what I had to say and defended it against unkind
interpretation and misunderstanding as best I could, I think I'll
just let it rest. Have fun storming the castle.
|6.24.08 @ 6:20PM|#
James, I didnt say hey lets look at drug sentencing minumums
because its the exact same thing as gay marriage.
The parallel was with an unfair discriminatory practice and the way
it should be corrected. Plus the parallel of having a memeber of
the benefiting majority, my self with drug sentencing, and you with
gay marriage, taking a 'principled' position whereby I will
graciosly let the minority finally receive equal protection but
only after they help me achieve my goals.
Also, if the government does not examine every hetero marraige
application to make sure that they are indeed getting married for
love and children and not for 'financial' gain, why the hell do you
feel that homosexual marriage can only be ok after they give up
their rights to those same financial benefits?
ZMan|6.24.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Wow, CPot got pummeled like one of those tomato cans Tyson used
to beat up early in his career. James isn't faring too well
either.
"On the other hand, if gay couples were effectively discouraged
from marrying, or discouraged from fighting for legal status for
gay marriages because of the lack of one subsidy or another, then
it would be fair to question their commitment to each other or to
the movement, respectively, since many people, including yours
truly, have endured a lot worse to hold onto something worthwhile
like love and a family. Haven't you?"
That's the contortion of the day.
Les|6.24.08 @ 7:10PM|#
James,
If I sound obtuse, it's because I am, so bear with me. Is the basis
of your argument that because government's involvement in the
institution of marriage is fundamentally unfair, that it would only
make things worse, in terms of unfairness, if we increase the
number of people getting married by allowing homosexuals to do so?
And that if the government was not involved in any way in anyone's
marriage, that it would then be acceptable to allow homosexuals to
marry?
Les|6.24.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Upon further research, I guess Ortega was a dictator of sorts from '79 until '84, when elections were held.
|6.24.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Roberto Leibman | June 24, 2008, 12:57pm | #
Living in his district (and being chair of the county LP) I'm
really ambivalent about McClintock. He's better than DoLittle, and
I'm glad he beat Ose (more of a neo-con). But he did so on a
campaign of "I'm the most conservative of the two", i.e. not on
positive "I'm more pro-freedom". I've tried to contact him, since
we (almost purposefully) are not running an LP candidate against
him to see if he'd like our endorsment, but have received no
reply.
...AKA "we have nobody to run against him."
|6.24.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Offtopic, but there was always been the right of gays to get
married, and a new marriage amendment would not get rid of that
right. It has always been legal in California for a gay man to
marry a gay women. And vice versa.
The unfortunate side effect of "gay marriage" is that it's going to
make it that much harder for polyamorists and polygamists to marry.
The precedent has now been made that it's up to the government to
define marriage.
Michael Ejercito|6.24.08 @ 9:10PM|#
I suppose he thinks he's being less offensive by recognizing that there are also institutions that straight people use to erode his concept of the institution of marriage, when in fact he is merely equating two loving people wanting to be legally recognized in a legitimate union with no-fault divorce and welfare.
Of course he is equating the three. They are all attacks on the
family.
Eric Dondero|6.24.08 @ 10:25PM|#
Even if NeoFascist Obama wins this election, if McClintock
manages to win this Congressional seat, we can still strike this
election season up as a huge victory for the libertarian
movement.
Of course, Bob Barr's vote total matters, as well.
My definition of libertarian success for 2008:
McClintock wins!
Bob Barr gains at least 2 to 3 million votes.
Failure?
McClintock loses
Barr dissapoints with 500,000 votes
Obama wins the Presidency
Mike Laursen|6.25.08 @ 1:13AM|#
Offtopic, but ... It has always been legal in California for
a gay man to marry a gay women.
You're right, Brandybuck, that is off topic. :-)
The unfortunate side effect of "gay marriage" is that it's
going to make it that much harder for polyamorists and polygamists
to marry.
I suppose it could work out that way. One usually hears the
opposite argument being made: that allowing "gay marriage" is a
slippery slope that will eventually lead to people being allowed to
marry their dogs.
|6.26.08 @ 1:49PM|#
McClintock is a worthless ATHEIST carpetbagger who views the 4th as a steping stone.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245