Reason Morning Links: Parking Prices, a Border Bill, and the Big Baby Conspiracy

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

  • SIV||

    Just wait till those terror babies grow up and get hooked on strawberry flavored meth!

  • ||

    Hold it. Glenn Beck is a fundie right? He can't be for gay marriage. That has got to be a lie.

  • Brett L||

    Blacks overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage. He's obviously a racist who hates black people.

  • Almanian||

    I actually saw his comments last night. Have to admit, I was surprised.

    Good on him, as far as I'm concerned.

  • ||

    I am not. Beck is a nut and a showman. But he has never been any sort of social conservative. Libertarians assume he is a fundie because they think everyone they don't like is either a fundie or a communist.

  • ||

    He's a mormon. So I don't think he can believe in gay marriages.

  • ||

    Beck is selectively insane. He builds up goodwill and credibility on economic matters, then blows it on his conservative boilerplate religious views.

  • ||

    Being pro gay marriage is a "conservative boilerplate religious view"? I think that will come as a surprise to some people.

  • ||

    Yes, he's also inconsistent. And being "pro" gay marriage isn't the same thing as recognizing the civil right, just as being "pro choice" doesn't mean you encourage abortion.

  • ||

    So supporting the legality of something is not good enough? You have to support it as a right?

  • ||

    I'll leave it to others to address your sophistries, as I've already exceeded my daily ration.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Isn't that like saying it's not enough to be pro-drug legalization, but you also have to USE drugs in order to support it fully?

    Not that I'm against drug use, mind you...

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I never heard him say he was "pro" gay marriage - just that, since it doesn't harm him or the country, and in light of the fact we've got much bigger and more important issues to deal with, he didn't see the need to get all worked up about it.

  • ||

    That I could believe.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I can't believe you would say that gay marriage isn't the most pressing issue we face.

    Bush convinced us it was. Twice. All while he was dicking us over with 2 foreign wars as well as various other neo-con bullshit.

  • ||

    Basically, he seemed to be saying, as long as the Mormon Church or any other church retains the right to preach against the immorality of gay sex, and to prohibit such marriage ceremonies in Mormon Temples, he's OK with it.

    Which seems entirely reasonable and in accordance with the Constitution.

  • Cap'n NoStar||

    Maybe that described him 3 years ago, but Beck has become libertarian through his self-education over the last 2 years.

    Watch his show for one week. You will be amazed.

  • ||

    I think he is annoying. I don't watch his show for that reason. But I have never quite gotten the hate on here for him.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I also question the hate. The god talk can get old, but I (usually) find his radio stuff much more entertaining than annoying. I've never see his cable show, though.

  • Rudan||

    No.

  • ||

    Glenn Beck is a mormon. Most 'fundies' would not consider him to be one of them. Lefties take him for a fundie because he openly professes a belief in an active god.

  • ||

    I didn't know he was a Mormon.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I have listened to him on and off for nearly 9 years - well before he really hit it big.

    He has gotten a little nuttier in recent years, on some issues, but overall, he does not get a fair shake from a lot of people.

    I find him entertaining - he can be pretty funny, actually, but yeah, there are some issues he gets a little too breathless about - but no more so than Hannity and Limbaugh, who I find less entertaining and more annoying than Beck. Hannity actually doesn't strike me as all that bright sometimes - and he often is pretty disingenuous in the positions he takes. He is too much of a party-line Republican shill. Beck definitely is not. And I have at least heard Limbaugh criticize the Repubs from time to time - but unfortunately, it's usually for not being partisan enough or taking a hard enough stance on some issue - like gay marriage.

  • ||

    I have never listened to Hanity and didn't even know who he was until recently. I used to listen to Limbaugh back in the 1990s. Back then at least Limbaugh was pretty damned funny if nothing else.

    I watched a little of Beck back when he was on CNN. He didn't seem that crazy back then. But he seems to have gotten worse. I think he figured out that the louder he was the more viewers he got and the more money he made.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Glenn Beck sold about three and a half zillion copies of The Road to Serfdom.

    For all his warts, I'd say that's a pretty good start. Whether his audience actually starts believing Hayek is another matter.

  • ||

    "Glenn Beck sold about three and a half zillion copies of The Road to Serfdom."

    Very true. You would think he would get some love from Reason for that if nothing else. I don't see how anyone could read that book and not have their views on economic policy change at least somewhat for the better. But Reason often loves their hipster culture more than they love their ideas. And Beck is culturally verboten.

  • ||

    Too bad Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lemour are all dead. That would make a great, "Road to..." movie.

  • Liberals ||

    We LOVE that book! It's a great way to promote serfdom!

    Oh, wait...

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Beck can lick my asshole immediately after I take my next shit for that 5 fucking minute pro-cop "we should thank them and be eternally grateful for being selfless public servants willing to take a bullet for us at any time" tirade he was selling last week on his TV show.

    I simply can't support anyone with views like that.

  • ||

    You don't have to support Beck to agree that, on this issue, he's nailed the libertarian POV.

  • ||

    I always thought Glenn Beck was a little "funny".

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Fundie? I think it is all an act. Doesn't he say he is libertarian too?

  • ||

    Anybody else notice the Glenn Beck graph? Totally shaped like a penis. Coincidence, or proof of a higher power with a sense of humor?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    If that's what your penis is shaped like, you'd better see a doctor, right quick.

  • ||

    I was surprised by that. Most Mormons I know are really homophobic.

    Good for Glenn Beck. Maybe he is edging closer to libertarianism than I thought.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    More of the new professionalism: an off-duty cop was showing off his handgun to a loan officer and he accidentally fired a shot into the bank's concrete floor.

    Was he arrested for discharging a firearm in public? No. Was he reprimanded for his incredibly careless and in fact, downright reckless and irresponsible handling of a firearm in a public place? No. Was he sanctioned in any way for his ridiculously stupid act, which quite easily could have killed an innocent bank customer?

    Of course not.

    "Watson has been on the force for two years and will remain on active duty."

    Let's one of us try that and see what happens. Likely would end up on the floor with a cop's shoe on your neck and his gun pointed at the back of your head. Then you would be charged with at least a couple crimes, and they would confiscate not only that gun, but then would get a warrant to search your house and confiscate all your others as well.

  • -||

    Yawn.

  • Plaxico Burress||

    Shit, I should have been a cop!

  • Sheriff Taylor||

    Now, calm down, Barely Suppressed. Barn' just got a little confused and thought Otis was robbin' the bank. I'm gonna lock up his bullets until he settles down.

  • ||

    Meh.

    This is a 1.5 on the Balko Scale. To reach a "5" he would have to have killed the loans officer with the stray shot.

  • Ska||

    That would be about a 3.5. A 5 would be intentionally killing the loan officer, then planting small baggies, a scale, and some baking soda in the banker's desk.

  • Ska||

    Sorry, that's based on a scale of 1 to 5, which isn't frequently used. I blame the Netflix voting system.

  • ||

    I was using a 10 point scale.

    Intentionally killing the loan officer, planting the baggie, etc only gets to 8.25.

    Arresting the branch manager and charging him with murdering the loan officer while using asset forefieture to confiscate the bank would raise it to a 9.

  • hmm||

    Leave the scene and then going to the loan officers house w/o a warrant on 4th party information to look for drugs and subsequently shooting the loan officers pet bloodhound in front of the loan officers pregnant wife and 5 year old autistic daughter, and then having to dispatch the homes parakeet for insulting the officer. That might be a 9 or 10. And will probably happen by the end of the year.

    Oh ya they will need to imprison the wife for video taping the officer shooting the dog and parakeet under some vague "I know it when I see it" wire tap law.

  • ||

    DC's finest.

    The nurses did their best to fill her in. They said she’d apparently been hit by a car while Rollerblading. That made some sense to Wiseman. A big fan of the old-school transit method, Wiseman Rollerblades all over town, and always from her apartment in Columbia Heights to her job as a waiter and bartender at Eighteenth Street Lounge near Dupont Circle. But Wiseman, 26, didn’t know when or where the accident occurred.

    She soon found a clue, in the form of a traffic ticket issued by the Metropolitan Police Department. The nurses told Wiseman it had arrived with her in the ambulance. She had been cited — while unconscious, as far as she knows — for crossing against a “don’t walk” signal, or jaywalking. The fine was $25.

    Wiseman had three skull fractures, a broken cheek, three cracked ribs, and a broken pelvis. She was on morphine but conscious enough to be infuriated. “The police never followed up with me,” she says via Skype, bedridden and holding a bag of frozen peas to her face days after the accident. “They just left the ticket.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08.....z0wUVpDul3

  • -||

    She was on morphine but conscious enough to be infuriated

    That describes several of H&R's prominent, full-time commentators.

  • ||

    If only morphine were legal and available. That sounds like a good state.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And they still manage to be more coherent and cogent than you.

  • ||

    Well, maybe someday he'll grow up to be an em dash.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Doubtful, as the comments from hyphen thus far show no signs of maturity.

  • -||

    You're so cute when you get offended.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Offended? Nah. You're not (yet) offensive. It would take a hell of a lot more than the silliness you've done so far to offend me.

    I'm barely even at "marginally annoyed" yet.

    Guess you need to try harder.

  • hmm||

    I find his comments short and linear. Coincidence?

  • ||

    Why have terror babies when you can just recruit American citizens? And they are doing that reasonably effectively.

  • ||

    I think it something to do with a desire to see all villains as Bond story type villains.

    When developing schemes to dispatch 007the Great Satan, the most convoluted intricate expensive indirect ones are the ones that get put in motion.

    This in the face of the plain fact that the 9/11 plot was marked by its utter simplicity and directness. Not without its flaws, mind you, but sufficiently well executed to escape notice by the intelligence authorities in several different nations.

  • ||

    Lee Harvey Oswald syndrome. People invent bizarre conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination because they just can't accept that some nobody disgruntled communist cold kill the President.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    The inventions go so far as to call Oswald "right wing".

  • RyanXXX||

    Yea, John, never mind the glaring inconsistencies or the suspicious timing of the assassination, or the bullshit investigation that came after

  • Grassy Knoll||

    Nothing to see here.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Ryan, how do you feel about chemtrails?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. There's no fucking way the gubmint could keep silent all of the people it would have required to pull that off.

    I have an uncle who is retired from working for the Pentagon in military intelligence and secure communications. He spent decades both in the military as an officer and as a civilian contractor, working with military intelligance, CIA, NSA, etc. We've had this discussion and he told me that the CIA and NSA basically is made up of people - not robots, not demi-gods - people - many of whom are bureaucratic ass-kissers just like any other government agency. And these agencies have not cornered the market on competency. Just imagine the dozens, if not hundreds of people it would take to pull of either the Kennedy assasination or 9/11 - and then keep it completely and totally secret from anyone else for so long.

    Bullshit.

    Lee Harvey got off a couple good shots. Because, after all, he learned to shoot like that "in the Marines!"

    And all the nonsense about the "magic bullet" has been disproven, due to factual errors in the reports with regard to where Governor Connally was sitting relative to Kennedy.

  • ||

    Actually, my favorite part of the various conspiracies is that they ALL require the active collaboration of the Attorney General of the United States to carry them out.

    Now, I think Bobby Kennedy was a nasty SOB and would have been a worse President than Nixon, but I can't quite see him collaborating in the assassination of his brother.

    (And even if you think he would, why would he want to put LBJ in power, with whom he had a mutual loathing? RFK knew LBJ well enough to know that LBJ could put major roadblocks in RFK's own presidential ambitions.)

  • ||

    I saw a show about Air Force One, and while talking about the sadest trip it ever flew was taking JFK's body back. But the person being interview mentioned that the trip through Daley Plaza wasn't the original route and was changed a couple of days prior.

    I don't know if that's true, and I've been curious about it ever since. If it is true, how did Ozwald know in advance to check out the Book depository?

  • ||

    Extra shooters are not necessary for the conspiracy that he was killed by someone in our government. Nor would it be necessary that the AG know.

    It wouldn't be the first time a false conspiracy was used to cover a covert government action. Can you say Roswell?

  • ||

    Are "terrorbabies" going to be the next big thing? I can see action figures, a cartoon series...dolls that say "I keel you!"

  • TerrorBaby||

    Ca-Ching!!

  • Brett L||

    Which one of you used your GPS logger to scrawl "Read Ayn Rand" across Google Earth?

  • ||

    The comments on that are filled with some aggressive know-nothings.

  • Brett L||

    Wired commenters are evenly divided between tools and spambots. I don't even read them anymore. Being in IT, I have a special hate for the borderline Asberger's syndrome smarmy hipster dicks so well represented in those comments.

  • ||

    There is some amazing economic ignorance going on there. Did you know that markets are all local and would never globalize if not for the government?

  • Spoonman.||

    Yes, if not for the government, there would never be trade between Boston and New York...somewhere in the middle of Hartford, everyone switches from trading with Boston to trading with New York. The Boston side would lose nearly all recognition of the letter "r".

  • Warty||

    In a libertarian society, there is no internet since markets are local not global optimizers. It never makes sense for a single company to provide scale since they won't make the money back from it. Long term research is also in this category -- the only ones who do this are monopolies or governments. This is why GPS, microchips, internet, spaceflight were all developed by government. It's also true that government needs to then step back as did happen in 3 of the 4 things above, now the 4th is happening. This is also why cell phone service in the US is so backwards. Local companies. Anywhere else in the world you just grab any phone, any sim card and it just fricking works. That's government for you.

    Finally, 2 things are unstable and both end in tyranny: Governments AND markets. They need constant re-balance, constant regulation. There is no "static" solution. We need a gov-private dynamic.

    What ever do you mean, SugarFree?

  • ||

    That was the one I was talking about. What a buffoon.

  • Warty||

    It never makes sense for a single company to provide scale since they won't make the money back from it.

    This one makes my head asplode the most. Has he never heard of Walmart?

  • ||

    This is why GPS, microchips, internet, spaceflight were all developed by government.


    Holy crap. Do any of these government fellators realize that private contractors end up doing most, if not all, of the heavy lifting here? Hell, NASA is practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of a well-known defense contractor.

  • J_L_B||

    GPS, microchips, internet, spaceflight were all developed by government

    Government commissions these things strictly for defense purposes. GPS was intended for us to find our own tanks, planes, bombs in a time of war; the internet was a means for better communication after a nuclear war; and microchips were developed allow for the production of smaller (and hence toughter to defend against) weaponry. The purpose of these items were always to protect us from those pesky Soviets, and currently, those even peskier Al Qaedas.

    Private and civilian use of these creations are never intentional, and often results only after some hesitation on the part of the government.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Because it's Friday:

    The only fully libertarian country I know of on Earth is Somalia, why don't you move to your libertarian paradise?

  • Brett L||

    Saw that. Apparently not able to distinguish between libertarianism and failed state despotism.

  • ||

    Somalia economy stronger than others in Africa, UN-backed meeting says.

    And if you don't trust the UN the CIA has reached pretty much the same conclusion. And if you don't trust the CIA either the the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Independent Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education all report good things about economic development in Somalia.

    I think both sides have a distorted view of what's going on in Somalia. But there is plenty of evidence indicating that much of Somalia's woes come from outsiders upsetting the delicate balance of power between tribal factions by backing one chief or groups of chiefs over others.

    I am not married to this idea as I do not have enough solid information to back it up.

  • ||

    Of course, economics isn't everything. There's loads of cultural practices enforced by tradition and taboo that Americans and Europeans would find less than congenial.

  • ||

    Somalia for all its faults is doing better than its crony socialist neighbors, which is a result that would surprise these morons.

  • ||

    There were some interesting articles by some Dutch ancap guy in Liberty magazine a few years ago.

    The way he described it a centuries old system of governance that relied on a balance of power and a certain interdependence between tribal faction kept the peace in Somalia until the post colonial and post-colonial period where successive levels of British, Italian, Soviet and American bolstering one chief or another broke the equilibrium.

    I'm pretty sure that's the narrative tha LVMI, II and FEE are working from, though I doubt it's how the CIA and the UN see it.

    And, of course, it's not like it's something that's not open to question.

  • ||

    ""Somalia for all its faults is doing better than its crony socialist neighbors, which is a result that would surprise these morons.""

    Is that with our without pirate revenues?

  • ||

    Apparently not able to distinguish between libertarianism and failed state despotism.

    At this point in history, anarchy can only arise in the aftermath of a failed state. So anarchist attempts to define away Somalia as "not anarchy, but a failed state" are futile.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The only good state they know, where government takes care of everything for everyone, is North Korea. Why don't they move there?

    Gosh! Setting Up Strawmen is a fun game!

  • Paul Krugman||

    You don't know how right you are, BakedPenguin... North Korea is, indeed, a wonderful model, and I'm doing all I can to help bring it here.

  • Brett L||

    Zimbabwe is another.

  • ||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08.....=1&hp;
    "In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain.

    The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world."

    This is a very good precedent. I have always thought such an effort would be very productive in climate science. But that might prevent them from lying and manipulating the data, and what fun is that?

  • ||

    Thanks to a cluster of aircraft manufacturers such as Learjet, Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, the economic focus of Wichita – population 366,000 – is very different from the emphasis on services and consumer demand typical of 21st-century America. According to a study published late last month by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank, nearly 28 per cent of the city’s gross metropolitan product is sold abroad. That makes it the most export-oriented in the country, just ahead of Portland, Oregon – noted for its computer and electronics companies – and San Jose in California’s Silicon Valley.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3589.....abdc0.html

    What is the matter with Kansas? Don't they know the way to prosperity is to attract young urban hipsters doing green jobs and writing screenplays? What is with this making shit to sell?

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Instead of a link, a true story of The Intellectual Superiority of our Government Masters:

    Recently, I received my neighbor's mail by mistake. Again. Since I was home, I ran down the mail carrier and returned the mail and asked WTF? I was informed by my Government Intellectual Superior that since the houses didn't have numbers on them (actually, the one we were in front of and that she used as an example did have numbers on the overhang, but you had to look up to see them) and they don't have time to check the numbers on the curb, the USPS had no choice, no choice mind you, but to count and guess which house is which when delivering mail.

    And that's why I always get the wrong mail and why my mail goes to someone else's house.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Write the number on your mailbox. You probably shouldn't have to do that, but it's easier than visitng your neighbors every day.

  • PR||

    Good to know. I always thought it was because my mailman couldn't read.

  • DG||

    Fucking GPS. How does it work?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    If it's like the GPS in my truck, it doesn't. It always says "You have arrived at your destination" when I'm about four houses down the street.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Like magnets

  • Joe||

    Magic?

  • Brett L||

    I think it has something to do with the Interstellar Aether.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Phlogiston.

  • ||

    If your box is by the cub or roadside (the kind the carrier pulls up to in a truck), the solution is to put the number on the box, which used to be a PO regulation, if it isn't still. The idea being that the carrier just has to look in the same place for the info every time.

    I suspect that a private carrier trying to provide the lowest cost service would require this kind of standardization as well or start imposing premium charges for the extra service. Obviously some competitors might decide to dispense with that kind of regimentation, catering to a market that is prepared to pay extra for the coddling.

  • ||

    Also, I'm not entirely sure what DG's comment on GPS has to do with longtorso's comment.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Get a P.O. box. I've had one for like fifteen years or so. Bonus: I get maybe three or four pieces of junk mail a year, versus the three or four per month I get at my home mailbox.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The president sends his ethics czar to the Czech Republic.

    ...and replaces him with a political insider pimp from the DNC. Jesus, the shameless motherfucker isn't even trying anymore.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Is this TSA's dream? Or nightmare?

  • ||

    Right after 9-11, my girl friend at the time did a lot of business travel. She got taken out of line at the airport all the time. She was a young, single attractive female and gee the men in the security station always wanted to go through her stuff. Finally she got so tired of it, she packed and assortment of sex toys on her next trip. Sure enough they pulled her out. But they regretted doing it.

  • Sceptic||

    Yea, right. That's why she packed those toys. Sure.

  • Spoonman.||

    Before 9-11, when my sister was in high school, she got her stuff searched every time we flew by the private guys.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Why would they regret that? She should've just put several large, conspicuous tubes of yeast infection medication in the bag.

  • Some dude||

    OK, so there are two guys, Joe and Schmoe, living in California sometime over the last 150 years or so where marriage was limited to opposite-sex couples. Neither are married. Both have reasons for not being married. Joe's reasons aren't relevant to the discussion. Schmoe has similar reasons to Joe, but one of his reasons is that he just isn't that into women.

    Why is Schmoe's due process and/or equal protection violated? Because he as different reasons for not being married than Joe? The whole thing doesn't make any sense.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Nice strawman.

  • Some dude||

    There is no logical fallacy here. You can't call the facts a strawman just because they are inconvenient.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Does Joe have a partner to whom he desires to be married? And if so, is the state preventing him from doing so? Ditto Schmoe.

    The issue is not choosing not to be married, but attempting to become married.

    And I'm not fully convinced there really is a terribly strong due process or equal protection argument to be made, at least as that jurisprudence has developed.

    It's really more just a public policy argument. But too many people are too impatient to argue policy choices and push for legislative change. Everybody always wants to go right for the "nuclear option" - the argument that their particular policy preference is a fundamental right absolutely protected by the Constitution, somehow, someway.

  • Some dude||

    "Does Joe have a partner to whom he desires to be married? And if so, is the state preventing him from doing so? Ditto Schmoe."

    I do not see why this is relevant to their due process/equal protection, but to answer the question, yes. There are four females Joe wouldn't mind marrying but the state is preventing him from marrying all three. One woman won't consent to marriage. One woman is currently married to someone else. One is his sister. One is a ten year old girl.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    More straw men.

    First, as to why it's relevant - if they are simply choosing not to be married, then there is no due process or equal protection violation because they have not attempted to do something that other people legally can do but that the state has prevented these two from doing. You have to have an actual case or controversy - i.e., you need to have been denied a right or protection that the state provides others, before you can press a claim that your due process or equal protection rights have been violated.

    As to the misdirections you posit, there is no violation there, because the state disallows marriage under those circumstances to EVERYONE.

    And, as I said in my prior post, I don't know that the due process/equal protection argument really is the best one anyhow. It's really just a public policy argument, not necessarily an outcome demanded by the Constitution.

  • ||

    There are no equal protection problems. Fags are free to marry woman if they want! HURR DURR!

  • Some dude||

    It's true! As evidenced by the fact that your only possible response is a weak attempt at ridicule.

  • TerrorBaby||

    Recalibrate your sarcasm meter, fuckwad.

  • ||

    Yes. That is my only possible response to idiots. Ridicule. And weak ridicule at that... because you don't deserve any better.

  • Leroy||

    Its almost as if your response is based entirely on your emotional knee-jerk reaction, rather than a rational look at the basis of his argument...

  • ||

    When he comes up with a rational argument, I'll take a look at it. All I see is the same crap bigots always come up with. If he can't understand the difference between two men marrying and a father marrying his daughter, I'm not going to take on the herculean task of educating him. Kindergarten should have taken care of that.

  • Some dude||

    If taught the general concept of the birds and the bees, someone with a kindergarten-level education would probably be very confused about man/man marriage.

  • Rhywun||

    "Marriage" and "procreation" have been thoroughly decoupled for what, five decades now?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    "Marriage" and "procreation" have been thoroughly decoupled for what, five decades now?

    Far longer, I should think.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Fine. Then you would not have a problem reinstituting miscegenation laws.

  • ||

    Those laws absolutely force people to accept mixed race marriage. And they effectively outlaw a particular form of racism. In the same way, state sanctioned same sex marriage will effectively outlaw objection to homosexuality. That is not a bad result, but what gets outlawed next? And indeed, don't libertarians object to anti discrimination laws?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    John,

    This is like arguing that we need to restrict immigration because we have a welfare state. The particular instance of injustice does not warrant imposing another injustice.

    IOW, two wrongs don't make a right, John.

  • ||

    No, it is saying that there are negative consequences that come with doing this. You can't force one thing without outlawing its opposite.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What are the negative consequences that came along with outlawing miscegenation statutes?

    And what are the negative consequences that will come from allowing same-sex couples to marry?

  • Some dude||

    "As to the misdirections you posit, there is no violation there, because the state disallows marriage under those circumstances to EVERYONE."

    As you say. The state disallows marriage to siblings for EVERYONE, not just people who want to marry their sister. And the state disallowed marriage to someone of the same sex to EVERYONE, not just people who want to marry into their own sex. So yea, you proved my point.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    You really seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I have said twice now, and I will say it once more: although I do believe there is an equal protection argument to be made, I agree it's not the strongest. In fact, if you will look above, I explicitly said that the question of whether to allow homosexual marriage is "really just a public policy argument, not necessarily an outcome demanded by the Constitution."

    Although, again, I can see a reasonable equal protect/due process argument being made. But I don't think it's a sure-fire, slam-dunk, no-brainer winning argument.

    As to your strawmen - it used to be the case that some states denied interracial marriage to EVERYONE. So I guess there was no equal protection violation there either, was there? I mean, that was the law for generations, until the SCOTUS "discovered" the problem in Loving v. Virginia.

    Of course there is no constitutional issue with regard to the heteros, because they get to marry the object of their desire. They can pick any woman, regardless of skin color, religion, age (obviously, as long as they are legal marriageable age), etc. and marry them.

    Not so for the homosexuals. Sure, they can marry any woman they want to - but they have zero desire to marry a woman. So they can meet the man of their dreams and fall in love and openly make a lifelong commitment to remain together forever - but not have that relationship - which functionally is the same as that between heterosexuals - recognized by the legal machinery.

    Meanwhile, pretty much any guy and any gal can walk into Las Vegas and walk out legally married in 20 minutes.

    So yeah, there is an equal protection argument to made.

  • Mike M.||

    Our good friends in Russia say they are ready to load uranium into Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor eight days from now.

    It's going to be just great having a nuclear Iran.

  • ||

    oooohhhhh! scary!

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah, I know, we've gotten to the point now where nuclear proliferation is just a big joke.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Let's try this little addition, shall we?

    Schmoe has similar reasons to Joe, but one of his reasons is that he just isn't that into women of his own race.
    Why is Schmoe's due process and/or equal protection violated? Because he as different reasons for not being married than Joe? The whole thing doesn't make any sense.

    And how does that work out for you?

  • Some dude||

    Equating same-sex marriage to interracial marriage means being willfully ignorant of the vast differences between those pairings. Are you comfortable with the implication that a white man and a black man are as equally different from each other as a man and a woman are?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    After giving your question careful consideration I'm forced to ask -- what the fuck are you talking about?

  • ||

    "willfully ignorant of the vast differences between those pairings."

    More buttsex?

  • Leroy||

    Umm,

    I believe he is referencing the accepted knowledge that there is a natural difference between the genders, whereas there is no such differences between different races.

    For example, a black man and white man are seperated only by a color, but a man and a woman have different plumbing.

    If you want to equate same sex marriages to interracial marriages, you're forced to accept the notion that races are inherently different at least to the same degree as genders are.

  • TerrorBaby||

    So who do the folks with ambiguous genitalia get to marry and who can't they marry?

  • Leroy||

    Which bathroom do they use?

    All kidding aside, don't assume that I am opposed to homosexual marriages. But just because I may support a position, doesn't mean that I will accept an argument for that position with no logical basis.

    Your question here leads me back to the point I've been arguing, and that is that this is not applied equally according to genders. You can't argue equal protection in this case based on sexual orientation, because the law is applied equally in that regard.

  • Some dude||

    That is a genuinely difficult problem.
    You could say that is an exception that proves the rule that there are differences between men and women.

    The question regarding who someone of ambiguous race can marry just helps illustrate how absurd it is to make racial distinctions in marriage laws.

  • cynical||

    Well, we still tolerate bathroom segregation for male and female, not so for white and black.

  • ||

    Its all kinda crazy when you think about it.

    www.web-privacy.at.tc

  • Warty||

  • BakedPenguin||

    While I agree that no other country does weird like the Japanese, how is that any weirder than any other black metal? Do they not put on clown paint? Also, blog pimping.

  • Warty||

    It has saxophones and organs and shit, plus it has that unmistakable and ineffable Japanese weirdness. It's way weirder to me than ordinary Norwegian black metal.

    Speaking of Gaahl, did you know he and his boyfriend put out a fashion line?

  • smarmy marmot||

    melt banana

  • Draco||

    A person identified only as Me on another recent thread got the the nub of the gay marriage issue as I see it: it's all about forcing public acceptance of homosexual unions on the same terms as heterosexual unions. It has very little to do with the simple contract aspects of marriage (visitation rights, etc.).

    You might prefer the word "requiring" rather than "forcing." But the point is the same.

    Why should that bother libertarians? I'll tell you why. Because, in the age of the Thought Police, this will lead to actual legal penalties or sanctions on those who refuse to give their moral or philosophical assent to the legitimacy of homosexual unions.

    It absolutely will not be "okay" for a church to withhold its assent to these unions. Or for a hall that the church owns, but which is rented out for wedding receptions of all kinds, to deny services to gays. I've seen naive libertarians arguing for weeks here that "of course, first amendment protections would prevent that kind of abuse, and I would never support gay marriage if I thought it would lead to that!" Very, very naive.

    To be clear, and to try to stop the ad hominems before they start: I personally do give my moral and philosophical assent to the legitimacy of loving homosexual unions. I simply care about the rights of those of my traditional and religious brothers and sisters who do not - rights that will be trampled as sure as night follows day in our future America.

    I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

  • ||

    Exactly. Libertarians are selling their souls on this issue. And also think about the implications of this being an "equal protection" issue. What other forms of government bennies will future judges decide are a "right" thanks to this decision?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    When you start arguing that, because government benefits and mandates may grow from allowing certain individuals to marry, we must not allow them that choice, you are heading down a slippery slope indeed. Should this type of analysis be extended to all civil rights?

  • ||

    Hey man, the GZ mosque MAY be used to bring down America. Everyone PANIC!

  • ||

    This is not about marriage. Gay can get married. They just can't get the government coercion that goes alone with state sanction. If being gay and holding yourself out as married were illegal like polygamy, then it would be a civil rights issue. But it is not. So this is a government coercion issue.

    Libertarians on this board are in love with the idea of using government power to force people to accept homosexuality.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    How is it coercion? There is no government agent pointing a rifle at you and demanding that you "accept" homosexuality - any more than there is any government agent "forcing" you to accept my marriage to my wife, or a black man's marriage to a white woman.

    How does legal recognition by state government of a relationship between two individuals constitute coercion of anyone else to believe or do anything else?

    As Glenn Beck said, quoting TJ, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, so why do I care if Bob and Steve want to spend the rest of their lives together in the bonds of matrimony - any more than I care whether Fred and Sue do?

  • -||

    Libertarians are selling their souls on this issue

    You must know that we libertarians, being howling atheists, have no souls, but it's touching that you are so concerned.

  • ||

    It is touching to see people who are too stupid to understand simple metaphors try to engage in debate.

  • -||

    Calling people "stupid" is debate?
    Then you're surely the Debate King, John.

  • T||

    Not all of us howl...

  • The Gobbler||

    This is all bullshit.

    I have a gay sister. A rather famous one at that, but I digress.

    She has been together with her partner for about five years. They own a house together. They have joint investments and bank accounts. A few moths ago, they had a baby. A really, really cute baby. My sister's partner is the birth mother. I have no idea who contributed the sperm and as far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business.

    A few weeks ago, my sister legally became my niece's adoptive parent, so in reality and in the eyes of their state, my niece has two mommies. They would like to marry, but the state in which they live in doesn't sanction same sex marriage.

    If you actually knew this family of three -- a very committed family I hasten to add -- you would see first hand why their not being allowed to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause. There are countless other gay families that are in a similar situation.

  • ||

    Good points, all.

    Would it be sufficient, and satisfactory to your sister and her mate to be joined in a civil ceremony that garantees all of the privileges and responsibilities as traditional marriage? Must they be "married"?

    Full disclosure, I am completely in favor of of the right of homosexuals to "marry" in the civil sense.

    Where I think the whole discussion goes off the rails is when activists demand that everybody else recognize homosexual "marriages" to be equivalent in all aspects to traditional marriages.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Would it be sufficient, and satisfactory to your sister and her mate to be joined in a civil ceremony that garantees all of the privileges and responsibilities as traditional marriage?"

    I believe they would be fine with that. They aren't super-religious. Just regular folks.

  • The Gobbler||

    I belive they should be able to file a jointly on their income tax forms, which has nothing to do with religion.

  • ||

    Well, as I said, I fully support civil unions of gays that are equivalent in all legal aspects (including joint filing of income taxes) to traditional marriage, so tell them that they have the support of at least one mostly-libertarian person.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    What's the difference? If we provide gay couples all of the legal and social entitlements that marriage brings, but don't let them "get married", then you're trying to force the use of language to fit a certain view point. That's absurd and impossible to enforce.

  • The Gobbler||

    No. Civil unions are state and Marriage is church. Separating church and state sounds like a good idea to me.

  • ||

    Well said. I too believe that this will ultimately be about more than legal rights ("rights" by their proper definition, not the ridiculously stretched-out definition in vogue nowadays). Tolerance is never enough to satisfy the progressive.

  • turtle||

    You are absolutely right.
    How far did parental rights go when the state of California decided to have mandatory homosexual indoctrination in public schools with mandatory attendance by children?
    How did the Catholic church hold up in CA against providing contraceptive coverage to its employees against church policy?
    Rights to religious expression and free association are going to be crushed by the gay agenda and their ridiculous "liberty-loving" cheerleaders at Reason.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Actually, I applaud the California ruling - for the simple reason that it's one more slap in the peasant's face by The Enlightened, reminding them that Government Is Not Their Friend. And anything that provokes the peasants one step closer to revolting and slitting some Enlightened and Tolerant throats can only be a Good Thing.

  • ||

    Maybe we can come up with a good name for the revolt. Is Kristallnacht taken?

  • ||

    I like Billkristolnacht better.

  • BakedPenguin||

    +1

  • Ska||

    Krugmanacht?

  • Ska||

    Nacht der untoten?

  • ||

    I simply care about the rights of those of my traditional and religious brothers and sisters who do not - rights that will be trampled as sure as night follows day in our future America.

    WHY WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BIGOTS?

  • ||

    "WHY WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BIGOTS?"

    If you don't have a right to hold and act on whatever views you want, how are you free? And further when Libertarians argue for eliminating discrimination laws, that is exactly the kind of sophistry that liberals use against them. And now Libertarians are using it on their side. And they are not selling out their principles on this issue how?

  • ||

    Prohibiting gay marriage because it might possibly maybe make some people accountable in some way for being ignorant bigots against gay people is an insufficient argument.

    I do like that is it at least an honest argument. Despite all the hand-waving, this is what it has always been about.

  • ||

    If government wasn't so pervasive in people's lives, this wouldn't be such an issue. I don't care who anyone marries. But I am not signing on to using the government to go out and enforce my view on everyone else in the world no matter how right I think I am.

  • ||

    I think this will ultimately be a good thing for the religious to go through. Maybe they will finally realize that using the government to force other people to follow their views was a bad thing all along.

    Of course the answer is a vastly smaller government that no one can use to force other people to do things that violate self-ownership principles/conscience... but failing that, equal protection under the law will have to do.

  • ||

    I can see your point on that. I think it would do religions a lot of good to be forced to stand up and tell the government to fuck off. Let's see the Catholic church engage in serious civil disobedience over this. It would do them some good and maybe they would realize what they are supposed to be about. But I am still not signing on.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Who is saying the government would or could force the Catholic church to marry gays? Simply recognizing gay unions as legal is not the same as forcing churches to solemnize the marriages.

  • ||

    The Catholic church is going to get protection via the First Amendment. It's still taken seriously enough as it applies to the strictly religious aspects of churches.

    Frankly, I do find the fact that New Mexico's Human Rights Commission found merit in the complaint against the wedding photographer who refused to do a gay wedding slightly disturbing but there is usually enough "public accomodation" language in these things to show that there is still a distinction drawn between religion and commerce. I still fall on the side of thinking it doesn't mater if its commerce either.

    Two things strike me too. 1) Weren't there any other wedding photographers in Santa Fe that the couple had to have this one. And 2) she probably would not had fallen afoul of the law if she had not specified that her objection was that they were a same-sex couple.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    If you don't have a right to hold and act on whatever views you want, how are you free?

    So who's taking that away from you? If all gay marriages were made legal nationwide tomorrow, you would still have the right, ala Fred Phelps, to stand outside their wedding reception holding a sign saying "Fags die!" or whatever message you want to convey - maybe "I do not recognize your marriage!"

    OK, fine. You'll still have that right. Just like you could for anyone else's marriage right now if you wanted to.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I'm hoping this will grow into a good tax dodge. Say I end up making lots of money. Ya, like that is gonna happen, but just suppose it does. I can then marry all my kids before I die and avoid all estate taxes!

    Also, say I don't want to testify against somebody at a trial. Just gay-polygomous-marry them the day before the trial. Boom. Problem solved!

  • ||

    Your wives will still have to pay estate taxes. Good thought though.

  • Ska||

    Tax deferral is the next best thing you can do, isn't it?

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    So you have to pay estate tax on joint property?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Marriage between close blood relatives is still illegal, so your straw man collapses under its own weight before you can set it alight.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Where is my equal protection though? I should be able to marry whoever, and as many people, as I want, or I'm not getting equal protection. If you can "marry" somebody of the same sex, I should be able to "marry" my kids and get all the benefits that that entails.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Marriage is about love and sex. Are you publicly stating you have sex with your children?

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    What are you some kind of religous fundamentalist? Get with the program man, marriage means whatever I want it to mean, and if you disagree with that, you are oppressing me. So please stop being such a bigot.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    And you are avoiding the question. Where is my equal protection? And don't just say "you are free to marry one other person who you aren't blood-related to". Because that is just like saying "you are free to marry one other person of the opposite sex", and only bigots use that line of reasoning.

  • ||

    This argument is ridiculous. The threat of potential future pro-gay political correctness is reason enough to deny consenting adults equal right to enter a legal contract based upon their gender? Also, why are Christians so politically correct they want to ban speech and actions that offends them? Anyone who talks about the threat of the PC gay agenda and then talks about how offended they are that people don't see the world the same way they do (and support the government violation of the rights of others) is a hypocrite, pure and simple.

  • Draco||

    Hey Hobo, apparently you missed the argument, or got caught up in one of the responders' arguments. The argument was that being able to enter into a legal contract has nothing to do with the actual battle being fought here. The actual battle is about forcing man's mind. It's about telling you that you must smile and say "yes sir!" regardless of what you think. It's about hate crime and thought police.

    FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions.

  • ||

    So the fact that potentially down the road some gays might try to force all churches to marry them is more relevant to the current debate than the fact that some Christians offended by gays have codified gender-based discrimination on the equal right to contract -- today? Who is telling who what to think?

    And civil unions are yet another incarnation of "separate but equal." Were we talking about the end of legal straight marriage and the conversion to a civil-unions-for-all system, I'd support that as a preferable interim step.

  • Leroy||

    I believe that is the idea.

    The state would sanction 'civil unions'. This would be for hetero and homosexual couples. Churches are then free to 'marry' whoever they would like.

    Everyone is happy.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I have posited a much easier remedy, several times:

    Gays should work on domestic-partnership/civil union reforms, and give the finger to the marriage license/permission slip concept. THEN, they can go to a Unitarian church, or ask a local Wiccan, to perform a ceremony. Rings, cake, whatever trappings you want, throw 'em in or don't. I give a shit either way.

    IOW, there's no need for an actual "we here in this government office hereby grant you two guys/girls permission to call yourselves married; here's your piece of paper" marriage.

    Cue Tony in 3...2...

  • ||

    Separate but equal, anyone?

    We do agree that government should not be involved, but that gives them no right to violate equal protections based upon gender in the interim.

  • ||

    Actually, that's how all "marriage" should be set up IMO. The legal procedure whereby aspects of family law, like child custody and support, tax policy, inheritance and succession, hospital visitation and consent for medical procedures etc are made formal should be a Civil Union and controlled by the State.

    The religious ordinance where some parson invokes the blessings of Almighty god or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other divinity upon the couple should be the province of religious bodies and entirely controlled by the priests and/or the congregations of said bodies.

    The religious ordinance should have no legal affect nor should the secular one have any spiritual significance (beyond that which the participants invest in it, that is).

  • ||

    Incidentally, I'm a pretty much in the "get the state out of marriage" school, except for the fact that the current statemarriage lincense is a contract that is pretty hard to challenge when it comes to spousal rights versus the rights due othe family members, EG parents who may be disgusted with a child's choice of life partner and use the absence of said license to keep that partner away from the child's deathbed.

    By the time a privately made contract has been litigated the subject of this dispute may have crossed into oblivion.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    So we should not allow a group of people to enjoy a common civil right just because another group of people will be offended by it? Fuck that! Part of living in freedom means you have to put up with occasional offenses. If they don't like it, they can move.

  • Draco||

    You're just really not getting the argument are you? The argument is that in the future there will be no right to be "offended" and that you will be forced to transact business or otherwise give your assent to a state of affairs that you, because of your religion or philosophy, consider abhorrent or abominable.

    And you even finish up with the good old statist favorite "if you don't like it move!" "argument" - on a libertarian discussion board. Wow.

  • turtle||

    I'm sure Glenn will be singing a different tune when the militant homos march into his tabernacle and demand that the church marry them or be sued or prosecuted for a hate crime.

  • Gay Couple||

    We're here!
    We're queer!
    We're coming to get Glenn Beck!

  • -||

    Please stop at John's house while you're at it. He loves you guys.

  • ||

    You are such an ignorant douche. Because I think people have the right to hold whatever views they want and not be told by the government what to think I must hold those views.

  • ||

    You can freely hold personal views (not liking somebody, criticizing somebody's actions) without endorsing the violation of that person's rights. The fact that gay marriage is offensive to some is not an argument for violating their freedom of contract and their equal protections in the eyes of the law.

  • ||

    They are free to contract all they want. Gays get married in this country all the time. They just get a piece of paper. If it were illegal to hold yourself out as married and gay, this would be a civil rights issue. But it is not.

    They only thing they get from the government sanction is the right to force other people to accept their marriage. This is about coercion not freedom.

  • Spartacus||

    They only thing they get from the government sanction is the right to force other people to accept their marriage.legal privileges and immunities that are available to every hetero couple, and are currently being denied to gay couples simply because they do not have the government-approved combination of genders.

  • ||

    The legal privilege to coerce other people. I didn't know Libertarians loved government coercion so much. But when it is their sacred cow, they apparently do.

  • ||

    I too think the solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. Until that day comes, the law should legally be applied regardless of the gender makeup of the constituents.

    You have yet to show one of us who supports forcing churches to marry gays, so your argument ends up being more or less the same as "the government should continue to treat blacks as second-class citizens, because giving them equality could result in further laws that violate the property rights of business owners." The fact that the latter part actually happened still doesn't diminish the need for absolutely equal legal rights, period.

  • ||

    "You have yet to show one of us who supports forcing churches to marry gays"

    That is the whole point. This decision is going to result in a lot of things the Libertarians don't like.

  • ||

    Even the fact that the Civil Rights Act violated the rights of business owners did not invalidate the fact that it was a major improvement over a system where the government violated both individual rights and the rights of business owners (because forced segregation was a violation of a business owner's right to contract and their property rights as well.)

    Since the "lot of things the Libertarians don't like" are currently not on the table (yet) I'd rather worry about the stinky turd (government gender-based discrimination) that is currently in front of us.

  • -||

    Help! The Married are coercing me!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Where the fuck is this supposed coercion you keep griping about?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    What about all those gay couples who are coerced into recognizing the marriage of breeders? Where's your outrage on their behalf?

    Disingenuous troll is disingenuous.

  • Spartacus||

    Just to be clear, to me the solution is for government to get out of the sanctioning business altogether, so we agree on that.

  • ||

    By codifying marriage as "between a man and a woman", technically doesn't that open the door for the government permission to crack down on private homosexual "marriages" if they label themselves as such and those representing themselves or contracting as "married" on binding legal documents like wills?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    "Crack down on"? In what way?

    What it means is they cannot claim some of the legal results that would otherwise accrue to legally married couples under various areas of law. For example, various aspects of income tax and estate tax, family law matters, advance medical directives, etc.

    It's not a matter of the government coming after the fact and saying "you're not allowed to be married," but rather they would not be considered to be "married" under the legal definition that is used in various laws under which being "married" gets you a different legal result than being "not married."

  • ||

    Private, "non-legal" gay marriages. Because without disclaimer it is left up to attorney generals and bureaucrats to decide whether the private ceremonies under the term "marriage" conflict with the law that marriage is only between a man and a woman. At this point, I see no legal preventative from some AG ordering police to arrest anyone performing private gay marriages, under the argument that they are falsely advertising the occasion as a "marriage" by the government's definition. Also, individuals who refer to their "spouse" in legal documents without a formal ceremony could be subject to legal trouble. I hope it is not the case, but unfortunately I wouldn't put it past some of those jerks, and this merely gives them cover to do so and to make a legitimate case for doing this.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Gay Californians eager to marry will have to hold off til Wednesday.

    Awesome! Right before Proposition 8 came along, the florists, cake bakers, party planners, etc. of the Bay Area were raking in the cash. Economic stimulus!

  • Hank||

    re: free market parking

    That sounds nightmarish. You can't just let people's behavior and a market dictate parking. Certainly not revenue. You implement policy (top down) to "persuade" people to park at different times, at different rates to match the anticipated revenue as outlined by any solid municipal budget. And it has to be fair. Equality can only be realized with proper planning. The best data to use is from the Census.

  • Spartacus||

    8/10. A little too obvious in the last couple of sentences, otherwise pretty good.

  • Hank||

    I seen it on the TV - people hip hop dancin' 'round talkin' 'bout how you gonna figure out how many hospitals a community needs without a Census. I seen it on the TV with my free digital converter box!

  • ||

    Did all the mosque threads attract Freepers, who now appear to have stuck around to comment on other threads? I don't remember this level of really poor, lazy trollishness before the whole mosque thing.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm just sorry that our own little John seems to be throwing his lot in with them.
    Libertarians are selling their souls on this issue.
    And I had such high hopes for the lad.

  • ||

    I have never read Free Republic, but I think my views police probably wouldn't go over too well over there.

  • Aunt Sally||

    What do you expect from a Sarah Palin-lovin' conservative? Having a few screws loose comes with the territory.

  • ||

    "little John"? John towers over you.

  • Mike M.||

    They also attracted a lot of dhimmis and cowards as well.

    I can just imagine what your buddy and master Rauf is doing and saying over there in Malaysia right now.

  • ||

    Yay! The Dhimmi Guy is here!

  • ||

    10 Simple Tips For Dating A Lesbian

    They did forget #11, though... Reserve the U-Haul at least four days in advance of the first date.

  • ||

    Gosh, they're remarkably similar to hetero dating rules. Who'da thunk that deviants of nature have feelings and comforting rituals? It's almost like they're human or something.

  • Brett L||

    Does this advice apply to lesbians who happen to be trapped in a man's body?

  • ||

    I an not following that. Is that rules for straight chicks wanting to try the other side, lesbians or both?

  • ||

    Lesbian-to-lesbian. It's just all so commonsensical that it made me laugh. It's like they were trying to give tips for someone that's never even heard of the concept before.

  • ||

    It makes you think that all lesbians have Asperger's or something. Okay, girls it is not appropriate to introduce your new date to your bitter ex or take her home to meet your family or put it on facebook how far you got.

  • T||

    Honestly, from what I see on facebook, a lot of younger people could use those tips. Sexuality is irrelevant.

    But I'm an old married guy, so WTF do I know?

  • NoVAHockey||

    privacy and shame went out of fashion a long time ago.

  • kilroy||

    Unintended consequences of the domestic terrorism law? or the consequences of throwing an over sized firecracker.

    I have a hard time calling this terrorism.

  • ||

    It is not terrorism. But it is definitely a crime.

  • kilroy||

    Agreed but...

    All three were charged with 16 counts of aggravated assault, 16 counts of reckless conduct. Morgan and Wendt were also charged one count of domestic terrorism and two counts of cruelty to children first degree, since two of the people in the crowd were under the age of 18, according to Wooten.

    Seems to me like 16 counts of reckless conduct would have it covered. I can't see any rational reason anyone would invoke domestic terrorism here.

  • ||

    He said investigators had not determined a motive for the incident.

    I have a theory.

  • ||

    It's like they were trying to give tips for someone that's never even heard of the concept before.

    Cohabiting lesbians are burned at the stake in this country, right?

  • ||

    My lesbian neighbors hate me.

  • T||

    Why? Are they militantly PC lesbians that you offend just for giggles? Or are you just an annoying prick to live next to?

  • ||

    Why?

  • ||

    I honestly don't know. I've been really friendly. They don't like my wife either and she's fairly attractive. We wave and say "hi" and they just plain glare at us whenever they see us.

    The guy on the other side hates us too, but he's a million-year-old crusty asshole who hates everyone.

  • ||

    Maybe they are secretly attracted to you and your presence threatens their sexuality. You know kind of like overly macho men who are secretly gay and thus can't allow themselves to be in the same room with a gay man.

  • ||

    Ah, finally a comfortable fantasy to hang my hat on... :-)

  • BakedPenguin||

    How old are they? From my experience, 40 yo + lesbians hate all men, younger than that they tend to make up their minds on a case-by-case basis.

  • ||

    Both in their 50s. I work with a lot of lesbians. Lesbians usually like me. Hell, the hardcore militant lesbian at work who hates everyone and terrorizes the place absolutely adores me.

  • T||

    Really? That runs counter to my experience. The older ones tend to be much more relaxed about nearly everything, while the younger ones are the kind who will start spouting off about how I don't understand because I'm privileged by society or some shit.

    The older ones also tend to be high-functioning alcoholics with an astounding capacity for booze, but that may just be the ones I know.

  • ||

    T,

    Funny how everyone's anecdotal experience is completely at odds.

  • T||

    Nah, when everyone's anecdotal experience is similar, we call it a "stereotype".

  • ||

    One of my wife's better friends is married to another woman. They are a very pleasant couple. But they are both under 40.

    I think being a lesbian now is less of a statement than it once was. It used to be very hard to be a lesbian. So a lot of well adjusted people just avoided the hassle and stayed in the closet. As a result, the ones who came out were less well adjusted and more pissed off. I think that explains why over 40 lesbians seem so unpleasant compared to younger ones.

  • 29InNet||

    All the lesbians I know are about 18-25, beautiful, and really enjoy sex with each other while I watch.

    of course they charge me $39.95 a month to be their "friend", but whatever.

  • hmm||

    Stop waving your penis at them.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    The San Francisco parking story is a great idea whose time has come. On a much cruder scale the idea has existed for a while with private parking garages charging different rates for reserved parking, daily rates, hourly rates, etc. Why taking it to this step seems like such a leap is strangely odd.

  • ¢||

    Libertarians on this board are in love with the idea of using government power to force people to accept homosexuality.

    Not really. It doesn't matter how those resistant to "acceptance" react. The fact of force is all that matters. A lot of people Whitey doesn't like are having their wills crushed, or being backed into a position of enraged paralysis, by the state—and reveling in that, regardless of outcome or principle, is what being a Libertarian™ is all about.

  • ||

    Gays are free to get married right now. And you are free to accept their marriage and treat them like you do any other partner. Indeed, many people do just that. But some people don't. The only thing state sanctioned marriage buys gays is the ability to force people to accept their marriage through government force. If the state sanctions the marriage no one has the right to then say "I don't believe in gay marriage and I am not treating you as a married couple".

    This whole issue shows that Libertarians are just as susceptible to the temptation of using government force to achieve their desired social ends as anyone else.

  • ||

    John, stop being hysterical.

    "I don't believe in straight marriage and I am not treating you and your wife as a married couple."

    Are the police coming for me?

  • ||

    No, but they could sue you for it. I don't see how a company that provides benefits to spouses could lawfully deny benefits to same sex spouses once gay marriage is state sanctioned.

  • ||

    Companies would be open to all those legal avenues under civil unions laws, which you have supported in the past.

  • ||

    That is a good point. Maybe civil unions have drawbacks I hadn't thought of. I always thought "civil unions" were different form marriages in that it just applied to the state not to everyone else. But perhaps I was wrong about that.

  • ||

    "Gays are free to get married right now."

    John, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about a gay man marrying a woman in a sham marriage? Or do you mean a marriage-like ceremony in a pro-gay church? But then, what about atheists? How can atheists -- gay or straight -- possibly marry?

  • ||

    I went to a lesbian wedding last year. And it wasn't at a church. You just have a ceremony and say you are married. As far as I am concerned they are just as married as I am. Why do they need the State of Maryland?

  • ||

    Why does ANYONE need the State of Maryland?

  • ||

    A copy from above, in case you miss it: By codifying marriage as "between a man and a woman", technically doesn't that open the door for the government permission to crack down on private homosexual "marriages" if they label themselves as such and those representing themselves or contracting as "married" on binding legal documents like wills?

  • ||

    I don't see how. It is not a crime to be a homosexual.

  • ||

    Has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a crime - has to do with whether the government has the right to crack down on individuals representing themselves as married and churches providing "marriages" when by explicit government definition they could theoretically be considered as committing fraud and false advertisement. Can we trust politicians not to be that tyrannical, especially when infused by the vigor or religious morality?

  • ||

    To take a step further, if you walk around calling yourself a "lawyer," and the government defines a lawyer as "someone with a law degree who has passed the bar", they would crack down on you, correct? Now, I should be able to let anyone represent me in court I choose and if we choose to refer to you as my "lawyer", we should have the right (as that is your occupation), and you should have the right to market yourself as such as long as you don't claim to have a law degree when you don't or to be registered by the bar when you aren't. But there is no question that the government's codified definition legally enables them to enforcement measures that violate private contracts and freedom of speech.

    So how is the government explicit definition of marriage any different?

  • ||

    But none of the marriage laws, unlike the legal protectionism, are drafted in a way to make it a crime to call yourself married if you are gay.

  • ||

    And none of the pro-legalization laws are crafted to force churches to marry gays against their will.

    However, by explicitly defining the legal term without an explicit ban on crackdowns of private marriages, there is nothing stopping bureaucrats and prosecutors from cracking down under the auspices of the law.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Because being married brings certain privileges that other states of being do not. And while it's all and good to say "the state should not be in the business of marriage", that's a long, uphill battle that will almost certainly never be won. In the meantime, denying a civil right to a group of people because another group of people might be offended is asinine in the extreme.

    People who don't want to recognize gays as being married need to grow the fuck up and deal with it. Their bigotry is not a sufficient reason to deny a common civil right to other human beings.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    This whole issue shows that Libertarians are just as susceptible to the temptation of using government force to achieve their desired social ends as anyone else.

    That's because libertarianism is a sham. "Free Society" is an oxymoron. Society, by definition, implies restrictions on the individual. Libertarianism is not a demand of liberty, which is available to anyone willing to forego the benefits of living within society, it's merely another demand that society conform to a particular set of preferences in permissions and restrictions. It offers no actual increase in liberty at all, merely a different set of restrictions.

    To the extent that any liberty within society has been possible, it's been as a byproduct of healthy societies. Healthy societies are not necessarily byproducts of liberty (see Haiti).

    The sleight of hand of the libertarian has been to hold up as an ideal a state of liberty which has never existed, and never will exist, and use the fictitious ideal as a justification for attacking the societies which have achieved any degree of liberty at all.

  • ||

    Isn't cute when the fascist lectures us on liberty?

    Your criticisms wound us to the quick, Dr. Hitlerballs.

  • T||

    To be historically accurate, shouldn't that be Dr. Hitlerball?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Isn't cute when the fascist lectures us on liberty?

    Irony, thy name is SugarFree.

  • ||

    I don't think "irony" means what you think it means.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I think it does.

  • ||

    http://american3p.org/

    Immigration. Enough is enough.

    If current demographic trends persist, European-Americans will become a minority in America in only a few decades time. The American Third Position will not allow this to happen.

    To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands.
  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Yeah? And?

  • ||

    Why didn't the native Americans think of that?

  • ||

    Since when are pretzel logic and blinding, blistering ignorance criticisms?

  • ||

    My sister named her cat Leonardo DiCattio (aka This Is Why You're Single, Exhibit A), but I am going to start calling him Dr. Hitlerballs instead.

  • ||

    Yes, we must all subsume ourselves in the collective! Society demands it! Lack of liberty means never having to say you're sorry.

  • Aunt Sally||

    I get it now. "Freedom" is actually just a different set of "restrictions."
    Thanks, Mr. Enlightened!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Actually, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I hear the faint strains of a White Power Dog Whistle in StE's! little diatribe.

  • ||

    You have excellent ears. Sounds just like Dick Hoste, doesn't he?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    More like Dick Holster

    nyuk nyuk nyuk

    I'll be here all week. Tipping is not a city in China.

  • ||

    White Power Bill can’t hear you... with such dirty ears.

  • ||

    That'd be a great name for an all-black cat.

    Or a Jewish cat.

  • ||

    ""The only thing state sanctioned marriage buys gays is the ability to force people to accept their marriage through government force. ""

    As if state sanctioned marriage wouldn't give them the same legal privileges as a state recognized marriage gets. That's what they want.

    That don't want the ability to just say they are married, they what the legal privilages that go along with it.

    Sure you could set up civil unions, but that's all a real marriage is as far as the state is concerned, so if you are going to give them the same priviledges, why hide the fact that it's really a marriage in the state's eyes?

  • ||

    Best Tea Party article I've seen.

  • ||


    To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration.

    What, no expulsions?

    I'm disappointed.

  • ||

    No, just incentives:

    To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands.

    And if the incentives don't work?

  • ||

    They'll nudge them...gently...kindly...with the barrels of their guns.

  • RyanXXX||

    U.S.A. Out of marriage!!!

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Concerning the immigration bill

    The bill will be paid for by increasing fees on temporary skilled worker visas for companies who have a majority of their employees in the states on these visas.

    Pretty much gives lie to any claim that it's about "illegal" not "immigrant".

    I say it again: we stay on the top of the heap only as long as we keep reinforcing our homegrown crop of smart, talented and driven folks with a goodly portion of the rest of the worlds smart, tanlented and driven people. We want it to easy for smart, talented and driven people to come to America.

  • e'||

    click on my name,you can find cheap watches

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement