Reason.tv - Gay Wars: What We Saw at CPAC

The single-largest annual meeting of conservatives and small-government fellow travelers, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), kicked off in Washington, D.C. today on Thursday, February 10, 2011.

The big story leading up to the conference was a high-profile boycott by outfits such as The Heritage Foundation and figures such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) due to the participation of GOProud, a gay conservative group that lobbies for lower taxes and equality under the law. As a spokesman for Heritage put it, "We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible...It's not a boutique. You can't pick one and not the other."

Reason's Michael C. Moynihan was on hand to gauge the mood of CPAC. While some anti-gay conservatives stayed away, libertarians and small government types proliferated, agitating for less spending, an end to the drug war, and greater social freedom.

And, in the case of the John Birch Society, a smiting from on high. 

Approximately 5 minutes long. Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

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.

  • Esteban||

    Awesome cowboy hat. I don't give a rip what you think.

  • SIV||

    So did Moynihan hook up in the men's room?

  • dennis||

    Larry Craig was there?

  • Paul||

    So did Moynihan hook up in the men's room?

    No, but he got cruised.

  • ||

    Look, everyone knows Moynihan is a vegesexual. He hit up a produce market before going to the conference.

  • Q. Cumber||

    Ha ha ha! Ha! Ha. Heh. Ooooh...

  • Paul||

    We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible...It's not a boutique. You can't pick one and not the other."

    Fucking watch me.

  • dennis||

    That sort of conservative mindset is precisely why conservatism is an incoherent intellectually bankrupt philosophy. Libertarians are too smart to be conservatives.

  • GILMORE||

    A problem with their 'three legged stool' (and i can't use that expression without thinking of a half-spider-turd) is that there really is no necessarily coherent logical basis for it.

    Why does believing in fiscal prudence require me to worship Jesus? Why does being supportive of strong national defense require one to be morally outraged at what people do in their bedrooms? Even if one were semi socially-conservative (go to church, are against abortion, believe our society is in moral decline, wear stiffly ironed jeans with white socks and rockport shoes when your khakis are unavailable...etc.)... why does ANY of that necessitate being *exclusionary* of groups who agree with you on a variety of things, but differ on their own personal preferences, be it their fashion tastes, or who they like to fuck?

    Seriously, when prodded (he he) on this question, the response most give is sort of a fallback: "I'm a biblical person... we believe in a moral code..."; often their argument for 'official exclusion' ends up being a personal, subjective view; if asked if politics should be in the business of regulating *morality*... many would probably back away because obviously ...that's not really that 'conservative' a belief. Yet its the shit they're shoveling.

    Freedom has exceptions! No fags or mexicans allowed the freedoms we defend for our fellow white-christian-socially-conservative-militarists.

    I think as has been mentioned by many... this shit will die off as the old guard...well, dies off.

    if a guy were like, "I feel gay behavior is immoral...", I'd be like, "OK. How about masturbation? Next year, will you promise to ban all the masturbators? ... and how about compulsory military service? Is it moral to *compel people to kill others*?... how about we set up a moral screening system to establish whether or not all the members of CPAC meet the appropriate criteria? Because you seem to be clear on what they are... "

    Their 'morality' is paper thin: its a screen for "gays are bad just because"

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Christianity isn't the only moral code.

  • GILMORE||

    Well, 'sez you' apparently.

    Is there anything about sodomy in the 'golden rule'? I forget

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Says Ayn Rand. Read John Galt's speech from "Atlas Shrugged." It goes to the heart of the issue in the first few pages.

    Let's apply you're Golden Rule "principle." If you're suicidal, is it okay for you to kill others as you'd like to be killed?

  • sevo||

    Doktor Kapitalism|2.10.11 @ 7:37PM|#
    "Says Ayn Rand. Read John Galt's speech from "Atlas Shrugged." It goes to the heart of the issue in the first few pages."

    How about some sort of a quote so don't have to bang my head against the wall to read the 'first few pages'?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I tried, but I couldn't find anything short enough. Here's a few excerpts* and online source.

    “For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

    “Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason there’s no reason to be moral.

    ...

    “Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man’s Life is its standard of value.

    “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

    “Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being-not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement-not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason.

    “Man’s life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man-for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life."

    http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106

    Plus you can go to Galtspeaking's Youtube channel for a video version. Just saw: there's a new episode. http://www.youtube.com/user/GaltSpeaking

    *Is that spelled right?

  • zoltan||

    If you're suicidal, is it okay for you to kill others as you'd like to be killed?

    The flaw in your logic being that a suicidal person would like to be killed by himself. So you can't kill someone else like that.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    What I was hoping people would do is replace kill with sodomize. My point is that the Golden Rule works out okay for grade schools, but not for adults. And to show GILMORE's question was a little silly.

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Well, it's like, with the Golden Rule, if you WANT someone to kill you, it is logically okay to kill other people.
    A better example is rape. If you want someone to have sex with you, Golden Rule logic makes raping them A-OK.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A better example is rape. If you want someone to have sex with you, Golden Rule logic makes raping them A-OK.


    True in a literal sense.

  • robc||

    Golden Rule logic makes raping them A-OK.

    Only to someone who doesnt understand the Golden Rule. You are applying it backwards...Do you want person X to have sex with you AGAINST YOUR WILL? Then you cant rape them either.

    If you want X to have sex with you, it isnt analogous to rape.

  • Original_Intent||

    Unless he wants assisted suicide.

  • ||

    Well, like or whatever, they be scratching some itches that need scratching. Imagine the surprised look on the serial killer's face when his intended victim is like "Sweet, gives me more time to slack..."

    I guess there's suicide-by-cop route. Totally anti-Randian that way. Can get some satisfaction knowing the whole affair - your introverted little suicide problem - is being solved on taxpayer's dollar as you blink out. Smiles all around.

  • GILMORE||

    Ohh, *ayn rand*.
    (sound of thousands of Objectivists genuflecting to her paperbacks)

    Yeah, comparing suicide to murder isn't *silly* at all...

    I was just curious if there was some moral code that said teh gayz is a priori wrongness for some logical reason.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Objectivism isn't against homosexuality. And I'm not a full Objectivist.

  • zoltan||

    Is there anything about sodomy in the 'golden rule'? I forget

    The Soviet Union's moral code caused homosexuality to be recriminalized in 1933.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Is there anything about sodomy in the 'golden rule'? I forget

    No. Nor is there anything about it in the non-aggression axiom.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," requires flip fucking.

    Almost no heterosexuals do that, aside from a few couples with strap ons into pegging.

    That is why you people are all going to Hell.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why does believing in fiscal prudence require me to worship Jesus?


    It does not.

    Jews are not shunned.

    Why does being supportive of strong national defense require one to be morally outraged at what people do in their bedrooms?


    There is a strong correlation between supporting sexual liberty and opposing a strong national defense.

    No fags or mexicans allowed the freedoms we defend for our fellow white-christian-socially-conservative-militarists.


    So why should illegal aliens have freedom?

    Once again, you equate illegal aliens with Mexicans.

  • ||

    "There is a strong correlation between supporting sexual liberty and opposing a strong national defense."

    So. The. Fuck. What?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Your last four words should go in a different order. There's no reason why a strong defense and sexual freedom are mutually exclusive.

  • mr simple||

    Actually, they're independent and so, by definition, cannot be mutually exclusive.

  • ||

    That was more to the assertion that "because conservatives typically are pro-x and anti-y, the inverse of it, libertarians being anti-x and pro-y, must be true" should be taken as a valid counter-point. It's not.

  • ||

    There is a strong correlation between supporting sexual liberty and opposing a strong national defense.

    You're very clearly begging the question. If people accept the notion that rejecting sexual liberty is tied to supporting a strong national defense and vice versa, they'll take the two positions as a package. That doesn't mean the package is necessary or even rational.

  • ||

    "So why should illegal aliens have freedom?"

    Shouldn't everybody have freedom?

    More importantly, shouldn't everyone have the freedom not to be abused in an American owned or contracted factory making cheap shit for Americans to waste?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Michael Jesus was the greatest fiscal conservative. He could stretch a cracker, a bottle of Mogen David and a fish sandwich to feed a whole crowd.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Michael Jesus was the greatest fiscal conservative. He could stretch a cracker, a bottle of Mogen David and a fish sandwich to feed a whole crowd.

  • Realist||

    "Why does believing in fiscal prudence require me to worship Jesus?' Because Jesus saves!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    groan

  • ||

    ...and Moses invests.

  • sevo||

    "Jesus saves!"

    The best ass for himself!
    Oh, wait. That was Brigham Young.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Jesus saves, passes to Moses, shoots, SCORES!

  • ||

    You amuse.

    Granting political privilege to a group organized around a sexual fetish -- homosexism -- and thus a mind disorder, as all fetishes are, is most bizarre.

    While no one should care what homosexists do in their bedrooms, the correct libertarian position is to oppose homosexists as a political privilege-seeking group.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    If their individual rights are being violated by law, then libertarians should be fighting to get them their rights.

  • JohnD||

    Sorry, but gays are disgusting as well as immoral. Deal with it.

  • zoltan||

    Sorry, but gays are disgusting as well as immoral. Deal with it.

    Yawn.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Prove this assertion.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    So are you John. Deal with it.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Don't worry, John. He will call.

  • Thomas O.||

    And this justifies their denial of equal rights how?

    It's not like they're having their buttsex in front of you. And if they are, there's laws against public lewd conduct already in place.

  • robc||

    Even more so:

    Why does "worshipping Jesus" or "being morally outraged at what people do in their bedrooms" mean passing laws?

    You can do both of those and still be a libertarian. I can be morally outraged at all kinds of things, government doesnt fix morality.

  • ||

    Exactly.

    Granting gays the privilege to marry gays amounts to an attempt to fix morality on a new course.

    Such is doomed to fail.

    Only gays and their supporters -- a tiny portion of society -- would adhere to such a new, bizarro morality.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Um...what? How is granting someone freedom to do what they want "an attempt to fix morality on a new course." ?

    As for you population "statistics," the generally accepted number is that 10% of humans are homosexual. And there is a much larger number than that who support them or just don't care. Not a tiny percent.

  • Thomas O.||

    It's not bizarro. It's a morality that truly adheres to the conservative principles of individual liberty, limited government and - get this! - a strong two-parent family. Society will not crumble and the institution of marriage will not be ruined. Those who think so need to supply concrete proof of this.

  • ||

    Libertarians are too smart to be conservatives.

    Get over yourself, we have our share of imbeciles.

  • Hooha||

    Do we? I've not seen any evidence that the libertarians of... 'questionable' mental state are anything but either;

    A) Recently 'freed' individuals, still shucking the intellectual shackles of their indoctrination, be it left or right, or

    B) Plants, attempting to make us look bad by association (a common lefty tactic)

  • Law Student||

    You must have not hung out around the Ron Paul campaign too much. There were enough crazy people that it turned me off from participating too much (offline anyways) even though I supported the campaign. Then again I dislike most people in general.

  • ||

    Bob Barr, Root, that guy who turned himself blue from supplements....

    Not to mention our collective political stupidity.

  • robc||

    Bob Barr, Root, that guy who turned himself blue from supplements....

    Im only sure that 1 of those 3 is a libertarian. And it isnt one of the two I voted for.

  • Booooo!!!||

    I had forgotten about the blue guy... Thank you for making my morning.

  • JohnD||

    I have yet to see much proof of Libertarians being very smart..... They think they are, but they are wrong.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Actually I find that libertarians are generally more politically well-informed than liberals or conservatives. Libertarians often are expected to explain the basis of their positions on the issues and demonstrate why they believe those positions would be effective even in the absence of coercive government watchdogs.

    Neither liberals nor conservatives seem to have to justify why their proposed solutions have been ineffective. Liberals just have to show why they care more than everybody else to earn liberal credibility, while conservatives just have to show that God loves them more than anybody else to earn conservative credibility.

  • Robert||

    I bet he really does think they're indivisible. And they seem so from long association. I wonder how that developed, but the theory I've had lately is that it's an association going back to the period after the Crusades and especially during the great plagues.

  • ||

    How can you not support a group whose motto is " Just because we'll blow you doesn't mean we'll blow your cash " ?

  • Jim||

    So what kind of freedom do they advocate for if they state that you cannot chose to disregard any part of their platform? All human thought can be nearly packaged into one of two large boxes of complete, fully integrated beliefs?

    You know for all the crap some Reason contributors get for trying to divorce us from the GOP, sometimes it seems like the stalwarts of the GOP are trying to divorce us.

  • Surly Chef||

    Listen buddy: this is Murica! You only get two choices. Coke or Pepsi; only crazy people drink RC Cola...

  • That's a terrible analogy||

    Have you ever drank RC Cola?

  • ||

    Fuck your fancy crown syrup.
    Sam's Choice.

  • Law Student||

    I like to drink what I call a palindrome:
    Royal Crown Crown Royal.

  • Mensan||

    Nice. I'm going to go ahead and steal that. I have the CR in the bar; now if I can just fin somewhere around here that still sells RC.

  • Ben P.||

    There used to be a Mexican food joint in downtown Fort Lauderdale (and it probably still exists, but I now live out in the western 'burbs and work in the northeastern area, so never get down to that central-downtown area anymore) that served RC and Diet RC from the fountain. From the *fountain*, that shit's good soda pop, right there. Bottled? Meh.

  • Robert||

    There was for a while a special RC I liked that tasted chocolatey. Only in 16 oz. bottles. They sold it at a fast food tempura place in Ft. Lee.

  • ||

    There's been an on-going purge in the GOP since 2008. They apparently fear the compelling message of their libertarian wing, especially when looking to win back offices.

  • Paul||

    The GOP aren't the only ones who fear the compelling messages of libertarians.

  • Paul||

    The GOP aren't the only ones who fear the compelling messages of libertarians.

  • Paul||

    I'll say it twice I believe that shit so much.

  • dennis||

    Some people get all worked up by Krugman. I enjoy knowing that he grows less and less relevant as a driver of public opinion. He will soon be a handsomely paid nonentity.

  • KingTaco||

    Paul, you forgot in the new landscape of 'liberaltarianism' you've got to cherry-pick the worst parts of the GOP and ignore the similar constituencies on the left.

    Powerful and entrenched unions and government/professional bureaucracies, who are a prominent as ever, are apparently no hindrance to left-ward libertarians. Increasingly under-fire social conservatives? That's the a different story!

  • Zeb||

    What the fuck are you on about?

  • byebook||

    -1

    While it's a hoot and two hollers to see GOPs and bible bumpers get to thumping (hot, hot GOProud action!), it is a bit weird that Reason keeps picking scabs at Republican/Tea Party happenings.

    I'm not sure this 'liberaltariawhaever' exists to much of a degree in the wild, but it is a fair point that a lot of these dudes seem to point to socons as the reason that liberalism and libertarianism won't/can't work, but don't see an equal problem with the gov'ment unions that are huge special interest groups on the lib side.

  • robc||

    it is a bit weird that Reason keeps picking scabs at Republican/Tea Party happenings.

    You explained it in your next sentence:

    I'm not sure this 'liberaltariawhaever' exists to much of a degree in the wild

    If there was any serious liberaltarian stuff going on, reason would be picking scabs at it. The Tea Party is real conservative/libertarian crossover events with some small amount of power. In other words, not weird at all.

  • sevo||

    "Increasingly under-fire social conservatives? That's the a different story!"

    And they certainly deserve it.

  • byebook||

    "And they certainly deserve it."

    Absolutely. I'm certainly not here to praise social conservatives, who are a millstone around the GOP neck.

    But at least there are non-trivial factions in the GOP pushing against them. Where is the Left facing up to the various union/labor groups that heavily fund the Democrats?

    I think it's perfectly natural libertarians would want to find allies on both sides of the political aisle. But I don't get, in this time of serious fiscal problems, a big group of libertarians saying a fading socon movement is the biggest issue around. The Left's heavy dependence on unions, who in turn live off of big government like the Spacing Guild lives off of sweet, sweet spice, would seem to be a more serious problem. And pretty fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.

  • robc||

    Have you not seen the 50000 reason articles tearing government unions to shreds?

  • Rudan||

    Socons are a large part of the reason a public that hates unions and deficits will elect friends of the unions like O. If anything, increase the fire on socons before 2012.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I'm not so sure they care as long as they get a chunk of the cake. Not the best policy but who said that John Commonman is a thinker?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Socons are a large part of the reason a public that hates unions and deficits will elect friends of the unions like O. If anything, increase the fire on socons before 2012.


    How so?

  • MlR||

    Because he would like to believe it so.

  • Rudan||

    Hurr durr

  • Rudan||

    Because they're scared away by gay bashing and morality enforcement. God knows a giant chunk of the youth could be switched if we could focus on small government across the board.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Because they're scared away by gay bashing and morality enforcement.


    Define gay bashing.

    And do not environmental regulations constitute morality enforcement?

  • ||

    What does not having benzene in my drinking water have to do with morality?

  • Thomas O.||

    In this context: Gay Bashing means using the promotion of anti-marriage-equality legislation to drum up support from evangelicals and other socially conservative money sources.

  • Butts Wagner||

    If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious.

    So Krugnuts would agree that anarchy produces better results than a government?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Is that Paul Krugman the ENRON hireling?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    All human thought can be nearly packaged into one of two large boxes of complete, fully integrated beliefs?


    One must wonder why every politician who wants to cut spending is a social conservative.

  • zoltan||

    Doesn't seem to be much of a correlation as there are plenty of social conservatives who don't want to cut spending.

    Also, oh hey there, you're at a libertarian website that supports spending cuts and social liberalism (old word sense--having the freedom to conduct oneself as one wishes without infringing on another's rights).

    The word social conservative, like most political words, has lost its meaning and those who use it to describe themselves mean "willing to impose morality on others through law".

  • ||

    All human thought can be nearly packaged into one of two large boxes of complete, fully integrated beliefs?

    Of course, the irony is that neither package contains a particularly integrated set of beliefs. You wind up throwing away first principles that support one notion to hold another.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well, they didn't all seem to be caricatures. So, there's that.

  • GILMORE||

    But the "give a rip" guy was pretty awesome

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0

    "I want to manage 5 billion dollars of tax money, because I'm freaking so conservative I carry a lever-action rifle to shoot gays and mexicans on sight. Hell I was a marine and a cop, which clearly makes me capable of managing massive agricultural subsidies of this poor ass undereducated unproductive state. (spit) Ha!"'

    "OK, I ain't running anymore, but let me use this opportunity to threaten you with a gun and endorse one of the other candidates and pretend to shoot at my enemy's campaign workers..."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    From a morality standpoint, making it illegal won't prevent it from happening. We tried that with alcohol, and I think we all know that that didn't work. Making homosexuality illegal won't prevent it from happening: a person has little to no control over their sexual orientation. This also means that just because gays and lesbians are openly out there, it doesn't mean that the good Christian boys and girls will rush out to commit the sin of Sodom (which can be interpreted as many non-sexual things).

    On top of the just plain common sense factor, there's also another issue: if people don't do something immoral because it's illegal, are they actually behaving morally?

    And an all around good read:
    http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

  • zoltan||

    Doktor Kapitalism makes a good point about sodomy. Why aren't socons just as strict about vilifying the evils of oral, anal, and manual sex between heterosexuals?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    That's a good question, one I've pondered before. In John Stossel's first book we get this quote (from Georgia state representative Mitchell Kaye): "Through some of these acts, you can't propagate the species. They're not morally correct." Kaye goes on to talk about his nanny state legislating morality, which Stossel repudiates.

    (Another interesting ancedote is Georgia attorney general Mike Bowers debating for the anti-homosexual law in Georgia at the same time he was having an affair with on of his employees. Interesting...)

    Seriously, what the hell, Mr. Kaye? Propagating the species *is* the original purpose of sexuality, but that's rarely the intention even good Protestant man-woman couple have in mind when they get together in the bedroom.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Couple should read couples to ensure subject-verb agreement. Arghh.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    The gays are just the low-hanging fruit (ahem). After they legislatively punish them, rest assured, they'll enforce their moral laws on all of the hetero "sodomites" too. The JohnDs of the world won't rest until all "immoral" and "disgusting" sex acts have been legislated out of existence!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Except when they happen to enjoy doing something "immoral" or "disgusting."

    It's all a matter of taste, so long as no one's individual rights are being violated.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Your gay friends are low hangers huh?

    Nice.

  • BanditoWalrus||

    We priests in the ULC have already got around the no-gay-marriage law.

    http://blog.themonastery.org/2.....via-skype/

    Wherever there is a corrupt law, there will be those of us who get around it!

  • Ben P.||

    Don't get me wrong, here. I support this entirely and would officiate this way myself given the possibility, but ... uh, I thought that proxy marriages and the legal equivalent (which would seem to include telepresence-based ceremonies) are not legal in all states?

    Or is this one where -- and, again, I applaud this -- folks are waiting to see who sues to overturn the validity of the marriage license so that there's a precedent-setting case to be had?

  • hmm||

    Since we have a Pauly Krugnuts comment above.

    Not just an economist, a climatologist economist. Is there nothing this man can't do?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02......html?_r=3

  • yonemoto||

    Wow. He posits a simple explanation, and then says, but no, that doesn't fit with how I want to craft things as... The article makes it clear just how much economists have strayed from the principle of ockham's razor.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Has he agreed to debate Bob Murphy yet?

    *rhetorical*

  • Realist||

    "Is there nothing this man can't do?" Yes....pull his head out of his ass.

  • ||

    LOL, OK who comes up with all this stuff??

    anonymize.edu.tc

  • J Peron||

    You would think the Illuminiati-fearing Birchers ought to be the ones that annoy conservatives. As for God having good aim, well didn't Rev. Pat say Katrina was to punish the gay festival in the French Quarter of New Orleans? And didn't the French Quarter get spared while God knocked down Baptist churches all over the South.

    As for God sending disasters, the least likely place to get hit by natural disaster, in the US, is in New England, where gay marriage is legal. In the deep South, where they are so righteous that they hate both the sin and the sinner, God sends hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. As for God's "blessings" his aim is just as bad. New England is a lot wealthier than Bible-believing states, has lower crime rates, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower VD rates, etc.

    I guess the problem is that God is now so old his eyes are giving out and his aim ain't what it used to be.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    The birch John society has been in charge since Buckley, Jr.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    How's God supposed to concentrate with all that sodomy going on!

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Shut up and sit down.

  • hmm||

    Is it really fair to run straight to the Birch society? Isn't just picking the low hanging fruit in the big tent with the long pole?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    The Craig/Moynihan subthread is at the top.

  • Barney The Frank||

    Long pole, I wish I had been there.

  • ola||

    Is this all you saw Hanrihan?

  • ||

    "We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible...It's not a boutique. You can't pick one and not the other."

    It is a boutique, and two out of three ain't bad. If the Republican tent is too big for social conservatives--then the door's unlocked!

    Go back to being Southern Democrats already. Please?

    Nothing could strike a bolder blow for economic freedom and a strong national defense like cultural conservatives deserting the Republican Party...please, please go away.

    Please, pretty please, with a statue of Jesus on top--go away!

  • ||

    I wish they would all move to a country where the people are so concerned with remaining culturally conservative that they're willing to stifle economic growth to keep their culturally conservative world that way...

    Please, cultural conservatives--please go away!

    Go be Southern Democrats again... Then you can focus on trying to veto other people's rights at the ballot box again! ...just like Obama and the rest of the Democrats!

  • Cornelius||

    "I wish they would all move to a country where the people are so concerned with remaining culturally conservative that they're willing to stifle economic growth to keep their culturally conservative world that way..."

    Egypt is going to need new leadership soon...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Then you can focus on trying to veto other people's rights at the ballot box again! ...just like Obama and the rest of the Democrats!


    Which rights would they be?

  • ||

    The right to opt out of nationalized healthcare.

    The right to buy and own a gun.

    The right to get married.

    Those are just off the top of my head, but all of those rights are rights regardless of how many people vote for or against them.

    ...unless you're a Democrat. Then you think those rights should be up for a vote. For some strange, unknown reason.

    That is the very obvious reason why, although I don't always vote for Republicans--I have never voted for a Democrat.

    They think our rights should be a popularity contest. That's why they call themselves "Democrats".

  • Nicklinc||

    Oh my god, the stupid, it hurts, it hurts so good. I feel like John Stewart should hold a huge rally just off the retardedness of your post. I think maybe your rights to own a gun and get married were taken away because of the extra chromosome? It's like I want to be angry with you for housing such utter idiocy as a voter, but on the other hand it's awesome that someone as tarded as you can type on his "magic bright box".

  • ||

    Somewhere, deep within that dump-heap of ad hominem..there was a point.. Wait, that was gas.

  • BlueBook||

    I wonder what sort of guidance systems God uses for His precision fire-&-brimstone projectiles? Laser? Satellite? Millimeter-wave gaydar?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    The first two are tools developed by reason; God is a matter of faith.

  • ||

    So gaydar then?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Either fantasy, or just an empirical-heuristic means employed by individuals to identify homosexuals. Fraught with error.

  • ||

    I'll go with mm wave gaydar because is sounds bad ass.

  • Fluffy||

    Is it true that Rand Paul's people booed Cheney?

  • ||

    I heard it over the radio. They were drowned out by the applause, practically, but there were people booing Cheney.

    Over the radio, they just called them "libertarians", which was nice. It's nice to hear somebody attribute something I like to libertarians once in a while... There's gotta be somebody out there thinking, "Well if they booed Cheney, then I guess they can't be all bad!"

  • John Tagliaferro||

    See "Sit down and shut up" above.

  • zoltan||

    Go suck Cheney's dick and leave the rest of us alone, Suki.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Please be civil. It so helps with the respectability factor.

  • mr simple||

    You must be new here.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Not really, just tired of the angry libertarians and everyone else.

  • Bruce Majors||

    They were not drowned out and they booed and shouted "War Criminal." Some of them were borderline assaulted.

  • Vans Old Skool||

    Did Moynihan hook up in the men's room?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Someone skipped to the end.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You straight boys on Reason always have way more sex fantasies about Moynihan than I do.

    So I am curious: which is his best feature for you? The one getting your peckers all woody.

  • Paul||

  • Tech Support||

    Shit. How the hell do you turn this thing off??

  • sevo||

    I think it's *off* already.........

  • sevo||

    Got a note that Gary Johnson *wasn't* invited to speak. Maybe that's a good thing.

  • GOProud||

    Gary prolly worried he'd catch teh AIDS!

  • sevo||

    Yep, one more "well....."
    (from his web site):
    "Governor Johnson does support gay and civil unions. However, he does not support gay marriage."
    Wimp.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Concurred. Take a side already, or just don't say anything at all.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yep, one more "well....."
    (from his web site):
    "Governor Johnson does support gay and civil unions. However, he does not support gay marriage."
    Wimp.


    How is that wimpy?

  • sevo||

    "How is that wimpy?"

    See: "...does not support gay marriage."
    Is that enough?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    "How is that wimpy?"

    See: "...does not support gay marriage."
    Is that enough?


    That is not wimpy.

    I see no benefit in redefining marriage.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Have you tried thinking about it?

  • TheShag||

    Hey, you guys don't owe me anything, but I was wondering if some people would be willing to actually share their views on homosexuality. Specifically in regard to marriage, military service, and protected status. It doesn't have to be much, but I am curious.

  • sevo||

    "some people would be willing to actually share their views on homosexuality. Specifically in regard to marriage, military service...."

    My view: What in hell do those issues have to do with someone's sexual orientation?
    But what do you mean "protected"? Protected from what?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    While not a homosexual, I see nothing wrong with people who do. I recently saw a play about interviews of people on the topic of homosexuals in the military, really shook up my views. I don't like the discrimination, but I have to admit that there is a valid point that open gays and lesbians on the front lines (but they still don't allow women on the front lines, do they? If you know, tell.) might have a negative effect on fighting ability. However, considering that we already have one of the strongest militaries in the world, and no one would dare attack us, I have to posit that a little reduction in "combat readiness" wouldn't be a disaster.

    As for marriage, I think that the whole "sanctity of marriage" business is stupid. Get the government out of the marriage business. It's a religious matter. If you're not religious, draw up a marriage contract. It doesn't matter what is said in it, so long as it doesn't step over serious lines (life, liberty, property rights, that sort of thing), so the government shouldn't have much of a say in it. If two men or two women or multiple men and women or any combination thereof want to do so, and everyone consents, I have no objections.

  • sevo||

    "If two men or two women or multiple men and women or any combination thereof want to do so, and everyone consents, I have no objections."

    So long as the offsprings' welfare were an integral part of the hypothesized contract, I'd agree. But that makes it a *hell* of a contract to draft.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It wouldn't be so hard if anybody cared about contract law anymore. Unfortunately few people have experience with contracts outside of waiver, wills, and business, which don't provide a good foundation for civil contracts.

  • ||

    And that's valuing intentions over results. If I was raised by a mother and a magic 8 ball, for instance, it might not have been the best, even if they were very much in love and only wanted what was best for me. I'm not saying a homosexual union is that absurd, I'm just saying that maybe there is an ideal context for raising a child and it has nothing to do with good intentions.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Plenty of other species in nature leave parenting up to homosexual couples at times. Some kind of waterfowl (I forget which) has homosexual couples where one mates with a female, gets the babies, drives off the female, and the two males raise the babies.

    It's possible that homosexual couples will make better parents. Seeing as we haven't tried that to any great extent for any significant period of time, it's too early to say.

  • sevo||

    "It's possible that homosexual couples will make better parents."

    That wasn't the point. If wife A divorces husband, does wife B now become the "mother"? And if husband A divorces wife A, does he then divorce wife B?
    I think you and Fluffy are blowing off a non-trivial point.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I'm not "blowing it off." Each marriage contract would be unique. Some would be good, some would be bad, but eventually people would either learn or hire a lawyer to write it up. It's a better plan than what most people use.

    For some thought on the matter of alternative marriage schemes, I recommend "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. It deals with many other libertarian issues, but I found the ideas about marriage particularly intriguing.

  • Robert||

    Is that how Donald wound up with Huey, Louis, and Dewey? And Daisy's in a kitchen in Peking?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I doubt the republic will stand or fall on whether or not gay marriage is legal. Mostly I view it as an institutional non sequitur.

    I generally chalk up cosmotarian support for it to the same impulse that makes 10 year old boys fart at the dinner table.

  • ||

    I generally chalk up slappy posting here to the fact that he couldn't find any livestock to have intercourse with. How's your legal battle to marry Henry the Rooster going, cocksucker? One of these days Ol' Hank is going to make an honest woman out of you, slappy.

    -----
    Why don't you italicize non sequitir you fucking scumbag?

  • sevo||

    Slap the Enlightened!|2.10.11 @ 9:47PM|#
    "Mostly I view it as an institutional non sequitur."

    Agreed about the republic, but *people* will suffer if it's left as is.
    I tend to value "people".

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Agreed about the republic, but *people* will suffer if it's left as is.
    I tend to value "people".


    How do people suffer under the definition of marriage as recognized by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey?

    More to the point, how does the English language itself cause people to suffer?

  • sevo||

    "How do people suffer under the definition of marriage as recognized by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey?"

    Dunno. WIH is Murphy v. Ramsey?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Dunno. WIH is Murphy v. Ramsey?


    Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 1885), was a U.S. Supreme Court case whose dicta was quoted in the legislative summary of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.


    114 U.S. 15 at 45

    This dicta was also cited as a holding in Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344,345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401.

  • ||

    the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization

    Ha! They obviously didn't know my parents.

    And I don't know about teh gheys, but I am sure suffering under the weight of all those meaningless platitudes.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And I don't know about teh gheys, but I am sure suffering under the weight of all those meaningless platitudes.
    reply to this


    And yet the Supreme Court quoted that exact phrase to justify legal holdings in Davis and Bitty.

    Imagine that.

  • sevo||

    "holy estate"

    Oops; fail. See Amendment #1.

  • Jim||

    Not to mention the hordes of unfit straight parents.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Oops; fail. See Amendment #1.


    No, you fail.

    The Supreme Court quoted that phrase in Murphy in a case who appeal included, among other challenges, a First Amendment challenge. (Davis v. Beason) And it rejected those challenges, finding that the law in question was not open to any constitutional or legal objection.

  • Fluffy||

    How could homosexuals possibly be worse than fundamentalist Christians?

    At least homosexuals aren't actively attempting to raise their children as fucking retards.

    When the "welfare of the offspring" includes not being subjected to intentional retardation by fuckwads, get back to me. Until then shut the fuck up. I guess the "offspring" will have to hope for the fucking best just like everybody else.

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Well, look at it logically.

    There are many unadopted children in America.

    Even if gay couples are not 'ideal' for raising children, an 'inferior' family is better than NO family, correct?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Well, look at it logically.

    There are many unadopted children in America.

    Even if gay couples are not 'ideal' for raising children, an 'inferior' family is better than NO family, correct?


    That is an argument on whether homosexuals should be permitted to adopt, not what the definition of marriage should be. Of course, I do favor preferential treatment for married couples in regard to adoption.

    Note that Texas does not automatically forbid homosexuals from adopting children.

  • ||

    There is a lot of social science data saying that the ideal family structure for raising children is an intact family including the biological mother and biological father. There is no conflict in accepting that data as convincing and also recognizing that less socially ideal situations (including divorced parents, single parents, gay parents, and other alternative situations) aren't *acceptable* if not ideal. In order to exclude gay couples from parenting there would have to be something specifically detrimental about the situation, and I don't think there is anything.

    And if there is nothing particularly wrong with gay parenting, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with gay marriage, specifically because government's involvement in marriage has usually been defended on the basis of the potential social costs of child raising.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And if there is nothing particularly wrong with gay parenting, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with gay marriage, specifically because government's involvement in marriage has usually been defended on the basis of the potential social costs of child raising.


    Married couples (in the traditional sense) are presumptively capable of procreating via ordinary methods, and can procreate without intent.

    The government could believe that offering the protection of marriages to such couples would help society deal with the effects of unintentional procreation, while offering these protections to same-sex couples would not.

  • Thomas O.||

    Just because a same-sex-couple household is, as you might claim, not the ideal environment for raising a child does not mean that they should be forbidden from having or adopting children. Save the child-relocating for the genuinely abusive family environments.

  • zoltan||

    No one should have protected status. Marriage should not be within the boundaries of the state. No one should be denied military service due to their sexual orientation, nor should they be required to keep it secret.

    Other than that, people fuck who they want to fuck. I can't imagine what it would be like if a huge group of people out there hated me because of what I like to do in private.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Specifically in regard to marriage, military service, and protected status. It doesn't have to be much, but I am curious.


    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and has been recognized as such by Western civilization for over seven centuries. And the reason for this is that the marital union is presumptively capable of procreation via ordinary methods. Thqat is why society, despite its views on the buttsecks, singles out these types of unions for disparate favorable treatment. There is no reason to expand this definition.

    As for the military, what counts is conduct, not orientation.

    I oppose protected status.

  • Jim||

    So why then did we OK marriage of the elderly and sterile? They can't reproduce.

  • Amakudari||

    Also, why are those antiquated views relevant when gays can have children via widely available methods?

    Until I see the same people fighting against "non-traditional" marriage trying to put a but-you-must-have-children-within-n-years clause into the grant of a marriage license, I'm calling BS.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Until I see the same people fighting against "non-traditional" marriage trying to put a but-you-must-have-children-within-n-years clause into the grant of a marriage license, I'm calling BS.


    And we reject your calls of BS.

    If your argument was rejected in 1911, let alone 1511, why should we accept it today?

  • Jim||

    Since you're hung up on procreation Michael, could you please respond to my earlier point about why you would not discriminate against straights who cannot reproduce the same way you do against gays?

  • Jim||

    Sorry Michael, I see you did respond to it; ignore the above.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Because maybe everyone back them was irrational? Just because slavery was legal in the 1850s doesn't mean we should go back to that. Just because feudalism was the dominant system of government 1000 years ago doesn't mean we should go back to it.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Just because slavery was legal in the 1850s doesn't mean we should go back to that.


    And yet the 13th Amendment did not redefine slavery.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Marriage is not a solid definition. It arises from religious practices, and religious practices change. Slavery, on the other hand, is more clear cut. If you're forced to work, you're a slave.

    The so-called "definition of marriage" you seem congentially joined to is a product of the Christian church. If I found a new religion, with it's definition of marriage as one woman, one tree, it's perfectly valid (if a bit weird).

    Your religion may not be favorable to homosexuals. The 1st Amendment bans religious law. Therefore: the government has no right to make laws about marriage, because marriage is an inherently religious act. For those who are agnostics or atheists, marriage is a matter of contract.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So why then did we OK marriage of the elderly and sterile? They can't reproduce.


    Because it was impractical to inquire on a couple's sterility.

    Look, this definition was used for centuries.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    And 5 million Frenchmen *can* be wrong.

  • Thomas O.||

    And it should be impractical to inquire on sexual orientation as well.

    The reason - nay, EXCUSE - of "you can't do this just because it's been this way for centuries" is no longer a valid or convincing argument. SoCons need to come up with something better.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I strongly doubt that they can.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Oh please, government-sanction marriage is a joke, ever been to Las Vegas? You think the people that get married by Elvis or in a drive-thru wedding give a crap about the sanctity of marriage?

    As for procreation, why do we allow couples who do not want to procreate, are too old to procreate, or have abortions get married?

    Stop being such a statist. The government shouldn't even be in the business of marriage. In a perfect libertarian world we would simply have powers of attorney and next of kin designations.

    Mississippi Burning over License Plate.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....plate.html

  • Michael Ejercito||

    As for procreation, why do we allow couples who do not want to procreate, are too old to procreate, or have abortions get married?


    Because procreation can happen without intent.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Yes, and when it does they have an abortion. By the way, do you think a 65 year old woman can get pregnant without taking hormones? Give me a break.

    Black Chamber of Commerce: Did Obama Lie to Us? Oh yes he did!
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....obama.html

  • BanditoWalrus||

    I agree with my church that homosexuality is NOT wrong. You cannot choose who you are or are not attracted to, and no one should expect you to go against nature. I also find the laws against gay marriage to be an affront to my freedom of religious practice. DOMA essentially says "You can't hold this religious ceremony if it is betwixt two men or two women." I firmly believe we need to protect the sanctity of marriage, by keeping the state out of it.

    Furthermore, my personal views do not even matter, because I do not believe in enforcing my personal moral codes onto anyone. For the things that I believe are right or wrong, I will apply them to my own life. I would never turn to litigation for morality.

  • BanditoWalrus||

    I agree with my church that homosexuality is NOT wrong. You cannot choose who you are or are not attracted to, and no one should expect you to go against nature. I also find the laws against gay marriage to be an affront to my freedom of religious practice. DOMA essentially says "You can't hold this religious ceremony if it is betwixt two men or two women." I firmly believe we need to protect the sanctity of marriage, by keeping the state out of it.

    Furthermore, my personal views do not even matter, because I do not believe in enforcing my personal moral codes onto anyone. For the things that I believe are right or wrong, I will apply them to my own life. I would never turn to litigation for morality.

  • ||

    The truth is, if marriage remained a private-contract arrangement, it wouldn't matter if your church did or did not endorse homosexual unions. If you want a church-endorsed contract for marriage (as, presumably, most Americans would) then your contract would simply reflect your church's specific requirements for such a union. This strikes me as the best possible situation, as everyone's union would reflect precisely the expectations they have of the union.

    Instead, we have an institution of marriage whose expectations do not match what many people want, and as a result more and more people are choosing to not participate at all. Which is really too bad, because marriage is a truly wonderful thing. I don't find a more elastic, customized situation would be at all bad. If you want to be married and gay, draw up a contract and then go to your Unitarian church (or whatever) and get it endorsed. If you're a Catholic and want a Catholic Church endorsed marriage, do that instead. Fighting over a single word is such a fucking waste of time. It already doesn't mean to everyone what social conservatives want it to mean. That horse is already out of the barn.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I think a lot of this heterosexual-homosexual-bisexual argument is an excuse to cover up the fact that government has no business in marriage.

  • ||

    Speaking only for myself:
    marriage: The current state of the law is that there isn't a right to "marry whoever you want". And social conservatives are correct (if incredibly tone deaf) when they note that recognizing such right for same sex unions would mean recognizing such a right for incestuous couplings, polygamy, etc.
    That said, marriage is was and should remain a matter for the several states. Personally, I'd have no problem permitting it in my own state. But, I'm a New Yorker and there's a whole different set of conditions here than there are in Texas, Utah or Alabama.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Rights don't come from government, they come from being a human being. Rights are conditions which must be present for a human being to live a fufilling life.

    Won't even deal with you incorrect marriage argument, but as I've said elsewhere, I have no objections to polygamy (not to be confused with polyandry or especially polygyny).

  • ||

    Rights don't come from government, they come from being a human being. Rights are conditions which must be present for a human being to live a fufilling life.


    Fair enough. But marriage is, by definition, a public recognition of a relationship. By what standard do you claim that there is a right to have other people recognize a relationship?

    Won't even deal with you incorrect marriage argument...

    Then you give me no reason to change my view. If you expect me to accept your claim that I'm incorrect, then you'll have to support your claim.
    but as I've said elsewhere, I have no objections to polygamy (not to be confused with polyandry or especially polygyny).

    That's fine. I don't have a particular objection, either. But, if people have a "right to marry whoever you want" then the right applies in both cases.
  • ||

    Speaking only for myself:
    military service - if gays and lesbians want to get shot at while I eat my bagel and drink my latte, more power to 'em. The military brass has made pretty clear that they can navigate any potential problems with combat readiness, although I can't help but roll my eyes at the folks who want to ignore the issue and treat the military as a jobs program.

  • ||

    Speaking for myself,
    protected status: no person or group should have "protected status". You have the same rights as anyone else. But thosse rights stop at coercing me. Someone who discriminates against gays or women or black people or hispanics or Jews or Muslims or whatever the latest group to get the upper hand in the victimology war of all on all might be a terrible person. But it isn't your or my right to coerce them to cooperate or accomodate those people. That is a violation of their rights.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Shag many libertarians don't believe in much of a military for gays to serve in or in state marriage licenses for anyone.

    Their positions are that heterosexuals should be denied government sanctioned marriage and that heterosexuals should be thrown out of the military.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Now I'm worried. Does anyone know a good psychiatrist?

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Yeah, I'd recomended my psych. He got my Paranoid Personality Disorder under control, he can get this guy's fixed up too. :P

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Who knew the singularity would be anti-semitic?

  • JohnD||

    Crawl back under your rock, moron.

  • Bingo||

    HAhaha, I had forgotten that Birchers still exist.

  • SIV||

    You don't read The New American ?

    Seriously the JBS was a pretty significant player in promoting libertarian ideas back in the 50s and 60s. Doherty covers it in his book. They are definitely minarchists. Right wing slightly paranoid minarchists. I agree with them on the UN. I find it amusing that in the so-called "conformist 1950s" there was a middle American mass movement that thought Ike was a dirty commie.

  • Mr Whipple||

    G Edward Griffin is a Bircher.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    It looks like they called down to central casting to get the Bircher. "Yeah, we need an old white guy. Great. Does he look constipated? Excellent. Does he look like he and his unattractive wife sleep in separate twin beds? Outstanding. How would you describe him? Douchey? I think we have found our guy."

    He only smiled when the topic of smiting gays came up.

  • woof||

    marriage - yes
    military - yes
    protected status - no

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    What do we mean by protected status?

  • zoltan||

    Inane "hate crime" laws?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Murder is murder, theft is theft, arson is arson, assualt is assualt, etc. is etc. Prosecute for the crime committed, not words said.

  • sevo||

    I see The Shag hasn't responded. I'm beginning to wonder if the question wasn't stated such that folks would ignore the "protection" issue in the hopes of trolling.
    Speak up, The Shag.

  • TheShag||

    I know its been a couple of days, but I have a life outside of the forums I frequent.

    I brought up protected status because the recent Prop 8 decision in part depends on whether or not laws singling out homosexuals fall under strict scrutiny or not.

    I figured everyone here would say that no groups deserve protection, but I'm wasn't counting on it so I could call people racists or something. Life is too short to be tough on the internet.

    Oh, and I read every response on this thread. Thanks!

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Exactly! Hate crime laws are just tricks the Democrats do to make people feel better. Think about it, if someone is willing to kill me over my sexual orientation (which is already a crime) why would someone change their mind just because it is /slightly/ more illegal?

  • zoltan||

    They are as odious as putting public servants under protected status.

  • Bingo||

    Summary?

  • sevo||

    STUFF!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    About right.

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Blah, blah, blah, conspiritoral nonsense.

    Blah, blah, blah, New World Order.

    Blah, blah, blah, pay attention to me! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

    Summery complete.

  • The Jews||

    You forgot about us horned devils.

  • ||

    I don't care if Moynihan brought you back with him from CPAC.

    He cannot keep you here!

  • ||

    Ha!

  • Max||

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    Jesus fucking christ.

    This crap almost makes libturds look rational.

  • sevo||

    Max! I'd have sworn that was your new screen name!
    It isn't? Well, surprise!

  • Thomas O.||

    tl;dr

  • ||

    BREAKING:

    Nicolas Winding Refn, of the excellent Pusher trilogy, will be helming the Logan's Run remake.

    http://www.avclub.com/articles.....-lo,51686/

  • ||

    I don't have high hopes.

  • ||

    Rightly so.

    The Pusher movies really are good though.

  • Rick H.||

    Yeah, Bronson was pretty disappointing after the pure majesty of Pusher II & III.

  • Shmenge||

    The two best things about Logan's Run are Jenny Agutter

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Why remake perfection?

  • Juice||

    Good to know that God uses smart fire. I guess it's like a brimstone JDAM.

  • ???||

    OT: Thoreau (poster) hangs out @ highclearing.com (Unqualified Offerings). The URL http://highclearing.com is currently serving up just a bunch of financial links, along w/ a picture of a perky college student. Did someone forget to renew their domain name?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I've seen that page on other website links that fail. Looks about right.

  • ???||

    Whois says the domain name registration expired today @ 03:58:33. Oops. Hope Henley, Thoreau, et al figure this out.

  • ???||

    UO is "fixed."

  • Colin||

    Dude, you should've asked the Bircher about fluoridation.

    And the JOOOS!

  • Mr Whipple||

    Assholes like this Bircher guy is why I voted for Mondale in '84. In the 80s, when I was in college, I viewed the Christian Coalition, and the Moral Majority as the biggest threats to my freedom, at that time. There seemed to be plenty of them supporting Reagan.

    Moynihan should have asked him if he thought AIDS was created by God to kill all the junkies and fags.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Assholes like this Bircher guy is why I voted for Mondale in '84

    So you're the one.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I think my roommate did also. He was from Youngstown. Jim Traficant was Sheriff, then.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5Os1400uc

  • BanditoWalrus||

    Regulating a religious ceremony.

    Let's here it for small-government, constitutional government everyone!

  • zoltan||

    To be fair, most gays want what most straights want--the sweet, sweet government bennies. How many people would even file for a state-sanctioned marriage (as opposed to a contract) if those were eliminated?

    Get rid of special privileges for married people and you kill state-sponsored relationships.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    For the most part I don't think that's true. It's not just practical, it's very much an emotional issue.

  • Realist||

    If the Republicans don't lose that thumpper mentality thet're fucked.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If the Republicans don't lose that thumpper mentality thet're fucked.


    How so?

    Is it any different than socialist fundamentalism?

  • Almanian||

    Good video! The cowboy hat was mega gay - nicely done. The Birch dude scared the fuck out of me. The rest of the folks ranged from "meh" to "slightly weird".

    WTF was Donald Trump there for again?

    Good job!

  • ||

    I heard Trump is considering a Pesidential run. If anyone can bankrupt the country better than Obama it will be Trump, considering some of the past companies he ran into the ground.

  • sevo||

    Pretty sure that rodent on his head is going to run. Trump knows *he'd* never get any votes.

  • ||

    I don't know anymore. I think that there are plenty of people in this country who don't realize that he has bankrupted so many companies.

  • Mensan||

    I'd vote for The Jacket (with The 'Stache as V.P.) before I'd vote for The Rug.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I'd rather reverse them, but that's not too important for me.

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42446738523

  • ||

    Fuck you guys

    God is for me and only for me!! All you other motherfuckers, all 9 billion of you, will burn!!!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    We haven't hit 7 billion yet. Are you counting the great apes as well?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    According to the US Census Bureau, we're up to 6,890,000,000 as of January 2011. Not sure what the USCB is doing measuring the world population, but there are the numbers.

  • ||

    My reply to the Heritage Foundation boycott: Well, bye. Don't let the door hit your uptight ass on the way out.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Where's Stuttering John when you need him?

  • ||

    When do we get a convention??

    Fuck even daily Kos got one a few years ago.

  • Mr Whipple||

    We got a cruise. And a Happy Hour.

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/08.....ia-freedom

  • ||

    I recently read a story about the Democrats being so scared of groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin undermining their gay support that they're specifically targeting gay-friendly Republican incubents in 2012.

  • zoltan||

    I can't imagine why Heritage Foundation, et. al. wants to scare away the gays. This is a decent-sized group with wads of cash! They are the darlings of the media! This is what the Republicans need to spruce up their image.

  • ||

    Come to think of it, I can't remember ever meeting a gay who was poor.

  • Mensan||

    "I can't remember ever meeting a gay who was poor."

    I knew one. The guy was technically homeless, but he had several boyfriends and he would just rotate which house he slept at, or just hook up with some random guy for the night. I never quite understood how he managed to be so popular, because this dude was seriously ugly and he didn't use deodorant.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Perhaps he had some "hidden assets".

  • Butthead||

    *huh,huh* "wads"

  • CE||

    We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible...

    More like "incompatible." If you fund a strong "national defense" there goes your economic freedom.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Umm...fail. No strong defense = no lasting freedom. It's the socon stupid.

  • Jim||

    Define "strong". All I want is a military good enough to protect my borders. People advocating for "strong national defense" usually mean "military powerful enough to topple regimes on the other side of the earth".

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    ...which isn't defense. They want a strong national Offense. I wonder how it would sound talking about the Secretary of Offense and the DoO?

  • ||

    really need to go back to 'War Department'

  • AJ||

    At the risk of being too serious for the comment section, this is what it boils down to: the sole issue of contention here is gay marriage (and related issues like gay adoption). There is no agitation on the part of social conservatives for the return of sodomy laws.

    So let's look at this from the standpoint of reason, logic and non-emotional rationality which libertarians presumably ought to be known for, as the name of this website suggests.

    The only reason why this issue even arises is because the government has a variety of laws regarding marriage. It licenses marriage, and alternately subsidizes it or punishes it in the tax code depending on what day of the week it is. Simply put, gays demanding marriage are demanding their own personal government teat to suckle on, nothing more. Why should libertarians care about this issue at all? Laws prohibiting private sexual behavior between consenting adults, sure. That's a clear-cut libertarian issue. Gay marriage? Who cares. Libertarianism has no dog in the fight unless somebody wants to seriously talk about de-regulating it altogether.

    This kind of issue is where people like Moynihan out themselves. Not as gays, but as leftists hiding behind libertarian "street cred". Or put more precisely, the argument in favor of gay marriage is not a libertarian argument, it is an egalitarian argument. There is no law preventing gays from exchanging vows and rings, declaring themselves married and living together. This is about government sanction and benefits. Tell me again why libertarians should give a crap?

  • sevo||

    "Simply put, gays demanding marriage are demanding their own personal government teat to suckle on, nothing more."

    Bull............
    shit.

  • Fluffy||

    This isn't even remotely true.

    Absolute equality before the law is a requirement of liberty.

    There's really no way to devise a system where men are "free" but where one class of citizens possesses privileges at law that other classes of citizens don't.

    This is like arguing that it would not be an offense against liberty to have a system where only atheists could hold public office, but where non-atheists were not molested by the state while practicing their religion.

    "Huh? Wha? Wha's the problem? You're free to do what you want. Why do you need this extra sanction and benefit?"

  • AJ||

    I'm saying this for about the fourth or fifth time now, but this is not a libertarian issue. Here is yet another analogy:

    The fire department doesn't hire small women who can't lift a human body and carry it out of a fire. Should they be forced to in the name of equality? Can you not see differences between gays and heterosexuals that would justify the government taking a different stance? Specifically, the ability to reproduce?

    Now, this is assuming that the government has a role in trying to foster the family unit as a means of stabilizing society, which is certainly not a libertarian approach either. But if it is going to have such a program, the amount of "discrimination" in question here is, at a minimum, highly arguable.

    The libertarian position is clear, which is to end government involvement. Barring that, libertarianism does not have a dog in this fight.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I agree that the most libertarian position is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. At the same time, libertarians can be at least mildly annoyed that the GOP is basically encouraging gays to vote for statist pricks (no, no, the other statist pricks) if they want to exercise certain rights.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Sometimes you prick the state and sometimes the state pricks you.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    That's not a fair analogy, by anyone's standard. The firemen (excuse me, firepersons) are hired based on their ability to get the job done. If Jane Smith can lift a 200 lbs person, by all means, hire her.

    Marriage isn't a reproduction agreement. It's an emotional commitment with fancy paperwork. There's no good reason why letting gays and lesbians marry would hurt the general public.

  • ||

    "Can you not see differences between gays and heterosexuals that would justify the government taking a different stance? Specifically, the ability to reproduce?"

    Last I checked, gay woman can still get impregnated, and a gay man can still inseminate.

  • woof||

    "Simply put, gays demanding marriage are demanding their own personal government teat to suckle on, nothing more."

    No, it's about being treated equally. It's much more than getting a tax deduction.

  • AJ||

    "Being treated equally" = Egalitarianism.

    "Being free to do what you want" = Libertarianism.

  • sevo||

    AJ|2.11.11 @ 12:01AM|#
    "Being treated equally" = Egalitarianism.
    "Being free to do what you want" = Libertarianism."

    Making up very clever meanings =
    Bull............
    shit.

  • AJ||

    If by "very cleaver" you mean accurate, sure. Learn to use use Google. Words have meanings. Look them up.

  • ||

    Libertarianism means equal and maximal freedom for everyone, which includes equality under the law.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Libertarianism means equal and maximal freedom for everyone, which includes equality under the law.


    Surely it does not make sense to treat different things as though they were the same.

    Should the government be required to hire people for the specific purpose of criticizing its policies, if it hires people for the specific purpose of promoting its policies? After all, if the government hires people to promote its policies, while not hiring an equal number of people to criticize its policies, that is discrimination.

  • ||

    1. What does hiring have to do with equality under the law?

    2. What the fuck?

  • ||

    "Should the government be required to hire people for the specific purpose of criticizing its policies"

    Uhhh... Yes? Fuck yes?

  • AJ||

    Too bad you can't edit comments. Here's another example of an egalitarian statement:

    "Everyone should earn the same amount of money no matter what job they do or how hard they work".

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No, it's about being treated equally. It's much more than getting a tax deduction.


    Equal treatment is not congruous with equal names.

  • teh gays||

    was that trey parker as loren spivack at 1:20 in the video with the glasses and nerd slicked hair?

  • Hillary||

    We can't legalize gay marriage because there's too much money in it.

  • woof||

    Legalizing gay marriage = Government sanctioned buttsex.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Will that work with my wife?

    "But honey, it's government sanctioned!"

  • Quagmire||

    Take it from me. That always works with your wife.

  • sevo||

    "Legalizing gay marriage = Government sanctioned buttsex."

    Spoof? Or idiocy?
    You decide.......

  • woof||

    Not to mention tucheslingus.

  • ||

    "god rained fire and brimstone on sodom and gomorrah for the purpose of letting the world know that he didn't like the homosexual."

    WRONG.

    "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled traquility yet she did not support the poor and the needy." Ezekiel 16:49 (most direct translation from the JPS, anyway)

  • ||

    moynihan, you gotta be ready for this stuff. It'd be like the conservative equivalent of reminding a liberal protester with a rush tee shirt that rush was an objectivist band, which, by the way, was awesome.

  • ||

    I'm not sure about the entire band but Neal Peart is definitely an admirer of Ayn Rand.

  • AJ||

    You seem to have left out the next verse: (16:50) "They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

    Arguing that the Bible does not clearly state homosexuality as a sin is a losing proposition. It does.

    The relevant question is, what is the proper way to ensure maximum liberty for all? Including those who disagree on this kind of issue? De-regulate marriage, get rid of public schools. Let everyone live according to their own conscience, without forcing anyone else to agree with them.

  • ||

    What part of "Only this" was missed, or is this going to turn into a second amendment thing?

    Very few things in the old testament are clear at all (don't know much about the new). And the two references to homosexuality being a sin seem to be references to a certain act being a sin...

    http://stuffgodhates.wordpress.....18/8-anal/

  • ||

    I don't think the government should force people to like each other anymore than I think the government should discriminate against anyone. If Archie Bunker doesn't want to serve drinks to coloreds, fine. If George Jefferson doesn't want to clean some honky's suit, that's fine too. The government shouldn't make them. The government shouldn't tell two consenting adults they can't marry either.

  • AJ||

    Again, the arguments in favor of gay marriage are not libertarian arguments, they are egalitarian arguments. If you want to argue in favor of de-regulating marriage so that the government has no say in who is or isn't married, you may have a libertarian basis. Arguing to include gays in the current system has nothing to do with libertarianism.

  • Jim||

    I actually get your point, and agree with the principal. The problem is, until we can get the state out of marriage period, as you stated earlier words have meaning. And "marriage" has meaning in the government, which involuntarily rules over all of us. By not allowing gays to enjoy the same status of meaning, you are essentially saying it is OK to stand by and allow one group (married straights) to be given specific state sanction that is denied to someone else.

    Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. The gov't should not. As someone else pointed out earlier, this takes away the freedom of religion of those clergy who wish to perform homosexual marriage. Why do you support allowing government to suppress the religious freedom of a Unitarian minister?

  • AJ||

    My point is that people are entirely entitled to be gay rights activists, or militant atheists, or whatever other POVs are being expressed here, but that doesn't mean it's a libertarian position.

    What you're saying is the equivalent of this:

    "I don't think Social Security should exist, but since it does it should never be means tested, because that would be discriminatory". The result is that you are arguing for a larger version of a program you oppose. It's irrational, and there is no reason for libertarians to take that kind of position one way or the other. Individual libertarians could hold one view or the other, but there should be no enforced orthodoxy, and certainly no assumption that everyone should agree.

    Furthermore, it seems many "liberaltarians", "cosmotarians" or what have you (which Reason obviously tends toward), selectively apply their standards for liberty. Few seem concerned at all about the potential impact the institutionalization of gay marriage could have on religious liberty. If the restriction on religious freedom is similar or greater than the perceived restriction on the liberties of gays, the issue is even more of a wash.

    The subject should be nearly irrelevant to libertarian concerns as it stands now, and the fact that Reason apparently deems it the most important issue related to CPAC is a bad sign, IMO.

    Modern day libertarianism needs a lot more intellectual rigor, and a lot less juvenile "sex, drugs & rock and roll" posturing.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    By not allowing gays to enjoy the same status of meaning, you are essentially saying it is OK to stand by and allow one group (married straights) to be given specific state sanction that is denied to someone else.


    There you have it, the status of "meaning".

    It was not primarily about sucking the government teat, but seeking social valuation.

    That is one thing libertarianism can not address.

    By not allowing gays to enjoy the same status of meaning, you are essentially saying it is OK to stand by and allow one group (married straights) to be given specific state sanction that is denied to someone else.


    When the government hires people for the specific purpose of promoting its policies, it is effectively allowing oine group (people who agree with said policy) specific state sanction that is denied to someone else (a person who disagrees with said policy.)

    As someone else pointed out earlier, this takes away the freedom of religion of those clergy who wish to perform homosexual marriage.


    Only if the government actually punishes the Unitarian clergy.

    And as the Supreme Court held in Maher v. Roe, “There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy.” 432 U.S. 164 at 475 (1977)

  • woof||

    Other sins:

    Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),

    Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),

    Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),

    Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),

    Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),

    Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),

    Tattoos (19:28),

    Even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),

    Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),

    Collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing,

    Wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester, and

    Eating of non-kosher foods (e.g. shrimp).

    IN ADDITION, THE CODE REQUIRES:

    A child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)

    All persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)

    The daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive until dead (21:9)

    The bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13)

    Ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)

    A person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

  • zoltan||

    Moronic.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Wasn't there something in there require tassels on cloaks?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Define detestable. God finds a lot of things detestable in the Bible.

  • ||

    Naah, if you go directly to the story in Beresheit (Genesis) 19 you'll see that it's pretty explicit that Sodom is full of biblical sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When god sends angels disguised as men to take Lot out of the city, all the men come over and demand that Lot let them "know" his guests:

    5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

    6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.

    7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly.'

    8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'
  • zoltan||

    Please, angry mob, fuck my daughters for the love of God! Because I'm certainly going to do it later!!

  • ||

    Interesting point, but Lot is made drunk and seduced by his daughters because they want children. Did he really want to fuck 'em? Open to interpretation. Anyway, after the men barge in to get their business one with the angels and Lot they totally get blinded. I happen to think that the angels took the form of Charles Bronson.

  • ||

    Wes Benedict (who's actually attending CPAC and listed his newest Wall of Shame at lp.org) and Wayne Allyn Root are pretty much the only people I can support at this point should one or both run for President in 2012.

  • ||

    It looks like Root is gearing up again for the Libertarian nomination in 2012. He's again going on a bunch of talk shows (I thought he only just recently came off a media blitz) and only yesterday posted some ugly truths about the Obama Administration on lp.org.

  • Discount Mulberry bags||

    Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!Mulberry handbags

  • ||

    " ...small-government fellow travelers, the Conservative Political Action Conference"

    I think not.

  • Joe C||

    Those boycotting the gayness are basically guaranteeing that the pro-liberty crowd wins the straw poll in for Ron Paul.

  • ||

    If an individual is not able to do to their bodies whatever they wish than that individual is not Free.

    If you can't put in and take out of your body what you choose you are not a free person.

    If that isn't what we as Americans are striving for..then we suck and deserve to fade into history.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Sounds about right.

  • ||

    AJ, what you are saying is that if we cannot get gov out of marriage(which is the best option) then as libertarians we should not care. All or nothing stances are nice and principled, but I think there is a pretty clear 2nd best option.

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • tory burch||

    Thanks for your sharing,It's useful information.

  • دليل||

    asgasdasfg

  • huoyuanjia||

    A lot of people MBT Kisumu 2 do not yet know, global food has become a part of people's life MBT Kisumu sandals

  • sede||

    yuan

  • bushi||

    dddddddddd

  • yanleizhidao||

    The world is getting kobe 7 shoes for sale better every year and the last thing we need to do is lebron 9 china for sale question the need for centrally planned economies.

  • alipay||

    world

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