How Libertarians Pushed Gay Marriage in New York Over the Top

From the New York Times:

Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.

Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

More here.

In its take on the historic legislative action, New York magazine writes

How do you get rich Republicans to support gay marriage? By appealing to their libertarian sensibilities....Gay marriage has always been an ideal niche for liberaltarians. After all, it's the states, not the feds, that are the ones deciding whether it should be legal, a question that feeds into libertarians' federalist affinities. And when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty. On that...libertarians side with liberals.

More here.

Here's hoping the next step is drug legalization!

Reason on gay marriage.

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.

  • Warty||

    Liberals don't want drug legalization.

  • Lot's Wife||

    ^THIS^

    Hell, progressives pioneered the concept of drug prohibition.

  • Harry Anslinger||

    I was a progressive?

  • Lot's Wife||

    Yes you were.
    Read your own bio Harry.

    When he was 12, he heard the screams of a morphine addict that were only silenced by a boy returning from a pharmacist to supply the addict with more morphine. He was appalled that the drug was so powerful and that children had ready access to such drugs.

    Your foray into marijuana prohibition was enacted by the New Deal Congress and signed into law by FDR. Your progressive credentials are stellar.

  • Harry Anslinger||

    God, I was SUCH a fuckbag.

  • Satan||

    God can't help you now, Harry.

    By the way, you're scheduled to insert pineapples in Hitler's ass all next week. And don't forget Two-fer Tuesday!

  • Hitler||

    Ach! Mein keister ist der kaput!

  • ||

    In hell, gay marriage is mandatory.

  • Lot's Wife||

    It combines the worst of both worlds.

    NTTAWWT!

  • Paul||

    In hell, gay marriage is mandatory

    Fixed.

  • ||

    No, I meant gay as in Harley Davidson douchey gay, not same-sex gay.

  • Not Carl Sagan.||

    Thread-Jack:

    Somalia's new prime minister is an associate economics professor at Niagara University and he earned his PhD from a rather libertarian institution; George Mason University.

  • West Texas||

    Thread-Jack:

    Somalia's new prime minister is an associate economics professor at Niagara University and he earned his PhD from a rather libertarian institution; George Mason University.

    Now they're never going to get any ROAHDS!!!!! built.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Do they have gay mirage in Salmonella?

  • ||

    Whitey's been pinched, see?

  • Xenocles||

    "Harley Davidson douchey"

    That's "fag," not gay. Do try to keep up.

  • ||

    It's the same idea. Try to keep up.

  • ||

    No. No it isn't
    Fags are fags, but gay is festive.

  • Xenocles||

    It's very much not the same idea. The terms describe two entirely distinct groups. For example, a homosexual Harley douche would be a gay fag. Look it up, guy.

  • Franklin Harris||

    No, I meant gay as in Harley Davidson Ed Hardy douchey gay, not same-sex gay.

    Fixed.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Liberals don't want drug legalization.

    Every liberal I've ever met was (with the exception of two drug dealers, who pointed out the obvious economic adverse interest). Where they find the "liberals" who run in elections as Democrats, nobody knows.

    Communitarians, on the other hand, those fuckers would make eating candy apples illegal if they could. For the children. Fuck them.

  • ||

    Every liberal I've ever met was (with the exception of two drug dealers, who pointed out the obvious economic adverse interest). Where they find the "liberals" who run in elections as Democrats, nobody knows.
    @ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
    our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
    46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
    all this stuff, BetaSell.com

  • Lot's Wife||

    And when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.


    I guess the government will now stop prosecuting all those same sex couples who've been cohabitating and holding themselves out as married.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Or all those straight couples who have been cohabitating. Remember, social cons hate that shit, too.

  • Lot's Wife||

    I'm surprised the plethora of fornication prosecutions haven't wiped it out. Those SoCons are a regular American Taliban, forcing their morality on others by statute and prosecution.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue is just as bad, Lot's Wife. Never forget that simple truth.

    They just force their version of morality on others Their Way.

  • Lot's Wife||

    My point is they are somewhat worse. No one has been prosected for holding themselves out as same-sex married despite the "ban". I expect some will do hard time in prison for crimes related to commerce in incandescent light bulbs or unrestricted-flow shower heads.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Let's just leave it at "both Teams suck STEVE SMITH cock", and be done with it.

  • ||

    But one team sucks way way worse than the other.

    Socons are mostly rhetoric, the progressives are mostly action.

  • Polonius||

    In 2003 Texas went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for the right to throw gay people in jail. Social conservatives are still angry about the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, and in order to run as a Republican in Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, or Montana, you have to sign on to the party platform to recriminalize sodomy.

    There's a pretty strong passion out there among social conservatives (and gay-despising, states rights-loving libertarians) to bring back such laws. It's hardly ancient history.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Never mind that "sodomy" is practiced by shitloads of straight people...

  • Lot's Wife||

    Especially Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, or Montana Republicans!

  • Polonius||

    Part of the Texas GOP platform is to make officiating a gay marriage a felony offense.

  • Polonius||

    Certainly true, and it's really just any non-procreative sex that makes the writers of National Review uncomfortable, but Texas wasn't locking up guys who got BJs from women. The GOP of Texas has a particular passion for throwing gay people in jail, and even Ron Paul is angry that they are no longer allowed to do so. (He doesn't agree with the position, but supports it because his desire for Texas to have that authoritarian power is greater than his interest in personal freedom, and he's always happy to throw people he despises under the boot of state, not Federal, authorities.)

  • Lot's Wife||

    Buckley used to love giving it to his wife up the ass.

    "OH THE HYPOCRISY!!1!"

  • ||

    "(He doesn't agree with the position, but supports it because his desire for Texas to have that authoritarian power is greater than his interest in personal freedom, and he's always happy to throw people he despises under the boot of state, not Federal, authorities.)"

    I completely hate this argument. Just because the federal government is supportive of individual liberty on SOME issues, that doesn't mean that handing over power to the states would be bad. The federal government is still abusive on most issues, and it's not like a state would be able to ban homosexuality anyway. I've lived in texas all of my life, and I've known a lot of openly gay people. Even the vast majority of conservatives in texas would not throw people in jail for being gay. You don't know anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the politicians would generate a lot of hot air over the issue, but there is no militant "anti gay" movement in texas. People like you simply denigrate people from other states to use your own regionalism to argue in favor of a strong federal government.

  • LarryA||

    Even the vast majority of conservatives in Texas would not throw people in jail for being gay.

    What the "vast majority of conservatives" will do is irrelevant. All it takes is one homophobic prosecutor.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the politicians would generate a lot of hot air over the issue, but there is no militant "anti gay" movement in Texas.

    But there are a lot of people who would go along with one.

  • Huh?||

    The Texas law at issue in Lawrence only banned sodomy among homosexuals.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The Texas law at issue in Lawrence only banned sodomy among homosexuals.


    The Supreme Court's decision did not turn on that particular provision. Indeed, it was not an equal protection case, as both the First and Ninth Circuits observed.

  • ||

    "There's a pretty strong passion out there among social conservatives (and gay-despising, states rights-loving libertarians) to bring back such laws. It's hardly ancient history."

    And the Bogeyman is going to get you too!

  • ||

    Exactly, this is utter propaganda. I don't deny that there are people that would vote for such a thing, but in all the time that I lived in texas, I've known so many gay and lesbian individuals, and quite a few straight individuals that simply didn't give a shit about it. Of course states fight to protect even their most arcane laws from federal interference, and there were a lot of people that argued that the sodomy law was necessary charge for child molesters. There was no anti gay uprising in texas in support of the anti sodomy law.

    I really wonder if people like polonius ever go out and actually get to know other humans or if they simply read alarmist news and claim to have knowledge of the world?

  • ||

    "there were a lot of people that argued that the sodomy law was necessary charge for child molesters"

    I'm not saying that this was logical, just that it was a defense of the law.

    Besides, the way issues are dealt with in the courts has little to do with what people would vote for. Just because some justices would support a ban on homosexual sex, doesn't mean that texans wouldn't vote to repeal the law. MOst of the people dissenting from Lawrence did so because they felt that the legislature should be the one to make laws about sexual conduct, and that justices shouldn't "legislate from the bench." I completely disagree with that opinion, but attributing everything to an anti gay sentiment is not being honest.

  • ||

    http://www.texastribune.org/te.....-marriage/

    From this recent poll, only 30% of texans were completely against gay marriage or civil unions. I'm pretty sure that not all of these people would criminalize homosexual conduct, so it could be argued that less than a quarter of texans are at all in favor of "throwing gays into prison."

  • ||

    When it comes to striking down anti-gay laws, it's "legislating from the bench."

    When it comes to striking down bad health care laws, it's "protecting the Constitution."

    I don't disagree with the latter, but both could be considered "legislating from the bench". People like Mark Levin want it both ways - they always praise judicial activism when it furthers their own agenda. Justices should always be able to override the "legislative will of the people" in favor of defending individual rights, and there should be nothing wrong with that. Period.

  • ||

    In Dallas, it's illegal to possess realistic dildo's.. SoCon's are just as authoritarian as the progressives.

  • [John]ny [Long]torso||

    But half the population of Dallas can be described as "realistic dildos".

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Threadwin?

  • ||

    "But half the population of Dallas can be described as "realistic dildos"."

    There is absolutely no denying that, sir.

  • Brandon||

    Dallas City Council is controlled by Democrats, the vast majority of its Congressional representation is Democratic...bit of an oxymoron there

  • ||

    You do realize that Dallas is a city controlled by the dems?

  • ||

    So is El Paso, Austin, and I believe San Antonio. The population centers are much more blue than the state's reputation lets on.

  • West Texas||

    There's a pretty strong passion out there among social conservatives (and gay-despising, states rights-loving libertarians) to bring back such laws. It's hardly ancient history.

    This is completely true. And these many of these douchebags would be the first to also stand up and crow about "limited government" at the same time they're pushing their anti-gay laws.

    It's this kind of shit, especially with stuff like drugs and drunk driving and gambling prohibition, that makes me snicker whenever some lib calls me a "hard core conservative."

    Seriously, whereas progressives want to use the government force to eliminate all personal morality among the people and punish people for being "judgmental" in their private lives, conservatives want to use government force to instill their own version "morality" on the people instead and judge people themselves. It's two sides of the same coin.

    And the point is, none of this is about morality. It's about the legitimate role of government, which most people don't seem to get at all about libertarians.

  • Apogee||

    ^This

  • Rick Perry 2002||

    I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books.

  • !@#$*||

    Negative three cheers for the triumph of the money men and buyable senators.

  • Reason Approves!||

    Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

    Damn the ethics. Full gay ahead!

  • Obese Child||

    I thought billionaires only used their money to support White Supremacist Patriarchal Capitalist Heterofascism. And Islamophobia.

  • rather||

    Acceptance that gays did not have a DSM condition is societies catalyst for gay rights and same-sex marriage.

    Pharmaceutical companies changing their strategy from doctor marketing to consumer direct is the start of patient control and normalizing drug use.

    Both changes were due to money more than politics

  • Tim||

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. This doesn't liberate marriage from statism, it just extends the scope of what the state regulates.

  • Lot's Wife||

    Cosmos and liberals would say you're homophobic.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    No surprise. Cosmos and liberals are the kind people who visit the garden to water the weeds.

  • Lot's Wife||

    "And Go-balls, had no-balls at all!"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Cosmos and liberals can't read a fucking dictionary. They think "racist" applies to just about any random Whitey, for instance.

  • ||

    Fuck you!

  • Whitey Herzog||

    What Bulger said!

  • Whitey Ford||

    Sing it, brother!

  • Tighty Whitey||

    Fart it, brother!

  • Tighty Whitey||

    Fart it, brother!

  • ||

    Cosmos and liberals would say you're homophobic.

    This paleo says that state recognition of marriage is older then the history of the state.

    Count your blessings that marriage was even able to be reformed at all.

  • kennewick man||

    The 5 inch spear tip embedded in my hip says that its previous owner put it there because he was a closeted paleo.

  • rather||

    The 5 inch spear tip embedded in my hip says that its previous owner put it there because he was a closeted paleo.

    Next time, don't piss her off and take out the garbage

  • Lot's Wife||

    Your very existence is racist.

  • affenkopf||

    This paleo says that state recognition of marriage is older then the history of the state.

    You used that sentence in another thread. What the fuck is it supposed to mean? The state recognized marriage before there was a state?

  • rather||

    It means he is a malfunctioning robot. Report to maintenance for your scheduled deactivation

  • ||

    seriously why does everyone call me a robot?

  • rather||

  • ||

    The state recognized marriage before there was a state?

    It means the authorities have enforced rules and customs in regards for marriage for a very long time...so long in fact they are older then the state...and i would argue that the fact that this has been happening for so long and in so many cultures that state recognition of marriage is human nature.

    This is not to say that it cannot be changed...or to argue that i prefer the status quo.

    My argument is to fight such an entrenched institution for so little potential gain is folly.

    If you want to shrink the size of the state there are better low hanging fruit to go after first.

  • robc||

    This paleo says that state recognition of marriage is older then the history of the state.

    You are wrong.

  • ||


    This paleo says that state recognition of marriage is older then the history of the state.

    In Western world history, which is the only relevant one for Americans, marriage arose long before government arose ("the state").

    You might have legs upon which to stand if you were to claim that marriage has been recognized by tribe long before any government came into existence and tribes are precursors to government.

    Oh and the word you want is 'than' and not "then."

  • ||

    You might have legs upon which to stand if you were to claim that marriage has been recognized by tribe long before any government came into existence and tribes are precursors to government.

    That was what i was working on and saying it in a pretty clever manner if I do say so myself.

  • ||

    Epic alt text.

  • ||

    libertarians' federalist affinities.

    Say what now?

    And when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty. On that...libertarians side with liberals.

    No, you fucktards, liberals and conservatives are in agreement that the state should regulate marriage. They just disagree on who the licenses and subsidies should be given to. God dammit why does no one get this???

  • Apogee||

    +1

  • ||

    Someday, someone is going to come out and publicly question the logic of a gay "marriage." Personally, I may laugh at such sexual confusion,
    but those involved are there for reasons that are not explained by logic. It's like arguing against any other neurosis or psychosis : it gets you nowhere. Those who engage in this otherwise laughable behavior do so for reasons not altered by logic, or common sense.
    Biologically, of course, gay marriages are pure fraud. Psychologically, I thought most people knew that romantic love between same sexed folks is quite impossible. But this generation has shown itself quite idiotic with respect to love and marriage even between non-sexually confused folks.
    Marriage itself is rather pointless and marriage laws should all be removed from the books. They accomplish nothing and most often cause great harm.

  • ||

    HURR DURR?

  • Gabe E||

    sure thing genius.

  • ||

    And another stellar psychoanalysis of an entire demographic of Americans by an arm chair sociopath.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    One of those rare blessings that would be even fewer and farther between were it not for the internet, Sy.

  • Ray||

    Cool story, bro.

  • Bar Student||

    "Psychologically, I thought most people knew that romantic love between same sexed folks is quite impossible."

    Ahhhhhhhhhh, did your boyfriend dump you?

  • cowboy bebop||

    ooh yeah pass more rules to follow so we'll have less rules to follow!

    Now a rule that will benefit only 1/10th of 3% of the population makes the other 99.997% more free than ever!

    Somebody(s) spent zillions just to pass a law that benefits practically no one?

    Something stinks!

  • Lot's Wife||

    Not being a resident I don't give a shit if NY State wants to slightly expand it's limited definition of what constitutes government licensed marriage.
    This is a "libertarian victory" right up there with permitting government-funded stem-cell research. Raise a glass of Santorum and make a toast...to FREEDOM!

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Yeah, well... I learned a long time ago whenever you hear a political movement going on about the freedom-and-equality thing, you want to hold on to your wallet. I remember hearing the same caterwauling from the hippies.

    I'll feel a lot more secure in my liberties the day the last libertarian has been hanged.

  • Lot's Wife||

    "Hitler's are so very small"

  • ||

    "I'll feel a lot more secure in my liberties the day the last libertarian has been hanged."

    You know who said something similar about the Jews?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow... that's some liberty-insprin' talk. Who knew hanging people was so libertyish?

  • Lot's Wife||

    "Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,"

  • Lot's Wife||

    "Himmler is somewhat sim'lar,"

  • ||

    Slappy the Retarded has never made much sense, don't try to get any out of him now.

  • Rock Action||

    Hey Gestapo...anti-douche crew anti-douche crew anti-douche crew...FUCK YOU!

  • Fluffy||

    You know the difference between you and me?

    I actually and really and truly wish you were dead.

  • ||

    What's with all the SoCons around here these days?

  • ||

    They're liberal sockpuppets placed here so that they can dismiss us as right-wing. Not that they've needed any proof in the past...

  • Lot's Wife||

    I was wondering where all the statist Obamatarians went?

  • Polonius||

    There are libertarians who are still really angry about the abolition of slavery, that the true victims of the era were the slaveholders, and that the damage to states' rights is far worse than the expansion of freedom and citizenship to blacks.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow... I've been involved in libertarian circles for about twenty years, and have met shitloads of 'em... and not one that fits your paragraph, Polonius.

  • ||

    Polonius is just another boring sockpuppet/troll from a slightly different angle. Set phasers to IGNORE.

  • Rock Action||

    If I'm reading it right from the past few days, Lot's Wife is actually worse - it comes in bigot form.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I couldn't help it, Epi. Shiny objects and whatnot.

  • ||

    Proof?

  • Polonius||

    Have you read a recent reason.com post on the Civil War?

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/04.....tcontainer

    Or Ron Paul's feelings on the issue?
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

  • Mr. FIFY||

    *yawn*

    Sorry, was that the ghost of Max?

  • ||

    Yes, I have. But nothing written in those posts says anything like what you wrote.

  • ||

    MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

    REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist...Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

    Yeah, what a slave-driving confederate he was.. advocating peaceful solutions and whatnot.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    Sure! Just wait until everyone just agrees that some people are human beings. He's really dedicated to liberty and objectivism, isn't he?

  • Banjos||

    Yes, we should spread liberty across the world by blowing the shit out of it! Neocon powers activate!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yes, we should spread liberty across the world by blowing the shit out of it! Neocon powers activate!
    It worked, not just in the American South, but Germany and Japan as well.
  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes it did. Further, RP is wrong about Britain. They had to fight the Boer War to get rid of slavery.

  • Bar Student||

    Whether it worked or not isn't the point. The question is could it have been done without losing 600,000 lives, endless treasure and our constitutional values.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    And the answer is "no". Well...I suppose if Lincoln had given the armies to Grant instead of McClellan from the outset, the 600,000 number would have been quite a bit smaller, but that's air through the engine at this point; monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.

  • Bar Student||

    I don't particularly care at this point, it was too long ago but RP was questioning whether the ends justified the means. To say the ends justified the means because it achieved the ends is kinda silly.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Oh, I don't care either. I think that RP being wrong about whether the Civil War was either necessary or matched to the prospective ends that provoked it is pretty far from relevant for his modern presidential aspirations.

    My point is only that he was wrong. The situation of the US was not particularly analogous to any of the other contemporaneous emancipation events in other countries, so his comparisons there are fatuous. The actual situation was such that the South was ready to (and did) initiate violent hostilities upon the election of a guy whose platform was simply hostile to the spread of slavery, not even opposed to it in bare principle.

  • ||

    The last point he made was that if the U.S. had really cared about freeing the slaves on the cheap, Lincoln could have pushed to have the slaves purchased from their 'owners', saving hundreds of thousands of lives and millions in war debt.

  • Lot's Wife||

    lib-troll is being divisively "progressive"

  • Hugh Akston||

    Can we add this retarded conflation to the drinking game?

  • ||

    No, this is just another version of the "tyrannical libertarian" bogeyman.

  • Brett L||

    Is there anything more depressing than finding out that all politicians are whores, even when the results are more to my social liking? I guess we just need to scale up and raise a couple hundred mil to get that federal drug legalization going, then a couple more mil to get it through the state houses.

    My apologies to honest prostitutes everywhere for the comparison to politicians.

  • ||

    Since when do you pay a whore to not fuck you in the ass?

  • ||

    I always pay my whores to fuck me in the ass.

  • np||

    Obviously this wouldn't be a problem if government (states included) got out of marriage altogether and let people officially recognize family members themselves via contracts. Nor would bigamy or polygamy be a crime (felony) either.

    However, even if you get over the socon aspect of defining marriage, the question is: would married people be willing to give up their extra privileges? That is, their legal status as spouses or partners would remain, but they would be treated no differently from single persons

  • Polonius||

    It's worth noting that nobody is really spending money, and there's no politicians in office that are on the side of getting the government out of marriage entirely. It may be an ideal abstract concept, but in the real world, lots of money is being spent to prevent gays from marrying (or adopting, or living as free citizens, or whatever), and lots of money is being spent to combat that infringement on freedom. If this is an issue that concerns you personally, you're much better off supporting the thriving and bigger-every-year population and representatives that support gay marriage as opposed to the tiny population of libertarians that want no government recognition of marriage.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Even though "no government recognition of marriage" would solve the whole fucking problem, so's we could get on with MORE IMPORTANT FUCKING ISSUES?

  • ||

    Yes, now we move onto the polygamy issue.

  • Lot's Wife||

    And the dogs...

  • ||

    But no same sex, mixed species marriages. That is just beyond the pale.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Gay horses and dogs have rights, you fascist SoCon.

  • ||

    Gay horses and dogs can marry, as long as they're marrying humans of the opposite sex. Otherwise it is an abomination.

  • Old Man Waterfall||

    I can't wait to tell my husbands about this!

  • ||

    If this is an issue that concerns you personally, you're much better off supporting the thriving and bigger-every-year population and representatives that support gay marriage as opposed to the tiny population of libertarians that want no government recognition of marriage.

    Both of those groups support gay marriage.

  • Polonius||

    Is that really the case? I'm not trying to beat up on libertarians here, but the anger I've seen in threads here and elsewhere over the past 24 hours is surprising, that it's a net reduction in freedom and all sorts of other bad things. Honestly I expected this site to throw up a rainbow banner and cheer on the whole thing as an increase in individual liberty, but everybody's angry because they see it as an increase in government power.

    We don't see the same level of anger and hostility every time a new road is built or a new public school is opened, which leads me to believe that there's still some deep resentment about this issue endemic in the community.

    All libertarians are not homophobes, but when you get people who are willing to take up arms against the government over tax hikes but can't intellectually come to grips with gay marriage, something weird is going on.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Because when people - gay OR straight - have to get a fucking piece of paper giving them permission to call themselves married... well, you should get the idea, but you're either being intentionally obtuse, or you're not aware of doing as such.

  • Polonius||

    But seriously, how much money and time do you (or anyone else) spend trying to convince the rest of the country to abolish state-sponsored marriage? You'll see people spend lots of money on gun rights and first amendment rights and other things, but getting angry about this is like opposing integration of the military in the 50s because you think that the military is illegitimate.

  • ||

    So if you're not with us you're against us Polonius? That's very intellectual of you. Quite a step up from you're earlier poo-flinging.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They don't spend a lot of either on the issue. Next question?

  • ||

    here here

  • ||

    I haven't heard anyone say it reduces freedom, but alot of people think it doesn't increase freedom. The state is still regulating marriage as much as it did before. Giving out licenses and subsidies to more people doesn't necessarily make people more free.

    "We don't see the same level of anger and hostility every time a new road is built or a new public school is opened, which leads me to believe that there's still some deep resentment about this issue endemic in the community."

    That's because no one claims such things are increases in freedom or libertarian victories. There is a large response because so many (including you) think that this is something libertarians should automatically cheer for.

    "All libertarians are not homophobes, but when you get people who are willing to take up arms against the government over tax hikes but can't intellectually come to grips with gay marriage, something weird is going on."

    What the fuck does that mean? Libertarians aren't rejecting gay marriage. The point is that there is a disagreement between people who say "the government should give gays licenses and subsidies" and those who say "the government shouldn't give marriage licenses and subsidies at all." Calling that homophobia or claiming that libertarians secretly don't want gay marriage to happen is just retarded shit-throwing.

  • Polonius||

    Is there a similar libertarian discomfort with previous expansions in marriage rights (interracial marriage, the third of the states that allow cousins to marry, the various states that permit marriage to minors, some as young as 13)?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see libertarians getting as angry about those things as they are about this decision, and it really doesn't make sense. All of those marriages are considered valid in all 50 states, whereas a proposal to do the same with gay marriages would be viewed as some sort of horrible assault on freedom and federalism and states rights.

  • ||

    Because, as I said before, no one during those times popped up and said "Hey look the libertarians are in full agreement with the liberals on this one!" Remember, this is not a response to gay marriage being allowed so much as it is a response to the media's portrayal of libertarians' positions.

  • ||

    And libertarians don't view this as an assault on freedom. Unfortunately I have to repeat myself once more in saying that the coercion in the system didn't really change with this decision, even though all the liberals think that it did. Gays are definitely happier and the law itself is fairer, but that doesn't take away from the inherent evil of government regulation of marriage.

  • np||

    Libertarians are NOT angry at all with gays that want to marry. That's missing the point of contention entirely, if not being an intentional straw man argument.

    I think you're conflating a lack of celebration for this grant of privileges with homophobic hate. The reaction you are seeing here instead is a metaphoric rolling of the eyes.

    Hey, if a gay person wants to form a family, devote themselves to a spouse, that's great. I'm all for that. And the state shouldn't get in the way. But that's the whole point, is that the state is now a gatekeeper of marriage which belies the notion of so-called increased freedom.

    Again there is NO discomfort in the expansion of marriage "rights". There is discomfort with the principle that it is actually a privilege granted by the state, rather than an actual right. Using your example, what pisses me off is not that cousins can marry, it's that those try to marry (or have sex) in some states can be convicted as felons. The whole idea is that it has to be "allowed" is what has always bothered libertarians or any proponent of individual liberty

  • Amakudari||

    I haven't heard anyone say it reduces freedom

    In this thread:

    "I've said it before and I'll say it again. This doesn't liberate marriage from statism, it just extends the scope of what the state regulates."

    That is, the only result is bad. And there was enough agreement to that statement.

    And I absolutely don't understand that reaction. It's one thing to say you don't care and quite another to characterize this as a net negative, as though the state wasn't involved previously in gay marriage (by banning it).

  • ||

    Yes, that's not true, state power didn't increase or decrease. The state was regulating marriage when gays couldn't marry and it's still regulating marriage now that they can. I don't see where the increase is. The only hypothetical negative I could see here is that gays are now complacent with their fake, licensed rights rather than fighting for their real right to not be regulated. But that doesn't make much sense because they were never asking for the real right in the first place. They got exactly what they were campaigning for.

  • robc||

    State power increased.

    Fact. More licensing == more state power.

  • ||

    Fact. More banning == more state power. When you replace a ban with a license, I would definitely not call that an increase in power.

  • robc||

    There was no ban on gay marriage prior to this. In fact, I bet plenty of gays in NY got married previously. They just werent licensed by the state.

  • Bar Student||

    I never asked you this yesterday robc: if you were a New York state senator (and all other things being equal) would you have voted against this bill?

  • Fluffy||

    Fact. More licensing == more state power.

    This is really pretty stupid.

    I don't think that there should be any gun licenses.

    But if we had recently had a system where gun licenses were required, and were only issued to whites and not to blacks, and we had a court decision and/or a legislative action that changed that so that in the future you'd still need a license to get a gun but anyone could get such a license regardless of their race, it would be an increase in liberty. Period.

    There is a lot of bullshitting going on here. Twenty years ago there were NO - ZERO - libertarians complaining that the entire existence of the legal regime of marriage was illegitimate state power. That entire shibboleth only came into existence once gays were demanding access to the legal institution.

    I simply don't think the people bitching about this on this board are sincere. You're just lying. Your real problem is that it's TEH GAYZ, and/or you think Baby Jesus is angry about this. All of a sudden all state marriage is tyrannical, when you can no longer make any other argument or legal or political strategy work. "Those grapes are sour tyrannical!" I'd believe that you cared about that if you had been fighting for the end of marriage in 1975. But since you weren't, I call bullshit.

  • robc||

    Twenty years ago there were NO - ZERO - libertarians complaining that the entire existence of the legal regime of marriage was illegitimate state power.

    Your count is off by at least one. That is almost exactly how long Ive been pushing this. Probably slightly more than 20 years now, although not 100% sure I considered my self a libertariain then.

  • tarran||

    Rothbard was bitching about it in the 70's.

  • ||

    Incorrect.

  • Brett L||

    I think the whole "even when the results are more to my social liking" thing addresses it fine. I'm glad they withhold fewer privileges to gay people in NY. Now try getting a trans-fat wedding cake in NYC.

  • Lot's Wife||

    We don't see the same level of anger and hostility every time a new road is built or a new public school is opened

    ROADZ!!1!

    SOMALIA!!1!

    LIBERTARIAN IS NOT LIBERTINE!

  • ||

    Get back to us when you support the rights of bigamists.

  • Paul||

    gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty.

    My only nitpick with this is that it's not an argument as to whether the government is going to be allowed to regulate personal liberty, but how it's going to regulate personal liberty.

    Gays, like straights, are now allowed to be sanctioned and licensed by the state.

    Welcome to freedom in America.

  • Hugh Akston||

    America is the land of equal opportunity to ask permission.

  • Paul||

    I thought the philosphy was that it's better to apologize than to ask for permission. Or is that only in marriage?

    Wait, there's a segue to a gay marriage joke in there somewhere.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Actually I think it's a gay divorce joke, but I'll be damned if I can find it.

  • ||

    Where's Tony to blame the legalization of Gay Marriage on the Koch Brothers?

  • Colin||

    Wait till the Left discovers the Kochs bankrolled Cuomo to the tune of $75,000.

  • ||

    Koch probably has stock in a wedding decorations business. This is all for profit.

  • um||

    ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

    When the money is coming in to support their beliefs, progressives tend to lose their whole class-warrior sabre-rattling.

  • Sam||

    All of that above is understandable. There are problems with state regulation of marriage. But provided the state is involved in the regulation of marriage, it should regulate it fairly for its citizens. The status quo has it that some members of society are allowed to get married while others cannot. Maybe government involvement in marriage is smaller because of that, but given real existing disparities in benefits awarded by the state, gay people are actually worse off.

    At least that's what might be the implication of some libertarian arguments. I'm not sure anyone is implying that, but just in case... I get your dislike of state marriage. But what else are we supposed to do? Because I'm gay and live in Texas, I can't get married while my straight friends can. There's no justification for this. And libertarians should welcome the expansion of cultural freedoms -- gay people not afraid to be out of the closet, or at risk of violence and harassment -- which gay marriage represents.

  • Sam||

    And honestly, positioning a civil rights struggle as one that wants to remove state-sponsored marriage completely is political suicide. If we argue "no state marriage for anyone" instead of expanding marriage to include us gays, straight people are going to destroy us. We really will be attempting to destroy the institution of marriage, as the social conservatives like to say.

    As a libertarian cause, it might be worth attempting, but as a gay rights issue it's a dead end. You have to remember that in some parts of this country gay folks have to be concerned about a minor but real risk of occasionally being beaten to death by gangs of straight men with baseball bats. You start to think: what's the best way to stop that from happening? It means you think practically, like, let's regulate ourselves and assimilate, get married, etc.

  • robc||

    If we argue "no state marriage for anyone" instead of expanding marriage to include us gays, straight people are going to destroy us.

    Bullshit.

    We really will be attempting to destroy the institution of marriage, as the social conservatives like to say.

    Bullshit. I support marriage. In fact, as an evangelical christian, I find state licensing to be anti-christian, as it violates Mark 10:9.

    The institution of marriage would be stronger without the state involved. For one thing, marriage contract clauses could be properly enforced. Many states overrides them now with their no fault divorce laws.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Maybe government involvement in marriage is smaller because of that, but given real existing disparities in benefits awarded by the state, gay people are actually worse off.


    And the reason that same-sex partners (which would include a pair of monks living together in a non-sexual relationship and raising adopted children) can not have these benefits under a different name is...

  • ||

    Has anyone else been following the Wisconsin Supreme Court fight club story? This is interesting to say the least.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/s.....46064.html

  • Jerry||

    Here is one if you have time to waste this Sunday morning, Andrew Leonard (who else?) from Salon: Our nickel-and-dime slide to libertarian hell.

  • ||

    That is some Krugnuts retarded shit right there.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I would bet that there has been more negative press about scary libertarians in the last year than in the previous 10.

    That is progress.

  • ||

    My comment:

    Congratulations Sir,

    This letter is to inform you that the level of retardation in your recent article, entitled "Our nickel-and-dime slide to libertarian hell," is sufficient to be nominated for a Pauly Krugnuts Award. You'll be competing against other illustrious morons such as David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Gail Collins, and David Frum in the "Retarded Mischaracterization of Libertarianism" category. I wish you good luck, and hope to see you on awards night.

    Best Wishes,
    Paul "Pauly Krugnuts" Krugman
    Chairman of The Pauly Krugnuts Awards
    Certified Resident of Mental Institution
  • Meh||

    C-

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    That article sucked so bad I don't really even know what to say. It seems like the complaints of someone with nothing to complain about.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Is his thesis that he doesn't like choices? Or that he hates saving money? Or that consumers are enjoying the dawn of "mass-customization"? Exactly what the fuck is this guy writing about? And I think it is about air travel, so what does this have to do with libertarianism? What is this bitch-boy crying about?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Also, I don't think he understands why airlines are getting jiggy with their pricing. The increasingly intrusive regulations/fees imposed on the airlines and air travellers has done more to destroy the industry than $7 blankets. Between the TSA, FAA, DOT, and other governmental agencies "looking out for your best interests", there is really nothing very "libertarian" about air travel. The author has mis-directed his anger and frustration, oddly enough, at the solution to his dilemma. Fucking stupid.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    GodDAMN that article was full of industrial-strength stoopid.

  • Bar Student||

    Jesus Christ, how else does he think that "ultra-low discount" airlines keep their prices so "ultra-low". Is printing off your own boarding pass such an imposition? If so then go pay twice as much to fly on another airline, that'll show em!

  • J||

    If airlines charge to print out boarding passes, then perhaps they'll print fewer, and need to hire fewer people to print boarding passes, and then can use that money to charge less for tickets.

    However, in the mind of people like Leonard, companies should charge less in a way that eats into their profits. The government needs to get involved.

    And then there's this quote "But when I contemplate paying a fee to use the airline kiosk followed by another fee to go through the security fast lane followed by another fee to board my plane one minute before everyone else followed by another fee for two inches more of leg room followed by another fee for a movie tailored to my particular demographic, and then I extrapolate this way of being to every other possible interaction I might have with the real world, inside and outside of airports, I don't feel much like a human being participating in a civilized society."

    I don't know what airports visits are like for this guy, but for me there have the most sterile, soulless and dehumanizing interactions I through on a regular basis. Anything to expedite the process is great for me. I'll get me real human interaction elsewhere.

  • ||

    That's hot.

  • Liberal Pussy||

    Boo! -- this inexorable atomization of the air travel experience into every possible component part, available for mix-and-matching as I choose, makes me queasy

    That forces me to choose and I hate choices.

    Why oh why can't we go back to the good old day of a government mandated one size fits all approach. That way if I want something different I can lobby my congressman and get it for everybody in a couple of years.

  • ||

    Airline fees are totally egregious and insupportable! Would you please strip-search me now to make sure I didn't stick a bomb up my ass when I wasn't looking?

  • ||

    Death rides the rails.

    Amtrak officials, who earlier said there were 204 passengers and 14 crew members aboard the California Zephyr, were scouring the passenger manifest to determine how many riders were on the train and how many had bought tickets but did not use them.

    There's difficulty in knowing exactly how many passengers were onboard the train, Weener said.

    "It's not like an airplane where there's a record of who gets on," he said. "On a train, people can get on and off as they will."

    Janet Napolitano and John Pistole will put a stop to this.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Who needs terrorists to disrupt the rail system?

  • Koan||

    I thought Slate was getting to be intolerable . . . but Salon, jeezus christo!

  • ||

    No need to make an account, Pro-Lib has it covered apparently.

  • robc||

    I said it yesterday. This issue clarifies who actually favors equality more than liberty.

    I consider liberty the higher value.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Rich people paying to promote their political ideas is hardly paradoxical or counterintuitive. It only looks that way to neo-Marxists who expect rich people to promote stereotypical top-hat-and-monocle-wearing, oppress-the-poor policies - someone with such a neo-Marxist outlook will be perpetually astonished every time a rich person promotes a "liberal" or "progressive" cause.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Plus, calling a rich person a libertarian doesn't make him one. If these guys were libertarians, then presumably they would support the right of private employers to discriminate against gays. There is no evidence of this in the article, as far as I know.

  • Almanian||

    Alt text = PWNED!

  • What Year Is This?||

    PWNED

    Really? Still?

  • Chuck Norris||

    Tell me about it...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oooooh! BURN!

  • Koan||

    It never ceases to amaze me how libertarianism is such a bogeyman. It has rarely, if ever, been tried.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wasn't it tried in Somalia and post-apocalyptic Australia?

  • ||

    At least social conservatives are relatively consistent about what they consider right or wrong. It seems like just a decade or so ago most homosexuals were against gay marriage. I can't deal with the liberal moral roller coaster.

  • ||

    Case in point: ask any social conservative whether polygamous marriage is right or wrong and the vast majority of them will say the same thing. (the rest will say it depends on the gender ratio) But ask a liberal and it will completely depend on whether the polygamous marriage interest group has successfully turned their issue into the current hot button topic.
    It's like liberals can only have one moral stance at a time and if it's not featured on 30 Rock then it doesn't matter.

  • The Appalachianist||

    Two thumbs up, Lisa.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's like liberals can only have one moral stance at a time and if it's not featured on 30 Rock then it doesn't matter.

    Hah! Very nice.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    This is more of a function of social conservatives thinking that everything outside a certain very narrowly constructed range of behaviors is automatically wrong.

    Hence, all you're really saying with that comparison is that social conservatives are socially conservative, and non-social conservatives are rather less socially conservative.

    How very perspicacious of you.

  • Amakudari||

    Three cheers for stubbornness and uniformity. If people are unaware of the flaws in their views and change them when confronted with evidence, that's not a particularly bad thing. If intellectual promiscuity is a fault of such liberals, their polar opposite in conservatism is equally unappealing.

    At least so-con-ism is an ethos, I guess.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I know, people changing their minds when confronted with new arguments and evidence is indeed a terrifying phenomenon.

  • The Appalachianist||

    Alright,you say Libertarians pushed it over the top for gay marriage, when are they going to do it for polygamy?

  • ||

    Right now, If you and some other annoying troll will join me in unholy matrimony!

  • ||

    when it's politically expedient

  • The Appalachianist||

    Sad, but, true. The gay marriage arguement
    is about politics, not rights.

  • ||

    Don't leave Tony and me waiting at the altar!

  • ||

    It seems like the complaints of someone with nothing to complain about.

    Libertarians are bad, mmmkay?
    Any annoyance, however great or small, is therefor the result of creeping galloping libertarianism.

  • ||

    Freedom is hell, dontcha know?

  • Republicrat Barbie||

    *pull string*
    Making my own decisions is HARD.

  • ||

    I can't deal with the liberal moral roller coaster.

    Scary bogeyman is scary.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It's difficult to determine just how gay marriage would destroy the institution, given that no-fault divorce and a misandrist court system have effectively produced that result over the last 35 years or so.

    What IS amusing is that some gays are already complaining about it being legalized, because they won't be able to hector entities into giving them free swag anymore--they'll actually have to have a state-recognized relationship:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06.....ef=general

    I guess that power of the state isn't so cool when it takes away your shekels.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It's difficult to determine just how gay marriage would destroy the institution, given that no-fault divorce and a misandrist court system have effectively produced that result over the last 35 years or so.


    How did the court system become misandrist?

    New York was the last state to have no-fault divorce.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    How did the court system become misandrist?

    Get a divorce and try to obtain custody of your kids--you'll get an education on that pretty quick.

    New York was the last state to have no-fault divorce.

    And this rebuts my assertion how?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And this rebuts my assertion how?


    As recently as a few years ago, New York defended the sanctity of marriage.

  • MJ||

    The camel's breathing is labored, it's legs are trembling with every step and it can barely move. What can one more straw hurt?

    Because an institution has been previously undermined is not a justification for actions that would further erode it. That is a spectacularly silly argument for doing anything.

  • The Truth||

    America can't even build a bridge anymore, so where do they go for a new Bay Bridge in San Francisco? You guessed it!

    “I don’t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,” Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. “Most U.S. companies don’t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it’s their ships that deliver to our piers.”

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....n-and-egg/

  • Phlogistan||

    Chinese laboring to build west coast infrastructure is a long standing tradition.

    We get to abuse them or something like that.

  • ||

    Suck gently upon the cock of red China, Truth, for the poison it will ejaculate into your mouth will surely destroy you.

  • Lot's Wife||

    Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights.

    "Forced marriage"? Enjoy your newfound FREEDOM!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Welcome to the club, suckers. Heh heh heh heh.

  • sevo||

    "Forced marriage"?
    Nice, but why bother with an argument if you're just going to make up definitions?
    No where is any one "forced" in that quote.

  • Lot's Wife||

    The author feels it is "forced marriage" as it deprives same sex couples of their "rights" to employer benefits unless they now get gay-married.

    being forced to marry is quite another

    Reading: It's fundamental.

  • sevo||

    "The author feels it is "forced marriage" as it deprives same sex couples of their "rights" to employer benefits unless they now get gay-married."
    So the author is stupid and you cite it? Intelligence fail.

  • Phlogistan||

    I really enjoy frenzied attack mode on stupid @ Reason {Drink!} Hit & Run.

    Some one points out or cites an example of "stupid" and poster gets mauled.

    Its Pavlovian

  • Phlogistan||

    Gay marriage is just a sneaky republican tactic to reduce payroll costs!

    The rotating door on multiple Life Partner beneficiaries is a cultural perogative!

  • ||

    As long as government—which, after all, builds all the bridges—can outsource major projects like this to the lowest-bidding, most exploitative employer in the entire world, we’re not going to have an local industry able to build new bridges. Such is the monumental, self-serving stupidity of our Galtian/governmental confluence.

    Which is it, Truthy? Should we emulate the Chinamen, or not?

    Have the Chinamen defeated us, or have we defeated ourselves?

  • The Truth||

    We should emulate them insofar as we should have rational planning of the commanding heights of the economy and a natioanlistic policy of protecting industries and subsidizing indigenous innovation as they do.

  • ||

    Ex. infrastructure projects should be barred from using foreign companies or foreign labor or foreign materials, and any company wishing to do business in the US must do it under the aegis of a joint-venture with an American company (that will own 51% of the joint venture).

  • ||

    which, after all, builds all the bridges

    In my community there are 3 bridges that cross the Columbia river.

    The oldest and first was built by private organizations and funded privately.

    Before their were bridges there were fairies...those were also privately owned.

  • ||

    I thought owning fairies was prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

  • ||

    I knew libertarianism was a fairytale...

  • Hugh Akston||

    Before their were bridges there were fairies...those were also privately owned.

    I thought it was just blacks that were privately owned back then, but its nice that you got us back on topic.

  • Lot's Wife||

    Corning-bot is malfunctioning.

  • ||

    ferries

    =P

  • Phlogistan||

    Wait a minute, is he complaining the workers come pre-abused? Or that we dont get to participate in the abuse? Or is his argument that abuse should start at home first?

  • ||

    I think whatever we do is wrong. If we export our dangerous, difficult and dirty jobs because we have priced ourselves out of competitiveness, we're "destroying the middle class" by cheating union labor of their unsustainable wage premiums.

  • ||

    You know who else wanted "rational planning of the commanding heights of the economy and a nationlistic policy of protecting industries"?

    That's right; Jeff Immelt.

  • ||

    So?

  • ||

    The guy's a fascist -- he doesn't give a shit.

  • ||

    I'm not a Fascist (I don't have a weird racial obsession, I don't believe in the "leadership principle" of one total dictator, and I don't believe in worldwide conquest through total war).

  • ||

    The collusion of the state with business in the interests of nationalism is fascism Ze Truth.

  • ||

    Seig Heil!

  • ||

    OT:

    "Captain America: The First Avenger" is being released in some countries as just "The First Avenger" to avoid offending all the pinko dipsticks of the world, among others. Great.

  • ||

    I'm going to rip that disgusting American flag costume off his tight chiseled erect body!

  • ||

    Who cares?

  • ||

    I do. Fucking Russians!!!!!

  • ||

    The First Avenger

    So they are going to see a guy running around literally wearing an American flag with the name "The first one seeking revenge"

    Brilliant.

  • ||

    So in light of the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger", how's the Wehrmacht doing in Russia this week?

    Oh, wait....

  • ||

    I'm not a Fascist (I don't have a weird racial obsession, I don't believe in the "leadership principle" of one total dictator, and I don't believe in worldwide conquest through total war).

    "How can I be a Fascist? I don't even know what that word means!"

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What purpose did redefining marriage serve?

    I have yet to see evidence of a broad, public consensus in New York that marriage was generally understood to mean a union of two persons regardless of sex.

    Furthermore, how should the government treat these new "marriages"? Remember that the issue of civil unions effectrively "divorced" the issue of the definition of marriage from the issue of what legal benefits could be afforded to same-sex partnerships. Just because same-sex partnerships are called "marriages" does not mean that the state must or should provide the same benefits as it does to opposite sex partnerships. Calling same-sex partnerships "marriages" does not erase the differences due to the sex makeup.

  • ||

    +1

    This is about further undermining the established order of society in favor of new "lifestyles" that never existed before. Not even the ancient Greeks--who were very uh, libertine about homosexuality--had any concept of gay "marriage". Next the Mormon wackos will want polygamy.

  • Bar Student||

    Um polygamy HAS been around for thousands of years and is practiced all around the world. Also the Mormons had polygamy taken away from them, not the other way around.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Also the Mormons had polygamy taken away from them, not the other way around.


    So people made additional restrictions to marriage?

    I thought there was a trend of ever-increasing liberalization of the definition of marriage.

  • ||

    Michael I can't understand what you're saying with the government's dick in your mouth.

  • sevo||

    Michael Ejercito|6.26.11 @ 6:26PM|#
    ..."I thought..."

    I doubt it.

  • Robert||

    Polygamy is an entirely different issue. Usually polygamy is understood not as involving a complex single marriage ofmore than 2 persons, but rather as a condition of an individual's having 2 or more marriages in existence at the same time. Each marriage is still a coupling with one other person of the opposite sex.

  • Bar Student||

    There would be nothing wrong with a group marriage either but you are right about the definition of polygamy. I suppose polyamorous marriage would be the all encompassing term.

  • ||

    Why is this even an issue? Just say that the state has no business in defininf, regulating, or subsidizing marriage and be done with it. I think everyone is pretty tired of hearing the same old shit about gay marriage over and over this weekend...

  • ||

    Name one society in history where marriage wasn't defined by (1) the Church (and I mean the ruling religion of said country, not necessarily Christianity) or (2) the state. Unless you want to go back to (1), you're stuck with (2).

  • Bar Student||

    False choice.

  • Apogee||

    Name one society that was founded on the ideals of individual liberty apart from and above the rule of the state or sovereign.

    Oh, right, American Society.

    It's a proud American tradition to do things in a different (and some say superior) manner than the rest of the world.

    In the immortal words of a great former President: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"

    Why do you hate Gerald Ford?

  • ||

    Ze Truth, I know that issues presenting more than two outcomes can be hard for you to understand, but I did not think anyone could truly be that obtuse.

  • Robert||

    One society??! Marriage pre-existed all gov'ts and all religions, is pre-historic, and probably pre-human!

    Did you think gov't or religion invented language? Or invented communication? These things arose by custom.

    What gov't should do in its judiciary function (when a dispute arises) is to determine, i.e. discover, the customary meanings of the words at issue in the dispute. Only mischief can come of inventing meanings of pre-existing concepts. The law did not invent marriage, it discovered what people were already doing.

  • Bar Student||

    Actually all the courts should be doing is determining the intent of the parties to the marriage. Other people's concepts are irrelevant, only the contracting parties.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Actually this is real easy: the state treats gay marriages the same as straight ones. No one's definitions are being changed just yours aren't being enforced by the state. God damn so much SoCon butthurt. Your arguments suck you've lost the battle and probably the war build a bridge (with Chinese labor preferably) and get over it.

  • ||

    So do we treat polygamy the same way too? Can Muhammad Al-Jihad move here and take four wives? What about the Mormons out in Utah?

    Can a bisexual have a husband AND a wife now?

    Take your time! And please show your work.

  • Max Stirner||

    Absolutely, as long as it's consensual.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And what is the purpose of recognizing such unions by any name?

  • Max Stirner||

    If it's a similar contract. For example, if a woman was "married" to five guys, she would logically want visitation rights in hospitals, the right not to testify against your spouse in court and to sort out the transfer of property after death. It would essentially be marriage, just raising the number of participants by n.

  • ||

    Can one wife testify against another wife?

  • ||

    Eventually you can raise the number of participants high enough and form what is basically a corp, except with right not to testify against spouses?

  • sevo||

    The Truth|6.26.11 @ 2:26PM|#
    "Take your time! And please show your work."

    My work:
    Ha.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Ha.
    How much work does it take to laugh at an ignoramus?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Actually this is real easy: the state treats gay marriages the same as straight ones.


    In order for that to happen, same-sex unions would have to be understood to be marriages. There is no evidence that marriage is generally understood in New York to encompass same-sex unions.

    But even if they did, there are differences that would warrant different marriage and family policies. For one thing, opposite-sex unions are much, much more likely to experience unplanned pregnancy and the associated costs than same-sex unions (which is a very significant difference). Another difference is that children are best raised by a mother and father in a monogamous opposite-sex union, so laws granting preferential treatment to opposite-sex unions in the adoption of children are fully justified.

    And under binding precedent from both the United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals, the state is not required to treat these unions identically. Under Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972) and Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. of
    Appeals 2006), a legally recognized same-sex union, regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently under the law from opposite-sex unions, just as long as there is a rational basis for the difference.

  • sevo||

    "There is no evidence that marriage is generally understood in New York to encompass same-sex unions."
    Nor is there evidence to the contrary, nor does it make a bit of difference.

    "Another difference is that children are best raised by a mother and father in a monogamous opposite-sex union,..."
    Cite?

    "a legally recognized same-sex union, regardless of what it is called, may be treated differently under the law from opposite-sex unions, just as long as there is a rational basis for the difference."
    So you're going to start a campaign to make same-sex marriages treated differently?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Nor is there evidence to the contrary, nor does it make a bit of difference.


    It does make a difference.

    Legal definitions should generally track social understanding, otherwise you could have silly, absurd results such as people being guilty of drunk driving merely for sleeping in the back seat of a car while drunk, without any evidence that the drunk person even attempted to drive the car.

    There is no reason for marriage policy to be exempt from this general rule of thumb.


    So you're going to start a campaign to make same-sex marriages treated differently?


    Same-sex unions are different due to innate biological differences between the sexes, and laws should take this into account.

  • sevo||

    "There is no reason for marriage policy to be exempt from this general rule of thumb."
    That is the ideal, and you haven't shown it otherwise. Regardless, if 50+% of the population wishes to restrict the equality of some small portion of the population, tough.

    "Same-sex unions are different due to innate biological differences between the sexes, and laws should take this into account."
    How should government treat non-fertile hetero unions? Exactly how much would you like the government to inquire into your life?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That is the ideal, and you haven't shown it otherwise


    The ideal is that the legal definition of marriage should be different than the customary definition of marriage?

  • ||

    No, the legal definition should not reflect one group's opinion on what marriage is.

  • sevo||

    "The ideal is that the legal definition of marriage should be different than the customary definition of marriage?"

    I see you keep passing on the tough questions:
    "Regardless, if 50+% of the population wishes to restrict the equality of some small portion of the population, tough."
    Your bigotry shows.

  • ||

    Brown v. Board of Education called. He's got a few pointed words for you.

  • Amakudari||

    children are best raised by a mother and father in a monogamous opposite-sex union

    Unless your argument is that all gay marriages are worse environments than every traditional marriage not legally barred from raising children, I have no idea why you think this matters.

  • sevo||

    I do.
    One more sorry attempt at justifying bigotry.

  • Max Stirner||

    It seems like you're just upset about the word. Definitions change, sometimes arbitrarily. Marriages used to be arranged, should we be mad that the definition changed? Marriages used to not even be about love, more about property transferal. Marriage isn't sacred, it's simply a contract. The historic definition doesn't have as much of an impact as socons think. Ultimately, in ten to twenty years, everyone will forget this ever happened, and children will say, "What? Gay people weren't allowed to get married?"

    It's just a word, let it go.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ultimately, in ten to twenty years, everyone will forget this ever happened, and children will say, "What? Gay people weren't allowed to get married?"


    Why would they question that? Why would they think it was somehow wrong?

  • Max Stirner||

    Not letting gays get married will be seen the same as not letting different races get married.

  • Lot's Wife||

    No it won't. They are not remotely the same thing.

  • sevo||

    Lot's Wife|6.26.11 @ 6:24PM|#
    ..."They are not remotely the same thing."
    Assertion without cite.

  • Lot's Wife||

    Refuting Stirner's non sequitur does not require a cite.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not letting gays get married will be seen the same as not letting different races get married.


    Where did you get this idea?

    The Kentucky Court of Appeals explained why same-sex couples were denied a license to marry. It is because what they propose "is not a marriage". Jones v. Hallahan 501 S.W.2d 588 at 590(1973)

  • sevo||

    "The Kentucky Court of Appeals explained why same-sex couples were denied a license to marry."

    No, the KY court offered an opinion.

  • Fluffy||

    Even if it didn't end a regime of unequal treatment under the law, it would still have been worth it (to me) if only because it made you very, very unhappy.

  • Lot's Wife||

    KUTUR WAR !

  • Lot's Wife||

    L

  • ||

    I'm putting this thread into hyperdrive:

    Oh herro Reasonoids...

  • ||

    "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges

    Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion"

  • Apogee||

    Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion"

    Oh, sure, this will really catch on.

  • Bar Student||

    ""Women are being stripped of their constitutional personhood and subjected to truly cruel laws," said Lynn Paltrow of the campaign National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). "It's turning pregnant women into a different class of person and removing them of their rights.""

    Talk about up being down and down being up.

    I think this is a ridiculous prosecution but it is not the mother being stripped of person-hood and treated as a different class of person.

  • Bar Student||

    Also, women who take heroin during pregnancy are despicable pieces of trash. There should be some lighter charge but not murder and life in prison.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Men who gamble away their daughters' college funds are despicable pieces of trash. Ought there be a law, there, too?

  • Bar Student||

    No, unless the funds were owned by the daughter in which case we already have laws against theft. A man can gamble away his own money no matte what he planned to do with it later. True we could just charge the mother with battery or something but I think pregnancy is a unique situation.

    Besides, are you kidding me. So the daughter has to pay for her own college, so do a lot of people. Mothers who harm their children in the womb with drugs or alcohol can cause permanent biological damage.

  • Phlogistan||

    I did not see in the article if any of them took part in State Funded prenatal care.

    Sounds like the state is finally cracking down on defective baby factories. States need an reliable supply of new citizens to tax

  • Major Johnson||

    I've said for years that the republicans are just democrats with bibles instead of communist manifestos. The only time they champion states rights is when SCOTUS rules against them or they can't get the solution they want on a federal level, like on abortion. When it comes to marriage, sex, gambling, drugs the republicans never heard of states rights. Heck, they call Romney a liberal because he did exactly what the founding fathers intended for states to do, experiment. I may not support his solution to health care in Massachusetts, but I fully support the states right to perform such experiments with their own money instead of the federal government forcing the same doomed to failure solution on all 50 states (or 58 if you're an Obama supporter).

  • ||

    The tentacles know no boundaries:

    A 130-year-old photo, billed as the only authenticated picture of legendary outlaw Billy the Kid, sold for $2.3 million at a Denver auction Saturday night.
    The Old West Show & Auction had estimated the tintype -- an early photographic technique that used metal plates -- to bring in between $300,000 and $400,000.
    "When the bidding ended, the whole room erupted in clapping and people leapt to their feet," said Melissa McCracken, spokeswoman for the auction. "I've never experienced anything like this before,"
    The winning bidder was William Koch, the billionaire.

  • Lot's Wife||

    At least the photograph has impeccable provenance, unlike those "Thomas Jefferson" wines he bought.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There is a campaign afoot to alert the American public to the dangers posed by the Koch brothers - their insidious, corrupt cash is causing think tanks to make outrageous claims about how Social Security and Medicare are running out of money and maybe it's time to raise the retirement age, and other out-of-left-field, bizarre claims which only a corporate shill could possibly believe.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Video:

    http://kochbrothersexposed.com/socialsecurity/

    Guardian article:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....l-security

    "The Koch echo chamber begins with think tanks like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Mercatus Centre at George Mason University and the Reason Foundation, which owe their founding and achievements to Koch backing. These thinktanks take their $28.4m in Koch funding and produce hundreds of position papers distorting the long-term health of social security."

  • ||

    These Koch-Buster hit pieces never mention the millions that they give to the ACLU, museums, PBS, Opera, etc.

  • sevo||

    "These thinktanks take their $28.4m in Koch funding and produce hundreds of position papers distorting the long-term health of social security."

    And socialized medicine takes billions proving that those thinktanks are right.

  • ||

    Yeah, the reason people think entitlement programs are growing and underfunded...

    ...isn't because we're growing them by leaps and bounds through things like ObamaCare?

    ...isn't because they're growing because of demographics and the babyboomers?

    ...isn't because they're underfunded?

    It's because the Koch Brothers made a donation somewhere?!

    You got some real problems if you believe that well enough to try to convince other people.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I like the way they used a magnifying-glass to zero in on the think-tank papers. Because these think tanks are trying to cover up their policy positions, and only a fearless expose will bring these public-policy advocacy documents to the light of day!

    Also it's interesting that Bernie Sanders doesn't identify his political affiliation the way he does in his own campaign Web site and elsewhere. He is a socialist, or at least claims to be.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He is a socialist, and you can't trust that kind of people.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Jones v. Hallahan , 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973)


    In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.


    id at 590

  • sevo||

    Why don't you quote Dred Scott?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I did in other blog posts.

  • sevo||

    Not surprising.

  • Bar Student||

    Why the hell are you quoting a KY appeals court decision from 40 years ago? Is that supposed to prove something?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    it explained that same-sex couples could not "marry" because what they proposed was not a marriage.

  • Bar Student||

    Which is entirely irrelevant because this is NY. Even if it were a NY court, the law just passed would make that court ruling dead.

  • sevo||

    Michael Ejercito|6.26.11 @ 6:34PM|#
    "it explained...."

    Absolutely nothing, other than your bigotry.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Absolutely nothing, other than your bigotry.


    The following persons must be bigots.

    Moses

    The Buddha

    Jesus Christ

    Mohammed

    Voltaire

    Sir William Blackstone

    John Locke

    Thomas Paine

    Noah Webster

    John Bouvier

    George F. Edmunds

    Thomas Stanley Matthews

    Stephen Field

  • ||


    The winning bidder was William Koch, the billionaire.

    I hope he uses that tintype as the centerpiece of a shrine to Billy the Kid across the street from Ground Zero.

  • ||

    SURPRISE!

    Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, said she could not comment on specific cases to protect the privacy of those involved.

    “The TSA works with passengers to resolve any security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” she said.

  • Amakudari||

    "During any part of the process, if there is an alarm, then we have to resolve that alarm."

    "I am incapable of rational thought."

    "TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability."

    So fucking Orwellian. Yes, Muslim terrorists will move to exploit the elderly-American-from-birth-dying-from-cancer loophole. I really, really don't understand how these people live with themselves.

  • ||

    You have to admit that terminal patients would make the best suicide bombers.

  • ||

    So she was taking an incontinent woman on a long plane trip with no spare diapers? That's terroristic in and of itself.

  • Lot's Wife||

    Enjoy your Stem-cell Burgers.

  • ||

    Better than Shitburgers.

  • sevo||

    From the article:
    "The Dutch scientists predict that over the next few decades the world’s population will increase so quickly that there will not be enough livestock to go round for people to eat."

    Malthus rides again! And in all likelihood gets trampled by the facts. Again.

  • ||

    I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, BuzzSave.(c)om

  • ||

    You know these companies are making money, so it's safe to say that the total amount of all the bids exceeds the value of all the items being sold. Therefore, you will on average pay more than the retail value of what you get. These all-pay auctions are basically gambling sites.

  • sevo||

    fred,
    There's probably a pawn shop in your area.

  • ||

    Why the pic of Newt?

  • ||

    Because he's a sexy soon-to-be single.

  • ||

    Alt text: "Sorry boys, he's married. For now."

  • Robert||

    It wasn't this NY libertarian.

  • ||

    Yeah! You tell them queers!

  • ||

    And next week, when liberals call libertarians racists for calling for cuts in midnight basketball, you'll laugh at them without a hint of self-awareness.

    I forgive you because you're a pliable young mind in a maelstrom of hypocritical fingers. However those who led you astray must continue to bear the weight of my disapproval.

  • Robert||

    It wasn't this NY libertarian. "Gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty" is a facile analysis that I was prone to in the 1990s but not now.

  • Robert||

    Comment threading appears to be broken or overloaded or something, so...

    Actually all the courts should be doing is determining the intent of the parties to the marriage. Other people's concepts are irrelevant, only the contracting parties.


    True, and sorry if I made it seem otherwise. If there's evidence the parties had some special meaning in mind at the time and agreed on that, then that supersedes the default assumption, which is that the words have their customary meanings. Otherwise, the customary meanings probably are what the parties meant by the words they used.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement