Why Gay Marriage is Winning

With Washington state recently legalizing same-sex unions and Maryland about to follow suit, gay marriage hasn't been on this big a roll since Bert and Ernie first shacked up on Sesame Street. When Maryland finalizes its bill, seven states and the District of Columbia will sanction the practice.

But before you bust out the appletinis and Indigo Girls CDs to celebrate, consider that just last year in Maryland - a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics - gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom due to resistance from socially conservative African Americans in the Democratic Party. Indeed, while 71 percent of white Democrats in the Old Line State favor gay marriage, just 41 percent of black Democrats do.

So what's different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.

Inconceivable even a generation ago, gay marriage is well on its way to becoming mainstream as a growing majority of Americans now favor it. The only question is when, not if, folks such as Maryland residents Justin and Phillip Terry-Smith will join heterosexuals in the joys of getting married - and divorced - happily ever after.

About 2.30 minutes. Produced by Joshua Swain. Written by Nick Gillespie and Kennedy, who also hosts.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates 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.

  • WarrenT||

    Christ, this is a boring issue.

  • The Gays||

    But, we WIN!

  • The Gays||

    Don't we?

  • Brett L||

    How do you feel about giving half your shit to the person you hate most in the world?

  • WarrenT||

    In my case that would be Kathy Griffin.

  • Tonio||

    Not so boring for those of us whose lives are affected by this.

  • WarrenT||

    Why is getting permission from politicians and bureaucrats so important?

    And yes, I did get a marriage license back in the day but that was long before I became the state hating bastard I am now.

  • In other words||

    Why do you care if that racist jackass serves people with your skin color? He's a racist jackass and his sandwiches are disgusting.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Sound's like a reasonable position to me.

  • ||

    Exactly! If a restaurant had a sign reading "We hate black people but we have to serve them, because that's the law", would you eat there?

    No. Fuck those racists, I won't give them my money.

  • Muad Dib||

    Correct, freedom of speech and thought guarantees you the right to be an asshole. I dislike framing the debate in this way. It polarizes people too strongly. The real question is, what exactly does the state have to do with marriage between any two people.

  • Sean Healy||

    Because the state enforces contracts of all sorts. I thought this was obvious.

  • Muad Dib||

    No, the state adjudicates contract disputes (e.g. when one, or both, party(s) breaks contract). And then generally only when an acceptable agreement cannot be reached.

  • johnc||

    As you well know, tax benefits and welfare policies are calculated using marital status. One can oppose tax benefits and welfare, of course, but as long as they exist, the single people are subsidizing the married people, so people will rationally demand the right to marry.

  • rather ||

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Tonio
    I'll strike you off my list ;-(

  • goo||

    Bi-curious? -Datebi*cO'Mis designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.s

  • botatstic||

    This bot gets closer to the point each time.

  • ||

    Gay people getting married reminds me of little kids dressing up pretending to be adults.

    These developments show not advancement of rights, but how worthless marriage now is. A nation full of bastard heteros breeding bastard homos demanding to get hitched...pathetic.

  • Tonio||

    And religionists whining about their imaginary friends and the special, special rights this confers upon them leaves me cold. The difference between us, Zeitgeist, is that I support the rights of people with whom I disagree, even those who would do me harm were they in power.

  • ||

    Marriage is ancient compact between guy and girl not about love or civil rights or such horseshit. It’s about owning up to your kids, being responsible for them, that's it.

    Go back to old days - sex-slaves and Hephaestion - 'nuff said. Yet nobody was like 'Alexander and Hephaestion should get married!’ because back then people more sexually comfortable were comfortable enough to see and accept the difference.

    Right-wingers did this to marriage, adding tax bennies and fiat-perks for being hitched. More they did that less a moral but 'civil rights' thing marriage became.

    So between tax-tinkering with marriage and homos demanding their 'rights' and everyone having bastards these days anyways marriage has become intrinsically worthless. Destroyed in a very bipartisan way, an inadvertent victim of culture wars left and right wage. And it’s sad to watch.

  • ||

    Sounds like someone got taken to the cleaners by his ex.

  • ||

    Exes? Dude, you're on a libertarian comment thread. Nobody here has exes because you've got to get the girl first. Duh.

  • ||

    I wish marriage would've become intrinsically worthless 25-30 years ago so I didn't have to waste another Saturday at those white-trash weddings I was forced to participate in...

  • ||

    All kinds of Social Planners, Right Wing, Left Wing, and just plain Off The Wall stacked bennies on marriage over the years. Marriage is a good thing for society; it fosters stability - whether stable happiness or stable misery doesn't much matter. So people who like to use the Law to nudge people tend to nudge people toward marriage.

    As regards Gay vs. Hetero marriages; please explain to me why whatever Gay men desire to live monogamously do not deserve legal protection from those that don't, but lie about it. You can use both sides of the paper, but I will deduct one full letter grade for every world loaded with religious overtones (such as 'sanctity').

  • ||

    Gay people don't make people, don't risk inflicting their spawned shit on everyone else to raise.

    That's what marriage is, a contrived social contract - verbally signed in a Dungeons-and-Dragons melodrama to maximize peer pressure - obligating the lovers to each other's misery no matter what.

    Essential promise is daddy won't abandon kids dumping problems on others. Girl's promise? She's not cuckholding the man. In genetically isolated societies marriage evolved - where everyone looks alike - that was real problem I bet. Imagine being Daddy Bushmen looking at your baby...is it really mine? Hmmm. Again, that's what marriage is for.

    Homos don't have those risks. Don't have that power. Don't have a say in the cycle of life. Might be love and sex, but its little-leagues. Marriage is for the Bigs.

    Sanctity my ass.

  • Mr. Soul||

    agree

  • illini||

    Well said, Zeitgeist.

  • Hidden Bek||

    This is essentially the "innocent" part of the drive towards homosexual marriage. The other part was announced decades ago by radical leftists who happened to believe that such an innovation in marriage was part of the Marxist/post-Marxist project (meaning the destruction of the institution.)

    Fellow libertarians don't want to hear this. Just because some socons are moronic statists doesn't mean that intelligent socially 'conservative' arguments don't hold water. You can be an atheist and still think they are valid.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    I'm gay and i'm not a Marxist. I believe in unregulated capitalism. You're a kook. "Gay=Marxist." Please. Reminds me of those "race mixing is communism" signs form the 50s.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Accidentally hit submit too soon, but anyways I can't think of how being attracted to the same sex has anything to do with wealth redistribution. Nick Gillepsie's article on politicizing non-political parts of life (e.g. "soccer is gay and communist") was so spot on.

  • ||

    FTW quote from post: "legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal"

  • ||

    Nice catch! I missed it the first time.

  • Joe M||

    For fuck's fucking sake, Bert and Ernie are asexual.

  • Jeff P.||

    So self respecting gay man would dress like either of them.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Umm, neither Maryland nor Wash. State took the issue to voters. If they did, they would have voted it down, just like it was voted down in CA.

    Oh, and NJ and gay marriage? Sounds like a loss there.

  • Tonio||

    Nice ability to predict the future you have there, WHC. Prove it's not bullshit by giving me a winning number for the next Mega Millions drawing.

  • Paul||

    Oh, and NJ and gay marriage? Sounds like a loss there.

    I'm not so sure about that. I saw an episode of Jersey Shore or some such show, and there were so-called heterosexual men with a lot of product in their hair, getting spray tans.

    Spray tans.

    I'm guessing Jersey is chomping at the bit for gay marriage.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Maryland - a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics

    Yes, but Maryland also a long-standing and not entirely unjustified reputation for being socially conservative. For example, Maryland recodified its sodomy laws as recently as 2002. If anything, Maryland tends to pick the most statist parts of both liberalism and conservatism.

  • Doctor Whom||

    *also has

    Proofreading, how does it work?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    On Hit&Run;?

    ALways just after you've vlivked on "submit", but never during "preview".

  • Paul||

    There's something exciting about cjuicjking "submit" and hoping you got it all right. It's Reason Roulette!

  • ||

    There is something libertarian about the comment client used here. Type whatever you want, but minus the nanny means minus the handholding too. The chance for a 'do-over' or a 'reset' or to 'clarify' your remarks is gone.

    Politiclowns must hate it.

  • Paul||

    No commenter bailout?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You use preview!?!?!?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Well...yes. Yes, I do.

    But I'm not sure why.

  • ||

    Yeah, but can Dr. Jekyll marry Mr. Hyde?

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Yeah, Tonio, show me the state in the US where voters actually approved it?

    You don't have to be religious to know that gay marriage is just a Leftist farce to discredit the right. Civil unions give gays the same rights as marriage.

    So yeah, it's just a leftist attempt to blur gender lines and (via media manipulation) make the religious right look eeevil.

  • Tonio||

    gay marriage is just a Leftist farce

    You are loathsome beyond words if you actually believe this. It's not all about you and your imagined persecutions. There are real people like me who want to get married (to someone of the same sex) and can't.

  • "It's not all about you"||

  • ||

    I'd like to operate a cosmetic surgery practice, but the state won't give me a license. Doesn't it suck being discriminated against?

  • ||

    "A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    @ Alec Leamas
    So some random person's words validates some foil hat conspiracy? Let me guess this Michelangelo person is some Satan worshipping Freemason shapeshifter?

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but this takes the cake. I guess David Koch is a covert Marxist then. I believe in unregulated capitalism and I can't possibly see how gender issues are any more inherently political than what hand you write with. Reminds of of Nick Gillespie's article on politicizing non-political parts of life, like calling soccer communist.

  • ||

    "gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom"

    very classy.

  • ||

    Gay marriage is winning because the Left always wins.

    They're the Harlem Globetrotters and the GOP is the Washington Generals. Occasionally the Generals win one to make it seem like a contest, but in general no one is surprised to see the Globetrotters win.

    They'll just move on to the next retarded cause, because the Left is like a shark, it has to keep swimming after an enemy or it'll die.

  • Paul||

    What I want to know is, when did divorce marriage become such a 'left' issue? I'm not sure any of these words you use mean what you think they mean.

  • The Derider||

    Since they fought to allow interracial marriages (and won).

  • Thomas O.||

    If I remember correctly, marriage was a "meh" issue for centuries, more of a vehicle for property inheritance and paternity validation than a love thing. It wasn't until maybe the 17th-18th century that it got romanticized... and then the religious folk were suddenly all possessive of the institution.

  • ||

    Harlem Globetrotters have never lost.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    Not true - the Globetrotters have lost plenty of times, including once to the Generals. However, most of the losses came against college teams, when the Globetrotters were attempting to play straight basketball.

  • ||

    If there are both civil unions and marriages, then there are effectively two classes of people, not treated equally before the law. That doesn't sound very constitutional to me. See the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

    Not that there needs to be a Federal law about this; just make sure the states follow the COTUS.
    IMO, the best solution is to replace all legal parts of what is now called marriage with civil unions, and then let churches, dating services, fraternal organizations, whatever, figure out who they'll marry and who they won't. Meanwhile, any two consenting adults will be able to form a partnership that grants the rights and privileges of current marriage, and all will be equal before the law.

    And since this appears to be an issue of rights, deciding the matter by a popular vote smacks of tyranny of the majority, doesn't it?

    CB.

  • illini||

    "...effectively two classes of people..."

    Wrong. Rather, it's two classes of "unions", not persons. It's the actual bond between two people that is the question, not the citizens themselves. They did, do now, and always will get the same rights as any other citizen. Their bonds, however are different. Homosexuals who are bonded to each other, however glorious they imagine it to be, are not in union as husband and wife and are not capable of building families. Therefore, a homosexual union and a heterosexual marriage are two completely different things with entirely different implications for a civil society. They are treated differently, and they always will be.

    This wave of faux acceptance on gay marriage will pass. If not soon, then surely in time when the folly becomes evident.

  • illini||

    To put it another way, Gay Marriage is a joke. It's an issue punching far beyond it's weight because the Gay lobby has more money and more time to spend than the average hard-working American trying to make ends meet. The tide of acceptance by the mainstream is nothing more than tacit approval given thru ignorance and apathy. The fight against it is limited by the fact that most Americans are simply too busy to devote time to combating yet another divisive, stupid cause by some "hyper-important" minority.

    In closing, I'd like to make a request. Will someone from the African American community please stand up and call foul on the shameless comparisons of the fight for Gay Marriage to the heroic Civil Rights achievements of the 1960s? It cheapens Black History and the incredible accomplishments of Black society in overcoming so many obstacles in this country.

  • ||

    Many Af-Ams cry foul over the comparison.

    Het marriages are a joke too.

  • Tony||

    Your attitudes illustrates exactly why the comparison is apt. Bigots who know they are bigots aren't the problem. The insidious thing is bigotry that can't recognize itself. You clearly think that because of how they were born gays don't deserve an equal legal place in society or even an equal place as human beings. That may not be bigotry to you, but that doesn't mean it's not.

  • illini||

    Yes, Gays do deserve an equal legal place in society and an equal place as human beings. Of course they do. What ignorant troglodyte would believe otherwise. Their value and productivity as humans, citizens and contributors isn't the point at all. You missed the point entirely. The argument is that the bond between them is not deserving of equal stature to the union between man and woman that creates and nurtures a family which is the basic, fundamental unit of society. A so called Gay Marriage is simply not capable of achieving this. There are forms of Gay unions which attempt to mimic this thru adoption, artificial insemination, and other means, but it is all smoke and mirrors.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "creates and nurtures a family which is the basic, fundamental unit of society"

    Barf.

  • ||

    My thoughts exactly

  • mgd||

    My mother was unable to conceive and therefore my parents could not have children via standard biological means; my siblings and I were adopted. Does this mean that the state shouldn't have recognized their marriage? Once my mother was diagnosed with cancer and had a hysterectomy, should my father have had the marriage annulled and gone off to find himself a fertile woman to have a legitimate marriage? And while my parents attempted to mimic family building through adoption, it was really all smoke and mirrors?

    It takes some serious stupid to lose an argument to Tony, but that's your ass he just handed you.

  • trythisout||

    Except when you enter a gay relationship, you are actively choosing a route that would not allow you to have kids. Your parents weren't able to have kids because of a biological circumstance that is not normally expected, basically an anatomical defect. Man and woman is the biological "contract" that gives way to child birth.

    A homosexual union has 0% chance of biologically producing kids - that's what makes it different from your parents' situation. However, if you like, you can claim that homosexuality is also an anatomical defect and thus allows the prospect of adopting kids... but then you're admitting that homosexuality is a defect. If that's the case, we should be looking for a cure, right?

  • Thomas O.||

    Maybe biologically that's the case, trythisout... but gay men can still adopt (remember Chris Jagger? "Change Of Heart"? He's gay and he and his man adopted a baby girl a few years ago) and lesbians can still squirt donated sperm into them in order to conceive.

    And like I've always said, just because something is unnatural or abnormal doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

  • trythisout||

    Since when is it "outlawed"? Do you go to jail for getting married to someone of the same sex?

    I find this debate fascinating on a libertarian website. Libertarians, known for wanting DEREGULATION, are fighting for their own version of regulation in marriage. I prefer the Dr. Paul stance: why is the government involved with marriage in the first place? To me, that should be the libertarian focus.

    Just like Matt Welch said, "Everyone is a hypocrite..." when it comes to what laws people want, even libertarians.

  • Thomas O.||

    Well, in the legal sense, gay marriage is outlawed. Some states still outlaw sodomy or oral sex. Some Republicans in Texas want to make marrying a same-sex couple a felony.

    But I'm just criticizing the attitude in general of "I want this illegal because, even those nobody else is harmed by it, a) my religion forbids it, b) I can furnish several statistics that the other way is better, or c) I just don't like it." I'm definitely of the mindset of "if you don't like it, DON'T DO IT... and don't forbid others to do it."

  • mgd||

    @trythisout:
    What if my parents had chosen not to have children, and adopt instead? Still not legitimate? Family still not a real one family, just a sham per illini's argument?
    I prefer the Dr. Paul stance: why is the government involved with marriage in the first place? To me, that should be the libertarian focus.
    I completely agree with this. Until such time as the government extricates itself from the arrangement, however, homosexuals should be provided the same equal protection of the laws as others.

  • ummmm||

    What about me? I'm married but can't have kids. Does that mean my marriage is a joke? Not every marriage's purpose needs to be or can be for creating a family.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Only queers and queers come from Champaign-Urbana.

  • illini||

    Go home you fuckin' townie.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I called you a townie, turd. I have no geographic fealty.

  • ||

    illini,
    There are couples composed of one man and one woman who are, for various reasons, incapable of building families, so that line of argument can't be taken seriously. But those hetero couples, and singles, and gay couples, can build families through adoption.

    Why should there be two different ways for couples to bond together legally, to build families, to act as each other's survivors and medical proxies? If the law provides and requires two separate ways for two sets of couples to do these things, then, before the law, those two sets of couples *are* *different*, which is what I said in the first place. As I read the Fourteenth Amendment, that is illegal.

    CB.

  • ||

    Why should there be two different ways for couples to bond together legally, to build families, to act as each other's survivors and medical proxies?

    Because the physics of procreation, and the risks and responsibilities inherent in it, are different. By natural design.

  • ||

    And there we have it, concrete proof. Physics prevents adoption and donor sperm.

  • ||

    Ooh, shouldn't have said "grant" and "rights" together. Rights can't be granted, only discovered and recognized.

    CB.

  • Killazontherun||

    Sick fucks. You know Bert and Ernie are cousins, right?

  • ||

    Are you implying that cousins aren't allowed to have their loving relationships acknowledged by the community?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    According to the same liberals who espouse tolerance and despise hate speech, all people on the right-of-center are cousins who want to fuck.

  • The Derider||

    Prove it.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    There are one or two states (I want to say Connecticut?) that allow both gay and cousin marriages.

  • mgd||

    What about gay cousins?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    I hate to have to break this news, but...
    there ARE other issues out there, and some of them are pretty damn dire.

  • Tony||

    Is there a single "libertarian" capable of just saying "yeah, gay couples deserve equal marriage rights"? Christ people. Not only would it not harm any of you in any way, it is by far the simplest, rational, and constitutional position.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I've never said what you demand we say, Tony, but I've said as much in spirit many times.

    But you insist there be a piece of paper, which must be approved by a bureaucrat and costs some nominal amount of money, giving *permission* to two grown adults to use the word "marriage".

    As that guy said above... just make every union a civil union. Much simpler that way.

  • Tony||

    You've already started making things way more complicated than they need to be, and redefining marriage down in all 50 states just to satisfy people who have some bizarre objection to applying the word to gay people is not a simple solution.

    Reasonable adults are capable of saying "there should be no legal recognition of marriage" and "but since there always will be, that recognition ought to be offered on an equal basis to straight and gay couples."

    You constantly strain yourself trying to get out of taking the simplest and freest position. Why?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nothing's simpler than getting rid of the need for a goddamn worthless piece of paper, and just letting couples call themselves "married".

    ALL couples. Not just the gay ones.

    Now... who's trying to be more complicated?

  • Tony||

    How is a politically impossible chain of events in any way "simple"?

    How long should gays have to wait for equal rights while straights ruminate on the idea of taking the word "marriage" out of the law. You know, for that very important reason you have yet to articulate.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Go ahead and say what YOU think the "reason" is, Tony... it won't be the first time you accused me of shit I don't actually do or believe.

    Fucker.

  • Tony||

    I don't get why it's so hard for you to answer a simple question, or to take the correct position here.

    If you're so against incremental positive change, then consider this scenario. Say your ideal tax rate on billionaires' income was 20% less than what it is. Would you reject a 10% cut on the principle that all the particulars of your utopia aren't being realized, so it's therefore unacceptable? Or would you take the cut?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I have never been against gay marriage, Tony. If you were intellectually honest, you'd cop to knowing that.

    Were you drunk when you put that scenario together?

  • The Derider||

    It doesn't really matter what your reason is. What matters is what other people think your reason is. And other people conclude that you are a transparent bigot.

  • ||

    What I don't understand is why two people feel they have to argue when their only disagreement isn't on what the RIGHT solution is, but simply what the most politically FEASIBLE, is.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Me.

    I don't think there should be gay marriage, but I don't think there should be straight marriage, either. Government should get out of the matrimony business and let people sign marriage contracts with whomever they dratted well please.

    Two men, one woman, no problem for me. Eighte men, eight women, no problem. Three women, no problem. Four men, no problem. Also long as everyone is a consenting adult, it's none of my business, but I probably don't disapprove.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not good enough for the Tonys of the world... they want the symbolism of a notarized piece of paper handed out by a fucking CLERK at the local bureaucracy hangout.

  • Tony||

    to my mind, any political philosophy that doesn't even acknowledge the utility of an incremental approach is by definition useless. I seriously don't understand the point of sitting around daydreaming about utopias in which there is no legal recognition of marriage. Even if that is the best possible world, it will never be a politically viable thing.

    It's also beside the point, a distraction, and makes one wonder why the daydreamer can't just take the correct position and then go have lunch or something.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why anyone would want to have to go pay a goddamn bureaucrat for a piece of paper stating, basically, "The two grown, consenting, able-minded adults listed on this document, are given *permission* to use a specific word found in any decently-detailed dictionary to describe their level of commitment, signed X__________, Agent of the Local/State Government"?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    My word is Safeword. When I say Safeword, you have exceeded my level of commitment.

  • The Derider||

    Why would anybody want a pink washing machine? /Khrushchev

  • ||

    the utility of an incremental approach

    ... or the utility of bait-&-switch.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "I seriously don't understand the point of sitting around daydreaming about utopias"

    That's a knee-slapper! Pull the other one, it's got bells on it too!

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    That was pretty amusing, a liberal tsk-tsk'ing others on utopianist daydreaming.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, we've been batting that shit back and forth for ages now, dude. But yeah, it's a gut-buster of a laugh to see an ardent egalitarian point fingers and call others pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

  • Tony||

    I am not in any way utopian. You say that because I think a better society is possible than the nightmarish darwinian hellscape you want to force on us. That doesn't mean I think a perfect society is possible. I think I've been fairly emphatic on this point.

    Obviously we're both more or less utopian/pragmatic on different issues. On this particular one, you are refusing to take the obviously correct position because it's not the same as your utopian ideal. That you're just using it as a transparent hedge is another issue.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "you want to force on us"

    Hypocrite much?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And a hedge for... what?

    Go ahead, asshole... just try and call me a religious-based anti-gay bigot. Fucking TRY it.

    And tell a few more lies, while you're at it.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Did I say anything about doing it incremetally, immediately, or never? If so, I didn't think I wrote it. I;m glad more states are legalizing gay marriage, I would just prefer to get government out of the business.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tony wants it NOW, dammit! Because it's the most importanest thing, like, ever!!!

  • Tony||

    When is the appropriate time to rectify a civil rights injustice? How long should we wait to fix all your grievances, or are those more important?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, you want a *magic* number, just like you want a *magic* number of upper-level tax rates.

    Typical.

  • Schempf||

    A couple of Libertarian state senators got reach arounds and support it.....

  • ||

    I reply to Tony with some apprehension and caution, but:
    I am a Libertarian, have been for decades, and I say that gay couples deserve equal marriage rights. On this specific issue (only), I agree with you.
    CB.

  • ||

    I'll never understand why libertarians are in support of expanding a legal institution that gives exclusive rent-seeking rights to particular types of romantic relationships. The state shouldn't be in the practice of sanctioning heterosexual or homosexual relationships. Expanding the state's role in doling out benefits to people who enter certain types of romantic relationships is not libertarian. Anyone actually interested in fairness, equality, and minarchist libertarian government would be lobbying to end the legal construct of "marriage" and turn it into a private affair - not to expand the special rent-seeking privilege to another small class of people in one particular type of relationship.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Been trying to get that through Tony's head for months now, but he keeps wanting to use the word "bigot" to anyone who won't just step aside and agree with whatever he wants.

    I give a shit WHO gets married... straights, gays, what the fuck ever. I really don't care. But I don't think any able minded/bodied, grown adults, should have to go to a certain office in their vicinity and pay hard-earned money for a PERMISSION SLIP to use the word "married".

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Hard as it may be to believe, I suspect getting gay marriage legalized is easier than getting straight marriage outlawed.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    In the meantime, though, give gays AND straight, unmarried couples, the same legal rights AS straight, married couples.

    Notice Tony doesn't give a shit about the other two groups... just gays.

  • Tony||

    Giving unmarried couples the same rights as married couples = outlawing marriage. People should be able to choose whether a person in their vicinity has to share contractual terms, right? So what the hell are you talking about?

    I understand that in your utopia there would be no legal recognition of marriage. Perfectly fine, if quirky, position. What does that have to do with the real-world issue we're discussing?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Most of those are positive "rights". Just get rid of the positive "rights", and get rid of the restrictions on the negative rights (like wills).

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If you want to phrase it as "outlawing marriage", that's fine, I suppose.

    Why not push for that instead, Tony? Were I in your position, I would do just that.

    But I'm not married, and never will be. I just don't see the *need* for it.

  • Thomas O.||

    Yeah, there's a lot of conservatives who are open to the government getting out of the marriage business entirely... but I just know the bible-thumpers will raise a hissy fit about "it's another example of GAWD getting kicked out of our society!"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Off-topic Moment o' Stoopid to lighten the moment:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....00547.html

  • ||

    suspicious powdery substance

    All powdery substances (especially white ones) are guilty until proven innocent in a govt. laboratory.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    I've done a lot of web-searching, and can't figure out how Jan Brewer "threatened" Obama.

    Last I read, pointing a finger and raising your voice =/= attempted murder.

  • ||

    Yeah -- I didn't get that either.

  • Hidden Bek||

    What never got out in the media (or most of it) is that President Urkel has done that runway lecture BS before. My guess is Brewer escalated after he said something, which makes much more sense considering he had two other incidents like that upon meeting a political adversary (Rick Perry was one, can't recall the other.)

  • cavalier973||

    Is a heteronormative institution like marriage really a proper paradigm for homosexual relationships?

    Anyway, while the state can declare that such a thing as "homosexual marriage" is legal, the state can never make it legitimate. I can say that I'm making apple pie, but will use peaches instead of apples, but I would be a looney to truly believe that I've made an apple pie.
    "Marriage", by definition, is a heterosexual institution. Trying to change the definition does no one good, otherwise it will get to the point that a man and a woman can get married, and claim that they have a "homosexual marriage".
    (cont.)

  • cavalier973||

    (cont.)

    I don't think that one should look to the state for legitimization of one's lifestyle. The state only cheapens and destroys what it touches. Find a pastor that's amenable to your views, and have him perform a ceremony, and declare yourself to be married to your partner of the same sex.

    Just don't try to use the law to get me to say that you have a real marriage; I'll only laugh and laugh, just like I would at a fellow trying to serve me a peach-filled "apple" pie.

  • The Derider||

    The gays seem to think so. You know better than them?

  • cavalier973||

    (Insert this between my other two posts, please)

    I don't think that one should rely on the state to legitimize one's beliefs and lifestyles. The state only cheapens and destroys everything it touches. Find rather a pastor who shares your worldview, and have him perform a ceremony, and declare yourself to be married to your partner of the same gender.

  • cavalier973||

    Okay, it looks like it took it the first time. Just ignore this post.

  • ||

    I don't think that it is necessary or good for a person to need to get permission from a government to have a marriage or a civil union or whatever with another person.

    Because there are legal privileges and responsibilities involved, though, some sort of *contract* seems necessary (as in a business relationship) to define the nature of the relationship. But that is drawn up by the parties involved or by their agents, and only needs to be registered with a government or other arbitration agency to be adjudicated.

    CB.

  • cavalier973||

    "5 Reasons Christians should not obtain a state marriage license"

    http://hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

  • Yet Another Dave||

    "and only needs to be registered with a government or other arbitration agency to be adjudicated."

    In reality, this is really what a marriage "license" is. There's no test (even when there were blood tests, it wasn't something that would keep you from getting married, just to let you know if it was a good idea to have kids or not), and it's not like they turn anyone down. Nor are there marriage wardens that come by your house from time to time to ensure you're abiding by the governing regulations. To call it a "license" is to abuse the term, as it really is just a registration process.

  • MJ||

    "So what's different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal."

    Because progressive elites in courts and legislatures are pushing it despite what the unwashed masses might think.

    Young people are buying into the movement, but so what? They are also buying into the idea that an unfettered right to free speech is dangerous to democracy, and that employers not offering health insurace that includes free contraceptives is oppressing women.

  • ||

    If the terms Democrat and Republican are replaced with Nazi, the pro-gay marriage term replaced with Black Shirts and Brown Shirts and the marriage for heterosexuals only "crowd" changed to Jews the reality of what is going on becomes a bit more understandable.

  • Thomas O.||

    Only problem with that comparison is... the people leading the gay-marriage movement - not to mention the socially-liberal society at large - don't wish to kill off the opposition, nor stick them in some kind of torture/extermination camp.

  • ||

    The real problem is the government believing they have any business in the issue at all. It is all about discrimination, now it is about discrmination of those not married by special treatment of those that are married. Tax treatement, benefits etc.
    A usual the fix is going back to the constitution and treating everyone as an individual. The marriage commitment should be left between people according to their beliefs with no government intervention.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    THIS, is the Tony with common sense.

    The other Tony... never had it.

  • Eldergay Libertarian||

    Now, this CAN'T be the other, hysterical Tony, can it?

    Or did Tony take his meds?

  • akn||

    I'm really happy that I can legally marry in six states (and D.C.) now, but who the fuck drinks appletinis?...

  • Jumbie||

    Forget the gays. When will we legalise LINE marriage?

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I'm all for states' rights, but there are just some things that need to be handled at a federal level. I feel sorry for the gay couple legally married in Vermont that go on vacation in Colorado and one of them lands in the hospital after a skiing accident - and then his partner has no legal say in his disposition, can't even visit him in the hospital because he's not "family".

    Not to mention that because of DOMA, even though the military is now letting gays serve openly, they still aren't able to live in "family" housing or receive their housing allowance at the "with dependents" rate unless one or both have children.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    And there should be gay marriage. The only arguments I've heard against allowing gays to marry has been on moral or religious grounds, and I'm sorry, but once two atheists could be married by the justice of the peace, the church gave up any perceived ownership of the institution of marriage.

    After all, I really don't see what legal recognition of two gay guys' relationship, where that has any effect on my relationship with my wife.

    I do agree with the comments about the tax breaks for married couples, though. As much as I do enjoy getting to keep a little more of my money in my pocket, the current law discriminates against the single people. But as long as the tax breaks exist, then a gay couple that is in every other way identical to my marriage deserves all the same standing and benefits, including the tax breaks.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    On another topic - when did Reason start enacting character count limits? I've seen people post friggin' books on here.

  • Carbon||

    Man, there is nothing like hopping onto the internet and reading about how I don't deserve to marry because the family I'd help create wouldn't foster biological children, or for some stupid religious reason.

    There is nothing fundamentally wrong with me, I work, I pay my taxes, and I hang out with the guys on Friday night.

    Oh, and TheZeitgeist, you may use words and articulate speech, but your degenerate moral standing betrays your hateful nature. Saying that someone like me doesn't participate in the "cycle of life" is a load of horseshit. I would gladly adopt and foster a child, should I eventually come across a person and enough money to do so.

    All of you who hold hate in your hearts, who hold an imaginary being above your fellow man, and who actively harm and restrict the rights of others can go fuck your collective selves.

  • trythisout||

    Why is marriage a "right" to anyone? Government didn't come up with it. You didn't come up with it. Especially since (by the tone of your post) you don't believe God created it or endowed it upon us, then that means it's not a natural right. So basically you're creating rights, meaning you're a democrat.

  • ||

    Remove the State from "marriage". Make what we consider "marriage" into a civil contract controlled and enforced by existing contract law. Remove any mention of marriage, spouse, etc... from IRS, inheritance, medical, and so on. Problem goes away.

  • Black guy||

    I hate fags

  • Chip Chipperson From Britain||

    Then don't smoke or somethin'. tssf

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Geez what's with all these people claiming that this is some Marxist conspiracy? I guess to these people David Koch is a covert Marxist. I'm gay and I believe in unregulated capitalism. I can't possibly see how me being attracted to the same sex has anything to do with wealth redistribution or abolishing private property rights. Reminds me of those "race mixing is communism" sign from the 50s.
    This article applies to some of the kooks posting http://reason.com/archives/201.....ports-shou

  • ||

    Haha. Gay marriage is "inconceivable." Good one.

  • Roger||

    people keep thinking that this is actually an 'issue'. In the constitution, powers not given to the Fed, belongs to the state.
    Before gays dance in the streets like happy retards, Consider one of the most liberal states in the union (California) shot down gay marriage TWICE. And now whiney gays are trying to bring it to the federal courts to over rule the people's vote. Funny how the constitution is only used by libs when it suits them.
    Perhaps activists should reconsider thier strategy. There would be no 'gay bashing' by anyone if they kept thier bedroom activities quiet. And no one is invading thier homes. no one is hauling them off to jail for thier chosen lifestyle. no one is prosecuting or persecuting them. So go on with your lives, stop flaunting your relationship in people's faces and acting immature when people disagree with it. THIS IS AMERICA, people have the right to disagree.

  • ||

    Does Fox News legal expert have a position on gay marriage? It is well known in Bergen County, NJ that the former judge is gay, although very much in the closet.

  • Thomas||

    Below is a link to an interesting read, called the Libertarian Case for Man/Woman Marriage. Some quotes:

    "Marriage between a man and a woman is the last truly private sector."

    "Redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is an expansion of the state’s power... We fear that many Libertarians are hiding behind the 'privatizing marriage' argument in an attempt to avoid taking a stand on this issue. But privatizing marriage is not the answer; furthermore, it is naïve to think that government will remove itself from marriage."

    "...genderless marriage is entirely the construction of the state. Genderless marriage requires continual support and even coddling by the state. Unlike traditional marriage, it cannot survive without the state. How would it?"

    It's an 8 part read. Part 1 located here:

    http://www.marriage-ecosystem......riage.html

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