Gay Marriage Is Here, Get Used to It

At The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Cato Institute’s David Boaz celebrates the fact that “even as the Republican candidates fight to see who can get furthest to the right, acceptance of gay people and gay marriage in the United States is moving briskly along.” He writes:

Republicans haven't given up their opposition, but their resolve is weakening. A few GOP legislators helped put the issue over the top in New York, Washington, and Maryland. Former Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman and a group of libertarian-leaning GOP donors played a key role in [Gov. Andrew] Cuomo's efforts in New York.

The formerly vocal opposition to gay marriage has quieted. Congressional Republicans haven't revived the Federal Marriage Amendment. Conservative media stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley's National Review have barely mentioned the issue. (When you search for gay marriage at National Review Online, you get lots of ads for things like "Gay Destination Weddings.") The ambitious Christie vetoed his state's bill while also calling for a referendum on gay marriage rather than flatly rejecting the idea. He also has nominated an openly gay judge to the state Supreme Court.

Even Rick Santorum, who has been stridently antigay throughout his career, muted his remarks when he led a rally to repeal the Washington state law. "There are legitimate reasons that people have to want . . . to change the law," he said. "And there are legitimate reasons that people have to want to keep the law in place. . . . There are ebbs and flows in every battle."

Read the whole thing here. Read Reason on gay marriage here.

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.

  • ||

    You know, Bert and Ernie aren't gay.

  • Joe M||

    They're asexual, goddamnnit.

    I'm renewing my subscription to Reason, so I can cancel it.

  • ||

    No, they are not. They are two high-functioning mental patients that are roommates in a group home.

  • ||

    There's certainly more supporting evidence for that view.

  • ||

    Although, the slobby laid back gay guy and the uptight neat-freak gay guy are a commonly observed couple.

  • ||

    Go ahead. Shit on America and call Oscar and Felix gay.

  • ||

    Felix couldn't be more coded as gay. And Oscar seems good to go at anything concave.

  • ||

    That's a damned lie.

  • ||

    When bubbles burst it's easy to get soap in your eye.

  • ||

    It's also a Mormon plot to advance polygamy that any two guys who are together are gay. See, they want them all to have so many wives so that men can never actually be alone together.

    Brilliant, really.

  • ||

    I was thinking Gay Cats.
    One's an uptight vegan with anger issues.
    The other is a 'chubby' gay porn star.
    http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04122007

  • Tony||

    Okay, fine, but I STILL want that pony.

  • ¢||

    WHITE POWER

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who weeps for the bennies denied us singles? You bigots.

  • sarcasmic||

    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!
    Is too!
    Is not!

  • ||

    Good to know that character limit is really getting us somewhere.

  • ||

    Pfft. That was only 823 characters.

  • ||

    Well, he finished masturbating before he got to 900. But it was close!

  • ||

    Gay marriage will "win" when a critical mass of people just don't give a crap any more. The more gay couples someone knows, the less they think it's a big deal. Given that there's a push for gay marriage by people who DO care, the more people who just don't care about it, the more likely that it will happen.

  • ||

    I find it curious that gay marriage is becoming legal just as we're about to elect our first Mormon president, Mitt of the Many Wives.

  • ||

    Gay marriage is a Mormon plot!

  • ||

    Jesus, how could we have been so blind?

  • ||

    Jesus, how could we have been so blind?

    Incessant masturbation?

  • Sparky||

    Sorry, Jesus is busy right now using his super powers to run covert ops for the CIA.

  • ||

    "Angel Moroni" anagrams to "Reaming Loon"! It was right there all along, for those with the courage to see!

  • Joe M||

    Minty Metro

  • ||

    If you throw in "The Angel Moroni": Genital Hormone

  • ||

    "Latter Day Saints?" "Alien Data Trysts!"

  • ||

    "Latter Day Saints?" "Alien Data Trysts!"

  • Joe M||

    Hahaha, Willard Romney: Normally Weird.

  • Joe M||

    Or weirdly normal, even better.

  • ||

    "Latter Day Taints"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ask Tony... it's all about the symbolism of getting a local gov't official to give his/her approval via a piece of paper called a "marriage license".

    Symbols are for the symbol-minded. - Carlin

  • WarrenT||

    I have a mitt that I would marry if i could. A sexy, sexy, slippery, warm mitt.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it curious that libertarians, who are supposed to be all about keeping government out of our lives, are insisting that government force be used to redefine marriage.

  • ||

    Government has no business in marriage at all, except to the extent that courts enforce contracts.

  • sarcasmic||

    *ding ding ding*

  • 655321||

    Shorter sarc: "I keep riding this hobby horse, but I don't seem to get anywhere."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The government should intervene, one last time, by announcing they are getting out of the business of marriage altogether.

  • ||

    I find it curious how much this issue tweaks your nipples, and why you care so much.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's not necessarily a sinister motive here. While I agree that it's a relative positive that same-sex marriage is being recognized, I continue to argue that it's just continuing a trend of Americans looking to the state as an indicator of cultural acceptance. (Or whatever.)

    There are many little issues such as this that can be reasoned with sentiment over logic, together adding up to a more powerful government.

  • Joe M||

    Yeah, it's annoying that everything has to be state-sanctioned nowadays, for either side of an issue.

  • ||

    I would love to see the government out of the marriage business entirely. Ain't gonna happen; not any time within reason.

    Sarcasmic uses, as Tonio says, a perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good argument to try and argue against gay marriage without seeming to, because he has a huge problem with it, the reason for which I will allow you to speculate for yourself.

    It grows tiresome.

  • ||

    Maybe sarc is worried that he will have to marry a dude. A big, sweaty dude that knows way too much about Russian River red zins and the production problems surrounding Angels in America.

  • dunkel||

    Russian River wines...fuck that blasphemy!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If more gay couples used every resource at their disposals, and got the legal paperwork done granting them the stuff they want... they could sidestep the whole symbolic "we got the blessing of the state" bullshit.

    Works for straight couples who don't want to get married, as well.

    Starve the beast. Non-violent methods. Better in the long run.

  • ||

    Mr FIFY

    Most gay couples don't want to get married. They just want to fight the culture war. So, no they can't be bothered to do that because that would prevent them from fighting the culture war.

  • Joe M||

    Most gay couples don't want to get married. They just want to fight the culture war.

    John, you don't know that, and have nothing except your personal bias to back up that claim.

  • L13||

    Most gay couples are far more tired of "the culture war" that you can possibly imagine and just want to get on with life.

  • L13||

    This works for many parts, such as power of attorney, inheritance, and even many employer provided benefits. However, social security (the mother of all benefits) being a Federal program treats gay and straight couples differently. Of course, the obvious solution is to get rid of social security; but, until that happens, repeal of DOMA is the next best thing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Definitely shitcan DOMA, but it wouldn't be that hard to fix SS so that one need not be "married" to partake of it.

    But getting rid of SS would be even sweeter.

  • ||

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, sarc. As the perfect is ever the enemy of the good.

  • R||

    It's "A foolish consistency..."

    Not that it changes anything, in this case.

  • Pip||

    A foolish cConsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    FIFY

  • Pip||

    Ignore the uppercase 'C"

  • R||

    And the fact that I got there two minutes before you did. ;)

  • ||

    No, social forces have led to the growing acceptance of gay relationships. The government stands in the way of those in gay relationships having the right to use a standard contract to legally bind them.

    I'm all for getting the government out of marriage altogether, and such contracts being blind to sex and sexuality. That doesn't make your statement correct, however.

  • Mittens||

    One is enough, thanks! I can barely put up with three Cadillacs. More wives=> more Cadillacs.

  • ||

    You don't fool me, Willard! I'm on to you! And I know this is really you and not some sockpuppet!

    Thank God Conan Doyle alerted me to the Mormon menace ahead of time.

  • ||

    It'd be nice if one Willard started exclusively quoting the other one:

    "Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service. It was a real choice mission, and when it was over, I never wanted another."

  • ||

    "I have a number of things to tell you. First, you stole this business from my father, second, it killed my mother, and now, you're trying to ruin me. You made me hate myself. Well, I like myself now."

  • ||

    Who do you think Captain Willard was based on?

  • ||

    Mitt on why he decided to run again for President:

    "Everybody wanted me to do it, him most of all. I felt like he was up there, waiting for me to take the pain away. He just wanted to go out like a soldier, standing up, not like some poor, wasted, rag-assed renegade. Even the jungle wanted him dead, and that's who he really took his orders from anyway."

  • ||

    On 2008:

    "Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a campaign, and for my sins, they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service. It was a real choice campaign, and when it was over, I never wanted another."

  • silent v||

    There are ebbs and flows in every battle

    Santorum should have learned by now not to say things like "ebb and flow", at least until he gets his Google problem resolved.

  • Sparky||

    Who gets the "Get Used to It" article tomorrow?

  • sarcasmic||

    Romney.

  • Lewis H||

    Rent Controls

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gay Marraige has been around for a very long time. It's Gay Marraige Licenses that are new.

  • rho||

    Let's reach a bi-partisan compromise; make gay marriage legal and ban abortions. Then force gay couples to adopt unwanted babies.

  • Mr. Soul||

    gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

  • rather||

  • kilroy||

    gays People need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

  • ||

    Yes because all trends from the past will continue into the future.

  • Max||

    "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."--Ron Paul

    The Iowa Republican. 2011-02-24. http://theiowarepublican.com/2.....emns-obama’s-decision-to-abandon-doma/.

  • *yawn*||

  • ||

    Obama has said the same thing on multiple occasions. Go take your meds Max.

  • So?||

  • But... but...||

    ...it's OKAY when Obama says it!

  • Rob||

    I'm sure thay Shrike supports the portability of gay marriage from state to state, but like the dishonest fucktard that he is, doesn't support the portability of, say, gun rights.

  • Hadouken||

    One should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

    But one should take care that "the good" actually moves us in the direction of "the perfect".

    Marriage is, within the current context, an inherently discriminatory government benefit program, one in which the state confers extra benefits to those in specific kinds of interpersonal relationships. As such, slightly increasing the number or people benefiting from the state's discrimination is not "the good". On the contrary it moves away from "the perfect" of no state favoritism, and weakens the forces fighting against the discriminatory program itself.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What Hadouken said.

  • ||

    What if there was a serious chance that marijuana could be legalized? Should we fight against that in order to keep up the pressure to get heroin vending machines in grade schools?

    The only reason people are even talking about getting government out of marriage is because of gays pushing for official recognition of their de facto arrangements. If your real concern is getting government out of the marriage business, gay activists have done more to further that debate than any other single movement.

  • jacob||

    +1000

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow, SF... your argument would make sense if it heroin use could be applied in exactly the same way as gay marriage.

    Or something.

    Sorry, I'm lost now. What's the comparison, again?

  • Hadouken||

    Not that you'll ever see this comment but to answer your question, no. Legalizing marijuana does move us toward "the perfect" of no drug prohibition, thus it qualifies as "the good".

  • ||

    So something that causes you to pay extra income taxes is a benefit program? Got it.

    That whole post is a giant fucking pile of stupid. Where the fuck did Libertarians get the idea the marriage is some kind of welfare program?

    You know what marriage mostly is? It is an estate law. And after that it is a set of laws to divide property and figure out how to raise kids. That is 98% of family law. And that has nothing to do with government benefits. It is a pre bundled set of contract law.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There's also the bit about spouses not having to testify against each other.

  • ||

    That is a good one. And that is a benefit I would prefer not see end. But if you "get the government out of marriage", I think that probably goes.

  • ||

    When polygamy is legal, look for mass marriages in organized crime.

  • ||

    That is why the privileged would have to go. And that would be a very bad thing.

  • rho||

    If marriage is estate law, then gays should have access to it.

    Marriage is a social construct that is, in theory, beneficial to nuclear families; which are, again in theory, beneficial to society. No-fault divorce wrecked marriage so thoroughly, that tacking on gay marriage, or polygamy, or any other legal arrangement boils down to arguing the length of the stick and the frequency with which to beat the expired equine.

    If marriage is sacred, then divorce should be so rare that it's shameful. It's not, so, fuck it, let the gays both plan and host weddings.

  • ||

    Maybe so. But that doesn't make marriage some kind of welfare benefit.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "No-fault divorce wrecked marriage so thoroughly, that tacking on gay marriage, or polygamy, or any other legal arrangement boils down to arguing the length of the stick and the frequency with which to beat the expired equine."

    Indeed.

    Sounds like no fault divorce should be abolished.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then apply estate law to ANY couple... gay or straight.

    Problem solved.

  • Da Nile||

    Can I assume you're not married since that would make you a rent seeker?

  • Pip||

    Marriage Incorperation is, within the current context, an inherently discriminatory government benefit program, one in which the state confers extra benefits to those in specific kinds of interpersonal relationships.

  • Jesus||

    'Gay Marriage Is Here, Get Used to It"

    BUT THEY'RE HAVING SEX!!!!111111!

  • ||

    If we get the government out of marraige, how exactly do you geniuses plan to decide who gets custody of kids when couples divorce? The church? How will you divide property?

    Oh I know, by contract. And when people don't sign contracts what then? No marriage? And isn't the court recognizing marriage and custody contracts, the government getting involved in marriage?

  • rho||

    It would be handled like probate court does in the case of a granny without a will. I.e., very messy if there's something at stake. Otherwise, meh.

    As a society, we're well on our way towards a world without marriage. Or at least a world where marriage is a transitory condition that lingers--like herpes.

  • ||

    There is nothing messey at all about dying without a will. It is called intestate succession. And you would have a similar situation with contract driven marriage. And guess what, you would be right back to the government deciding what marriages were valid and what where not.

  • rho||

    At the point of dissolution, the government would be deciding what belongs to whom, not whether the marriage was valid.

    Dying without a will certainly is messy, if there's any estate worth fighting over. Hell, even with a will, handling the estate at death is a non-trivial mess. (See, Anna Nicole Smith.)

    Getting government out of marriage is approximately as bad as getting government into marriage. The problem isn't government, it's marriage.

  • T||

    Getting government out of marriage is approximately as bad as getting government into marriage. The problem isn't government, it's marriage.

    Well, marriage per se isn't a problem. It's ending one that's kind of a bitch. Divorce makes people crazy, and crazy people (by definition) make shitty decisions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then work up contracts spelling out all those things, John.

    This ain't rocket surgery. Fuck, LegalZoom.com exists, and God knows how many other websites just like it.

  • ||

    I don't think people would really care about gay marriage if those advocating it weren't so intolerant of those that don't think it's right. The latest public example of that is the latest kerfuffle over Kirk Cameron's remarks.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/kir.....-marriage/

    I may not think gay marriage is right but don't shove it in my face and tell me to STFU when I speak out against it.

  • Sevo||

    Randall|3.6.12 @ 4:49PM|#
    "I may not think gay marriage is right but don't shove it in my face and tell me to STFU when I speak out against it."

    Don't dare tell Randall that denying equal protection is, well, not nice!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And isn't the court recognizing marriage and custody contracts, the government getting involved in marriage?

    Not unless you are a fan of amphiboly.

    Resolving disputes that arise from a marriage contract is no more getting "involved in" marriage than resolving a disputes that arise from kitchen remodeling contracts means the government is getting "involved in" kitchen remodeling.

  • Max||

    "The Pink House? What an outrage that, for the first time in our nation's history, the organized forces of perversion were feted in the White House.... I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally." (Ron Paul Political Report, June 1990)

  • So fucking what, Max?||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Could we at least start snickering at the "equal rights" rhetoric?

    If the government recognizes your marriage, then you have more privileges vis-a-vis your spouse than vis-a-vis blood relatives. You can be compelled to testify against your spouse, but not against a blood relative.

    Business owners will be obligated to extend services to same-sex couples - eg, spousal benefits, not to mention wedding photographers and bread-and-breakfast owners being required to serve these couples.

    So at least let us here no more about the right to define marriage however you want, because if you run a business, that right will be severely curtailed with SSM.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    correction: "You can be compelled to testify against your blood relative, but not against a blood spouse."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    heck with it, too much "blood."

  • T||

    Khorne is pleased.

  • akn||

    I really don't get why people so often bring up the example of poor social conservative photographers being forced to take pictures of nasty gay weddings. There was one -- 1 -- case in which a photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding and was legally penalized for it (http://www.scottfillmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ElaneRuling.pdf). I agree that any photographer should be free to turn away paying customers for any stupid reason she wants, but I really don't believe there will be a rash of small business owners getting fined out the ass for refusing to work with gay couples. Gays, as consumers, have always sought out businesses who appreciate them, and most gay couples who are ready to get married are mature enough not to attempt to get socially conservative business owners punished just to prove a point.

  • T||

    Missed the lesbian last week who used her mother's funeral to make a political statement against the church, did we?

  • ||

    Angered by the woman who was publicly lectured and denied communion by a turd of a priest in violation of church guidelines and chose not to take it quietly, are we?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "most gay couples who are ready to get married are mature enough not to attempt to get socially conservative business owners punished just to prove a point."

    I'm sure that's right, but it's completely irrelevant. It only takes one plaintiff to bring that sort of case, and it's no defense to point to all the gay people who *didn't* sue.

    And for every litigated case that reaches the media, we can safely presume that there are cases of business owners who simply cave rather than fight. We have to look at the photogs and B&B owners who would like to run their businesses their own way, but don't dare to do it for fear of being sued.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Alternative perspective on the lesbian communion situation:

    "She was reportedly agitated by the fact that the funeral was being presided over by Fr. Guarnizo, who is well known for his outspoken defense of Church teachings....

    "Johnson initially came into the sacristy to discuss the details of the two eulogies that were supposed to be delivered, but left abruptly and returned with her brother and another woman, whom she introduced as her “lover.”...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "The priest proceeded with the Mass, but decided to remind the congregation before Communion of what is required to be properly disposed to receive [Commuion]. when Johnson approached for Communion anyway, Fr. Guarnizo turned her away in a manner so discreet that the Extraordinary Minister standing a few feet away did not know what had occurred. Johnson then crossed over to the Extraordinary minister’s line and *was given communion.*" [emphasis added]

    She made sure the priest knew of her behavior, and as a result, she had to get *into another line* to receive Communion.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ne.....denying-le

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That kind of case isn't brought because of deep, soul-searing wounds... they're brought because a) it furthers The Cause and 2) there might be a pile of money to be won.

  • ||

    Do we also have to look at business owners who like to run their business "their way" and deny service to black customers? Or were anti-discrimination laws a valid price to pay in the interest of social and legal equality.

    Should those B&B owners be able to deny renting a room to a gay couple under any circumstances or just in the case of a wedding?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shaun, businesses shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do. Otherwise, men could join all-female fitness clubs like Curves, no?

  • ||

    How do same-sex marriages get consummated?

  • ||

    Why do conservatives demand requirements for gays they don't demand for straights?

    IOW: a man without a functioning member can still get a marriage license. As you well know.

  • ||

    I did not know that. How does that work, the guy could get married, but the woman could get it annulled anytime she wants?

  • Sevo||

    ♫|3.6.12 @ 5:52PM|#
    "How do same-sex marriages get consummated?"

    Why do you care?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Maybe you all are homosexuals, too!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Homo" means "same," as in identical. So that rules out two-person sex right there.

  • Supra Chaussure Cuttler||

    Maybe so. But that doesn't make marriage some kind of welfare benefit.

  • Actually, it does.||

  • just a little detail...||

    Same sex marriage means genderless marriage.

    Genderless marriage means genderless parenthood.

    Genderless parenthood means legal parenthood displacing biological parenthood.

    Legal parenthood means the eventual destruction of the nuclear family.

    The destruction of the nuclear family was Karl Marx' dream.

    No libertarian or conservative should support Karl Marx' dream.

    No libertarian or conservative should support same sex marriage.

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