Why Straight People Should Be Insulted by Arguments Against Gay Marriage (UPDATED)

The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide today whether it will hear cases connected to both California’s Proposition 8 and the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In both cases, appeals courts have tossed out the marriage bans, so if the court refuses to hear them, gay marriage recognition will become legal in California and the federal government will have to recognize gay marriages in states where it is legally recognized. (Personally, I can’t imagine the Supreme Court not taking up the DOMA case, but Prop. 8 is much harder to predict)

Anyway, while everybody was focused on these cases, a federal judge in Nevada bucked the current trend and ruled that Nevada does have the authority to ban recognition of gay marriage (full ruling available at the linked BuzzFeed story).

Furthermore Judge Robert C. Jones has trotted out the more tiresome social-conservative, big-government arguments to allow for the ban. Procreation is required for the species to survive. Ergo, the government has a legitimate interest in controlling whose marriages are recognized. Otherwise we won’t have families! Without the government stamp, people will stop getting married and mankind will be doomed. Doomed!

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. …

Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences

I’m gay, so I see the marriage fight in certain ways. But I’m also a libertarian, so, isn’t that argument extremely insulting to straight people? The judge actually suggests that straight people would be so upset about gay people getting married that they’ll stop doing it themselves!

What were you straight people doing before the government came along to tell you how to breed properly?

UPDATE: The Supreme Court did not make any announcements on the gay marriage cases it's considering. There may be an announcement Monday or the end of next week.

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.

  • rts||

    What were you straight people doing before the government came along to tell you how to breed properly?

    I think the answer to this one is pretty obvious.

  • American||

    I remeber reading a few days on this site a post glorifying federalism. How is wanting unelected federal judges to overrule the democratic process about homosexual marraige a federalist posititon? I support homosexual marraige, I'd rather privatize it, but I don't see having a massive, powerfull federal government as the answer. To suggest that libertarianism requires one is as stupid as saying it requires an imperialistic government.

  • robc||

    Im straight, and I cant think of a better reason to justify government intervention in the marriage business.

    Not that the Nebraska one is good, but I dont see any of the other justifications as better.

    Any libertarian who isnt actively fighting to eliminate government licensing of marriage is doing it wrong.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Not that the Nebraska one is good, but I dont see any of the other justifications as better.

    ??? - what is the Nebraska justification?

  • robc||

    Reading is hard. Apparently it is Nevada.

    "Procreation is required for the species to survive. Ergo, the government has a legitimate interest in controlling whose marriages are recognized."

    Its bullshit, but I havent seen a beter justification for state being involved in marriage.

  • ||

    Nor have you seen a worse one. Why does the government need procreation? If the only people left on Earth were five 90 year old women, they could still form a government to protect each others rights. And be done.

  • robc||

    No, I have seen worse ones.

    "Because, uhhh...., how will we know who to let visit at the hospital?"

  • SugarFree||

    Slaves should breed more slaves. That is one of the functions of a slave.

  • nicole||

    And that right there is the real reason the argument is so offensive.

  • GILMORE||

    Why does the government need procreation?

    NEED MORE TAXPAYERS

  • Bam!||

    What does procreation have to do with marriage?

  • robc||

    Not much. Thats the point.

    What does property rights have to do with marriage?

  • Delroy||

    I think the Nebraska one has to do with sheep. Or cows.

  • GW||

    The problem is that at least a certain number of gays WANT the government involved in marriage. I thought the whole "get government out of marriage" concept would be logically acceptable, but not a single member of the LGBT community I have discussed this with wants that. They NEED government involved, because the only reason they want marriage recognition is for the spoils. Insurance. Medical decision making. Tax purposes.

    It's all bullshit. I'm about to the point where the next time I hear someone say that, I'm going to explain that they're getting EXACTLY what they're asking for: government involvement. They just don't realize that letting someone else dictate the terms doesn't mean that you'll agree with the terms.

  • Randian||

    You know, I would support letting gays get their driver's licenses too.

    Seriously, people, you're either in favor of arbitrary discrimination because it reduces the amount of Welfare and Regulation involved, or you're not.

    I'm not.

  • GW||

    I'm not either, but the people on both sides of the issue ARE. So I wanna tell gays to go piss up a rope for wanting the state to recognize their marriages just like I want to tell SoCons to go piss up a rope because they don't want the states to recognize gay marriage.

    This whole issue has turned into some of the same BS that Occupy Wall Street was bitching about: "Don't end the injustice, just cut us in on the deal."

  • ||

    "Don't end the injustice, just cut us in on the deal."

    That's what always pisses me off about this debate as well, particularly when libertarians go full retard on the gay marriage issue. "The government will never end marriage, so gays should get equal treatment" is as retarded as arguing circa 1850 that abolition was hopeless, so blacks should be allowed to own slaves too.

  • Robert||

    Blacks did own slaves. What you mean is that abolition was hopeless, so non-blacks should be allowed to be slaves too.

    It was a considerable advance for liberty when slavery was limited to blacks, which it wasn't at 1st. There was an article in The Freeman explaining the history of that.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I've read somewhere that non-black French Canadians were sold as slaves.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Decades of gays paying social security taxes but our spouses and their children don't get social security survivor benefits. Not to mention immigration issues for spouses. The marriage license helps deal with other problems statism creates.

  • ||

    Any libertarian who isnt actively fighting to eliminate government licensing of marriage is doing it wrong.

    Yeah, the disaster scenario the judge lays out in which people engage in private ceremonies and forgo the state's blessing is pretty much the ideal to which we should strive, IMO.

  • quantumFog||

    I tend to agree. The judge's nightmare scenario where the government loses its' monopoly on one aspect of the citizentry's life is a worthy goal indeed.

  • ||

    The second quoted paragraph is an incredible mishmash of nonsense. Only moronic socons would "value" marriage less if gays had the right to get married. Normal, thoughtful people who are properly focused on their own lives shouldn't and wouldn't give a crap. I also don't appreciate him bagging on private ceremonies. The part about single parent families is an unsubstantiated non sequitur.

  • ||

    I'm having trouble even understanding what that fucker is saying. I'd rather just see someone punch him in the taint, frankly. Luckily, as an individualist anarchist, I don't give a fuck what the state says and if I wanted to "marry" a dude, I'd just do it. I don't really give a fuck about the state's imprimatur. JJ, what do you say?

  • SugarFree||

    The day Warty has waited for for so long is finally here.

  • Almanian.||

    And there was much rejoicing...

    *cartoon rejoicers appear from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"*

  • ||

    Don't be butthurt, NutraSweet. It's just that JJ's so much prettier than you.

  • Almanian.||

    Reminds me of the Scottish kids laughing at one of their friends they'd caught fucking a sheep.

    "OK, you caught me..."

    "Oh, it's not that! You picked the UGLY one....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

  • ||

    Are you saying NutraSweet is an ugly sheep? Because that's what I'm hearing.

  • ||

    Admit it, Al, you were that kid.

  • Almanian.||

    Yeah - I was one of the ones laughing. Good times!

    Oops - hey, wait....

  • ||

    I really try not to wade into this anymore.

    But I will anyway!

    Obviously getting the state out of marriage is step 1.

    The point at which there is contention is, until/unless such a thing comes to pass, how to treat other couples until then?

    I think the answer is equality under the law. It's all well and good to say, "That's just expanding the state!", when you're not the one being affected by it. I honestly don't think it's up to people who are in no way affected (straights) to tell gays what course they should or shouldn't be properly pursuing.

  • Almanian.||

    I agree. I just got really tired of this asshole dismissing the argument "because nothing's going to change, so the idea that government should be out of marriage altogether - we can't even TALK about that."

    Well, fuck him. But I agree - till then, get whatever "fixed" that you can.

  • robc||

    Next you will tell me that since I dont have kids, I dont get to vote for the school board either.

    Or since I dont have a vagina, I something something something.

    If it involves the state, I am affected, whether I want to be or not.

  • ||

    The school board sets tax rates.

    I'm not seeing how gay marriage affects you in like fashion.

  • ||

    or helps set the rates, rather, though funding proposals, etc. You know what I meant.

  • robc||

    If you havent noticed, tax rates are different for married and unmarried.

    And there are plenty of other state "benefits" of marriage.

  • anon||

    Last I looked, if both people work, it's actually a tax liability to be married.

  • robc||

    Last I looked, if both people work, it's actually a tax liability to be married.

    It depends exactly where the couple is in total income and stuff. At higher combined incomes, their is definitely a penalty.

    And that is part of my point, why should I as a single, not get to participate in determining who gets penalized?

    Obviously, I prefer taking me out of the picture altogether, by getting rid of state marriage licensing. Same for state schools and state vagina control.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Yes but I want to marry a rich gay and not work!

  • ||

    If you havent noticed, tax rates are different for married and unmarried.

    How does someone else's tax rates being different affect you? They aren't the ones taxing you, like the school system.

  • ||

    Look like it or not, state-sanctioned marriage isn't going anywhere any time soon. I hope it does. But it took decades of work for teh gays to get their proposals taken seriously, and there's no such groundswell movement right now in favor of eliminating state marriage.

    So basically, knowing that it will be at least decades before anything changes, until that time you're stated position is that state-sanctioned marriage is and should be preserved strictly for straight couples.

    That just seems like bigotry to me, whether you mean it to or not (and I trust you do not).

  • anon||

    Look like it or not, state-sanctioned marriage isn't going anywhere any time soon.

    Define "soon."

    I can see government getting out of the marriage business entirely in the next 20 years.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You're more trusting than I, Gojira.

  • robc||

    But it took decades of work for teh gays to get their proposals taken seriously,

    Thats because the gays fucked up and worked the wrong end of the deal.

    They should have been supporting me in my now 20+ year mission to end state marriage.

  • robc||

    So basically, knowing that it will be at least decades before anything changes, until that time you're stated position is that state-sanctioned marriage is and should be preserved strictly for straight couples.

    My states position is I dont give a damn what 49 states do. I just wish libertarians would apply their effort on this issue to eliminating state marriage instead of expanding it.

    To give a slightly different example, I thought medical marijuana was an okay compromise, because it moved in the right direction, in that at least some people were allowed to grow/sell/buy pot somewhat freely. The solution to pot legalization isnt to make more stuff illegal.

    You cant go forward by first going backwards.

  • Randian||

    Then really what you want is for libertarians to work on eliminating the state of affairs that prohibits free association.

    Which we do all the time, every day.

  • Calidissident||

    robc, if this were the 1960's, would you oppose making interracial marriage legal?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    A step in the wrong direction! Harumph, harumph!

  • robc||

    if this were the 1960's, would you oppose making interracial marriage legal?

    I havent opposed making gay marriage illegal. I specifically said I dont care what 49 states do, and it hasnt been an issue on the ballot in KY, so I havent had to take a position.

    In the 60s, I would have supported ending state marriage laws.

  • Randian||

    Would you have classified interracial marriage as a step backwards, as you just did with gay marriage?

    You know you're avoiding the question because of how bad an honest answer is going to look.

  • robc||

    Would you have classified interracial marriage as a step backwards, as you just did with gay marriage?

    There is no such thing as race.

    There is no scientific valid way to define races. It cant be done genetically in any way that matches up with the social convention.

  • Randian||

    There is no such thing as race.

    Nonresponsive. And you know that.

    If I were a little more ornery (oh, what the hell it's Friday) I would say there's no scientifically valid way to define gender. Sex, yes, but gender, no. So I advocate ending gender discrimination as practiced by the government the same way I would advocate eliminating race discrimination as practiced by the government, regardless of whether I think the premises are valid or not.

    And what does genetically have to do with anything?

  • robc||

    And what does genetically have to do with anything?

    Race is absolutely genetic.

    And we are all mixed race. Everyone getting married during that time was violating the law.

    And the sex vs gender difference thing is bullshit (with some weird exceptions). With a few weird exceptions (XXY, etc), genetic testing determines your sex/gender.

    And I know Im going against 50 years of other reasoning on the whole gender thing. But so fucking what?

  • Randian||

    And I know Im going against 50 years of other reasoning on the whole gender thing. But so fucking what?

    So you're wrong. Your sex and your gender usually go together, but they don't have to.

    Are you advocating now that everyone who wants to get a license has to undergo a genetic test? What does genetics have to do with getting a marriage license?

  • robc||

    Are you advocating now that everyone who wants to get a license has to undergo a genetic test?

    No, Im advocating against marriage licenses. Period. Full stop.

    They are a violation of the 1st amendment to the US constitution. So they might have been legal up until the 14 amendment, but should have gone away at that point.

  • Randian||

    No, Im advocating against marriage licenses. Period. Full stop.

    More question dodging.

    Would you have classified interracial marriage as a step backwards, as you just did with gay marriage?
  • robc||

    All marriages are interracial marriages. Everyone is mixed.

    So, yes. I consider all licensed marriages a step back, so interracial marriages are too. Duh.

  • robc||

    More question dodging.

    Its the only important question

    Should we have marriage licenses? No.

    Everything else is irrelevant.

    You are the one dodging the only important issue.

  • Randian||

    You are the one dodging the only important issue.

    Do you know how to read?

    I agree that the State needs to be out of the marriage business.

    Until that time, I support equality and not arbitrary discrimination in not handing out those licenses.

  • robc||

    See below. You are wasting energy.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "Race" was defined in anti-miscegenation laws. Whether that is the "correct" definition of race completely besides the point.

  • Randian||

    "Race" was defined in anti-miscegenation laws. Whether that is the "correct" definition of race completely besides the point.

    Yep. If they just decided to say "No Person Darker than a Paper Bag may marry a Person Lighter than a Paper Bag", that's a racial law that has no relevance to robc's genetic argument whatsoever.

    And he knows it, that's the irritating part.

  • robc||

    But they didnt define it that way, because people darker than a bag where considered "white" and people lighter than a bag where considered "black".

    Their definition doesnt hold up to modern science. And was thus bullshit.

  • Randian||

    So, yes. I consider all licensed marriages a step back, so interracial marriages are too. Duh.

    So you would be OK if I enacted the law RE: Paper Bags I just described? Right now and today?

    That's cool?

    But they didnt define it that way

    Duh. I said "if", and "If" they had, you, by your own terms, would have had to support it.

  • robc||

    Yeah, and I dont deal with hypotheticals.

    The only marriage issue that matters is that the state should not be involved.

    Anyone spending time on any other aspect of marriage law is fighting against justice.

  • Randian||

    You're being deliberately obtuse, rob, so fuck this.

  • Randian||

    I don't believe in a government's power to arbitrarily discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation and/or gender. Government has to treat all people equally. It's a very important Western concept.

  • robc||

    "Race" was defined in anti-miscegenation laws. Whether that is the "correct" definition of race completely besides the point.

    No, it is the point. The race definition was bullshit and could easily be proven (using 21st century scientific techniques) in court as such. And thus wouldnt have survived.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    And that's just my clit you are sucking. Use more tongue.

  • Calidissident||

    If a measure to make gay marriage legal were to be on the ballot in KY next election, how would you vote? Likewise, had there been a measure in your state to legalize interracial marriage in the 60's, and you could vote, how would you have voted?

  • robc||

    I wasnt alive in the 60s (well, except late 69). If I voted I would have done it illegally and gone to jail or something.

    If it was on the ballot next year, I would write in a vote to not license any marriages in the state of KY.

  • Randian||

    If it was on the ballot next year, I would write in a vote to not license any marriages in the state of KY.

    Is it really so hard to say "I support equal licensure in the short term and the elimination of licensure in the long term"?

    Isn't that incrementalist libertarianism is all about?

  • robc||


    Isn't that incrementalist libertarianism is all about?

    Incremental libertarianism is about always moving to less government power.

    I guess an annealing argument could be made, but I dont think it holds up.

    Here, how about this:
    Are best strategic chance to end marriage licensing is to deny this to gays so they dont get entrenched in the system.

    I dont think that way, but its probably true.

  • carol||

    robc, I agree with you that government has no place in marriage, be it gay, straight, interracial or interplanetary. However, you have to play the cards you have been dealt. Government does regulate marriage. If you don't like it then work to get a bill through the Kentucky legislature or on a statewide ballot to relieve government of it authority over marriage.

  • ||

    Women often use the term "my man" to indicate some degree of possession and we all know what they mean. But, I bet you $100 if you used the term "my vagina" in the same degree of possession as they mean "my man" they'd rip your fucking head off and shit down your neck.

    So my question is, how long until the Japanese make this a gameshow?

  • Almanian.||

    "THIS?"

    *grabs woman's vajayjay region*

    "This is MINE!"

    /OJ

  • Bruce Majors||

    Finally a reasonable comment.

  • ||

    I'm all for equality except...

    The only think I don't like about equality is that the statists always want to then use government to force equality - If you have a marriage related industry, you MUST service the gays.

    DISCRIMINATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY LEGAL.

    I tried to communicate that concept to some liberal friends & they freaked out like I was threatening to make them watch me torture their children.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The gay lobby will sue for eradicating adoption agencies, wedding planners, etc etc that do not include them. A pregnant woman who wants to give up a baby and specify that it go to a straight (or gay) couple won't be able to do so. It's true that gay statists will want all of statism incorporated into gay marriage. That doesn't prove it would be better to have no gay marriage though, no more than that gays should not be able to use student loans or sidewalks.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Are you proposing to JJ?

  • sarcasmic||

    How's about getting government out of the business of defining marriage?

    Without any legal force behind the definition, there would no longer be much point in arguing about it.

  • robc||

    Abso-fucking-lutely.

    State licensing of marriage is a violation of Amendment 1 anyway.

  • Almanian.||

    I was arguing this with one of my libertard friends who was arguing for teh gai marriage in his state.

    "Why is the state involved in marriage at all?"

    "Well taxes and property rights and..."

    "And why does marital status matter for ANY of that...the state has no bidness meddling."

    "Well, it's never gonna change, so..."

    Fuck you, quitter. "Oh, it'll never change..." Just like US citizens will "never" vote for state sanctioned gay marriage in any state. Oh, wait...

  • anon||

    Because Sarc, everyone would turn gay and then there'd be no CHILDRUNZ for my childrunz to play with!

    Also, God hates fags.

  • Almanian.||

    I need someone to explain the existance of Tulip's Christfag to me someday.

    Cause that seems like an oxymoron or something. Especially since God hates fags.

  • robc||

    God hates figs.

    Not sure how this got screwed up, but the NT is very clear on this.

    Matthew 21:19.

  • Almanian.||

    So, no Newtons in heaven. Got it.

  • robc||

    Isaac, maybe.

  • ||

    Probably not, given his history. And certainly not the unit of force, since SI is a product of Satan.

  • robc||

    Probably not, given his history.

    Hence the maybe.

    I dont think his religious views are entirely clear.

  • T||

    Oh, they're clear. Iconoclastic is the best way to describe them.

  • Randian||

    I agree. In the meantime, equality.

  • sarcasmic||

    I agree. In the meantime, equality fuck those Christians and everyone else who believes marriage is between a man and a woman! Fuck them hard! Burn their Christmas trees! Make their churches pay taxes! Fuck them! I hate 'em! Hate 'em! Neanderthals believing in God! Talking to an invisible man! I hate every last one of them! Anything to offend them or piss them off! Yaaaaaaarg!

    ftfy

  • anon||

    I've never run into an issue about doing -anything- because I wasn't married. What exactly is the inequality? Does NC just happen to be a state that marriage doesn't really matter in?

  • Randian||

    Christians aren't entitled to have their preferences enshrined into law.

    This isn't about religion. Government should have to issue licenses to all comers.

  • Calidissident||

    Christians aren't the victims here Sarcasmic. If they don't want the government forcing a definition of marriage on them that they don't like, maybe they shouldn't support the government forcing their definition of marriage on everyone else

  • robc||

    If they don't want the government forcing a definition of marriage on them that they don't like, maybe they shouldn't support the government forcing their definition of marriage on everyone else

    Im pretty sure I wasnt doing that. Especially since Im the one arguing the most for not having a government definition at all.

  • Calidissident||

    Was I talking to or about you? I also support eliminating the government definition. But if we are going to have government define marriage, I think it should be open to gay couples

  • Randian||

    Even better, it should be open to any number of people.

    Which would water it down into meaninglessness.

  • robc||

    Was I talking to or about you?

    Yes.

    You said "If they don't...." Im part of that "they".

  • Calidissident||

    Seriously? I was making a general statement in response to Sarcasmic's post. While you may be an exception, most Christians who vote against or oppose gay marriage do not want the government to get out of marriage altogether.

    Randian, I agree

  • robc||

    You didnt use the word "most".

  • Calidissident||

    It's pretty obvious what I meant. Why do people on this site insist on playing stupid word games? Do you seriously think I thought every Christian opposes gay marriage or that no Christian supports ending state sanctioned marriage? My post was a response to sarcasmic's tantrum about how gay marriage fucks over Christians

  • robc||

    Do you seriously think I thought every Christian opposes gay marriage or that no Christian supports ending state sanctioned marriage?

    Yes.

    Because that is what you said.

  • Calidissident||

    Good to know we got a mind reader here. I'm sure you'll be the first to attack other people when they say things like "Hispanics love big government" or any of the other fifty million generalizations made here every day

  • American||

    @ Cali: You've said that exact thing to me, hypocrite.

  • robc||

    While you may be an exception

    It only takes one exception to disprove your point.

  • BakedPenguin||

    So it's okay for the cops / courts to force testimony from one person in a gay couple against the other? After all, they're not married.

  • Randian||

    Just like my problem is with the welfare state and not immigrants, so too is my problem with the welfare state and not gay couples.

    That seems relatively straightforward.

  • Zeb||

    Where the fuck did that little tantrum come from? Who said anything about Christians?

  • SugarFree||

    His strawman has been upgraded and renovated into a full-blown Wicker Man at this point.

  • Randian||

    sarcasmic has been dealing with the real advocates of gay marriage, who are more often than not just interested in poking a stick in the eye of 'mainstream' society.

    he forgets there are principled advocates out there.

  • SugarFree||

    who are more often than not just interested in poking a stick in the eye of 'mainstream' society

    I fail to see the problem with this, and not just on this subject.

  • Randian||

    It's childish and just causes the 'mainstream' to dig in.

    I mean, I am as liberal on sexual expression as it gets, and even I get annoyed by ostentatious displays of the fashionable nonconformists.

  • SugarFree||

    It's childish and just causes the 'mainstream' to dig in.

    Then it's even more important to do. People have to be drug kicking and screaming into liberty. The slow and patient shit hasn't gotten us anywhere.

  • Randian||

    It backfires, is what I am saying. Sucking off a guy in the middle of the street isn't going to get gays more tolerance, regardless of how unfair that sort of collectivist thinking is.

  • SugarFree||

    I don't think agitating for gay marriage is the same as sucking a guy off in the street. Which is the point.

    People who are going to get the vapors about two guys getting married that they don't know, will never have to see fucking, in some other state deserve to have their stupidity mocked. They'll bitch and moan and whine, but in the end they'll just have to swallow it or decamp to some backwoods shithole.

    If gays hadn't asked for marriage, the larger discussion about getting the government out of marriage would be non-existent.

  • Randian||

    I don't think agitating for gay marriage is the same as sucking a guy off in the street. Which is the point.

    Respectfully, no, I didn't think that's what we were discussing.

    You said you didn't have a problem with poking a stick in the proverbial eye of mainstream society. I guess what I should have said is that doing an action solely for that purpose is childish and immature. If you're advocating for something that has a strong ethical backing and it just so happens to piss off the mainstream, then bully, but that isn't what I encounter many times.

  • SugarFree||

    If you're advocating for something that has a strong ethical backing and it just so happens to piss off the mainstream, then bully, but that isn't what I encounter many times.

    Of course that, but I also see the value of pissing people off on occasion. Not all the time, of course. And only with good reason.

    Facile outrage over other people not wanting to do as they're told holds no weight with me.

  • Zeb||

    The way I see it, some people just need to be offended sometimes. Hence my enthusiastic support for another everyone draw Mohammed day.

  • AKN||

    If gays hadn't asked for marriage, the larger discussion about getting the government out of marriage would be non-existent.

    THIS. The complete absence of advocacy for ending government recognition of marriage prior to gay marriage becoming a national issue speaks volumes about what motivates at least some of the sudden current enthusiasm for it.

  • sarcasmic||

    In my experience most self righteous atheists are really anti-Christians.

    As an "I don't have faith but don't have a problem with people who do" atheist, I find their attitude to be a bit insulting.

  • Randian||

    Who's talking about atheists? What the hell?

  • sarcasmic||

    You know who you are.

  • Randian||

    You know who you are.

    Not me, chumly. I stopped being an asshole atheist long ago.

  • ||

    Stopped which one?

  • T||

    Atheist, obviously.

  • Randian||

    PWN'D!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You know -- gays, atheists, what's the difference?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Atheists have a more hickory smoked flavor.

  • American||

    Because people never argued about the morality of homosexual acts before government came along.

  • Almanian.||

    but in any case without civil sanction

    Oh, we can't have that! Without "civil sanction".....?

    *shudder*

    The horror...

    PS What a cocksucker that judge is. Smokes big, fat cocks all day.

  • ||

    Smokes cock ironically. Fucking hipster judges.

  • Loki||

    Ergo, the government has a legitimate interest in controlling whose marriages are recognized. Otherwise we won’t have families!

    So how did humans survive for the thousands of years that governments didn't put their Seal of Approval on people's marriages? Because obviously people don't fuck without that government stamp, right?

    What a dumbass.

  • ||

    How do the other 8.7 million or so species on the planet survive without Obama's blessing?

  • Doctor Whom||

    Government marriage licenses go back to the beginning of time, just like "In God We Trust" on the currency. [/history-rewriting socon]

  • Almanian.||

    There were some marriage contracts unearthed with the Dead Sea Scrolls as I recall.

    True story...

    /not true story

  • anon||

    I vaguely recall reading about the evolution of marriage in some economics book. Basically, marriage is only good because of the division of labor it allows, increasing productivity in general.

    That said, you don't need to be married to have a partner.

  • robc||

    Ye olde school way of getting married:

    Couple walks into medieval church and says "Yo, priestdude, we is hitched", and the priest writes it down in a book.

    Other cultures had other methods, but they werent much different.

  • ||

    More like...

    I just got my first period so my dad talked to his dad and they said we have to be here even though we've never met and don't love each other. And then he said something about payment but I didn't really understand that part.

  • robc||

    Tomato...tomahto.

    You got some sort of problem with arranged marriages?

  • SugarFree||

    You got some sort of problem with arranged marriages?

    I do when they aren't voluntary and between adults. Consent and all that. Contracts signed under duress are not valid.

  • robc||

    between adults

    This one gets tricky. After all, age of consent laws in most states dont match up with age of adulthood.

    So are you saying a 16 year old can have sex but cant get married?

    Or maybe you want to raise the age of consent to 18 or lower the age of adulthood to 16?

  • SugarFree||

    If you can legally consent to sex, you can consent to marriage. IIRC, the "consent to sex" ages were originally ages that you could get married without a parents permission.

    Personally, I favor a single age of adulthood with respect to the full assumption of self-ownership rights. What that age should be is more difficult.

  • robc||

    Personally, I favor a single age of adulthood with respect to the full assumption of self-ownership rights. What that age should be is more difficult.

    I agree, but that is the problem. Its far too difficult. Maybe its being done right and a slow gaining of adult rights over time is okay.

    Of course, having alcohol at 21 and health insurance at 26 is just stupid.

  • SugarFree||

    We are agreed on that.

    I would say 16 for driving is reasonable, and stepped Romeo and Juliet laws for age of consent to sex.

    Marriage, of course, shouldn't be the government's business, except that I'm fine with them settling an age where contracts must be enforced. And that age should be the age for majority (voting, drinking, joining the military, charged as an adult for a crime).

  • Bruce Majors||

    Dubious. If two 11 year olds have sex with each other voluntarily no crime. Not sure they should be able to marry, divorce, sue each other for alimony etc.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife.

    Code of Hammurabi

    Just saying.

  • cavalier973||

    What did Hammurabi say about same-sex marriage? Maybe there's a precedent we could consider.

  • sarcasmic||

    How will homosexuals survive without a government Seal of Approval on their marriage? Because obviously homosexuals never loved each other and lived with one another without the government stamp, right?

  • ||

    My favorite retarded argument is that gay marriage is an affront to straight marriage. I thought divorce was an affront to straight marriage and since gays weren't allowed to get married, they sure weren't getting divorced.

    But the judge is a fucking moron anyway. By his logic, straight women older than child-bearing age and infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to marry either. And girls and boys who have hit puberty should be allowed to marry since the state's only purpose for marriage is to perpetuate the species, which as we all know happens with or without the state. What does age of majority have to do with anything? We need more babies, as if that should be a state interest at all! Only a government dependent on a ponzi scheme to care for it's existing citizens would want more of them. Oh, wait.

  • robc||

    State laws on divorce, especially "no fault" laws, are an affront both to marriage and contract law.

    Especially the validity of oral contracts.

  • SugarFree||

    If oral contracts were valid, there'd be much less divorce.

  • anon||

    If I could get my woman to agree to a contract about oral, then maybe I'd get married.

  • robc||

    Too slow, InsulinMan beat you to it.

    Doesnt that make you feel sad and pathetic?

  • SugarFree||

    It should. I'm barely more than a chattering corpse at this point.

  • Killazontherun||

    A corpse that's hot like Seth Rogan. Why did you put that image in our heads, Sf, why?

  • SugarFree||

    Because you deserve it.

  • Killazontherun||

    There is that, but what about everyone else? Their crimes are miniscule in comparison to ours.

  • SugarFree||

    "We all got it coming, kid."

  • anon||

    More apathetic, but mostly yes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    State laws on divorce, especially "no fault" laws, are an affront both to marriage and contract law.

    Especially the validity of oral contracts.

    Marriage is in no sense a contract.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I can't help imagining the second quoted paragraph being read in a Princess Clara voice.

  • Almanian.||

    Shorter Judge Derp: "That family? YOU didn't build that."

  • T||

    The idea that some dudes getting hicthed somewhere makes my marriage any more or less valid has always struck me as absolutely absurd. There are exactly two human beings whose opinion on my marriage matters, and I'm one of them. What the rest of the world is doing has no bearing whatsoever.

    Also, if we're really concerned about birth rates, I seem to recall most children in America today are born out of wedlock. So if we really want to encourage procreation, we should ban marriage according the retarded post hoc ergo propter hoc logic the government seems to love so much.

  • Almanian.||

    MOST AMERICAN CHILDREN BORN DUE TO SASQUATCH RAPE.

    STEVE SMITH THINK THIS NOT BAD THING. STEVE SMITH OK WITH GAY MARRIAGE, THOUGH. SEXUAL PREFERENCE NOT AFFECT RAPE-ABILITY.

  • ||

    Since I'm an unmarried hetero woman approaching "The Change", I'm just a useless slag who should be locked away from all decent folk, ammirite? If I want to stay in society. I should find someone to get me in the high-risk family way, stat!

  • Almanian.||

    an unmarried hetero woman approaching "The Change"

    Hey, big sister - is that you?

    /but I KEEEEEED!

  • SugarFree||

    Since I'm an unmarried hetero woman approaching "The Change"

    Kristen's a werewolf?!? Am I the only one that didn't know this?

  • ||

    Yep, with sparkles or glitter or whatever that shite is!

  • SugarFree||

    You turn into a drag queen werewolf?

  • ||

    Naw....it's some Twilight shit. Something about sparkles or something. I could ask one of my Twitard friends about it, but then they might interpret that as interest on my part.

  • SugarFree||

    Smart move.

  • Tim||

    We were trying to spare your delicate feelings.

  • SugarFree||

    I mean, I noticed all the ripped up rabbits and the bloody wolf prints, but I didn't want to embarrass her by saying anything.

  • ||

    I have a friend who may help. You're not picky, are you? We call him Minute Rice.

  • ||

    As long as he goes down, his P-in-V penetration longevity is of little concern to me.

    But seriously, fuck that shit. Kids are for people with patience, money, and the ability to wash dishes and vacuum in a timely manner. An appreciation of high-pitched noises at all hours of the day comes in handy, too, I hear.

  • Tim||

    But someday they'll grow up and total your car...

  • Killazontherun||

    When I was in my twenties, I'd use the fact that my only criteria were skinny only and a skin tone no more rough than that of a crocodile to get me laid in territorial opportunities that my friends would not hazard. Ici, they be dragons.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Or you could go lesbo.

  • anon||

    I personally see absolutely no point in being married. I've been with the woman I'm currently with for over 10 years. Not once have I felt the need for the state to sanction our relationship.

    If only gays would realize that marriage means absolutely jack shit too.

  • sarcasmic||

    *ding*

  • Tim||

    The State calls what you describe "common law marriage". IN other words it married you when you weren't looking.

  • anon||

    I should really look into that before I do something stupid and lose half my shit.

  • sarcasmic||

    The laws differ by state, but yeah if you've been together for a decade I'm pretty sure she owns half you shit.

  • Zeb||

    A lot of states don't really do common law marriage anymore. In NH, for example, it still sort of exists, but only after one party dies.

  • robc||

    Not all states have common law marriage. KY, for example, doesnt. You can shack up as long as you want and the state wont marry you.

  • GW||

    Yeah, but in others, it's just like being married. Alimony when you split and all. Eff that.

  • Zeb||

    I see one reason for marriage: health insurance from your employer. That's why I'm married.

  • SugarFree||

    That, and we got a better rate on our mortgage, even though we were already going to put 20% down.

  • robc||

    Well, that is yet another problem caused by FDR.

  • SugarFree||

    ^+1

  • cavalier973||

    Fedex just changed its policy to offer medical benefits to same-sex partners; I think it extends to unmarried partners, whether they are same-sex or not. This was done in response to Obamacare.

  • Brett L||

    I'm sorry, but did that judge just justify miscegenation laws? Because that's how I'm reading it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You should ask sarc about that. Although I imagine he won't respond.

  • Randian||

    How did he do so?

    For what it's worth, I

    (a) think the State should be out of licensing entirely but
    (b) recognizing that it won't be, it must treat everyone equally and
    (c) I agree with the ruling that Nevada can ban same-sex marriage

  • robc||

    Here is my problem with your position:

    (a) think the State should be out of licensing entirely but
    (b) recognizing that it won't be, it must treat everyone equally and
    (c) I agree with the ruling that Nevada can ban same-sex marriage

    Stop wasting time on the struck areas. Spend all your energy on a.

  • Randian||

    No. Because I don't believe in a government's power to arbitrarily discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation and/or gender. Government has to treat all people equally. It's a very important Western concept.

  • robc||

    Doesnt that depend on the definition of "marriage"?

    If a state defines it as one male and one female, then they arent discriminating on the basis of orientation or gender. They might not be able to marry the person they love, but love has never been a part of the definition of marriage.

    And of course, that gets around the interracial problem too. If that is the definition, then it would be racial discrimination to ban interracial marriages.

    The problem, of course, is that definition. And, hence, why getting the state out of it altogether is the only thing that makes sense. Because different people LEGITIMATELY define marriage differently.

    Mine is different than that above, but it doesnt matter, because its a personal, religious issue with me and the state shouldnt be involved. The states only involvement should be in contract dispute resolution.

    Speaking of which, I consider the no fault laws to be a much bigger marriage issue than gay marriage.

    If we want to change the marriage laws in an incremental fashion to make them MORE libertarian, fight to get rid of no-fault laws and return to contractual divorce.

  • Randian||

    If a state defines it as one male and one female, then they arent discriminating on the basis of orientation or gender.

    Sure they are. A man can marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman. How is that not arbitrary gender discrimination? Why should a woman be allowed to marry a man, but I can't?

  • robc||

    You are the one used to playing IF games.

    Read what I wrote again:

    "If a state defines it as one male and one female"

    We are working on that definition.

    Why should a woman be allowed to marry a man, but I can't?

    Because the definition says so.

    There are many definitions of marriage possible, and most of them are valid. Including that one, which is probably the most historical. Or one of the more historical, at least.

    It isnt my definition, mine involves a god too. But that obviously cant fly as a state definition.

    This is the whole problem and why the state shouldnt be in the business.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "How is that not arbitrary gender discrimination?"

    A male-female relationship can potentionally procreate. A male-male or a female-female relationship cannot. You can argue whether that should matter or not, but the difference is not arbitrary.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Not recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages is arbitary how?

    Show your work.

  • sarcasmic||

    When eugenics reigned supreme, many people believed that mixed race children were inferior by virtue of not being pure. It was for the children!

  • American||

    I support marraige privatization, and I think that is a retarded comparison. Marraige has ALWAYS ben defined as heterosexual. A government can define marraige mainly for reasons of finance and child-rearing. Naturally, it can define it as being between the only people capable of producing children, men and women. This is government legislating morality, yes, but that is different from it legislating racism.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So how long have you been insane?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The judge actually suggests that straight people would be so upset about gay people getting married that they’ll stop doing it themselves!"

    Apparently, it is inconceivable that completely severing the connection between procreation and marriage as a legal concept might influence the idea that there should be any connection between procreation and marraige. The argument for homosexual marriage is an argument against marriage as a legal institution, for without the connection to procreation and the raising of children, what is society's interest in getting involved in sexual relationships?

  • Zeb||

    If marriage is about procreation, then infertile people should also be forbidden to marry. And any marriage which fails to produce offspring within two years should be automatically annulled.

  • cavalier973||

    There is nothing forbidding same-sex couples from being married now; if two men get a priest to perform a ceremony for them, no one is going to jail. The "marriage equality" argument is about getting gov't recognition.

  • CE||

    Not only that, but the judge makes the illogical leap to conclude that the children of those couples who would now avoid the state stamp of approval on their life together would somehow be just as bad off as children born out of wedlock are (statistically), even though the only difference is a piece of fancy paper.

  • Calidissident||

    Society shouldn't be getting involved in sexual relationships

  • American||

    Replace "society" with "government," and I'll agree.

  • American||

    Replace "society" with "government," and I'll agree.

  • ||

    as a legal concept

    Because people can't believe in anything unless it's defined by the government, amirite?
  • ||

    Let's try that again:

    as a legal concept

    Because people can't believe in anything unless it's defined by the government, amirite?

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is an epic misreading of what I wrote. Somehow you came to the opposite conclusion of the meaning I intended. "Legal" concept as opposed to "social", "religious", etc.

  • ||

    What makes you think marriage is a sexual relationship? For the bulk of human history, it has been a financial one, and that remains true whether the marriage is between gays or straights. Sex (and procreation) are independent of marriage. The reason the bible mentions a connection is because there was value tied to virginity which affected the financial value of the property transfer. Marriage today in most Western societies is not a property transfer.

  • American||

    Everything is a financial decision? Are you on the spectrum, by any chance? Ever heard of things called "feelings." Read The Origion of the Species by Charles Darwin. It will explain, in trms you can understand, why people behave the way they do.

  • ||

    I was responding to Mickey Rat who thinks society has an interest in marriage because of the sexual relationship that allows for procreation. Marriage has, for most of human history, NOT been about sex or procreation. It has been about joining families, making money, transferring property, etc. Offspring can be had without it. Gays want the contract benefits straights enjoy, otherwise they would be satisfied with the ceremonies they can have at present. State recognition is required for the contract benefits, hence the fight for marriage equality.

    That, and not letting the bigots win, which would probably be worth it in and of itself.

    Feelings make people want to be together, but people can be together without contracts. Let me say it in terms you can understand. You don't know shit.

  • American||

    Marraige has always had a religous meaning. It has signified dedication of one person in the relationship to another.
    "Gays want the contract benefits straights enjoy, otherwise they would be satisfied with the ceremonies they can have at present."
    Bullshit. All this crap is about cultural recognition of their lifestyle. You never see "taxed to death" signs at gay pride parades.
    "That, and not letting the bigots win, which would probably be worth it in and of itself."
    Be worth what?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "What makes you think marriage is a sexual relationship?"

    Because a married couple ehaving sex is considered grounds for annulment(meaning the marriage never existed in the first place).

    "Sex (and procreation) are independent of marriage."

    Marriage is a formal recognition of a sexual and procreative relationship. Sex and procreation do exist outside of marraige but marriage is not independent of them.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Edit:

    "Because a married couple never having sex is..."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Straight people *deserve* to be insulted. Look what they've done to the institution of marriage! Cohabitation, single parenthood, divorce on demand, stripping innocent parents of their rights vis-a-vis their children...yeah, straights have done a bang-up job!

    So, yes, in other words, we *do* need to be worried about the possibility of straight people behaving badly, because they have a history of doing it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yet we're supposed to believe that SSM will have not effects, except positive ones.

  • Calidissident||

    Eduard, since when did libertarians become utilitarians?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Since when did they join Burke's "political geometricians," looking at human problems as if they could be resolved with the same rigid logic as a math problem or a computer programming challenge?

    Wait, don't answer that, I forgot who I was arguing with:)

  • Calidissident||

    And who exactly is that Eddy?

    My point is that it isn't relevant whether gay marriage may have "negative effects" whatever the fuck that means

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "My point is that it isn't relevant whether gay marriage may have "negative effects" whatever the fuck that means"

    And that's what I mean by "political geometricians" - so long as the ideological formula comes out right, the real impact on actual people doesn't matter.

  • Randian||

    Yes. So what?

    Laws should be based on reason, not on sob stories.

  • ||

    Process matters, jackass.

  • ||

    That's to Eddy V.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sure process matters - but a good process ought, in general, to bring good results. If that's too utilitarian for you, sue me.

  • Calidissident||

    Who exactly defines what "good" is? Let me guess, you?

  • ||

    The good ol' Government, of course. Who else has the Top Men needed? That's why it's so important to tell the populace what sorts of marital unions are valid. They just couldn't decide otherwise. Those wacky radical individualists!

  • ||

    Some libertarians are utilitarian. But I don't think the only libertarian utilitarian argument to be made here is a negative one.

  • sarcasmic||

    If marriage is so worthless, why do homosexuals want it so badly?

  • SugarFree||

    If marriage is so worthless, why do you defend it so hysterically?

    Look at the company you keep on this issue.

  • Killazontherun||

    To be fair, we're copacetic on this matter, but some of the company we keep are straight out of the Wanting Seed.

  • sarcasmic||

    As I've said before (and I'm sure I'll say it again), I was originally on the side of same sex marriage when I thought it was about liberty. Then I came to understand that it is about sticking it to people and about lawsuits. It is about the initiation of force through the courts. It's about aggression. Sorry, but I can't support it.

  • Randian||

    Are you against immigration for the same reason?

    Because that means your problem isn't with immigrants or gays, it's with the Welfare State and the Regulatory State.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because that means your problem isn't with immigrants or gays, it's with the Welfare State and the Regulatory State.

    You got it!

  • Randian||

    You should still favor equality in the median.

    sarcasmic, tomorrow if someone said "I want to kick all black people off of the welfare rolls", would you support that or not?

    OK, a less inflammatory one: "I want to kick all gay people off the welfare rolls"

    After all, you should support the minimizing of the Welfare State, right?

  • Randian||

    s/b "in the median mean time"

    what a great error.

  • sarcasmic||

    Eqaaaaaaality is such an emotional term.

    Only baaaaad people are against eqaaaaaaaality!

    Equality implies sameness. Some things are not the same.

    Equivalency? I can support that. That allows for treating things the same while acknowledging that they are not the same. Distinction without judgement.

    Equality? Not so much.

  • Randian||

    Try arguing with the person in front of you, not the person in your head.

    If I ever used equality in the dipshit way you're projecting onto me, I give you permission to shoot me.

    But I'm not, so fucking cram it.

  • Randian||

    Meanwhile, the question remains:

    sarcasmic, tomorrow if someone said "I want to kick all black people off of the welfare rolls", would you support that or not?

    OK, a less inflammatory one: "I want to kick all gay people off the welfare rolls"
  • sarcasmic||

    A better question would be "Do you support adding more people to the welfare rolls".

    My opposition to using government force to redefine marriage is not taking anything away from anyone.

  • Randian||

    A better question would be "Do you support adding more people to the welfare rolls".

    Fine, let's say that women weren't eligible for welfare and we're debating that. What say you?

    This is getting into Tulpa-levels of aversion here.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is getting into Tulpa-levels of aversion here.

    Only because you're using Tulpa-level idiot hypotheticals.

    We've got two distinct issues here. Rights for same sex couples and the definition of marriage.

    Welfare does not traditionally mean "government charity for men and only men".

    I support same sex couples being on an equal legal footing as opposite sex couples. I oppose redefining marriage as the means of doing it because I believe that marriage is a husband and a wife, not a genderless spouse and a genderless spouse.

    Why is that so difficult to understand?

  • Randian||

    I oppose redefining marriage as the means of doing it because I believe that marriage is a husband and a wife, not a genderless spouse and a genderless spouse.

    Why should your definition be law?

  • sarcasmic||

    Neither should be law. But as long as it's going to be law, I want it my way.

    Fuck you, that's why.

    Besides, I lost at the ballot box anyway so what does it matter?

  • Randian||

    But as long as it's going to be law, I want it my way.

    Fuck you, that's why.

    No, really, why?

  • Zeb||

    Marriage has already been redefined, so you are a bit late in your opposition. Gay people really do get married now. It is no longer a husband and wife. If you insist on believing things that are counter-factual, I guess you can. But I think it is a little silly.

  • sarcasmic||

    And Zeb, that's why I find this whole thing to be un-libertarian.

    Basically it's now a matter of "Oh yeah? You don't think what the law says you should think? Fuck you, we're going to court! You're going to be punished for what you believe! Muahahahahaha!"

    Nope. Not very libertarian at all.

  • Randian||

    Basically it's now a matter of "Oh yeah? You don't think what the law says you should think? Fuck you, we're going to court! You're going to be punished for what you believe! Muahahahahaha!"

    You're absolutely unhinged.

    Didn't RD Jr. teach you never to go full retard?

  • sarcasmic||

    The lawsuits are coming. It's only a matter of time.

  • Randian||

    Then your beef is with those lawsuits, not gay marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    Lawsuits that wouldn't happen had marriage not been redefined. Even a retard could figure that out.

  • Randian||

    Lawsuits that wouldn't happen had marriage not been redefined.

    Blacks wouldn't be able to sue the government had we not freed them from slavery. That's not a good argument for slavery.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thanks for being the voice of reason. You aren't by any chance single are you Randy?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thanks for being the voice of reason. You aren't by any chance single are you Randy?

  • SugarFree||

    Make sure to tell us when you get arrested for not wanting gays to get married. We'd like to follow the trial.

    And before you even try it, no one here supports public accommodation lawsuits.

    Or are gays getting married the punishment? The psychic torture that someone somewhere is doing something you don't approve of. Gasp.

    You and Tulpa should get married.

  • cavalier973||

    The arrests will come when the pastor who allows straight couples to get married in his church says that he will not extend the same privilege to same-sex couples. Or when the wedding photographer says she won't take the business of a same-sex couple because she has religious objections to the idea that they are getting married.

    Then it will come to the point where if the parents of a child expressing homosexual interest begin to teach him that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so, they will be arrested for child abuse.

  • Zeb||

    If a person can sue a church, banquet hall or whatever for not wanting to host a gay marriage, that is unlibertarian. It is also unlibertarian to allow one couple who wants to share their lives together special legal status and not another couple. I think you are conflating two separate issues here.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think you are conflating two separate issues here.

    You people are daft.

    What part of "I support same sex couples being on the same legal footing as opposite sex couples, but I do not believe 'marriage' to be a union of two genderless spouses" do you not understand?

    Fuck. They actually gave me some work for a change, think I'll go do it. This is pointless.

  • Randian||

    but I do not believe 'marriage' to be a union of two genderless spouses"

    I don't understand why you think your definition ought be law.

  • Calidissident||

    Sarcasmic, if you're going to argue that this is all just about force, then that's true on both sides. Generally speaking, this isn't a battle between "Evil gay authoritarian ambulance-chasers" and "Libertarian anti-government" people.

  • American||

    @Zeb, total circular reasoning. You should vote for Obongo for president 'cause he's the president, and saying he shouldn't be is counter factual.

  • Zeb||

    Equality under the law is not what you describe and you know damn well that that is what everyone here is talking about when they say "equality".

  • ||

    You say that, but whenever these threads come up you go unglued, as if the people commenting (or posting) here have mortally offended you: "Why do you hate Christians so much!? BLARRGHHH!"

  • Randian||

    Are you against admitting female students to universities because the schools have to comply with Title IX?

  • Almanian.||

    Um, I'll say, "Yes"

    *picks up popcorn bowl, sits down on couch*

  • ||

    You want to bar female students from universities? Because that's what "yes" means to his question.

  • American||

    If it's a private university, they should be able to do as they please.

  • American||

    They don't want marraige. They want cultural recognition of their lifestyle.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I don't think gays want your recognition. They want an end to your stigmatization, especially when it is enshrined in INS, SSA etc regulations.

  • American||

    "I don't think gays want your recognition. They want an end to your stigmatization..."
    They want me to stop "stigmatizing them." In other words to recognize them.

  • CE||

    What about cases like mine, where one man is legally married to one woman and they don't have any children? Is Nevada going to revoke our license?

    What about the case where one man is married to several women, and has lots of kids. Is that better or worse for procreation and child rearing? Putting aside the recent legal prohibitions on polygamy, logically it seems better on both counts.

  • Zeb||

    If you are never going to have children, I don't see how your marriage is different from a same sex marriage in any way significant to people who don't know you personally.

  • ||

    Hey, stop reinforcing the homonormative, there. They might get ideas.

  • Aldous Huxley||

    "As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom...it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate."

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Well, we got that goin' for us.

  • Killazontherun||

    Tell that to a homosexual being shot by Che. I mean, if you could go back in time, and safely navigate inside a prison to ask.

  • Almanian.||

    No, fuck you, cut spending!

  • Tristan Pinnock||

    Why don't we just get the government out of the marriage business? I mean marriage is a contract and the courts would still have to deal with that, but let whoever wants to marry each other get married. Vanilla one-on-one heterosexual stuff. Gay marriage. Polygamy. Whatever you and other consenting adults want to sign your names to.

    Of course, if that happened, then what would follow would probably be similar to what happened when air travel was deregulated. It ceased to be something that was aspired to and became something that people endure.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Marriage is not a contract.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Marriage is not a contract.

  • Sugarsail||

    There are two major biases in the thinking behind this entire debate and both sides of the argument seem to have the same bias.

    1. People are equating procreation and marriage. The two aren't related. I believe this is due to a residual religious stigma of having "illegitamate" children out of wedlock.

    2. The form that marriage has taken over the course of humanity has been defined by the religious values of the time/culture. If our constitution states no law shall be made that respects an establishment of relgion, then what the hell is the state doing in defining and sanctioning marriage in the first place?

  • American||

    "The two aren't related."
    This is what is called an opinion. Why should they not be related? Why shouldn't there be a stigma of having children out of wedlock? When people have children out of wedlock, a number of bad things happen:
    1) A child is likely to grow up without a father. The father will not feel commited to the mother and child and won't see the child as legitamatly his. With one parent instead of two, that means the child gets half of the income and half of the care that he would in a two-parent family.
    2) The mother of the child will not have a husband to help her raise the child. Without any social stigma involved in walking away from you're children, many people will do it.
    3) If one of the participants is married, the marraige will either end or be made very, very unhappy, hurting the married couple and any children they may have.

    You're arguement is a tired liberal one, sure everyone everywhere did it this way, but we need to be different because we need to be different. 40% of American babies are born without a father. Ideas have consequences.

  • cavalier973||

    The First Amendment was primarily to keep a National State Church from being established. Individual states could--and did--have their own state churches. Marriage licenses are issued by state governments, not the national government, so, there you go.

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    Seems like a ton of statist arguments rely on the assumption that, without a central authority telling people what to do, almost everyone would lose their fucking mind and kill themselves.

    I.e., if it weren't for welfare, poor people would starve to death in the streets. If it weren't for the USDA regulations, people would eat nothing but tainted food. If it weren't for social security, nobody would have any money when they retired. If it weren't for drug laws, almost everyone would become addicted to crack, and they would sell cocaine to kids in Oreos at grocery stores. If asbestos weren't outlawed, people would still put it in all buildings.

    I wish I had made some of those examples up for the sake of hyperbole.

  • HenryC||

    What is in it for society to allow gay marriage? The only reason I can see to allow married couples to have a different status than singles is the possibility of children. We do need a next generation. I am not particularly for or against gay marriage, but I do not see any benefit except to a low percentage of gay adults. Either decision does not particularly bother me,but I would like to see some cost benefit analysis to society as a whole before a decision is made.

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    If you're getting married for the sake of society, you're doing it wrong.

  • Calidissident||

    It isn't societies business.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Marriage is all about government actions.

    So yes marriage is government's business.

  • McAwesome112||

    The judge's argument does not even make sense. Why would "a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons . . . cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies" because of the legal recognition of gay marriage? He seems to suggest that the recognition of gay marriage would somehow cheapen marriage as a whole. Even if this were true and some heterosexuals contemplated abandoning marriage, isn't it more likely that they would abandon ceremonial marriage as opposed to civil marriage? Civil marriage confers legal benefits to those who enter such as inheritance rights, property rights, and decisionmaking at the end of life. Ceremonial marriage provides those spiritual benefits that would allegedly be cheapend by gay marriage. Poor reasoning.

  • Argumatronic||

    I'm straight, and you know what offends me? People who don't recognize that what happens at the margins can end up having big effects. You and half the commenters (at least half) sound precisely like the people who claimed that giving welfare benefits to and ending the social stigma against single mothers would not lead to an increase in single mothers. And those people were wrong. Most middle-class white women would not become a single mother just for the hell of it, but at the margins, it was enough of an incentive. Would legalizing gay marriage change my marriage? Of course not. But I'm not at the margins. At the margins, who knows? It could very well change the common perception of the role of marriage in society and procreation, and claiming with no support whatsoever that it won't is kind of stupid.

    FWIW, I also would prefer that marriage not be a government issue, but we should all be quite accustomed to not getting what we want. So long as it is a government issue, then it is not unreasonable to ask why it's a government issue (to protect kids? to simplify immigration, survivorship, and custody? to encourage certain behaviors, like sharing housing?) and whether gay marriage would fulfill the same role in society. I don't really have an answer to that question, but it isn't a stupid question to ask.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I concur.

    I'm ambivalent about same sex marriage now. Was a vocal proponent of it for years because I though marriage was only about two people loving each other etc.

    However, my opinion began to change as I saw certain people salivating over the law suit opportunities that will come with ssm and I came to realize that marriage isn't about two people loving each other but a basket of government privileges and burdens. Further, it's fair to say that a majority of gay advocates for ssm see it primarily as a societal validation of their existance.

  • lbrtrianNTlbrtine||

    I am against gay marriage for moral reasons, similar to some of the reasons I'm against doing drugs. But I agree that the government should keep it's nose out. The biggest problem many anti-prop 8 people like me have is that legalizing gay marriage does not involve the government getting its nose out. In Europe, legalizing gay marriage has resulted in churches getting sued for refusing to let gay marriages be performed on their property or by their priests. In the US, businesses have been sued for refusing their services to gay marriage ceremonies (not gay couples, mind you, just the ceremony) and adoption agencies have closed rather than adopt out children to gay couples contrary to their beliefs. In most states, insurance companies are required by law to cover spouses. Ironically, a huge part of religious objection to gays' freedom to declare themselves married comes from the fact that objectors are not free to object except by speech and law.

  • lbrtrianNTlbrtine||

    And before anyone gets into lawsuits being a separate issue, proposition 8 and other bills make legalizing gay marriage and the application of laws that regulate how married couples are treated by businesses inseperable. The *same* bill that legalizes gay marriage also grants marriage privilages. Write a bill that seperates them. Remove the privilages from all marriages. I'd really prefer the latter, but I'll settle for the former. I won't settle for the current plan, it violates conscience rights along with the standard government fare of violating property rights.

  • hoist that rag||

    "Furthermore Judge Robert C. Jones has trotted out the more tiresome social-conservative, big-government arguments to allow for the ban."

    And this, my friend, is an example of the even older, more tiresome young people's argument that the old folks aren't cool and need to get hip with the cool,young, know-it-all hipsters.

  • ||

    Shorter rag: "Kids these days!"

  • Robert||

    Procreation is required for the species to survive. Ergo,


    Don't laugh. That's how the court decisions went that established a right of privacy in sexual matters, starting with a US Sup. Ct. decision on birth control. The judges said, basically, if people didn't procreate, we wouldn't be here, so it must be a fundamental right. Therefore not having babies must also be a fundamental right.

    OK, laugh, because it is silly reasoning. But I didn't do it.

  • stateless||

    I always love the answer to the problems of government is more government.

    How about we do this instead.

    - Get rid of government recognition of marriage.

    - Allow for sponsorship for immigration purposes.

    - End the estate tax so not only government recognized spouses receive estates tax free.

    I'm pretty sure we can find answers without screwing up a lot more relationships with the government getting involved.

  • American||

    I remeber reading a few days on this site a post glorifying federalism. How is wanting unelected federal judges to overrule the democratic process about homosexual marraige a federalist posititon? I support homosexual marraige, I'd rather privatize it, but I don't see having a massive, powerfull federal government as the answer. To suggest that libertarianism requires one is as stupid as saying it requires an imperialistic government.

  • Bruce Majors||

    So far gay marriage is being enacted at the state level. The main legislation banning it, DOMA, is at the federal level, and it explicitly violates the 10th Amendment, saying a state recognized marriage is not valid or recognized by federal agencies.

  • American||

    The Nevada decision that is being discussed is about whether the state of Nevada has the right to ban homosexual marraige. As for DOMA, how is saying that the federal government does not have to obey a state law a violation of the tenth amendment?

  • Average Joe||

    Sounds like a South Park episode.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Procreation is required for the species to survive. Ergo, the government has a legitimate interest in controlling whose marriages are recognized. "

    Aren't we about at the point where the majority of babies are born out of wedlock anyway? And if they prefer to have children born into a marriage, shouldn't they allow gay couples to marry to cover their children?

    But there I go, applying logic to rationalizations of the feeling "gay sex is icky".

  • Bruce Majors||

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Shouldn't young heterosexual men and women be placed in camps and trained in reproduction in case they are not doing it correctly? Isn't it rather hit or miss to depend on them getting a job as a campaign or White House intern or legislative staffer?

  • Hadley V. Baxendale||

    Two points: (1) the State should not be involved in "marriage," but if two or more people of different or the same sex think that having the State authorize someone to mumble some "magic words" in front of them and give them a piece of paper that tells them that they are cohabiting then that is silly but fine; (2) the fundamental issue is that the State discriminates against single individuals with laws that provide benefits to those "married" and to those "single, accordingly, the laws in the US should all be changed to apply to individuals regardless of cohabitation status -- this will provide "equal protection" to everyone; for some reason, homosexuals want the state involved by passing new laws instead of removing the state altogether. Sad.

  • Hadley V. Baxendale||

    failed to proof my post should be in pertinent part: (2) the fundamental issue is that the State discriminates against single individuals with laws that provide benefits to those "married" and NOT to those "single, accordingly, the laws in the US should all be changed to apply to individuals regardless of cohabitation status . . . .

  • joey89924||

    I'm about to the point where the next time I hear someone say that, I'm going to explain.2N7002

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement