How the Gay Marriage Case Pits Liberty Against State Power

On March 26 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage. Leading the challenge against Prop. 8 are two of the country’s most powerful lawyers, Theodore Olson, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, former chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former lead counsel for Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore (where Boies squared off against Olson before the Supreme Court).

Yesterday, Olson and Boies submitted their main brief in the case to the Supreme Court, and, in the words of SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, it’s nothing short of an “all-out assault” on the notion that banning gay marriage is consistent with the constitutional principles of liberty and equality.

It's a sweeping document. In its 54 pages, the brief repeatedly cites the Supreme Court’s most significant civil rights decisions, from Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which nullified the doctrine of separate but equal, to Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down a state ban on interracial marriage. But it is the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that exerts perhaps the greatest influence over the case against Prop. 8. Not only is Lawrence cited more than a dozen times in the brief, but that ruling’s central theme—liberty vs. state power—runs consistently throughout the Olson-Boies argument.

It’s a bold strategy, but it may pay off. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote in the Prop. 8 case, also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence, and as the libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has noted, Kennedy’s Lawrence decision struck down Texas’ ban on homosexual conduct not as a matter of “gay rights,” but as a matter of liberty. Kennedy’s ruling, Barnett observed, “requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow ‘fundamental.’ In this way, once an action is deemed to be a proper exercise of liberty (as opposed to license), the burden shifts to the government.” Texas, of course, could offer no legitimate reason to ban private homosexual conduct, therefore the Homosexual Conduct Law had to fall.

The Olson-Boies brief makes a similar claim about California’s ban on gay marriage, arguing that the burden of proof should be on the government, and that Prop. 8’s defenders have offered no rational justification for the restriction on liberty, and have instead endorsed “a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into ‘responsible pro-creation.’” Indeed, the brief argues, this “state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to ‘responsible’ procreation.”

Will this emphasis on liberty over state power prove successful? In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia attacked Kennedy for crafting a ruling that “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” We’ll soon find out whether Scalia was right to worry.

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.

  • Almanian!||

    I bet Ann Coulter thinks you're a pussy for bringing this up. WHY AREN'T YOU WRITING 24/7 ABOUT WHAT ANN COULTER WANTS YOU TO WRITE ABOUT????? HUH???

    PUSSY!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Do you really believe that the founders would have intended to force states to establish homosexual marriage?

    Have you seen how the founders dressed? Pffft...

  • ||

    The constitution is a means to an end not an end in and of itself.

  • Zeb||

    Back then it was just showing a dude some respect.

  • ||

    The Equal Protection Clause makes no mention of race.

  • thom||

    This. If they wanted it to only be about race they should have written it that way.

  • ||

    How do you feel about the Institute for Justice's use of the 14th to defend economic liberty?

  • Chance J. Alaimo||

    my classmate's half-sister makes $78 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of a job for 8 months but last month her pay was $17911 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here... www.Snag4.com

  • Almanian!||

    I bet Ann Coulter thinks you're a pussy for bringing this up. WHY AREN'T YOU WRITING 24/7 ABOUT WHAT ANN COULTER WANTS YOU TO WRITE ABOUT????? HUH???

    PUSSY!

  • $park¥||

    Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to think the "original intent" was for people to be smart enough to not make up stupid laws and not have the government become an authoritarian monstrosity that tells people how they can or can't live their lives.

  • ||

    I believe you are wrong about the original intent of the 14th but in any case answer my question about Institute for Justice's use of the 14th to fight for economic liberty if it is only about race?

  • ||

    If you support same-sex marriage in principle than opposing because of the likely overreach of gay lobbyists is just spite. I agree that some gay marriage proponents have been and will be assholes about forcing others to participate, but you should spend your effort opposing the portions of their agenda that you find disagreeable rather than the ones you agree with.

    Love Makes a Family, Connecticut's main gay marriage lobby group, disbanded in 2009 after same sex-marriage was legalized there. I thought that was awesome, but I know that won't be how most of these groups operate.

  • MJGreen||

    Ahh, the closed borders argument applied to gay marriage. Nice.

    As bad as it is to force people to serve gays against their will, I don't think it qualifies as a "pandora's box of bad things." Let the gays marry, slaver.

  • Almanian!||

    It's so important, it needed to be posted TWICE.

  • Brandon||

    HAHAHAHA, you suck, Smith.

  • Almanian!||

    Also FIRST!

  • Almanian!||

    And second through fifth!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Speaking of a fifth, this place was much better when Postrel ran things, before the cosmotarian invasion.

  • Almanian!||

    This place was better when Lucy posted these kinds of articles with tons of typos.

  • General Butt Naked||

    NEW RULE!

    DRINK!

  • ||

    This is the worst chat room...EVER!

  • Way Of The Crane||

    What did you think would happen after Yahoo got rid of their chat rooms? Soon the porn bots will invade and spam will rule this chat room too.

  • T||

    We might get a better quality of link that Sarca Smic's daily fails when the pornbots invade.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nothing is more libertarian than using government force to redefine a word.

  • Hugh Akston||

    *yawn*

  • ||

    Give sarcasmic a break. Denial of your own true nature is tough, demanding work.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Maybe he just doesn't like the government forcing him to suck all those homo's dicks.

  • ||

    Forcing?

  • Hugh Akston||

    WHY ELSE WOULD HE BE DOING IT EPISIARCH

  • mr simple||

    'I went out driving, because as you know I love driving... when suddenly I had to take the biggest pee in the world. So I saw this washroom. I stopped in, but it was full of those "types." You know, queers and queens. So one of them tried to kiss me...and I said, "No! No, no." But he just kept kissing me. Why would he do that?'

    'Well, didn't you tell me that you had..."gripped him by the buttocks and pulled him closer?"'

    'Yes, but that was 'cause I was concerned that he might fall. Doctor, his pants were down around his goddamn ankles.'

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Back in the day, hell, I would’ve let you turn me into Swiss cheeseee…Make me into a mailbox. Open the slot and put whatever you want inside! But I'm a new man now."

  • Way Of The Crane||

    WHY ELSE WOULD HE BE DOING IT EPISIARCH

    Open defiance to veganism?

  • lap83||

    and then acting shocked when f'ed up but inevitable legal complications arise, such as lawsuits against sperm donors.

    The fact is there are a lot more liabilities and obligations than benefits associated with marriage, unless you're gay....then you might be able to find a birther to pin those obligations on. Yay equality!

  • Zeb||

    There was gay marriage well before any government recognized it. The word changed meaning (or, more accurately was augmented). Get the fuck over it.

  • Outlaw||

    I'm torn between two positions:

    1. Government out of marriage, not another protected class enjoying things that the other protected class shouldn't even get in the first place.

    2. Advocating gay marriage (which I am sympathetic to), then advocating polygamy just to piss off the proglodytes and be able to point out their hypocrisy.

    The second position would also bring me glee because it could also create severe legal complications.

    Principles or monkeywrenching? What say you?

  • Virginian||

    Obviously gay people have the natural right to associate as they see fit, but how the hell does a court have the power to strike down a constitutional amendment? The legislature may pass a law which conflicts with the constitution, but how the hell can a properly ratified amendment conflict with the constitution?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    State constitution must yield to the federal constitution, and their theory is that the federal constitution has a Same Sex Marriage Clause which was unnoticed until quite recently.

    If we grant the premise - that there's a Gay Marriage Clause hidden in the penumbras of the federal Constitution - then of course all conflicting state constitutions must give way.

    Just as, if your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle.

  • ||

    A state constitution is supposed to not infringe upon the individual liberties listed as uninfringable in the federal constitution. In theory. If that was followed, state and city governments would virtually no power.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OMG a bipartisan brief by a Republican who used to work for Bush and a Democrat who used to work Gore! We just know that when the genius legal intellects of the two major parties get together, nothing but good can result!

  • Way Of The Crane||

    If Boies wins this time, does Gore get to be president?

  • ||

    this “state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to ‘responsible’ procreation

    This is the vanguard in the argument to get the state out of marriage altogether, but of course they'll never take this to its logical conclusion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's simply rhetorical boilerplate with little resemblance to reality. Lord knows California isn't putting gays in prison for being gay; the plaintiffs want marital benefits for same-sex unions, which includes (if we take the comparison with interracial marriage seriously) the right to force private businesses to deal with them even if they object to doing so.

  • ||

    Don't ever fucking think I'm in agreement with you, douchebag. I want the government out of marriage, but since that ain't happening any time soon, I'm for equality before the law. Go share your homophobia with someone else, because I want no part of it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Tell you mom I said hi.

  • ||

    That's funny, I would have thought you would have been more partial to my dad, considering the closeted nature of most homophobes. You really would be much happier if you just stopped denying. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's funny because I didn't claim to agree with you. You are a fantasist.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (And I would note that I'm not the one using accusations of homosexuality as an insult - perhaps your discussion of homophobia is projection?)

  • ||

    Don't get upset over the truth, dude. Like I said, you'd be happier. There's nothing wrong with it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Face up to your own homophobia. Don't go around pretending you don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, when you clearly think it is.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is the difficulty with people who repress their homophobic instincts. They go around blurting out "There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay," then they go around using sexual orientation as an insult.

    It's like the progressive attitude to race. They have repressed racist impulses which they try to compensate for by (a) calling everyone else racist and (b) making shocking racial slurs against anyone who disagrees with them if they think they may be black.

  • ||

    So. Eddie. Wanna fuck?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Given your tendency to have sex with animals and then eat them, I hesitate to accept your invitation.

  • SugarFree||

    Leave him alone guys. He's Catholic and obviously doesn't have any real opinions beyond what they've programmed him with. You might as well be arguing with a robot.

    He's not a libertarian and is only here to PopeTroll. Look at his post pattern. He half-heartedly swipes at threads here and there, but as soon as its gays or abortion, he gets all energized. He might even being getting a little moolah out of the gig.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "He might even being getting a little moolah out of the gig."

    In that case, would you mind finding out who's been stopping my checks from reaching me?

    And don't be afraid to acknowledge your homophobia.

  • SugarFree||

    And don't be afraid to acknowledge your homophobia.

    Go on. Keeping harping on that. It's totally convincing everybody, right guys?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wait, it was Episiarch who defensively proclaimed "There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay" at the same time that he used sexual orientation as an insult. My bad.

  • ||

    Being homosexual is an insult, Eddie. To you it is an insult, but not to the rest of us. See, that was my entire fucking point, and you of course stupidly reinforced it. Thanks for playing. You're nothing if not predictable.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're the one accusing gay people of perversely opposing what (by your standards) are their own interests, simply because of sexual hangups. Sounds like an insult to me.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If we go with the comparison between racial discrimination and "sexual orientation" discrimination - if the people who oppose SSM are gays repressing their gayness, then maybe the Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan were black people repressing their blackness?

  • $park¥||

    It's totally convincing everybody, right guys?

    I'd hesitate to call you a homophobe while knowing about that "thing" that you have going on with Warty, Epi, and their moms.

  • ||

    My mom's not gay. Idiot.

  • SugarFree||

    My mom's not gay.

    Not in the conventional sense.

  • ||

    I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

  • ||

    You and your cishomoqueer gender norms. Fuck you.

  • ||

    You can be perfectly alright with homosexuality...but that doesn't mean you can't make fun of them.

    I mean, that whole anal sex thing is kinda funny.

  • ||

    You take back what you said about Rebeca Linares.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    I mean, that whole anal sex thing is kinda funny.

    Santorum.
    *Giggles*

  • ||

    Actually, it is not. Kind of gross really.

    OK, not 'kind of'.

  • ||

    All sex is gross if you think about it too much.

  • T||

    I dunno about gross, but definitely messy. Bodily fluids everywhere.

  • $park¥||

    All sex is gross if you think about it too much.

    I know, right? Can you imagine Louie Anderson and Kathy Bates getting it on? Ugh.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Can you imagine Louie Anderson and Kathy Bates getting it on?

    There's a market for this somewhere, I just know it.

  • Meerkatx||

    Rule 36.

  • Zeb||

    Actually, it is not. Kind of gross really.

    OK, not 'kind of'.

    But it involves poop and buttholes and stuff. So it's automatically funny. And isn't gross really just a personal aesthetic judgement?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "I'm for equality before the law."

    No, you are not. Whatever other justifications there might be for recognizing homosexual marriage, an appeal to equality is not one of them. Homosexual pairings are not equivalent to heterosexual ones. Also, the appeal to equality is the argument driving forced acceptance for "public accommodations". It is a foreseeable consequence of that argument and one you cannot disown.

  • John||

    How exactly does the government get out of marriage? Stop recognizing such in courts? Do away with all parental rights?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Dear Lord, don't confuse everyone with these practical questions. Don't you realize that same sex marriage produces warm feelings? Why don't you want people to have warm feelings?

  • sarcasmic||

    Civil unions for all. With no government force behind the definition of the word, there's nothing to argue about.

  • trshmnstr||

    Make it more like other contract law. If, under the new system, you are dumb enough to only make a verbal marriage contract, then you're pretty well screwed in court come divorce.

    Parental rights would definitely be more complicated, but i would think we could pull ideas from how adoptions and foster care are handled.

  • Zeb||

    i would think we could pull ideas from how adoptions and foster care are handled.

    That sounds completely awful.

  • T||

    i would think we could pull ideas from how adoptions and foster care are handled.

    As a foster parent, I can tell you from experience you need to reconsider that idea. Unless you're looking for thinsg you shoudl avoid.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not a parent of any kind, but I'd consider adopting or fostering if the process weren't so awful, expensive and intrusive.

  • trshmnstr||

    This would be the absolutely best way to make the divorce rate drop like a rock. "If you get divorced, there's a lengthy, expensive, and painful process to determine child custody."

    People would think lots more about working out their differences.

  • Marshall Gill||

    This would be the absolutely best way to make the divorce rate drop like a rock. "If you get divorced, there's a lengthy, expensive, and painful process to determine child custody."

    What on Earth makes you think this doesn't happen already? It does.

  • John||

    Okay. But you still have the same debates. There is nothing that says a state has to recognize a contract for gay marriage. The state would still define marriage because it would define what contracts are enforced and under what circumstances.

    Saying you want the state out of marriage is like saying you want the state out of commerce. As long as you have courts empowered to settle disputes, the state is involved.

  • trshmnstr||

    I completely agree, and don't find ending state sponsorship of marriage in any way practical currently. That doesn't mean it's not a good goal or achievable in some other system, only that we have more chance of the statists admitting that all they want is power and control over the "little people" before we get marriage out of government.

  • Rasilio||

    ""Saying you want the state out of marriage is like saying you want the state out of commerce. As long as you have courts empowered to settle disputes, the state is involved."

    Except for one thing. The State not only arbitrates disputes in marriage contracts it predefines what those contracts mean for you. The analogy here would be if there was a single purchase and sale contract, the language of which is decided by the government and cannot be altered by either party (well they can but any alterations are not legally enforcable)

  • lap83||

    "Parental rights would definitely be more complicated"

    I would love to see a gay marriage proponent even attempt to suggest what legal parental rights should look like. My guess is they don't because it's hard to keep up the equality rhetoric since the unions would necessarily have to be treated differently for obvious reasons.

  • ||

    Whoever is better suited to provide a stable safe environment for the child gets main custody? Like it should be with straight couples (instead of the completely fucking retarded "the woman should automatically get custody because...patriarchy").

  • trshmnstr||

    Whoever is better suited to provide a stable safe environment for the child gets main custody?

    "stable safe environment" seems very arbitrary.


    (instead of the completely fucking retarded "the woman should automatically get custody because...patriarchy").


    +1

  • lap83||

    "Whoever is better suited to provide a stable safe environment for the child gets main custody?"

    That might make sense if non-biological caregivers tended to feel the same about children as biological parents, but that just doesn't happen. And traditionally, women have usually been granted custody of children. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's happened because of the particular dynamic of a male and female partnership.

    In a better world, gay marriages would evolve their own legal precedents based on things that only directly involve the partners themselves. Unfortunately, I think the outcomes will most likely be based on tracking down and screwing a biological parent. There will always be a third party in gay divorce custody battles...and usually at least one of the partners will probably think "well it's not my kid anyway".

  • $park¥||

    Unfortunately, I think the outcomes will most likely be based on tracking down and screwing a biological parent.

    Not if the contract is done right.

    There will always be a third party in gay divorce custody battles

    Not if the contract is done right.

    and usually at least one of the partners will probably think "well it's not my kid anyway".

    Because stuff like this doesn't happen with remarried hetero couples.

  • Zeb||

    Really? You don't think adoptive parents think of their adopted children as theirs? How are same sex parents necessarily any different from a straight couple who adopts?

  • SugarFree||

    instead of the completely fucking retarded "the woman should automatically get custody

    I'm a fan of the idea that women, unless bound in a contractual relationship before contraception, are the sole owners/guardians of the children they give birth to. Men are only responsible financially in the amount that they are given access to the children or contractually agree to after the fact.

  • Virginian||

    There are millions of women in this country who depend on "child support" and welfare for their "basic needs". Why do you hate women?

  • ||

    Because...Patriarchy! Duh virginian.

    It's like you're trying to be as slow as Warty's mom or something.

  • $park¥||

    the unions would necessarily have to be treated differently for obvious reasons.

    I guess I'm feeling a bit slow today. What are these "obvious reasons" you speak of?

  • lap83||

    Biology

  • $park¥||

    So, you don't have an answer? Do you live in a fantasy world where everything is just straight up obvious to you? I had a math teacher like that once.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    There are lots of children born out of wedlock these days. We're pretty used to handling it. Might not be the best way of handling it, but it would hardly be a new territory to conquer.

  • ||

    The way for government to get out of marriage is for them to stop arbitrating who is or is not married, and granting privileges or burdens based on that classification.

    That would entail arbitrating disputes about private contracts between individuals regardless of marital status, ending tax rates that differ for married versus single, and not allowing people who claim to be married to use that status to force third parties such as employers to do things for them such as provide insurance.

    It would be complicated, but not hard.

  • John||

    The way for government to get out of marriage is for them to stop arbitrating who is or is not married

    To enforce a marriage contract, they have to do that.

    that status to force third parties such as employers to do things for them such as provide insurance.

    There is no law I am aware of that says businesses must provide spouses with insurance.

  • Calidissident||

    The state doesn't have to recognize it specifically as a "marriage contract." What the people involved call it is irrelevant. It would just be the government enforcing a voluntary contract between individuals.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They enforce property and custody disbutes for couples who have never been married all the time. Also, seems like today when you can print a prenup off the internet who need the states "default" contract whatever that even is. Should couples who choose to not get "married" continue to be "discrimated" against. And if "special" tax treatments are given does that not discriminate angainst "singles". I think a lot of state involved originated with the idea of ensuring that when some dude traded in wife and kids for a new model, the rest of us were not stuck taking care of them. With women working today that's prolly less of an issue. I think ideally the state should get out of the relationship business (it's none of their business) but if they're not going to than why not include gays. They pay taxes too and for all intent and purposes many are alread living as married couples.

  • ||

    I'd be okay if we let people who lived together file jointly, regardless of their marital status.

  • ||

    To enforce a marriage contract, they have to do that.

    They wouldn't be enforcing a marriage contract. They would be enforcing a contract, period. The parties claim to be married would be deemed legally irrelevant.

    There is no law I am aware of that says businesses must provide spouses with insurance.

    There are laws on the books requiring employers to provide insurance benefits for certain partners of employees based on the state's definition of marital status, even though their employers would prefer to not provide such coverage. An example would be forcing a Catholic church to provide insurance coverage for an employee who married a lesbian partner, despite that employer vehemently objecting to such payment.

  • John||

    No those laws only apply when the employer chooses to cover partners. They don't have to do that.

    And to enforce any contract, you have to first determine if one was entered into or in other words if the parties are in fact married.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As I state above, nin-married couples and even roommates for that matter have property disbutes that need to be resolved by the courts. I can print a prenup or contract off the internet. I don't need the state to do that.

  • ||

    No those laws only apply when the employer chooses to cover partners. They don't have to do that.

    So you're OK with the Catholic or Mormon Churches (or Muslim or ...) having to avoid doing something they want to do -- covering spouses of married hetero couples -- because the state has threatened that if they do that they would have to do something they find morally reprehensible?

    Your argument is along the lines of "paying income taxes isn't coercive because you can avoid paying them by not working and becoming homeless!"

  • ||

    And to enforce any contract, you have to first determine if one was entered into or in other words if the parties are in fact married.

    No. A private contract stating that certain benefits and obligations will occur between the contracting parties if they are married according to how that contracts defines "marriage", and then a court arbitrating contractual disputes by strictly adhering to the language in that contract defining "marriage", is entirely different from a private contract between two parties where the state jumps in and instead says in effect "we don't give a rip how you defined marriage in this contract, we're gonna impose a state definition of marriage different from that" and then arbitrating the dispute based on that definition.

  • Rasilio||

    Usually this is not difficult, in almost significant cases there is an actual signed document, in others there is ample evidence of verbal agreements.

    It is highly unlikely that one could be "married" for more than a few days without there being evidece that they were in fact married

  • ||

    could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to ‘responsible’ procreation

    Doesn't that make it sound like actually they are trying to use the argument for getting the state out of marriage as a reason TO get gay marriage? Or, more precisely, using "no state marriage" as a pro-gay-marriage scare tactic? I wasn't a fan of this line myself...

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is exactly what it means. Whatever your thoughts on homosexual marriage, the Boies-Olsen brief is not a document rooted in libertarian philosophy.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    and that Prop. 8’s defenders have offered no rational justification for the restriction on liberty, and have instead endorsed “a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into ‘responsible pro-creation.’”

    Assuming that is the defenders' view and not just a straw man, how does that make sense? Does a gay marriage ban mean that gays will turn straight, get married, and procreate?

  • Cosmotarian||

    Gay marriage is an important topic. The public needs to be more focused on issues like this instead of worrying about the esoteric world of monetary policy, CIA protected drug traffickers and Homeland Security.

    I am pleased that Reason has chosen to lead many new libertarians into this debate where libertarians can truly make a difference in the size and scope of government.

  • ||

    Because we don't talk about anything else on this blog whatsoever.

    Get bent. Pussy.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Aren't you late for a cocktail party somewhere?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...the 2008 voter initiative that amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage.

    Sigh.

  • cavalier973||

    People can go to jail in California for engaging in gay marriage. It's forbidden.

  • ||

    COSSMMMOOOOTARRRIIIAAANNNSSS!!!!!!1!!!1!!

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's gay anchor babies all the way down...

  • Almanian!||

    Gankor Baybeez

  • General Butt Naked||

    ...at cocktail parties!

  • Almanian!||

    I highly recommend everyone put on Chic "Good Times", hear the voice of Don Cornelius - basically the voice of god made human - saying, "You can bet your last money it's all gonna be a stone gas, honey" over and over, smoke a huge blunt, sip your favorite hard liqour, and chill. Regardless how good you feel now, you'll feel much better.

    That's just pretty much a good idea any time, but seems necessary today.

    Just a suggestion.

    Also, no, fuck you, cut spending. "Good times.... these...are... the....good times..."

  • Zeb||

    Sounds like a plan. I think I need to stop at the liquor store on the way home.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I like this plan, but I must go to the damn grocery store and the walmart. Who knows, maybe wally world will actually have some 9mm this time. I fucking hate the store and the stoopid slow walking retards that litter the aisles there. Wish I had a couple vicodin...

  • ||

    Prediction: nothing useful will be said in this thread.

    *invents time machine, goes forward an hour, checks thread, comes back*

    You guys! I was right!

  • trshmnstr||

    Does this apply only to this thread or to all of them?

  • ||

    Don't be silly. We talk about pizza and post links to naked chicks sometimes.

  • trshmnstr||

    So, pineapple pizza? Yea or Nay?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Big fucking nay!

    If it doesn't offend muslims, it shouldn't be on pizza.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Speaking of offending muslims, I've been adding ham to me pizzas lately. Something about the ham juice works for me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    My. I'm not british.

  • $park¥||

    Fuckin' A right!

  • SIV||

    Do anchovies offend Muslims?

    Pineapple is almost as disgusting a pizza topping as chicken.

  • trshmnstr||

  • Marshall Gill||

    I don't know what the fuck that was, but it ain't pizza.

  • ||

    Pineapple is almost as disgusting a pizza topping as chicken.

    This time you've gone too far, SIV. Chicken is a perfectly pizza acceptable topping.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Besides, the only time a grown man should be caught eating pineapple is if said pineapple has been beer-battered and deep fried in bacon grease.

  • sarcasmic||

    That sounds really good.

  • mr simple||

    What about the ones floating in my fishbowl of a drink?

    /girl drink drunk

  • ||

    Is this a thing? I made bacon pineapple upsidedown cake a few weeks ago and it was delicious, you may have inspired me to take it to the next level.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I just tried to make pineapples manly and that's what I came up with, and it actually does sound pretty good.

  • ||

    Jesse, dip the pineapple chunks in chocolate before you batter them and fry them.

  • ||

    MIND BLOWN

  • Zeb||

    What's not manly about pineapple? Unless you get it pre-chunked in a can, you get to take a great big knife to a little tree thing. Add some aged rum, a nice blunt and maybe a few Vicodin and you are all set.

  • $park¥||

    What's not manly about pineapple?

    I guess I'm just not "into" pineapples the way you are. If you get my meaning.

  • Zeb||

    I guess I must since I'm the one who is into pineapples in the way that I am.

  • ||

    My dad eats pineapple that has been caned in heavy syrup.

  • cavalier973||

    Only if it has Canadian bacon as well.

  • General Butt Naked||

    This thread is pretty

    *puts on shades*

    gay.

  • ||

    Opinions requested.

    The Meh chick or the OMg chick?

  • AlmightyJB||

    The bad idea chick. I do like them all. Omg is a nice addition. She needs to lose the shorts though.

  • ||

    Yeah, I fully support the panty wearing Meh girl.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Trying to remember which one that is. I don't get those ads on my phone. Is that the red head that used to the dna unzipped jeans girls 'cause I love her.

  • ||

  • AlmightyJB||

    Thanks! Yeah I feel the love for the Meh girl:)

  • Way Of The Crane||

    ^This^ is why gingers continue to plague our planet.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What you should do WOTC is make sure I get all the Ginger love. I'm "fixed" so no offspring will come of it. It's a win-win.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Just send ever hot ginger you meet my way.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Brilliant. It's like Bob Barker's Final Solution for gingers.

  • $park¥||

    The bad idea chick makes me wonder how that can possibly be an ad for t-shirts. But I like!

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm just happy that $6 shirts has gone from having a homeless drunk for a model to a very pretty woman. And since this subthread is getting all male gaze-y, Samantha Fox.

  • ||

    There's no girl for me but Rosie.

    Don't click on that link or BP's from work, all you lurkers and other pitiful idiots.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Too late. Blocked anyway.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Shit. Sorry, everyone. Don't click on this, either.

    I see your Rosie, Warty, and raise you a Keeley.

  • ||

  • BakedPenguin||

    And the idiots over there still oppose austerity.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Meh...not the first time I got the Block warning.

  • T||

    If IT cared about that, I'd have been fired years ago.

  • ||

    "The Meh chick or the OMg chick?"

    Hard to say...I will have to spend more time comparing them. I may never be able to decide.

    Jesus this is a bland thread.

    As for gay marriage....every argument for banning it is based on some bullshit about a couple's utility to the collective; procreation, rearing children, their effect on other couples, blah blah. It's all horseshit from a libertarian perspective.

    If two people want to enter into a partnership for life, who am I to say who they are allowed to choose?

    That being said, I must repeat...the whole anal sex thing is gross. *shudders*

  • trshmnstr||

    As for gay marriage....every argument for banning it is based on some bullshit about a couple's utility to the collective; procreation, rearing children, their effect on other couples, blah blah. It's all horseshit from a libertarian perspective.

    What people don't understand is that by giving gov't the final say on such things, they open it up to going the exact opposite direction the next time their opponents get in power.

  • ||

    That being said, I must repeat...the whole anal sex thing is gross. *shudders*

    Even with chicks? The noise they make can be quite a turnon.

  • ||

    yeah, even with chicks. It is a one way street in my opinion.

    "OOOOWWWW!" Doesnt turn me on. I am not equipped for a chick's anal...uh....comfort.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I agree. Not my thing either.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "this is a bland thread"

    Yeah, well how many times a week can we have this argument. That's why these threads also end up degrading to memes or get so far off topic. You can only say the same things over and over before you get bored.

  • Almanian!||

    ALMANIAN THINK GEORGE SMITH STEVE SMITH'S BROTHER. OBVIOUSLY NOT READ EARLIER POST ABOUT ANN COULTER. TRY MAKE SENSE OF ALMANIAN'S SNARKY BULLSHIT.

    PROBABLY JUST HERE LOOK FOR EASY VICTIM. YOU PRETTY SMART LOOK HERE, GEORGE "STEVE SMITH'S BROTHER" SMITH.

    /STEVE SMITH

  • SugarFree||

    STEVE SMITH START NAMSLA! STEVE SMITH WANT YOU TO JOIN! STEVE SMITH WANT LEGALIZE TRANSPECIES GAY FOREST MARRIAGE RAPE TREE WOODS!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, I can't wait to be where you're at right now. Gotta get to the damn store, though.

  • $park¥||

    You going to the store to buy old? Almanian is just off his rocker. Again.

  • John||

    This is such newsspeak. You can be married now. Anyone who is gay can be married and live with their partner. The only thing they can't do is get the state to use the force of law to get other people to recognize their marriage. So forgive me if I am not seeing how those who would wish to use the government to make people recognize their union are forces of freedom rather than coercion.

  • ||

    "...get the state to use the force of law to get other people to recognize their marriage. "

    This is why I think the state needs to be out of the marriage business altogether. It has no business doing that for hetero couples either.

    Treat marriage like any other contract with provisions for children. Thats it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The Boies-Olsen brief is arguing that getting the state putof the marriage business is a bad result.

    "Indeed, the brief argues, this “state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to ‘responsible’ procreation.”

  • PowerBottom||

    The last part of your comment is EXACTLY correct. As a gay libertarian (I know, black jew, ufo, etc, etc) with lots of gay friends, my friends who are crazy obsessed with gay marriage care exactly jack and shit about the liberty aspect of it. They are for it so the dumb hillbillies have to recognize it. They are as much poster children for liberty as Lindsey Lohan is for sobriety.

  • Tony||

    Equal rights under the law. Hundreds of state and federal benefits. It's not that difficult to understand.

  • John||

    Then change the benefit rules. But that wouldn't allow you to coerce others. And what fun is that?

  • Tony||

    If the majority of the people want to eliminate marriage--meaning if the straights do--they can have at it. Until then you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

  • ||

    This is such newsspeak. You can be married now. Anyone who is gay can be married and live with their partner. The only thing they can't do is get the state to use the force of law to get other people to recognize their marriage. So forgive me if I am not seeing how those who would wish to use the government to make people recognize their union are forces of freedom rather than coercion.

    Let's try this with a twist:

    "This is such newsspeak. You can be married now. Anyone who is black can be married and live with their non-black partner. The only thing they can't do is get the state to use the force of law to get other people to recognize their marriage. So forgive me if I am not seeing how those who would wish to use the government to make people recognize their union are forces of freedom rather than coercion."

    Are you OK with the government granting specific burdens and privileges for similarly situated couples based on their race, John?

  • ||

    How about this:

    "This is such newsspeak. You can be married now. Anyone who is a registered Republican can be married and live with their partner. The only thing they can't do is get the state to use the force of law to get other people to recognize their marriage like they do for registered Democrats. So forgive me if I am not seeing how those who would wish to use the government to make people recognize their union are forces of freedom rather than coercion."

    Are you OK with the government granting specific burdens and privileges for similarly situated couples based on their political affiliation, John?

    I can go on all day if you want ...

  • John||

    You can go all day. And each one will miss the point just like the last.

  • John||

    The government forces people to accept black white unions. That may be a good thing. But make no mistake about it. They do that. And with gay marriage, the government will be forcing everyone to accept gay unions. If you support that, good for you. But don't pretend you are doing anything but what you are.

  • Tony||

    What is entailed in "accepting" or "not accepting" gay unions? Is it anything like "disagreeing with" the gay lifestyle? I.e., a pile of semantic nothing?

  • Virginian||

    Dude, that's like saying that the government forces people to accept gun owners or Jehovah's witnesses. You don't have to like it, or approve of it, but you cannot keep someone from getting married and still hold true to any kind of libertarian values.

  • John||

    But marriage is different than owning a gun. If someone is married, I can't say not recognize the marriage. So for example, if I give benefits to the straight partner, I have to then give benefits to the gay couple. They are both married.

    Gay marriage has nothing to do with freedom. That battle was fought and won when the sodomy laws were repealed. This is totally about coercion and using government to change attitudes and society. Some Libertarians are so in love with the kulture war they either don't realize that or don't care.

  • Tony||

    What benefits are you in the position to dole out?

    Why doesn't it occur to you that social acceptance of gay people as equal is a good thing?

  • Tony||

    As in totally, unambiguously good and not in any imaginable way bad.

    You'll retain the freedom to be a small-minded idiot. Bigotry is surely protected under constitutional freedoms of expression. But you don't get to have the state endorse your view if it denies equal rights under the law.

  • John||

    As in totally, unambiguously good and not in any imaginable way bad.

    yes Tony. We know you are a fascist idiot who thinks coercion is great as long as you like what is being done. It is, however, disappointing to see otherwise sensible people join you in that.

  • Tony||

    Who's being coerced again?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    And if I give benefits to white people, I have to give benefits to black people.

    I suppose in a way you're right: if we lived in a world where freedom of association actually existed, then none of this argument would matter. But we don't.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I've asked basically that question on a lot of gay marriage threads and haven't seen much of an answer (though I may have checked out early on some and missed responses).

  • R C Dean||

    True enough. Getting married is not the same as getting a marriage license, unless, of course, you beleive "Nothing outside the State."

    There's a difference between gay marriage being illegal (as in, you will be arrested and jailed) and the state refusing to license gay marriages.

  • Virginian||

    An excellent point, and one I often bring up. It's one of the real terrible things about the statist brainwashing of the population. A piece of government paper doesn't make a marriage. Free people do not allow unjust laws to fetter them.

  • Tony||

    A piece of government paper is the only thing that makes a marriage. Sure, you can call you and your significant other "married" or whatever else you want and nobody's gonna arrest you, but the only thing at issue is the ability of people to obtain the legal contract. This particular contract is called marriage and access to it is unconstitutionally prohibited for gay couples.

  • Virginian||

    A piece of government paper is the only thing that makes a marriage.

    ____________

    Really?

  • Tony||

    It's not marriage without it. It's "a relationship" or whatever. We can imagine an alternate universe in which relationships are called marriages instead, but in ours marriage refers specifically to a legal contract.

  • Virginian||

    So, let's take Massachusetts for example. According to you, no one ever got married before 1639 in Massachusetts, because there were no licenses issued before that year.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say license, I said contract. There have been differing levels of laxness with respect to how valid the marriage contract is throughout history, but it's always been understood to be a contract, i.e., an agreement on terms recognized by some authority (be it a church or state).

    I'm all for returning to a pre-16th century conception of marriage (let's just say we're married and we're married). But as with everything else, people like the security of legal enforcement when it comes to contractual arrangements.

  • Virginian||

    And there go the goalposts.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Well, duh, look at with whom you are arguing.

  • Tony||

    Not at all. The point is it makes almost no sense to talk about marriage without implying some kind of legally binding agreement. And obviously access to the legal rights is the only thing at issue in this court case and in this debate. Saying that marriage can be redefined to mean mere cohabitation, or whatever, is about as helpful as saying a coffee mug can be redefined as a flower pot. Who cares?

  • Virginian||

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Your words: "A piece of government paper is the only thing that makes a marriage."

    Thus, if one doesn't have a piece of government paper, then one cannot be married. Which means millions of marriages didn't actually exist, because they didn't have a bureaucrats seal of approval.

    This is your brain on statism. Any questions?

  • Tony||

    We seem to be talking past each other.

    Marriage = a union that comes with terms recognized and enforced by an authority.

    Living with your girlfriend = freedom.

    Gays have the second right, but not the first, and that's all anyone's talking about, though don't ask me why anyone would ever want to actually exercise that right.

  • Virginian||

    So you're standing by your idiotic statement. Good to know.

  • In Time Of War||

    What about Common law marriages? I believe, by definition, there is no license issued.

  • Tony||

    But there is still a contractual relationship with the state.

  • Virginian||

    Derpity derpity derp.

    All of Tony's romantic encounters are threesomes, because the State is always there.

  • Tony||

    The opposite is true--I never intend to get married and, as I said, am bewildered why anyone else would want to, except because of the pressure of social tradition.

    We could be talking about something entirely different--the right to visit municipal zoos, say, and the issue for me would be the same: equal legal rights.

  • cavalier973||

    Not necessarily. There are sources of authority in society that are not government. Family, parents, churches, friends, bosses. As you mention a couple of posts down, there is a tremendous amount of social pressure that is involved in one's marriage. These would be sufficient, I think, for getting a married couple to conform to social norms or to leave. In the case of divorce, there is the option of private arbitration. So, no government is necessary for one to be legitimately married.

  • cavalier973||

    *A piece of government paper is the only thing that makes a marriage.*

    I guess George Washington and Martha weren't really married then.

    Oh, the scandal!!!

  • ||

    You could legalize gay marriage without making gay marriage a specifically protected thing (caterers can decline catering your wedding for any reason without question), or you can legalize gay marriage and say that nobody can decline to cater to gay weddings by force of law. You seem to have a problem with the portion where a caterer, baker or photographer gets sued because he finds gays icky, and I agree with you on that point.

    I do have a problem with the fact that if my straight brother meets a hot Spanish chick and they get married, she can stay in the country. If I marry a hot Spanish dude, our relationship exists in a gray area with him having to periodically leave the country and being subject to deportation.

  • John||

    Then change the benefit law. If my best friend in the world is Spanish he can't come either. Why not? What is so special about fucking?

  • Tony||

    Ask the Supreme Court, which has deemed marriage one of the basic rights of human beings and a fundamental aspect of human civilization on multiple occasions.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure straight people aren't putting in the time commitment for helping their fuck buddies get citizenship, I could be wrong there. Our society has seriously elevated the romantic relationship. You can't successfully argue that marriage as an institution is in modern America is anything but the solemnization of a romantic relationship between two consenting adults.

    I'm 100% in favor of marriage being a purely social/religious institution and that the legal component should purely be a contract and enforced as such, but the reality is that it is not. It is tangled up with immigration, kinship in medical emergencies, etc. Partners get deported, partners are not allowed visitation (even when they have their paperwork in order), etc because they don't have the status of spouse, and in our legal system spouse is a readily identifiable shorthand for access.

  • John||

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure straight people aren't putting in the time commitment for helping their fuck buddies get citizenship,

    Yes they are. They are called sham marriages. They happen all of the time. That is why you have to do everything but screw in front of CIS to get a fiance VISA.

    So i ask again, why is denying a gay guy's boyfriend a VISA any worse than denying by BFF one?

  • ||

    You attacked the glib rejoinder portion of what I said instead of the main thrust. Why should we deny gay a couple that is similarly situated to a straight couple the ability to sponsor a spouse, or have hospital visitations. The government has shown it values committed romantic relationships above friendships (regardless of how committed they are).

    Mind you, I agree that straight couples should not have any particular right to sponsor a spouse or visit loved ones in the hospital, etc. I think everyone should have to set a health proxy and our immigration laws should be radically overhauled.

  • sarcasmic||

    So forgive me if I am not seeing how those who would wish to use the government to make people recognize their union are forces of freedom rather than coercion.

    I supported SSM until I realized that it was about coercion and taking people to court over disagreement about the definition of a word.

  • Tony||

    Read the brief.

  • Virginian||

  • ||

    OT: Flew back to Hawaii yesterday from Portland, and the TSA checkpoint basically allowed you to choose to go through either the rapeyscanner or just the regular metal detector ... and about half the people in line chose the rapeyscanner! The hell is wrong with these people?

    The rapeyscanners there do not sport the RapiScanner logo -- apparently someone in the TSA got a clue about the terrible PR that name entailed.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Whenevert hey would do a story on the news about the security (of course you know what the media spins going to be) they would interview some little old ladie about it who of course was for the security. I'm like of course she wants to be groped, it's the only time anyone touches he body anymore. It's probably the only reason she flies.

  • ||

    "...about half the people in line chose the rapeyscanner! The hell is wrong with these people?"

    Sheep are transported from the farm to the butcher by tractor-trailer. The trailer is a multilevel pen with ramps connecting the levels. You cannot herd the sheep into the trailer, they will refuse to enter the hatch and will fight to the death to keep from being forced in.

    So, a hand has to crawl in first. He crawls in and through the first level, up the ramp to the second, up the ramp to the third then out a hatch in the roof. The entire herd of sheep will calmly follow him into the trailer, no fuss, no muss.

  • Sigivald||

    "People choosing to pair off in any consensual way" is pure Liberty, and saying "no, you can't do that!" would be an attack on liberty.

    "People demanding the State endorse their pairings" is rather less so - and the state only endorsing some, while not prohibiting the others only clarifies the issue's basis as not being about "liberty".

    (Bans on homosexual sex attack liberty, as they prohibit an action, not State Recognition.)

    This is more of an "equality" issue than a "liberty" one; a demand for equal benefits/perks between pairings that have that endorsement and those that don't.

    It's a reasonable thing to support, if we're going to have State-endorsed pairings - but it's a matter of equal treatment, not liberty.

    Which reinforces that the State shouldn't be giving people perks for pairing off in the first damned place.

  • Tony||

    Marriage without state recognition is cohabitation, girlfriend and boyfriend, or something like that, but it's not marriage. Marriage necessarily entails contract enforcement--the whole point is legally binding commitment as well as whatever perks are deemed a good idea to go along with it. Marriage is a legal contract.

  • crashland||

    But in some states if your cohabitation lasts long enough it becomes a common law marriage.

  • Tony||

    Which is a different legal status than before.

  • cavalier973||

    You are incorrect. Were the FedGov to say Evangelical Christians could no longer "legally" call themselves married, Christians would laugh and laugh and continue to get legitimately married, because marriage is a solemn vow before man and God to devote yourself to another person for the purposes of companionship and procreation. What marriage is NOT is a set of visitation rights and tax consequences.

  • ||

    Clearly we do not know the same set of Evangelicals. Marriage is two very important institutions which have been unfortunately rolled into one. Were Evangelicals to glibly accept the detachment of their religious definition of marriage from the state definition (including rights and responsibilities under the law) nobody would be having this debate currently.

  • cavalier973||

  • ||

    I don't disagree with Pastor Trewhella's principles, sacred marriage and secular marriage should be two different things, I think that's why you see a lot of people for making secular marriage "civil unions for all" I just don't think that guy is representing mainstream protestant or even specifically evangelical thought.

  • Tony||

    They could call themselves married but for all practical purposes they might as well call themselves bananas. Not that the church hasn't been the sole authority at points in history. It's just not any kind of legally binding authority in this country.

  • cavalier973||

    "For all practical purposes," huh? I'm not sure that arranging one's life to satisfy the myriad regulations of the state could be considered practical living.

    Marriage, by definition, is a lifelong heterosexual union for the purposes of companionship and procreation. The state can say that a union between a man and a pine tree is a legal marriage, but the state would be wrong.

    If two men want to claim that they are man and wife, or whatever, I'll smile politely and nod, but will be thinking "Cuckoo!". It would be the same as if someone offered to serve me a piece of apple pie, but I discovered that it had been made with blackberries. Either the person is playing a prank or he is seriously confused about what an apple pie is.

  • Tony||

    I recommend reading the brief to any so-called libertarian who still can't wrap his mind around the arguments for same-sex marriage equality.

    Marriage has been recognized by the SC at least 14 times as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process clause. The marriage-as-a-right ship has sailed, repeatedly. That makes it very difficult to argue that gay people shouldn't have access to it. Scalia will find a way, of course.

  • ||

    What if a majority on the Supreme Court find that it is legal to not enforce gay marriage contracts? Would you admit that the Supreme Court gets some decisions wrong, or would you continue to defer to the good judgment of government?

    (i.e. much like the Obamacare ruling; terrible ruling, but nonetheless "legal")

  • Tony||

    I will happily admit the SC gets some decisions wrong. Or a lot. When did I say government always gets things right?

    Most of the time the argument is about whether something government does is legitimate or not just because you guys don't like it.

  • Proprietist||

    So Plessy was wrong but still legitimate? What about sodomy laws, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Japanese internment act, etc.? Laws are only legitimate if they preserve Constitutional rights, and incorrect Supreme Court rulings do not make them inherently legitimate.

  • Tony||

    It was legitimate until it wasn't. What higher authority is there to determine legitimacy?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I have no problem if people straight or gay want to get married and have state "appproval" of that marraige if they so choose. But they should not be treated any differently than couples who get married without state approval, couples who choose not to get married at all, or single people without any partners. The State should not impose any benefits or burdens based on your relationship or lack therof.

  • John||

    I will be sympathetic to that argument the moment libertarians start to care about how married people get fucked on their taxes.

  • SugarFree||

    Because libertarians love taxes and the way marriage tax law is set up.

    What a goddamn stupid argument.

  • John||

    It is not an argument. It is just pointing out Libertarian hypocrisy. They don't care about the marriage penalty any more than they care about any other tax because caring about it doesn't let them fight the beloved KULTURE WAR like gay marriage does.

  • sarcasmic||

    Straw men are made of straw.

  • SugarFree||

    So let me get this straight: Libertarians that advocate the only path for gay marriage is wanting to get government out of marriage are correct, but the libertarians that want to solve the marriage tax issue by getting government out of business aren't doing enough?

    I'm sorry, that's not a stupid argument. It's an incoherent argument.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, that's not a stupid argument. It's an incoherent argument.

    That's because his real argument "Dem queers make me uncomfortable." is considered un-PC.

  • ||

    What marriage penalty?

  • Marshall Gill||

    I wonder this also. There can't be a penalty since you have the opportunity to file separately.

  • ||

    I wonder this also. There can't be a penalty since you have the opportunity to file separately.

    Married filing separately is not the same as single filing separately. In our case Single would be best, but married filing jointly is still better than married filing separately.

  • ||

    What marriage penalty?

    This is my first time filing married. Our taxes will be higher than if we were single.

  • ||

    “In general, there tends to be a marriage tax bonus when the two partners have widely disparate incomes and a marriage tax penalty when they have similar or equal incomes,” said Tax Foundation analyst and programmer Nick Kasprak.

    The marriage penalty.

  • ||

    So the penalty is basically on those evil one percenters?

    And since you said that your taxes would be higher now I must assume you are one of them and must now wage class war on you.

  • ||

    Well being a lawyer and an engineer we're doing alright but were certainly not in the top 1%. For upper incomes the penalty comes in at the 28% bracket but as the article says it can also hurt two lower income people because of credits and stuff.

  • T||

    Wait, an engineer married to a lawyer living in Houston? Are you sure you're not my sockpuppet?

    Or am I your sockpuppet? It's all so confusing.

  • ||

    It's sockpuppets all the way down.

  • ||

    Nope I'm a lawyer married to an engineer. Totally different.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's part of my argument. There should be no penalty or perk, tax related or not imposed by the state based on your relationship.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If two people or three for that matter want to enter into any kind of legal binding arraingment with property or whatever, they would be smart to put that in writing, and that contract should be honored as any other contract would.

  • T||

    Perfect enemy good.

    Yes, ideally gummint shouldn't be in the business of marriage. But since it is, and that won't change, denying people marriage seems a little specious to me. And maybe, just maybe, if we let the gays marry, people will reconsider whether or not we should be attaching all the things to marriage that we currently do.

    But I do think there are going to be more lawsuits by the perpetually aggrieved who don't understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

  • Tony||

    It's a good thing that we don't deny basic equal rights on the fear that people might sue when they are violated.

  • ||

    You don't have a "right" to my business asshole.

    Just because you really, really want this caterer doesn't mean that caterer has to make the food for your wedding.

  • Tony||

    As long as we recognize that is an entirely separate argument.

  • ||

    Fair enough.

  • ||

    Please stop defending same-sex marriage, Tony. You only make it worse.

  • ||

    I would fully support "gay marriage" if I could foresee the gay community continuing the fight to polygamous, polygynous, and polyandrous marriages in the future. But we already have a case study of one group of people getting additional "rights" in this country and then not giving a shit about other neglected people.

    So consider me doubtful that the gay marriage thing is about marriage equality.

  • Tony||

    Maybe gays don't believe poly marriages should be legalized. Why should they?

  • Proprietist||

    If they don't they're just as bad as the heterosexuals who don't believe gay marriages should be legalized for arbitrary and fallacious reasons.

  • Tony||

    It's not obvious that there aren't nonarbitrary and nonfallacious reasons for opposing poly marriages. At any rate I don't think it's up to gay rights proponents to do the leg work for completely unrelated interest groups.

  • ||

    Maybe gays don't believe poly marriages should be legalized. Why should they?

    Because who are you to say someone else relationship is illegitimate?

  • ||

    I would fully support "gay marriage" if I could foresee the gay community continuing the fight to polygamous, polygynous, and polyandrous marriages in the future. But we already have a case study of one group of people getting additional "rights" in this country and then not giving a shit about other neglected people.

    I would fully support your "argument" if you didn't put "gay marriage" in "quotes" and treat "gay people" like a monolith.

  • Proprietist||

    Posted this before, but always fun.

    Every Argument Against Gay Marriage is a Fallacy:
    Ad Hominem/Poison the Well: “Proponents of gay marriage wish to force the gay lifestyle upon me.”

    Anecdotal evidence/argument from authority: “All the gay people I know say they don’t even want to be married.”

    Appeal to motive: “Gay marriage advocates want to brainwash your children!”

    Appeal to heaven: “God/the Bible said being gay is bad and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

    Appeal to emotion: “America is sliding into a den of immorality and sin. These people want to make America into Sodom and Gomorrah. Let’s stand up for what we believe in and reject
    their assault on our way of life and our faith.”

    Appeal to tradition: “Marriage has always been this way.”

    Argument ad populum: “Since the majority voted for the law (or lawmakers), the courts have no right to overturn the will of the people.”

    Bandwagoning: “We can’t change the definition of marriage because most people throughout history said it has to be this way.”

    Begging the question: “Two people of the same sex can’t marry because marriage means one man and one woman.”

    Blind loyalty: “I oppose gay marriage because my church/family/political party does.”

    Essentializing: “Gays probably don’t even really want to get married.”

  • Proprietist||

    False dilemma: “If you support gay legal marriage, you also support forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.”

    Guilt by association: “You know, many Marxists support gay marriage.”

    Moving the goalposts: “OK, so some tribes or ancient civilizations may have had equivalencies of gay marriage. Regardless, 99.999% of the time, marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman. ”

    Non-Sequitur: “Gays shouldn’t want to get married, because gays are naturally promiscuous.”

    Political correctness: “I might be ok with it only if we call it ‘civil unions’ for gay couples. Calling it ‘marriage’ is offensive.”

    Perfect Solution Fallacy: “The only solution is civil unions for all (or marriage for nobody).” (*not an option currently on the ballot / under debate*)

    Red Herring: “Gays shouldn’t be able to get married. They can’t reproduce through gay sex."

    Reductionism: “I support traditional marriage!”

    Slippery slope/argument from consequence: “If they win at getting gay marriage, soon they’ll win getting woman-dog marriages and man-infant marriages.”

    Straw man: “If you support the legal marriage equality for gays, you obviously support more state involvement in personal affairs.”

  • Proprietist||

    Again, in the past when this has been posted, I've requested opponents of gay marriage show an argument that's not a logical fallacy, and they have thus far failed to do so.

  • Tony||

    Well that's pretty brilliant.

    "Perfect solution fallacy." Gonna have to remember that one.

  • Proprietist||

    I recommend you also memorize "argumentum ad populum" as you constantly have problems grasping that concept.

  • Tony||

    I think courts have every right to overturn the popular will of the people, and I don't think the people always get it right.

    It's just that when you're pitting the will of the majority against the will of a tiny minority (like libertarians) you have to take the step of describing why your preference is some kind of special civil right that ought to trump normal democratic procedure.

  • ||

    It's just that when you're pitting the will of the majority against the will of a tiny minority (like libertarians) you have to take the step of describing why your preference is some kind of special civil right that ought to trump normal democratic procedure.

    Really? If you were dumped on an island prison full of sociopaths, and the will of the majority was to kill and eat the tiny minority of libertarians plus Tony, would you say your "preference" for not being murdered and eaten was a "special civil right" that the onus was on you to prove that your preference should trump the default of "normal democratic procedure" (aka "majority mob rule").

    My preference is for liberty because I own myself. Don't see why I would have to keep explaining to you and your ilk that I want my "preference" respected to not ever be aggressed against.

  • Tony||

    If I were dumped on an island full of sociopaths then the normal democratic process would be somewhat irrelevant. We are not on an island of sociopaths, we are in a country of hundreds of millions of people. If you think you need more autonomy than you have, then you are free to champion the repealing of whatever laws you think you ought not to be laws. I probably agree with you on a few of them. But your being left alone is, depending on how you define it, not necessarily only your business. If you're left alone to commit harm against others then even you agree that society has a right to prevent or punish your behavior.

    What you don't have is a right to the exact world you'd prefer, as you have to share it with hundreds of millions of others. Your policy preferences aren't special just because you say so.

  • ||

    "Not a logical fallacy" =/= "perfect solution fallacy".

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not an opponent of gay marriage. I'm an opponent of using government force to settle an argument over the definition of a word. Best to get the government out of it. Without any force behind the meaning of the word, there will be no need to argue about it.

    Civil unions for all!

  • Proprietist||

    Again, I agree civil unions for all or marriage for none IS the "perfect solution", but it's not an argument against gay marriage. There is zero force required in the legalization of gay marriage (as long as we're not dipping into the false dilemma/straw man territory). Removing the power of states to discriminate based upon sexuality is a reduction in government, not an increase.

  • sarcasmic||

    First when you use the word "legalize" you imply legalizing something that is a crime. I am not aware of anyone ever spending time in jail for illegal same sex marriage. So I reject your premise.

    Second, putting government force behind the definition of the word "marriage" invites the initiation of force through the courts against people who disagree with the definition.

    Besides, you're switching the burden of proof. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

  • Proprietist||

    "Legitimize" may be better verbiage.

    putting government force behind the definition of the word "marriage" invites the initiation of force through the courts against people who disagree with the definition

    False dilemma. We're not talking about courts using the government's legal status to prosecute those private citizens or businesses who disagree with or refuse to recognize the status. That's a different policy and a different argument, and we would be on the same side on that one.

    You're the one who wants to change the status quo.
    Appeal to tradition. The government is not granted the power to discriminate against homosexuals by the Constitution, and is precluded from doing so by the 9th and 14th Amendments. The autonomy granted to states by the 10th Amendment does not grant states the power to roll back the rights of the people, and this was clarified by the 14th Amendment.

  • Proprietist||

    And authorizing a gay marriage license in a state where the state constitution bans it would probably be a crime or at least a terminable offense. So, yes, "legalize" is still correct.

  • Tony||

    Dictionaries decide the definitions of words.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Show an argument for homosexual "marriage" that is not a fallacy.

  • DJK||

    I've seen a lot of comments on here about treating marriage as a matter of contract. While I generally agree with the notion, there is some complication with spousal privilege. How do you deal with that under a contract? I basically see two ways out of it. The first is to try to develop a contract with that provision. I think that would never be upheld; after all, if such contracts were valid, why would anyone ever sign one that didn't include this privilege, no matter who the contract was with?

    The second is to deny this privilege. I'm not a big fan of this, either. Firstly, it would need to be applied more broadly. If I'm to deny spousal privilege in order to get the government out of marriage, why shouldn't I deny clergy privilege? Secondly, I'm just not a big fan of government having yet another means of indicting me.

    I can't claim to have thought this through very far; it just occurred to me. Any thoughts?

  • ||

    The way to handle this, in the absence of government arbitration of who is or isn't married, is to say that any couple who has signed certain types of contracts with certain provisions for a long-term commitment together will have spousal / partner privilege.

  • DJK||

    Meh. Not sure this does it. If it's a contract, it can be dissolved if both parties agree to it. If I'm doing something illicit with someone, why wouldn't we just sign a "marriage" contract with spousal privilege? We can then dissolve the contract whenever the illicit activity ends. Moreover, I could sign any number of agreements, since I can contract with whomever I want whenever I want.

    You could get around this by requiring the "marriage" to last a certain time (though you still may have an issue with career criminals) or that one may only sign one such contract at a time. This all seems to undercut the liberty of contract argument quite a bit.

  • YandMand||

    Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with the punches.

    www.GoAnon.da.bz

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Indeed, the brief argues, this “state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to ‘responsible’ procreation.”

    So the Boies-Olsen team are making an argument that the state getting out of the marriage business is an undesirable thing. And Damon Root is endorsing this argument?

  • I GOT HUNG UP SILLY||

    Who is concerned with protecting over 100 hundred million little Religious Americans in our countries future Family Courts from these Gay Judges sitting roost over straight family values ?

    Liberating 20,000 gay marriage folks at the cost of destroying tens of millions of Americans religious beliefs is Satanic work,Not Godly...

  • I GOT HUNG UP SILLY||

    If our American Amish have the right to be exempt from allowing future Same Sex Married & Gay Family Court Judges sitting roost over their family values,what about other Religious Straight USA Families ?

    Who is enlightening U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about allowing 20,000 Gays to legally marry while creating a horror for
    100 million Religious American's in future family courts across the USA?

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