What Internet Sales Tax and Gay Marriage Have in Common

and why is the government affecting our marriages?CarbonNYC/Foter.comUtah’s legislature recently considering a bill to implement an online sales tax, which failed earlier this month. Proponents, including brick and mortar stores, lobbied for the bill to “level the playing field” by requiring online sellers to collect the same sales tax stores in the real world do. Author Connor Boyack makes the libertarian case against internet sales taxes and government marriage:

Retail stores are required by the state to become tax collectors, and online stores with no physical presence in the state are not. Should the state then increase its size, reach, and tax base in the name of fairness?

Absolutely not. Equality before and non-discrimination by the law is important, to be sure. But increasing the size and scope of the state is not the proper method to fulfill that objective. As is usually the case, the opposite is true; reducing and ultimately removing the other barrier is best. Because sales taxes are an illegitimate imposition into a private commercial transaction, political pressure should be applied to repeal that mandate from existing establishments, rather than shackling those that are currently exempt.

The same situation exists in the debate over same-sex marriage. Proponents of altering marriage law in the states and at the federal level claim that prohibitions against gay marriage are unfair and discriminatory. They claim that equality before the law demands that their relationships likewise be licensed and sanctioned by the state.

As with sales taxes, the state should not be enlarged in pursuit of equality in marriage licensure. Because the government has no business being involved in marriage, the discrimination inherent in existing marriage law is best remedied by removing it altogether, or at least reducing the inequality by removing tax credits, estate planning benefits, and other incentives currently restricted to heterosexual couples whose unions are licensed by the state.

Read the rest of the piece here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Equality before and non-discrimination by the law is important, to be sure. But increasing the size and scope of the state is not the proper method to fulfill that objective.

    Wow, this looks like a really good piece. I'll have to read this whole thing later. But for the most part this is my entire viewpoint on the gay marriage movement. Is the law currently unequal? Yes. Should we move to make it a little less unequal, but still unequal? No. Eliminate ALL the inequalities.

  • ||

    That sounds great, except there is no way in hell the government is going to get out of the marriage business. Therefore, that being said, will you make perfect the enemy of the good, or will you settle for more equality now and then continue to work for the perfect?

    This argument is absolutely ridiculous when you consider the reality of trying to achieve the perfect.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I love it when an anarchist seeks government validation.

  • ||

    I love it when homophobes pretend to be libertarians, myself. But hey, you try and misdirect with some retarded type of argument like "how can you be an anarchist if you use ROADZ?!?" It's not like I don't expect it from you.

  • John||

    Whoever said gays couldn't get married? They can get married now. More power to them. What they can't get in some states is a piece of paper that lets them use the power of the gun to force everyone to recognize their marriage.

  • ||

    You use the power of a gun to make everyone recognize your marriage, John. Hypocrite much?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Slavery is Freedom!

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    My god you're pathetic. Your homophobia makes you both transparent and stupid.

  • John||

    So you endorse using the power of the gun to tell everyone who objects to gay marriage to go fuck themselves?

    How anarchist of you.

  • ||

    Oh this is classic. Your arguments are so weak that all you can do is call no true Scotsman on me? Are you fucking kidding? You guys really are pathetic. Your bigotry makes you fucking retarded. Enjoy your stupidity, you certainly seem to.

  • John||

    I am not calling anything. The fact is Episirach, you want to use government power to make sure that everyone accepts gay marriage. It is your argument not mine. Maybe you are right about that. But right or wrong, you need to shut to fuck up and stop pretending you don't like using government power to get your way.

  • kbolino||

    The power of the state is already being used to force other people to accept your marriage to your opposite-sexed wife, John.

    How is that any different? Answer that or shut up.

  • ||

    "The power of the state is already being used to force other people to accept your marriage to your opposite-sexed wife."

    How does this affect the validity of John's argument? You just admitted the government unjustly uses force in recognizing opposite-sex marriage, just as it would in recognizing gay marriage. The whole point of the piece is that the solution to problems of inequality doesn't have to be to expand state power and oversight. It should be in the opposite direction.

  • kbolino||

    @alan_s

    If we are to argue for liberty, then we must oppose all forms of state-sanctioned marriage.

    If we are to accept some state-sanctioned marriages, then we must argue for equality.

    John is not making either argument. He wants opposite-sex state-sanctioned marriage but not same-sex state-sanctioned marriage and there is no basis in liberty or equality for that position.

  • ||

    @kbolino

    Agreed.

  • ||

    Oh John, your tired dedication to a completely facetious argument is so cute. It's amazing how hard you will struggle to fight this, to the point of being demonstrably mendacious, but it's so important to you to fight those damn homos in the KULTUR WAR that you don't care. Well, this is boring now.

  • John||

    If you don't want to use government power, why are you demanding states give gays a piece of paper that forces everyone to accept their marriages?

  • kinnath||

    I want the state to treat everyone the same. It's not my fault the state forces people against their will to treat everyone else the same way.

    It would be far, far more likely to repeal the parts of the civil rights act that force non-descrimination on private parties than it would be to remove marriage from the law.

  • ||

    I am not calling anything. The fact is Episirach, you want to use government power to make sure that everyone accepts gay marriage. It is your argument not mine. Maybe you are right about that. But right or wrong, you need to shut to fuck up and stop pretending you don't like using government power to get your way.

    John...

    Are you asking if I want government to protect the rights of gays the individual?

    Um...

    ...YES, that's the government's only legitimate function.

  • John||

    Are you asking if I want government to protect the rights of gays the individual?

    No you are not asking that at all. Since when do you have a "right" for everyone to accept your lifestyle? You don't. Do you have a right to pursue that lifestyle? Sure. And that is why the sodomy laws needed to go. But this is a different issue. This is about force and coercion. It is not about freedom. Gays are free to marry now.

  • Randian||

    The equal issuance of marriage licenses has nothing to do with "acceptance".

  • wareagle||

    Since when do you have a "right" for everyone to accept your lifestyle?
    --------------
    no law can force societal acceptance of anything, but the "gays can marry now" argument is weak. Like it or not, marriage carries the imprimatur of the state. Unless you're gay, or a wanna-be polygamist.

    Ideally, govt would butt out save for its role in mediating contract disputes, but the ideal ain't happening. It further stop with tax code rewards and punishments, but that's not likely, either, so let's go with treating all people equally and if consenting adults want to marry, let 'em.

  • ||

    Fuck you John. That's simply a fallacious argument. No one is forcing YOU to accept shit. The gays get to marry and you can continue to be as big a bigoted asshole as you want.

  • John||

    Fuck you Francisco. What is the point of government sanctioned marriage if not force everyone to recognize it? That is exactly what you want. Stop fucking lying and pretending otherwise.

  • ||

    The point, John, is for gay couples to have all the same rights, entitlements and privileges straight couples get.

    And it doesn't affect you in the least.

  • ||

    "you want to use government power to make sure that everyone accepts gay marriage."

    I'm burnin', I'm burnin', I'm burnin' the straw.

  • Free Society||

    Just the objectors who actively obstruct other people's freedoms. Damn right you can go fuck yourself, John.

  • John||

    Just the objectors who actively obstruct other people's freedoms.

    So everyone is free to think whatever they want, as long as they think exactly like you. That is the spirit. But thank you for being honest. At least you will admit the purpose of this whole thing is to use the government to go fuck everyone you don't like.

  • Zeb||

    John, do you think any marriages should be legally recognized, then?

  • Calidissident||

    John, it's not that people here want the government to issue marriage licenses to gays, but that we think if the government is going to issue marriage licenses, they shouldn't deny them to gay couples. Just as if I were alive 50 years ago, I still would have thought the government should stop granting marriage licenses, but shouldn't deny them to interracial couples if they did.

  • John||

    John, it's not that people here want the government to issue marriage licenses to gays,

    Every post on here says otherwise.

    And the fact is unless you get rid of marriage license altogether, granting them to gays effectively ends the religious freedom to object to them. Since ending them altogether is not a possibility, advocating granting them is effectively killing the 1st Amendment.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Since ending them altogether is not a possibility, advocating granting them is effectively killing the 1st Amendment.

    Legally defining marriage as being between one man and one woman kills the 1st amendment, unless it's somehow a coincidence that the legal definition and the Christian definition are the same.

  • ||

    John, there is no law against a church that does gay-only marriages now, as you point out. How will legalizing legal gay marriages hurt the religious freedoms of homophobic churches?

  • Paul.||

    Whoever said gays couldn't get married? They can get married now. More power to them. What they can't get in some states is a piece of paper that lets them use the power of the gun to force everyone to recognize their marriage.

    Unfortunately, because the government recognizes marriage, it doesn't just nod and say, "Yes, we recognize your undying love for eachother", it conveys privileges upon the married.

    Yes, the gay marriage fight is in fact about those privileges conveyed upon the married.

    But if the government recognizes one marriage, it has to recognize them all.

    Yes, John, gays could get married forever ago. They were certainly doing it as far back as the 90s, but they weren't getting all of the legal benefits related to it.

    That, in this libertarians position, makes them unequal before the law.

  • GILMORE||

    Episiarch| 3.27.13 @ 1:11PM |#

    I love it when homophobes pretend to be libertarians, myself

    Why would homophobes pretend to be you? I thought you were the gayest gayzorz ever elected mayor of gaytown.

    Me personally, I prefer our resident "Libertarian" Anti-Immigration +Anti-Gay+Pro-War guys. What a hoot they are.

    Because, see - they're the REAL Libertarians(!! cue Battle Hymn of the Republic).... while we're all a buncha sissy half-communist "cosmotarians" for not caring about Our Christian Heritage and capitulating to Liberals over the Looming Mexican Menace to our freedoms... and something to do with being associated with Cato... which is suspiciously 'intellectual', and too cozy with the establishment...

    ..basically, we agree about guns. Maybe that's it.

    Oh, they don't like Devo either.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    More sepcifically, there are two cases currently before the court: one is whether DOMA is upheld, that is whether or not to get rid of a law that involves the federal government in defining what marriage is. The other is whether or not the federal court should overrule a state court's interpretation of its own law.

    If you actually believe in getting the federal government out of marriage, you should be on the pro-gay marriage side of both of these specific cases, as both seek to eliminate a federal involvement in marriage in favor of kicking it back to the states to handle.

    Instead we see all the "let's just get the government out of marriage" people resorting to the equivalent of a "keep the government out of my medicare" argument. And then they wonder why everyone thinks the "lets get the government out of all marriage" position is phony.

  • ||

    Instead we see all the "let's just get the government out of marriage" people resorting to the equivalent of a "keep the government out of my medicare" argument. And then they wonder why everyone thinks the "lets get the government out of all marriage" position is phony.

    That may be the case for many, but it is certainly not the case for myself. I am against a marriage license for myself and my future spouse (she doesn't know this yet (_

  • kinnath||

    You will find that to be impossible in the long run.

  • Randian||

    I am against a marriage license for myself and my future spouse

    Why?

  • ||

    I don't know, because I have principles. We could get a marriage certificate signifying the event, but if I truly believe that government has no place in the marriage business, why do I want to get their permission slip for being married?

  • Randian||

    The same reason you have a driver's license (I assume). I mean, I oppose licensing schemes of all kinds, but that didn't stop me from getting a law license either.

    I think not getting a marriage license is a pointless act that only hurts you.

  • ||

    I think not getting a marriage license is a pointless act that only hurts you.

    You're probably right, and I could certainly change my opinion on getting one when it comes down to it. Fortunately I'm a long way off from going down the aisle.

    Ultimately, I'm still on the fence about the gay marriage movement. On an individual basis, I have no objections to letting them get married (or really as a whole). My only objections are to the eventual consequences of such a law, that which remains unseen. Will private citizens and businesses be forced to recognize and serve people whose marriage they do not approve of?

    It's like being for 9/10 of the Civil Rights Act while being extremely worried about the implications of that last tenth.

  • Randian||

    Will private citizens and businesses be forced to recognize and serve people whose marriage they do not approve of?

    Probably. But as I say repeatedly, the existence of a potential future injustice does not mean we can hold a current liberty hostage.

  • kinnath||

    Yes, that 1/1th of the CRA will fuck over anyone that objects to doing business with faggots and dykes. Just like if fucks over anyone that objects to doing business with mics, wops, chinks, spics, and jungle bunnies.

  • GILMORE||

    kinnath|3.27.13 @ 1:49PM|#

    Yes, that 1/1th of the CRA will fuck over anyone that objects to doing business with faggots and dykes. Just like if fucks over anyone that objects to doing business with mics, wops, chinks, spics, and jungle bunnies.

    Well, things could be worse. At least NO IRISH NEED APPLY is still OK!

  • ||

    Will private citizens and businesses be forced to recognize and serve people whose marriage they do not approve of?

    They already are. Why are Catholic employers not fighting the government about providing insurance benefits to remarrieds? They should be against that just as much as contraceptive coverage or gay-married benefits.

  • Zeb||

    Why are Catholic employers not fighting the government about providing insurance benefits to remarrieds?

    Now there's a good question.

  • ||

    Why are Catholic employers not fighting the government about providing insurance benefits to remarrieds? They should be against that just as much as contraceptive coverage or gay-married benefits.

    I agree that they should, if that is truly what they believe (which is what they claim). I don't believe I'm being inconsistent in this, so please correct me if you see something that contradicts that statement.

  • ||

    No, gB, I don't think you're necessarily being inconsistent, just pointing out that the most valid arguments against gay marriage are equally valid against other marriages as well. More for general edification.

  • rac3rx||

    Why are Catholic employers not fighting the government about providing insurance benefits to remarrieds?

    That's actually the wrong question. The question is whether Catholic employers are providing spousal benefits to couples not in valid Catholic marriages. And if they are, why aren't they fighting the Government over the fact that they have to recognize what they would consider to be an invalid "civil union"?

    Catholics view any marriage not conducted by clergy to be not a valid Catholic marriage. I don't see how the Catholic Church would, as a matter of Canon Law, extend benefits to any spouse not in a valid Catholic marriage.

    Catholics may remarry, but they must submit to an approximately year long process to have the first marriage annulled by the Church before any second marriage can occur (or a civil union be recognized via convalidation).

  • Paul.||

    but if I truly believe that government has no place in the marriage business, why do I want to get their permission slip for being married?

    If you want the privileges conveyed upon married couples.

    Having been married, those privileges also come with major deficits, so from a personal standpoint, I believe that the modern institutuion of marriage represents one of the most fucked up forms of contract law on the planet. But that's another topic.

    But to deny it to gay people is, in my opinion, a breech of equality.

  • Free Society||

    Why would you support marriage licensing unless you concede that the government owns you and your genitalia?

  • Randian||

    I'm trying to live my life, guy.

  • ||

    I'm trying to live my life, guy.

    I do frequently wonder about this, though. (Not to call Randian out by any means.) I mean, I have a drivers license because there is a very good chance I will need to show it or risk imprisonment. There is not such a good chance I will actually need a marriage license for anything. Unless a get-gov't-out-of-marriage libertarian is in a specific situation that raises those chances (e.g., chronically ill spouse, unusual child custody issues, immigrant spouse), you don't really need it to live your life, do you?

  • ||

    Penn Jillette talks about why he and his wife decided to get married. They went around to a bunch of lawyers and asked them if they could guarantee that if one of them died, the other would get their kids. And when the lawyers couldn't do that, Penn and his wife went and got married.

  • ||

    They went around to a bunch of lawyers and asked them if they could guarantee that if one of them died, the other would get their kids. And when the lawyers couldn't do that, Penn and his wife went and got married.

    I believe this proves my point to some extent. There are dozens of illegitimate bad laws on the books. Adding married homosexuals to the class of people who get spousal privileges does nothing to alleviate those bad laws, it just makes them affect slightly fewer people. I would much rather the laws be reworked or repealed than just papered over, as we see all too often.

  • kinnath||

    The wind and the rain will eventually turn an mountain into a molehill.

    It is important to fix stuff that is easy to fix as soon as possible and fix the other stuff later when it becomes possible.

  • ||

    It is important to fix stuff that is easy to fix as soon as possible and fix the other stuff later when it becomes possible.

    But if the problem is fixed for more people, they no longer care if it is fixed for the rest. It continues to bring more people under the fold of privilege while leaving the still affected people pissing in the wind with no widespread support.

  • Randian||

    You're denying a present rectification of justice based on a possible contingent outcome that you have no proof for?

  • John||

    He is either lying or talked to moron lawyers. The biological parent always gets the kids. You don't have to be married to have parental rights.

  • kinnath||

    An unmarried man, even with a paternity test in hand, has no parental rights until a court says so.

  • Paul.||

    They went around to a bunch of lawyers and asked them if they could guarantee that if one of them died, the other would get their kids. And when the lawyers couldn't do that,

    Huh, I find that hard to believe. I mean, I guess I just don't get it. It seems that if you set up a clear contract beforehand, it would be pretty clear. Especially considering that both would be (presumably) biologically related.

    I mean, it's not like people haven't been having children out of wedlock until recently... this has to have come up before.

  • Randian||

    the key word is "guarantee".

  • Zeb||

    Sometimes people tolerate things they don't support so that they can have a life.

  • wareagle||

    Why would you support marriage licensing unless you concede that the government owns you and your genitalia?
    -----------

    that's just a false analogy. To a great extent, a marriage license is a contract that is extremely valuable with things like property ownership if one spouse dies, custody of children, and so forth. The state often has a role in contracts, usually when one party feels the terms have been violated. Where things go wrong is when govt rewards or punishes people based on what should be personal decisions.

  • ||

    "The state often has a role in contracts, usually when one party feels the terms have been violated."

    The state has a role in enforcing contracts. They shouldn't have a role in issuing the terms of the contract.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I am against a marriage license for myself and my future spouse

    Given the reality of most women, I bet one fun token this means your future spouse is really your future ex-girlfriend.

  • ||

    The unmarried mother of my child, who I live with...she would disagree.

  • ||

    "Instead we see all the "let's just get the government out of marriage" people resorting to the equivalent of a "keep the government out of my medicare" argument."

    Whose this we? I believe the government should not be involved in marriage and am thus staunchly opposed to DOMA.

  • ||

    I don't think it's impossible, if enough people come around to the idea. My problem with the gay marriage movement is that they have never even tried to make this argument. It has always been about achieving the same status as heterosexual married couples, which, while noble, is very near-sighted.

    If the idea from the get-go was to get government out of the marriage business altogether, maybe it would have been more difficult, but it would have also opened up the fold to include non-married cohabitants, polygamists, and any other group of consenting adults who wished to have similar rights. The gay marriage movement comes across as selfish, in my opinion. It's certainly their right to be selfish, but it's why I am reluctant to support that movement when others are intentionally left out.

  • Rhywun||

    Polygamists and such should fight their own battles then. Those who aren't heterosexual monogamists don't really have any common cause other than being "outside the mainstream". It's not they all hang, or anything.

  • ||

    I agree that they could fight their own battles, but I think it would have behooved the gay marriage movement to reach out to everyone discriminated against by the standard marriage rules.

  • ||

    [I]t would have behooved the gay marriage movement to reach out to everyone discriminated against by the standard marriage rules

    It would've appeased some opponents and alienated others. SOCONS love them some slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy to sex with ducks.

    It was probably partially a strategic decision to avoid inflaming SOCONS, and partly because many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage start getting messy when you change the number of people involved more so than just making marriage gender neutral.

  • Paul.||

    SOCONS don't want to give gays marriage the same reason progressives want to take guns away from law abiding people.

    IT's about stinging your political opposition. SOCONS perceive gays as a bunch of liberals (which, most are) so that's an easy way to tweak them.

  • Rhywun||

    it would have behooved the gay marriage movement to reach out to everyone discriminated against by the standard marriage rules

    Not if they wanted some sort of results in the near term. As someone personally affected by this issue, I find the notion that I should consult with polygamists and other outcasts first, to be a little strange. Nothing against them - it just would not ever have occurred to me.

  • Fate||

    It has somewhat resulted in a minor divide between the LGBT rights groups and some of the poly groups that I know of.
    Kind of turned into a -

    "Oh, so your rights are more important than mine? Well, fuck you!" kind of thing.

  • ||

    "Polygamists and such should fight their own battles then."

    Or maybe we just shouldn't fight battles and let people be. As generic Brand stated, if the issue is really about equality, gay marriage recognition isn't going to solve that.

  • kinnath||

    Sure, the right thing to do is to remove the thousand and one privileges and protections, rights and responsibilties, benefits and obligations that exist in all the various levels of federal, state, and local laws.

    Since the probability of that actually happening ever approaches zero, the practical solution is to strip out any bias the law has in terms of who can or cannot file for a marriage license.

    And yes, that just piles more evil on top of the existing non-discrimination laws that prevent people from conducting business with only those other people they freely choose to do business with.

    Life's a bitch and then you die.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sure the government should get out of the transfer payment business altogether.

    But the chance of that happening approached zero, so it's only fair that the government give transfer payment to everyone. Failure to do so is discriminatory and hurts the feelings of the people that don't get free shit. I'm tired of being treated like a 2nd class citizen by the welfare state.

  • ||

    Oh man, this is classic. Allowing visitation rights and the same tax structuring as straights is now the equivalent of welfare payments! What a fun world you live in! How's that hate taste?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tax structuring is.

    As to the visitation rights - why should that automatically accrue to married people but not non married people.

    That's the discriminatory part.

  • ||

    As to the visitation rights - why should that automatically accrue to married people but not non married people.

    That's the discriminatory part.

    This is my point. Anyone should be able to draw up a contract allowing anyone else to visit them in the hospital, etc. The gay marriage movement seeks to get this privilege extended for their relationship, while leaving many other relationships in the wind.

  • kinnath||

    You cannot draw up a civil contract that replaces spousal immunity/privilege.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You cannot draw up a civil contract that replaces spousal immunity/privilege.

    So when SSM is the law of the land, what's to stop two straight guys from getting married to get spousal immunity / privilege?

  • kinnath||

    nothing

  • kinnath||

    Straight men & women do it all the time on prime time detective shows to avoid prosecution.

  • ||

    But why shouldn't one be allowed to do so? I take issue with the entire idea of spousal immunity.

    What if lifelong friends know about a crime but do not want to "snitch" on their friend? Why are they not entitled to the same protections against testifying?

    I understand there is immense precedent about spousal immunity/privilege, but if we're already talking about changing the definition of marriage, why not talk about changing these other things that make a difference for people besides just married couples?

  • kinnath||

    Why can you tell your sins to a priest, a doctor, or a therapist, but not your drinking buddies? They're the people most likely to be able to help you.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    BTW.

    Why the fuck do hospitals have those bizarre rules in the first place?

    How about you give them a list of the 5 people(or whatever) that get visitation rights when you're admitted.

    What's the problem with that?

    It really doesn't need a new law to be enacted, just some decency and competition.

  • ||

    He might have been talking about child visitation. You can contract out medical power of attorney that would include visitation. However, when you are married it is far simpler. Also Judges are more likely to enforce the contract. Then again that would still be an issue even when gay marriage is legal.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    At best, only one of the parents in a gay marriage will be the biological parent the other will be the equivalent of a step parent.

    And step parents don't automatically get visitation rights when they divorce the biological parent.

    Of course that's not an issue when both parties are decent human beings and can make arraingements without court orders.

  • Zeb||

    At best, only one of the parents in a gay marriage will be the biological parent the other will be the equivalent of a step parent.

    So adoptive parents are "the equivalent of a step parent"? That's some bullshit.

  • kinnath||

    Fuck off.

    I didn't use the word fair anywhere.

    The fundamental issue is simple. Iowa says that I am married to my wife and my brother is married to his husband. According to 200+ years of precedent and the 14th amendment, the federal government must allow both couples to file jointly on their federal tax returns.

    DOMA is pure social anxiety bullshit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm not a fan of DOMA.

    But the issue is not as straight forward as SSM advocates pretend.

  • ||

    As is usually the case, the opposite is true; reducing and ultimately removing the other barrier is best. Because sales taxes are an illegitimate imposition into a private commercial transaction, political pressure should be applied to repeal that mandate from existing establishments, rather than shackling those that are currently exempt.

    You know how well this argument is received by your average shop-local, AMZN-hating indie bookstore employee? NIKKI SMASH

  • ||

    So you are the shop-local, AMZN-hating indie bookstore employee? Or those people cause you to Hulk out?

  • ||

    Whenever Nicole starts Hulking out you need to throw baby animals in her way.

    Like THIS

  • ||

    Ah, koalas. Born with a clinging instinct! THEY REALLY LOVE YOU!

  • ||

    Planet Express Ship: Oh, honey, look! The tapirs! It says here that the babies lose their pajama-like coat after their first year. Isn't that interesting, honey?

    Bender: Yep, mind-numbingly interesting.

  • ||

    I'm so sorry that wuv confuses and infuriates you.

  • ||

    You're just jealous! Nobody loves you 'cause you're tiny and made of meat!

  • ||

    Do paraphrase a line from one of my favorite books, "Unlike people, animals don't pretend to love you because you feed them, they really do.

  • ||

    That's why I like turtles. You don't have to love them; they just do their own thing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No, she's just average.

  • ||

    I am the anti-shop-local, AMZN-loving, sometime-indie-bookstore-shopper. And now that my man doesn't work at one anymore I can almost unequivocally say those people cause me to hulk out.

  • sarcasmic||

    Whenever I get angry, I turn into this tiny weak monster.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9rmeLR7sRI

  • ||

    NIKKI SMASH

    I'm in love.

  • ||

    [T]he discrimination inherent in existing marriage law is best remedied by removing it altogether, or at least reducing the inequality by removing tax credits, estate planning benefits, and other incentives currently restricted to heterosexual couples whose unions are licensed by the state.

    I'm down. Are we doing away with spousal privilege under the Fifth Amendment and the ability to sponsor foreign spouses though? Tax credits and estate planning benefits are the two things that are really easy to level out. Let's talk about the things that are a bit more tangled.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Should two straight guys be able to get married for mutual benefit?

    If not, why not?

  • ||

    Sure.

  • Scarcity||

    Yes. Why not? Are you satisfied now?

  • ||

    If two straight dudes were so dedicated to each other that they'd get married so one could sponsor the other's visa, or so they wouldn't have to testify against one another, to the exclusion of those legal protections with their female significant others, then I say mazel tov!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If two straight dudes were so dedicated to each other...

    Why do they have to be dedicated to each other and how do you prove it.

    How about two criminals get married so that they can't testify against each other? Better yet, why stop a two, how about a gang of 10 guys gets polygamously married to further their criminal enterprise.

    The point being that I don't see why that privilege should exist for married people in the first place.

  • ||

    Well I think the dedication is implied since they're forgoing the possibility of legal benefits with their potential ACTUAL significant others.

    I really don't care if two bandits (not of the ass variety) were to get married to protect each other from having to testify. I think this will have limited impact on our justice system.

    Convince the other straights that they don't want/need spousal privilege, fix our immigration system so that it doesn't take 40 years to get in and make it so judges don't shit on private contracts when families object to them and we can start talking about how marriage is unnecessary. Until then your argument will ring hollow to the people who are directly affected by it.

  • ||

    The point being that I don't see why that privilege should exist for married people in the first place.

    That privilege should exist for everyone regardless of marital status. Forced testimony of anyone is a violation of their rights.

  • Zeb||

    Good point.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "two straight dudes...to the exclusion of those legal protections with their female significant others"

    So I take it you think the government shouldn't recognize polyamorous relationships?

  • ||

    Oh EvH, I knew there was something missing from this thread. You know I was just responding to VG's hypothetical, don't make this into a "gays don't support polygamy" thing. We had that debate up above and it was just as tiresome then as it has been every other time it's come up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So I take it you *oppose* poly rights? Or you're simply indifferent to them?

    Do you know any polyamorists? Would you be willing to explain to them why you wouldn't afford them "marriage equality?"

  • ||

    EvH, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. It's a very strange hobbyhorse for you to ride. I am not a polygamist and I'm in no way responsible for being the impetus for expanded poly rights. If some poly couples want to get a referendum going in CA I'll carry a clipboard and get signatures for them, but being gay and being a polygamist aren't the same thing. I'd absolutely prefer a system where civil marriage and all it entails were defined by contracts worked out by the involved parties (however many and of whatever gender they may be).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "If some poly couples want to get a referendum going in CA I'll carry a clipboard and get signatures for them, but being gay and being a polygamist aren't the same thing"

    Very good, but I thought the principle we were discussing was "get the government out of marriage," or at least "stop discriminating among different marital relationships." If that's the principle, how can it be invoked to protect gays but not polys?

    I think that a lot of SSM advocates genuinely think polys are icky and undeserving of equal marriage rights. Other SSM advocates support poly right but want their support to be on the down low, so it doesn't endanger their SSM agenda.

  • ||

    how can it be invoked to protect gays but not polys?

    It can't, and I'm not saying it should be. Gay people didn't rally for the right to marry before there was enough social acceptance of gays to make marriage seem reasonable. I know some polys and I have no problem with them having legal protection of their relationship, but they're probably going to have to sell themseleves to the greater public first.

    I think that a lot of SSM advocates genuinely think polys are icky and undeserving of equal marriage rights

    I'd need a citation for this EvH, I have yet to meet a gay person who thinks polys are "icky" (maybe impractical, but not icky).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I didn't even have to break a sweat to this article (which I may have linked to before):

    "Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

    "There isn't a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....61374.html

  • ||

    Clearly the staff of HuffPo has never seen an episode of Sister Wives

  • Michael S. Langston||

    So a socially unacceptable and illegal union is hidden and that hiding results in other negative consequences?

    What about health risks associated with sodomy?

    What if it could be shown (and I don't think there' any evidence - just asking) that gays are more abusive?

    Are these reasons to prevent their unions?

    Or should freedom of association work as well for everyone, gays and polygamists, as it does or monogamous heterosexual couples?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    Yes they should. Not sure why you thought this was going to be a big gotcha among libertarians.

  • Randian||

    Given that I don't inquire into people's sex lives, how would I know they are straight?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So at that point, what is the rational reason to give them spousal immunity in the first place?

  • Randian||

    Eh? What does that have to do with anything?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It means something if you put a guy in prison because he won't testify against his wife.

  • ||

    Indeed, EvH, just like it matters when you put a guy in prison because he won't testify against his husband.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was responding to the "deregulate marriage" crowd. I don't see how the would be able to preserve a spousal privilege for *anyone,* gay or straight. Maybe you can suggest something. Or do you support the testimonial privilege?

  • ||

    I know you were responding to the deregulate marriage crowd, but it underlines that there are important rights associated with marriage that we currently don't have a contractual equivalent for.

    I don't have a good solution for it. I'd love to see secular marriage rolled down to a purely civic institution (civil unions for all) or even better a purely contractual one. As I posted at the outset of the thread, the rights and obligations that get talked about when saying gays can just get a contract (taxes, hospital visitations) aren't the only rights associated with marriage, and I'm not 100% sure how to devolve those to a purely contract structure.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I'm not 100% sure how to devolve those to a purely contract structure."

    Do you know whether your "purely contract structure" would allow some version of the spousal privilege?

  • ||

    No I don't, hence "not 100% sure"

    Do you think gay couples are deserving of spousal privilege, or do you think that gay relationships are unequally situated to straight relationships in the context of trial law?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "deserving of spousal privileges"

    Excellent framing! I am constantly impressed by the superior public-relations skills of the SSM advocates. They are kicking ass and taking names with their "don't you love me?" rhetoric.

    No, as I explained, I don't believe in same-sex couples being spouses, so that would logically entail them not having spousal privileges.

  • ||

    I really don't give a shit if you love me EvH, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that that's my motivation.

    deserving of spousal privileges

    I meant this explicitly in terms of fifth amendment. If you have a problem with a husband being thrown in jail for not testifying against his wife, but not if it's a husband then there really is no point in talking to you.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't give up on me yet! I a big supporter of the Fifth Amendment privilege of not testifying against yourself. The only problem is when the prosecution gives you immunity to force you to testify against someone you know.

    I find it revolting that a prosecutor would try and force someone to testify against his friends, whether it's a sexual partner or a war buddy or whatnot. Generally, the Fifth Amendment would be adequate protection. If you want the extra protection afforded to married people, then you need to be married. And this is to state the question of the definition of marriage, not answer it.

    And the "deregulate marriage" crowd (above) seems to be interested in abolishing the privilege altogether. Yet you're more pissed at me than your own allies.

  • ||

    I see a hierarchy of good EvH:
    Radical restructuring of the citizen's relationship with the government so that marriage becomes a legal non-issue (there are details that need to be hammered out such as 5A spousal privilege)

    Equality before the law with regards to marriage (I don't support non-discrimination ordinances)

    The status quo.

    You seem to believe that I, and whatever relationship I enter into are not similarly situated to you or a relationship that you might enter into. You believe that my relationships are less than yours and that it shouldn't be afforded legal protections that you see fit to cloak yourself in. That is absolutely your right, and I'll defend to the death your right to believe it, but it also makes you a waste of my time to talk to.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Gosh, when did you first realize that I was against SSM? :(

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Radical restructuring of the citizen's relationship with the government so that marriage becomes a legal non-issue (there are details that need to be hammered out such as 5A spousal privilege)"

    Yes, that's one way to put it. How do you imagine that, in the real world, the government will adapt to the sort of reform you propose?

    Do you think the government will hesitate to put you in prison for failing to testify against your same-sex partner? Or would it content you to think that at least your neighbor in prison is locked up for failing to testify against his opposite-sex partner?

    Who do you think will be more likely to defend your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Someone like me, who sees it as an absolute right hallowed by tradition, or someone who thinks that the meaning of the Constitution evolves over time to adapt to the alleged needs of "teh people" - and the Eric Holders of the world will say that the needs of "teh people" require forcing people to testify against their will.

  • Randian||

    Wow, EvH, that's a whole new level of sociopathy. "I'm really your friend in this!"

    Yeah, right.

  • ||

    Aww the frowny face makes it cute!

    I have no problem with you being against SSM, I know and respect plenty of people who are uncomfortable with "marriage", but believe that gay relationships should have various levels of legal protection. If you think that a husband should be protected from testifying against his wife, but that shouldn't be afforded to a couple purely because they're gay, then we have no fundamental common ground to have a discussion and therefor we waste our time by arguing with each other.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "If you think that a husband should be protected from testifying against his wife, but that shouldn't be afforded to a couple purely because they're gay"

    I think you're forgetting the Fifth Amendment. Generally, forcing someone to admit that he knows about criminal activity by his lover means forcing him to put himself in a legally delicate position, where he himself is vulnerable to prosecution. Hence, absent a grant of immnity, I don't see how anyone can, consistently with the Fifth Amendment, be forced to divulge information about alleged criminal activity by his lover.

  • ||

    Should a man and a woman who are not in love be able to get married???

    Oh wait...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    When it becomes all about government goodies, why wouldn't some people do that?

  • ||

    Um... are you seriously this dense?

    Nothing was stopping a man and a woman from doing this. So why would you think this would become a problem if two men could do it too?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So what is the rationale for government benefits to marriage when anyone can do it?

    I know to old spinster sisters that live together.

    Should they be able to get married for the government bennies? If yes, great, but what the rationale for providing them benefits for getting that peice of paper.

  • ||

    So what is the rationale for government benefits to marriage when anyone can do it?

    The same rationale for government benefits when only a man and woman can do it. What exactly is the difference between two men doing this and a man and a woman doing it? If there isn't one, then your argument as an argument against SSM fails.

  • Rabban||

    Pretty sure the govt. bennies for the straight married couples are ostensibly to promote the unity of a biological family which has been shown to have positive social outcomes. Expanding this to any and all pairings does not have a positive social outcome; it only serves to use the power of the state to promote homosexuality. When this is combined with the expanding definition of civil rights, which already intrudes upon natural rights of association, the freedoms in the 1st amendment will be further eroded. But it is all in the name of equality, so if you disagree you are a hate filled bigot.

  • ||

    Except these aren't benefits for biological families, they are benefits for couples. A heterosexual couple may or may not have children. Or they might adopt children. So there is no relevant difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples vis-a-vis these benefits.

    And isn't the state promoting heterosexuality by excluding homosexuals? How would it be promoting homosexuality by recognizing both types?

    The shallowness of your arguments shows you either lack basic reasoning skills or you just have a problem with gays being treated equally. Which one is it?

  • ||

    "Are we doing away with spousal privilege under the Fifth Amendment and the ability to sponsor foreign spouses though? "

    Let's tackle this one. Noone is forced to testify against anybody under the Fifth Amendment, and we loosen immigration requirements. Done.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I believe given a grant of immunity - you no longer have this protection to not testify against others.

    Except spousal privilege (and executive privilege).

  • Broseph of Invention||

    You know how they "leveled the playing field" for clothing retailers here in Minnesota? They got rid of sales tax for clothing. While I hate special tax treatment for certain areas of commerce, I'd still much rather they just get rid of a tax instead of creating a new one, if unfairness is a concern.

  • sarcasmic||

    In Maine we have what's called a "use tax."

    If you buy something online or out of state, don't pay sales tax on it, and use it in the state, then they claim you owe them money.

  • ||

    Most states have this. That was another thing I had fun trying to explain to my boyfriend. "So...you're saying they're saying they're taxing you for...using something?" I'm saying fuck you, that's why, honey.

  • ||

    Good thing that's almost entirely unenforceable.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never buy anything online or out of state. Never ever ever.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Especially with a sales tax free state right next door. I remember as a kid going to the Kittery Trading Post and buying something for $.99. I thought the guy was trying to rip me off when he asked for $1.06. Later, I became a libertarian, and learned it wasn't him doing the rip off.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm in the central part of the state, so "next door" is three hours of driving round trip. But yeah. I know what you mean.
    I haven't been to the KTP in a while. Probably because I can't leave the place without spending at least a hundred bucks.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Pennsylvania has gone so far as to include a table that tells you how much money they expect you to throw at them to leave you alone if you don't want to be bothered to calculate the actual use tax, which is at least refreshing in it's honest about what's actually going on.

  • Brandon||

    OT: Slate has jumped on the Kristof bandwagon:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....tical.html

  • John||

    Does anywhere here honestly believe that court mandated gay marriage will not quickly turn into government coercion? We have already seen this with the suit against photographer who refused to do the wedding photos with the gay couple. How long before churches are sued for not doing gay marriages and employers are sued for not recognizing same sex marriages?

    I understand fully that many libertarians hate strict Christians with a purple passion. But isn't the point of being a "libertarian" defending the rights of those you don't like? Shit everyone loves the rights of the people they like.

  • ||

    It's funny how absolutely terrified of this you are. Oh my god Christians WILL BE PERSECUTED!!! Are you fucking kidding me? Get off the fucking cross already. As that Vikings punter said, gay marriage isn't going to affect you at all, so stop your hysterical pants-wetting.

  • John||

    God you are a fucking moron. You really are. I don't give a shit about gay marriage on a personal level. I was in a God lesbian wedding not two years ago. And guess what, it was in a state that didn't have gay marriage. Big fucking deal. They still got married. They will married as far as I was concerned and they were concerned. Why do they need the state for?

    You are the biggest culture warrior on here. You love the idea of sticking it to people you don't like. You know what? I don't really like the strict Christians either. But unlike you, I don't think whether I like them or not has any bearing on whether they have a right to act on what they feel is their conscience.

    You are the biggest authoritarian culture warrior on here. You really are.

  • ||

    Projection suits you so perfectly, John. Really, truly perfectly. Keep telling me about yoursel...I mean me. Really, keep going. It's extremely illuminating.

  • John||

    The truth hurts doesn't it? You hate the government on every other issue. But boy, here we have an issue that allows you to stick to someone you don't like, and you are all about your government granted rights. Scream projection all you want. But your argument speaks for itself.

  • ||

    You know very well that we oppose anti-discrimination laws.

  • John||

    You and know very well those laws are not going to change and this is going to result in exactly the things I mention.

    Bur Reasonites like Episiarch view that as a bonus. They are so in love with sticking it to the other and fighting the culture war they don't give a shit about their actual principles.

  • ||

    Projection, thy name is John. How fitting.

  • Randian||

    You can't hold liberty hostage over some other law somewhere else.

    This mirrors the immigration/welfare state debate exactly.

  • John||

    You can't hold liberty hostage over some other law somewhere else.

    How are we holding liberty hostage? Gays can and do get married now. Liberty was being held hostage when sodomy was illegal. This debate has nothing to do with liberty. This debate is about the ability to use government power to force people to accept gay marriages. The only reason some Libertarians can't see that is because they want to stick it to people who object to homosexuality so badly they just can't help themselves.

  • Randian||

    Government has to administer its benefits fairly, John. This is an unfair and superficial bias in the administration of benefits.

    I mean, would you support a law that says white people cannot get food stamps? If not, why not?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The government issues all benefits in a discriminatory way, it's the whole point of government benefits.

  • Randian||

    You're equivocating on the word "discriminatory"

    And I think I asked a pretty clear question - would you support a law that says white people cannot get food stamps? It's a simple question.

  • John||

    Not everyone gets government benefits equally. We do "discriminate". The question is what is an appropriate basis to discriminate. That is at heart what this whole thing is about. If "gay" becomes a prohibited basis, then we can throw out the 1st Amendment and religious freedom right there.

    The fact that you and I don't like people who object to homosexuality, doesn't mean that they don't have a right to be that way. This is issue is a real watershed that divides people who actually believe in liberty and people who claim to believe so but actually just want to fight the culture war.

    And I am sorry, believing in the "some day we will get the libertarian unicorn and all anti-discrimination laws will go away" doesn't cut it as an answer when the reality is going to be so much different.

  • Randian||

    Was that a yes or a no?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    If "gay" becomes a prohibited basis, then we can throw out the 1st Amendment and religious freedom right there.

    And having federal law define marriage as between one man and one woman isn't a 1st amendment violation? Or is it just a coincidence that it happens to be the exact same definition that Christians use?

  • John||

    And having federal law define marriage as between one man and one woman isn't a 1st amendment violation?

    Does it say all other definitions are illegal? Can you still call yourself married and live as a married couple?

    If so, then it doesn't violate anything.

  • Randian||

    I have to wonder why John continues to support forcing me to recognize his marriage.

    Why does John hate freedom of association?

  • Marla Singer||

    Are there religions that use a different definition? In what way, then, would that be curtailing someone's freedom of religion?

    For the current purposes, let's set aside polygamy, which is (to me) a pretty obvious violation of the 1st, but Mormons are, like, freaky or something.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And I think I asked a pretty clear question - would you support a law that says white people cannot get food stamps? It's a simple question.

    Whether I support it or not is irrelevant.

    The law already says that you cannot gett food stamps unless you meet requirements x, y & Z. That's discriminatory against people that don't meet those criteria.

    Following your logic, there should be no restrictions on who or how many people can get married.

    Which eliminates any rational reason for it to exist as government policy.

  • Randian||

    Which eliminates any rational reason for it to exist as government policy.

    Uhhh...OK then. You win?

    Whether I support it or not is irrelevant.

    It's not irrelevant. it's inconvenient to your point and that's why you aren't answering.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Randian| 3.27.13 @ 1:47PM |#

    Which eliminates any rational reason for it to exist as government policy.

    Uhhh...OK then. You win?

    So then the opponents that see this as a threat to marriage as it currently exists are not crazy.

  • Marla Singer||

    No, it is pretty irrelevant for the reasons he already stated, i.e., that the government already does discriminate in who can receive food stamps and every other benefit program, including tax structures. The question, so long as we have these myriad benefits, isn't whether to discriminate; it's how. Whether sex is an appropriate tool for discriminating wrt marriage depends greatly on what you think government sanctions of marriage are for, i.e., why they exist. Food stamps exist to help poor people (theoretically), so the appropriate metric for discrimination is income (again, theoretically). The various government regulations involving marriage exist...for what? How you answer that question implies the answer to what an appropriate metric for discrimination in marriage rules is. People who think those rules are essentially *for* nothing or who think they exist merely to put an official imprimatur on a personal relationship are going to have a widely different notion of who should qualify than people who think the primary goal of state sanctioning of marriage is protecting stable homes for children. Please note that I am not taking either position in this particular comment. In reality, I don't give two shits about this issue except for how stupid it seems to make people.

  • ||

    Which eliminates any rational reason for it to exist as government policy.

    DING DING DING

    If the gay marriage movement's effect is just to let gay people file taxes jointly, great. But if it undermines the entire rationale for marriage licensing, GREAT.

  • ||

    I know, let the legal institution crumble and burn, and I will dance on its ashes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I doubt that the socialists will let it go that far. And anyway the next step is to use equal protection lawsuits to destroy religious institutions.

  • ||

    "would you support a law that says white people cannot get food stamps?"

    No, just as I don't support a law that says gay people can't get married. Being that I am against the issuance of food stamps by government, would I be in favor of expanding the food stamp program as a means of reducing the described inequality? No. I'd say stop taking my money to give people food stamps, just like I do now.

  • John||

    Because race is a protected class. Being gay isn't. That is the heart of this whole thing. If you say gay marriage is a fundamental right, you are saying being gay is a protected class in the same way race is. Once you do that, you have effectively made objecting to homosexuality illegal. Any business that says "we don't recognize gay marriages" is now in violation of the law.

    Do you not doubt for a moment that is the end game of the liberals who are pushing this?

  • Randian||

    Wait, was that a yes or a no?

  • John||

    Read the answer. The answer is you can't just give benefits to white people because race is a protected class. Being gay isn't. And the entire issue boils down should being gay be treated like being black. I say no.

  • Randian||

    OK, so no. What's weird to me about that is that it would probably immediately reduce your tax burden and less people would be receiving State benefits. In other words, a restriction on white people receiving welfare increases your liberty and reduces the State's burden into your life. But you still say no? Why?

    Saying "race is a protected class" is not an answer, by the way. I know that it is. I want to know why it SHOULD be according to YOU.

  • John||

    I say no because I don't base my decisions relating to rights on what produces less taxes. And more importantly, the problem here is that gay marriage will allow the government to force people to act against their religious beliefs. That is a problem. Why do you think that is ok?

  • Randian||

    I say no because I don't base my decisions relating to rights on what produces less taxes.

    What you're doing now is pretty close. You are arguing that the restrictions on liberty that will necessarily follow the granting of the martial privilege to gays justifies denying the grant.

    In other words, you are willing to discriminate on the basis of what produces less burden on you and groups you're interested in.

  • John||

    In other words, you are willing to discriminate on the basis of what produces less burden on you and groups you're interested in.

    No. We have this thing called the 1st Amendment and religious freedom. It has nothing to do with my personal interest in anything. Why is it so hard for you to understand that maybe someone can defend other people's rights on principle?

    If people don't have the religious freedom to object to homosexuality, what religious freedom do they have?

  • Randian||

    Any law that exists that denies people the right to object to homosexuality, I oppose.

    Likewise, I oppose the arbitrary discrimination in the handing out of marriage licenses.

    What is that is so hard about THAT to understand?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Let me re-post this fascinating article, which simply shows in one state the clear connection between SSM and interference with private businesses. (I would like to claim that I find articles like these with some abstruse power of seeking out obscure stories, but in reality, I just do a fairly random Google search.)

    "The fate of gay marriage legislation in Rhode Island could hinge on the exemptions it affords religious groups that oppose it, the state Senate president said Friday, a day after the House overwhelmingly passed the bill....

    "In legislative testimony, a lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Church raised concerns that Catholic schools and charitable organizations could be forced to change employee benefit policies if compelled to recognize the same-sex spouses of employees.

    "The bill passed by the House states that religious institutions may set their own rules for who is eligible to marry within their faith and specifies that no religious leader can be forced to officiate at any marriage ceremony."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....e/1865161/

    No exemption for private, for-profit businesses - and even the exemption they conceded to religious groups is so far quite limited.

  • Zeb||

    What if people have religious beliefs objecting to mixed race marriage? Or to heterosexual marriage?

    The government is already allowed to force people to act against their religious beliefs.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    First we need to hold the line on religious freedom, then roll back the precedent which limit that freedom.

    I certainly don't think that the Nation of Islam should be forced to hire a black employee with a white wife.

  • ||

    Because race is a protected class. Being gay isn't.

    Except where it is.

    The whole "photographers will be forced to take pictures of gay weddings" thing ignores the fact that in the states where this happened, photographers are also forced to take pictures of gay birthday parties that are overtly gay, and that religious institutions who provide "public accommodations" are already forced to rent space out for gay birthday parties that are overtly gay, etc.

  • John||

    Nikki,

    If states want to make "gays" a protected class, then they have pretty much decided that religious freedom doesn't much matter anymore. If you don't have the right to act on your conscience, you don't have religious freedom. Those laws are wrong.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The end point for progressive is to use SSM and equal protection laws to destroy religious institutions as the currently exist.

    And there is US precedent for doing that with the way that the Mormon church was persecuted over polygamy in the 19th century.

  • ||

    So those of us who want access to a legal institution and have no interest in darkening the doorstep of evangelical florists or catholic bakers should be punished because there's a monolithic homo-athiest-liberal agenda that is out to eat the church?

    I suppose that's fair.

  • John||

    Jese,

    You can get married now. Nothing is stopping you. Why do you need government force to get married?

  • Randian||

    You cannot discriminate in the handing out of government benefits.

    How many times need this be repeated?

  • ||

    Well Jhon, nothing is stopping me from getting married, but then nothing is forcing my theoretical husband from being forced to testify against me, or being deported.

    We've covered that, and I'd prefer not to get carpal tunnel because you willfully ignore the value afforded by that piece of paper that's beyond just basic tax issues or twisting the arm of some B&B owners.

  • John||

    Well Jhon, nothing is stopping me from getting married, but then nothing is forcing my theoretical husband from being forced to testify against me, or being deported.

    Then change those laws to recognize domestic partners. You can solve all of those problems without resorting to coercion. But what would be the fun in that?

  • Zeb||

    Then change those laws to recognize domestic partners.

    How is that any different from allowing gay marriage?

  • John||

    Zeb,

    They are different because they would just change the benefits not force private employees to recognize marriages. And also, unmarried straight couples would get those benefits too.

  • ||

    Then change those laws to recognize domestic partners. You can solve all of those problems without resorting to coercion. But what would be the fun in that?

    Hey now, I'm fine making a clear difference between secular and sacred marriage, but American jurisprudence won't allow me to do that. If you create a federal institution that is identical to marriage even under constitutionally protected (5A) rights and call it a domestic partnership, the SCOTUS is going to shit a brick about separate but equal and it'll end up marriage.

    If straights feel comfortable rolling all secular marriages into Civil Unions and leaving "marriage" to churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc then we have struck a winning deal. Until then you're being an ass.

  • ||

    If straights feel comfortable rolling all secular marriages into Civil Unions and leaving "marriage" to churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc then we have struck a winning deal.

    Hear hear. That would be delightful.

  • ||

    Then change those laws to recognize domestic partners. You can solve all of those problems without resorting to coercion. But what would be the fun in that?

    You know, it's pretty shitty of you to cast aspersions on motivations here. This isn't DailyKos.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "those of us who want access to a legal institution and have no interest in darkening the doorstep of evangelical florists or catholic bakers"

    ...should lobby the various state legislatures to provide an exemption from their SSM laws for the benefit of private secular business owners, as opposed to an (often limited) protection of religious bodies only.

    From the secular libertarian point of view, is there something special about religious bodies which entitles them to greater protection than secular, for-profit businesses? As an H&R denizen, I know that the answer is clearly "no."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ooh, you're not supposed to mention the link between SSM and polygamy!

  • ||

    Yes, those laws are wrong. But I don't see how they are more wrong than any other anti-discrimination laws.

    My religion says I must discriminate against women. I DON'T HAVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

  • John||

    Sure they are Nikki. They are much worse than other discrimination laws. Forcing people to associate with black people doesn't violate anyone's religion. Of course in some parts of the South a hundred years ago it did. And those religious beliefs are gone now. And doing that to the existing objections to homosexuality, is the goal here.

    Maybe you like that goal and think it is good. That is your right. But please don't pretend that doing so has anything to do with "liberty".

  • ||

    John, I don't like that goal. I am strongly, seriously opposed to anti-discrimination laws. But how the hell would you know if forcing people to associate with black people violates anyone's religion? What is the difference between "religion" and "sincerely held philosophical belief"?

    If you actually think gays being a protected class is different from anything else being a protected class, that just means you think the government should protect people's religious beliefs by deciding what counts as a legitimate religion. And I'm not okay with that either.

  • John||

    John, I don't like that goal. I am strongly, seriously opposed to anti-discrimination laws.

    Well I am sorry, but when you support court mandated gay marriage, you are embracing that goal.

    If you actually think gays being a protected class is different from anything else being a protected class, that just means you think the government should protect people's religious beliefs by deciding what counts as a legitimate religion.

    And that of course is a problem inherent in any society that protects religious freedom. Once you say "freedom of religion" the courts or the legislature has to decide just what religion means.

  • ||

    And that of course is a problem inherent in any society that protects religious freedom. Once you say "freedom of religion" the courts or the legislature has to decide just what religion means.

    Right, John, and that's why this book exists.

  • Zeb||

    the courts or the legislature has to decide just what religion means.

    In which case freedom of religion is impossible.

  • Zeb||

    Forcing people to associate with black people doesn't violate anyone's religion

    How do you know? You are aware of the complete religious beliefs of every person in the country? Even if that were the case, it is possible to have a religious objection to associating with black people. Freedom of religion must include freedom for every possible religious belief, even if only one person ever holds it. It is not about protecting established religions. It is about freedom of conscience. What extant, established religions believe should be completely irrelevant. Otherwise you end up with a situation where government gets to pick and choose what constitutes a "legitimate" religion. I've just invented a new religion which objects to people named John being allowed to get married. Stop oppressing me by forcing me to acknowledge your marriage.

  • Randian||

    I would think Mormons would have a colorable (*ahem*) claim to not associating with black people.

  • ||

    would you support a law that says white people cannot get food stamps?

    Yes. All reductions in theft are an increase in liberty. Fairness has no bearing.

  • Randian||

    That's a consistent (if terrible) answer.

    So you would support it if it was written into law about blacks? Or Jewish people?

  • ||

    You cannot discriminate in the handing out of government benefits.

    Discrimination is ok. Not nice, but ok.

  • ||

    So you would support it if it was written into law about blacks? Or Jewish people?

    That would increase liberty, but I wouldn't support because I'd be afraid of the consequences. I'm not obligated to increase liberty, only to refrain from decreasing it.

  • Randian||

    Right so...take that to its conclusion here. I am concerned about the consequences of a government that can shower its blessings upon people based on the color of the skin and the orientation of their sex.

  • wareagle||

    That would increase liberty, but I wouldn't support because I'd be afraid of the consequences.
    -------------
    well, that is just a new shade of fucked up. You support discrimination against whites because of "privilege," I guess, but not agaisnt blacks because, who knows, they might go post-rodney king LA?

  • ||

    I am concerned about the consequences of a government that can shower its blessings upon people based on the color of the skin and the orientation of their sex.

    The rest is irrelevant.

  • Randian||

    You say that, but you just got done saying "I wouldn't support because I'd be afraid of the consequences"

    When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

  • Calidissident||

    Liberty is not possible without equal treatment from the government.

  • ||

    Using strike-outs is more fun than accurate.

    All reductions in government are good. All increases in government are bad. Any combination of the two that includes non-zero increases is bad (such as SSM).

    No one is obligated to support or oppose either. But everyone is obligated to refrain from supporting increases.

  • Randian||

    All reductions in government are good.

    Except for the ones that bar black people and jewish folks from getting welfare, apparently.

  • ||

    Except for the ones that bar black people and jewish folks from getting welfare, apparently.

    Barring black people and Jews from welfare is good. Barring everyone is better. I only support the latter.

  • Randian||

    This is because it's inconvenient to do otherwise.

  • ||

    This is because it's inconvenient counter productive to do otherwise.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    excellent reply

  • ||

    well, that is just a new shade of fucked up. You support discrimination against whites because of "privilege," I guess, but not agaisnt blacks because, who knows, they might go post-rodney king LA?

    White people are no more or less likely to respond to perceived injustice with barbarism. You're putting words in my mouth.

  • SugarFree||

    Or the drug war/taxpayer funded healthcare argument.

  • ||

    Look, I think you're right that we're going to have problems with government coercion forcing people to do things they shouldn't have to do. But we'll fight those battles when we get to them.

  • John||

    And honey I love you and the check is in the mail. Give me a fucking break. The liberals who are making this happen won't be using this to stick it to everyone in sight.

  • ||

    Well I for one will be defending the rights of the bigots when the time comes.

  • John||

    You are not defending their rights now. Why would you then?

  • ||

    You are not defending their rights now.

    That's a lie. That lawsuits might occur in the future if the government recognizes gay marriage doesn't mean you are supporting those lawsuits by arguing the government should recognize gay marriage. You're being as stupid as those who say we need gun restrictions for teh chilrunz.

  • John||

    Might occur? They already have. And once more they have to occur. That is what government marriage is, the right to force everyone to recognize your marriage.

  • ||

    Yup and owning a gun harms children.

  • ||

    I'm curious John, what percentage of married gays do you think will be involved in freedom of association lawsuits?

    And what percentage of married gays will use the non-coercive perks that straight people get?

  • John||

    Who cares heller? Once gay marriage becomes the law, every business in America will either have to give benefits to gay spouses or not give benefits at all. If that goes against their religious beliefs, tough shit.

    That is what this is about, the right to force those people to recognize gay marriages.

  • ||

    Again John, you're implying that every gay couple will force every business to do business with them. If you actually believe that, you're retarded. Just as not every gun owner shoots children, not every gay couple wants to force businesses to associate with them. You're spittle-flecked paranoia is no better than that of the anti-gun loons.

  • Marla Singer||

    What does it matter that it isn't *every* gay couple? Not every woman or black or disabled vet will sue either (not even close); how many is enough to be a serious impediment to freedom of association?

  • ||

    It matters because that is what John is implying and it's wrong. If you are asking outside of the context of the conversation above, then my answer is that adding a few lawsuits to the already existing pile will not tip the balance from "nonserious impediment to freedom" to "serious impediment of freedom." And if the already existing lawsuits is already a serious impediment to freedom, then adding a few more to the pile won't make it a significantly more serious impediment to freedom.

  • Zeb||

    Well, the problem there is that businesses have to give benefits to spouses. If that is even true. Do employers who give health benefits have to provide benefits to spouses as well?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What percentage of disabled people are engaged in ADA lawsuits?

  • ||

    Every. Single. One.

  • kbolino||

    So, one the one hand, the fact that anti-discrimination laws are not going away can be a justification for your position, but on the other hand, the fact that marriage laws are not going away cannot be used as a justification for the opposing position?

    Your arguments lack consistency.

  • ||

    Yup.

  • John||

    They are perfectly consistent. Let me put it to you simply. Liberals are going to use gay marriage to make being a conservative Christian or in any way publicly objecting to homosexuality effectively illegal.

    Sorry, that is not liberty. It may make you feel good sticking it to people you don't like. But it is not liberty.

  • ||

    You're a lawyer, you should know how these things work. We'll have to have an incident that goes to trial to establish a precedent, and my desire would be for something like that to go to the Supreme Court, where they say that yes, people have a first amendment right to say nasty things about homosexuals.

  • John||

    That won't be how it works. And beyond that being able to say it doesn't matter. What matters is being able to act.

  • kbolino||

    1. I just demonstrated that no, it was not consistent.

    2. Your response is that factional politics trumps logical reasoning?

    3. This is not an argument about liberty, it is an argument about equality.

    If you wanted to make an argument about liberty, then you would talk about abolishing all government interference in private affairs, including the current system of opposite-sex marriage licensing and regulation.

  • John||

    3. This is not an argument about liberty, it is an argument about equality.

    And how do you achieve "equality" without coercion?

  • Zeb||

    Equality under the law.

  • kbolino||

    Coercion already exists. You've already accepted it as a premise. You cannot argue that coercion is good when it accomplishes what you want but is bad when it accomplishes what you don't want.

  • sarcasmic||

    I supported SSM when I thought it was about equality under the law. I withdrew my support when I realized it was about lawsuits.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Me too.

  • Randian||

    The existence of some of the latter (Lawsuit filers) does not render the former (equality) moot.

  • ||

    True, but it does make it less genuine, and therefore worthy of removing one's support for it.

  • Randian||

    Not really. Do you have any doubt that there are racists who support the repeal of the 1964 CRA restrictions on freedom of association?

    How does their idiocy make me wrong?

  • sarcasmic||

    If you oppose restrictions on freedom of association then you are racist?

  • Randian||

    Reading comprehension. Have some.

    The fact that there are litigious individuals in support of SSM does not render the justice of that position moot.

  • sarcasmic||

    If there's a chance of putting money into the pockets of parasitic trial lawyers, I oppose it. No matter what it is.

  • Randian||

    That has to be about the dumbest reason to oppose SSM I have ever heard.

    You do realize that litigating over legitimate, real rights gives "trial lawyers" money too, right?

  • sarcasmic||

    I support open borders, but not while there is a welfare state. Get rid of anti-discrimination laws and I might be more sympathetic to SSM.

  • Randian||

    I support open borders, but not while there is a welfare state. Get rid of anti-discrimination laws and I might be more sympathetic to SSM.

    You can do that to any liberty, so you can simultaneously claim to be a libertarian but look and act like Team Red.

  • sarcasmic||

    So I don't pass your purity test. What's new?

  • ||

    You can do that to any liberty, so you can simultaneously claim to be a libertarian but look and act like Team Red.

    That's pretty much Ann Coulter's position on drug leglization.

    She'll start supporting it as soon as we end welfare and public healthcare.

  • ||

    Do you have any doubt that there are racists who support the repeal of the 1964 CRA restrictions on freedom of association?

    How does their idiocy make me wrong?

    Their idiocy does not make you wrong, but it does not make you right either. I am not a racist or a homophobe; that doesn't mean I think the gay marriage movement is more noble than it really is, either.

    Fight for gay marriage. I wish people who do the best of luck. That doesn't change my opinion that they are fighting the wrong fight.

  • Zeb||

    I don't give a fuck about what the "gay marriage movement" is or what it supports or how noble it is. I think the simple recognition of same sex marriages is appropriate given the current state of the law.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Good thing you're in charge.... or people with your beliefs are, because in the world were you openly support discrimination by the government in hopes of increasing freedom, you should understand that those same arguments will be used to kill your pet freedoms when your opponents take charge at a later date.

    Short version: the government which can tell you you cannot buy a 32 oz. soda also has the power to force you to buy a 32 oz. soda tomorrow instead.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The existence of some of the latter (Lawsuit filers) does not render the former (equality) moot.

    So here's my grand bargain.

    SSM in exchange for eliminating all equal protection laws, except those that apply to governments.

    You think any progressive would agree to such a deal?

  • John||

    Of course not. And no such deal is on or will ever be on the table. But that won't stop "libertarians" from agreeing to a deal that ends religious liberty in the name of equality, liberty and the culture war.

  • Randian||

    now you're just being an idiot.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why, because you know this issue isn't about expanding liberty.

  • Randian||

    I don't have magical Team Red Mind Reading abilities.

  • Randian||

    The simple reality is that no one can have true freedom of conscience, because said freedom of conscience would lead to a lot of people declaring that government violates their conscience and they want no part of it.

    That's the real sticky wicket here.

  • ||

    That's the real sticky wicket here.

    Yep.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Now you're moving goal posts.

    Answer the question of why my proposal is stupid.

  • Randian||

    Your proposal is great. John was the one being an idiot.

    Sorry for confusion.

  • Zeb||

    Your proposal is great, but you are right that no progressive would accept it. Most conservatives probably wouldn't either.

  • Zeb||

    Bingo. Which is why I think that the best implementation of freedom of religion is to treat religious organizations no differently from any other social club or charity. Freedom of religion has to mean that religion gets no special treatment, or else you need someone to decide what is or is not religion, and then no one has freedom of religion unless they are part of a state approved religion. Don't believe it? Talk to the weirdos with the pot smoking religion and see how well their religious freedom is respected.

  • Randian||

    or the peyote-taking Indians, or the tax-avoiding Amish, or the draft-dodging Quakers...

  • ||

    Or, as in the book I linked above, the people who wanted to have headstones in a cemetery. Seriously. Religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom in general, is just purely fucked by government. I mean...duh.

  • John||

    So because the peyote taking Indians were unfairly screwed by the government, we should continue that tradition here. Got it.

  • ||

    No, the point is that it is not actually possible to have a government and true freedom of conscience, and the bigger government is, the less possible it is.

  • Randian||

    He really is too dumb to get the point, nicole. You may as well be explaining Virgil to a chimp or calculus to Joe Biden.

  • Zeb||

    Actually, I think that the peyote taking Indians are the only ones not getting screwed (unless something has changed recently).

    But you are missing the point. You can't have religious freedom if there is some arbiter of what is or is not a legitimate religious belief or activity.

  • sarcasmic||

    But that won't stop "libertarians" from agreeing to a deal that ends religious liberty in the name of equality, liberty and the culture war.

    Not all libertarians are atheists, and not all atheists are anti-religion.

  • JW||

    We have already seen this with the suit against photographer who refused to do the wedding photos with the gay couple.

    So, IOW, nothing changes. Collectivism marches on.

    The violence inherent in the system isn't going away if the gheys can't marry.

  • Zeb||

    I am perfectly capable of supporting both equal treatment of all married couples under the law and the right of people to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason, religious or not.

  • ||

    Not according to John. John is the only one brave enough to connect the dots, to make the connections no one else dares to make (or see)!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm in this odd position of having read much more than I've written on this site in years, and now am constantly agreeing with John... but

    *IF* SSM is legalized under "equal protection" then the same laws which prevent your local restaurant or pool hall or whatever to discriminate against the current protected classes (race, religion, etc..) will certainly be used from any newly minted protected group.

    IE - equal protection will force businesses, through legal protections, from discriminating against a class which they currently can discriminate against.

    Personally I don't believe any business should discriminate for any reason other than money and most businesses do not.

    But in the past, libertarians held a position that current businesses *should* be allowed to discriminate for race/religion/etc if they wish.

    They backed this up with the fact that Jim Crow laws were forced on many businesses in the South.

    Not that the South wasn't full of racists, but that there were private businesses willing to "integrate" but unable to do so by law.

    I don't honestly see how libertarians can now not see the connection between this and the likely issues to exist should SSM be specifically legalized thru an equal protection argument.

  • ||

    *IF* SSM is legalized under "equal protection" then the same laws which prevent your local restaurant or pool hall or whatever to discriminate against the current protected classes (race, religion, etc..) will certainly be used from any newly minted protected group.

    This may or may not happen regardless of what the court does with SSM, so the connection is hardly causal as you describe it. Gay couples can already sue businesses for not serving them, so how is the decision on SSM a tipping point?

  • PowerBottom||

    Is anyone taking bets on when a polygamist family sues for a similar reason?

  • Randian||

    Shouldn't be long. There is no rational basis so far as I can tell in arbitrarily limiting the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract. That Goodridge case in Mass. practically says so.

  • John||

    And we can stick a gun to people's heads and tell them they have to accept that too. And yes, that is coming.

  • kbolino||

    I'm still not understanding the part where that's any different than the status quo in any meaningful way.

  • ||

    Because allowing an extra 3.5% of the population to get married is the straw that breaks the camel's back you see...

  • ||

    3.5% is greater than 0.0%

  • ||

    I'm stunned by the profundity of your argument.

  • ||

    You know who else was stunned by my profundity?

    Hint, it wasn't Hitler. And you know her.

  • ||

    Feinstein?

  • ||

    "I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!"

  • ||

    Damn you Shelbyville!

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Well, then, we'll form our own town. Who will come and live a life devoted to chastity, abstinence, and a flavorless mush I call rootmarm?"

  • John||

    Civil unions have always been the solution to this. You grant civil unions. That way gay couples get the same immigration and estate tax and other benefits straight couples do. But you don't then have the problem of forcing people to act against their consciences.

    The only reason to support "gay marriage" as opposed to civil unions is because you want to stick a boot on the face of everyone you don't like.

  • ||

    The only reason to support "gay marriage" as opposed to civil unions is because you want to stick a boot on the face of everyone you don't like.

    Yes John, that's the only reason. Dumbass.

  • John||

    What other reason is there? Civil unions give all the benefits of marriage without the drawbacks of forcing people to accept marriages they object to. So why would you not support that as a sensible compromise other than you just can't help yourself and want to stick it to the other side?

  • ||

    You're really married to your definition of marriage, aren't you?

  • ||

    What other reason is there?

    See above thread, unless you are illiterate.

    Civil unions give all the benefits of marriage without the drawbacks of forcing people to accept marriages they object to. So why would you not support that as a sensible compromise other than you just can't help yourself and want to stick it to the other side?

    So you then a straight couple should be able to force businesses to associate with them, but gays can't? Do you really not get the concept of an unbiased government or are you just being purposely dense so that you can ignore the argument and just keep typing the same thing over and over again?

  • Randian||

    This is where sarcasmic's moniker for John really comes in handy.

  • John||

    So you then a straight couple should be able to force businesses to associate with them, but gays can't?

    Because doing so doesn't violate people's religion. yeah, religions often hold lousy views. But we have a first amendment right to hold them. That is what makes the two cases different. Recognizing straight marriage doesn't force anyone to violate their religious beliefs. If you don't like that distinction, get rid of the religious freedom.

  • Randian||

    It violates my religious beliefs. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

  • ||

    So I guess John is in favor of allowing groups of Muslims to live under Sharia law?

  • John||

    So you admit that you object to people's rights to hold religious views you don't like? Right Tim? Fair enough. Unlike Randian at least you are being upfront with your desire to coerce people.

  • ||

    Excellent dodge. Answer the question: Do you believe in the right of Muslims to live in a commune and exercise Sharia law (honor killings and all)?

  • ||

    Because doing so doesn't violate people's religion.

    John, I just started a religion that's opposed to straight people marrying each other. I own a coffeeshop that employs some straight married people, whose spouses are covered by the insurance I provide. My religious beliefs are being violated.

    Wait, I forgot to mention that I'm only opposed to straight people marrying each other after they've already married and divorced someone else, and that it's just this type of remarried person I employ. SO YES THIS IS TOTALLY FUCKING REAL.

  • John||

    Form the religion and come talk to me. Of course no such religion exists. But when it does, we can and should carve out an exception for you. Have fun.

  • ||

    It's called Catholicism, John.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.

  • Zeb||

    Of course no such religion exists.

    It exists now. She just said she started it. If she can't do that, then there is no religious freedom.

  • ||

    Because doing so doesn't violate people's religion.

    Jesus Christ, are you taking shots after every post? It seems like you are saying dumber and dumber things with no peak retard in sight. Who the fuck cares that it doesn't violate religious freedom? Isn't the whole fucking point freedom of association? I guess all that shit you were saying upthread about it doesn't matter, only freedom of association specifically involving religion does. If you just don't like straight couples, then fuck you I guess, right John?

    I sincerely hope your posts are the result of silly juice and not an incredible lack of self-awareness.

  • John||

    Who the fuck cares that it doesn't violate religious freedom? Isn't the whole fucking point freedom of association?

    Look you fucking moron. This isn't about freedom of association. Gays can associate right now. They can marry and live together. What they can't do is is sue the force of law to force everyone else to accept their union. That is what this is about. If people are not free to say "fuck you I don't recognize your marriage because my God doesn't recognize it", they do not have freedom of religion. Now you are free to say "fuck you my marriage is good" because you have freedom of association. But you can't force them to accept you.

    Why are you so fucking stupid you don't get that?

  • Randian||

    ha ha. look at John go. Wheeee! Look at that rage foam!

  • ||

    Look you fucking moron. This isn't about freedom of association.

    Right, right, because that photographer lawsuit has nothing to do with freedom of association.

    What they can't do is is sue the force of law to force everyone else to accept their union. That is what this is about.

    It's not about freedom of association! It is about freedom of association!

    Fucking sober up, John. This is just embarrassing.

  • John||

    Wow, you are on a roll of stupid Heller. It is not about "gays' freedom of association". They already have theirs.

  • ||

    Who the fuck is talking about "gays' freedom of association?"

    Is someone else posting with the name John?

    John| 3.27.13 @ 3:03PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    So you then a straight couple should be able to force businesses to associate with them, but gays can't?

    Because doing so doesn't violate people's religion.

    Try to stay coherent, buddy.

  • ||

    John, you are already forced to recognize all sorts of marriages you may not agree with.

    An employer already has to recognize ALL hetero marriages as it is, no matter the circumstances.

    May-December marriages? Yep!
    Teenage marriages (18+)? Yes!
    Interracial and interreligious marriages? You betcha!
    Marriages between divorcees? No doubt!
    Newt Gingrich's marriage? Unfortunately, yes.
    Marriages of convenience? Also, yes.

    The list goes on and no. All different sex couples are allowed to marry, almost no questions asked. Remind me again as to how giving licenses to same sex couples is going to be a new problem...

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I believe Catholics still actively practice discrimination in employment for marriages they do not recognize or even shacking up, while divorced, but not yet annulled...

    So while no such religion I know of has specific requirements about age closeness or whatever (though most have minimum ages), if one did, it can currently discriminate based upon those beliefs.

  • Marla Singer||

    All different sex couples are allowed to marry

    You are aware that this is patently false, yes? The list of different-sex couples who are not allowed to marry varies from state to state, but includes people who are already married to someone else, people who are closely related to each other, people who are not above the age of consent, and people who have been divorced too many times (in Texas, anyway; I know a woman who has been married and divorced 5 times and Texas would not allow her to get married again). In some states, it's even more complicated, such as Arizona, which will allow first-cousin marriages but only if the two parties are either too old to procreate (I think AZ stipulates 65) or can otherwise prove they are sterile and will not have biological children together. As for marriages of convenience, for immigration purposes anyway, if CIS believes you are not *really* married, they can deport the foreign-born spouse (though they can't compel a divorce, AFAIK). So, yeah, it isn't quite as tidy as you're trying to make it.

    The government is actually already discriminating wrt marriage licenses quite a bit, but it makes a neater story if we ignore that.

  • Zeb||

    I don't really see the difference. Wouldn't that just be forcing everyone to accept civil unions they object to?

  • ||

    Everyone having civil unions or everyone having marriage is the only logical outcome. If you push civil unions (accepted at the federal level?) for gays, and marriage for straights it will come down to separate but equal. The courts will continue to believe that such a thing cannot exist and gay marriage will become the law of the land. If you do civil unions for all then they'll be treated as de facto marriages for insurance purposes and non-discrimination laws.

  • John||

    If you do civil unions for all then they'll be treated as de facto marriages for insurance purposes and non-discrimination laws.

    No they wouldn't. They could be. It would be up to the parties involved. In most cases it probably would. But for the odd case. For the Baptist Church that doesn't want to recognize gay marriages or the business owner that doesn't want to offer benefits to gay spouses, it wouldn't. And that is why it is a sensible compromise.

  • ||

    So wait, you're suggesting a system where straights can marry, and gays and straights can opt for a civil union, which is just marriage but magically wipes all non-discrimination ordinances off the table? That seems more far-fetched than just ending state licensing of marriage. Also the courts would eventually wipe it out as being separate and unequal.

  • John||

    So wait, you're suggesting a system where straights can marry, and gays and straights can opt for a civil union, which is just marriage but magically wipes all non-discrimination ordinances off the table?

    Yes. And if I am not mistaken several states have already done that. And there is nothing unethical about it.

    Get it through your head. Gays are not in most jurisdictions a protected class. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against them. Just because something is wrong or stupid, doesn't mean it is illegal.

  • ||

    Yes. And if I am not mistaken several states have already done that. And there is nothing unethical about it.

    All right John, we'll see how that ends up working out for you when it makes its way up and down the courts over the next few years.

  • John||

    Why isn't civil unions a good compromise? Religious people get to keep their liberty and gay people get all of the government goodies they want? What is the down side?

  • sarcasmic||

    What is the down side?

    Can't sue churches and bakeries and flower shops.

    The lawsuits are more important than the legal protections.

    That is my conclusion from the refusal to compromise.

  • Zeb||

    Civil unions is a great compromise if all legal marriage is replaced with civil union.

  • sarcasmic||

    If I could draw a Venn diagram here the big bubble would be civil unions, and within it would be a smaller bubble called "marriage" which contains couples of the opposite sex.

  • Zeb||

    OK, sarcasmic, if you insist that legal marriage should be restricted only to opposite sex couples aren't you also just imposing by force your definition of marriage? Does yours being a slightly more popular definition justify that use of force?

  • John||

    Then Zeb we are back to being able to force people to recognize your union. so no, that is not a compromise.

  • Zeb||

    I don't follow you, John. How do civil unions not force people to recognize you if there is still legal marriage, but magically start forcing people to recognize your union if there is no legal thing called marriage?

  • ||

    John, serious question: what would be the difference between "civil unions" and state marriage in the currently constituted US legal environment? I can't really imagine there would be one. All your nondiscrimination issues would still seem to crop up. What straight people already have is a civil union; some of them just also have a religious marriage stacked on top of it.

  • Randian||

    Yeah, this is another head-scratcher from John. A civil union is still (unfortunately) going to affect that florist. So John mewling about supporting CUs rings really hollow.

  • John||

    The difference would be this. Civil unions would entitle you to all of the various government benefits that go with marriage. You could file your taxes as married filing joint, you could get your forced share of your partner's estate, you could get them a green card and so forth. What civil unions would not be would be would be subject to the same discrimination protections that "marriages are". So your boss wouldn't have to offer benefits to your spouse if he didn't want to. The florist wouldn't have to take your wedding pictures if they didn't want to and so forth.

    It is marriage without the coercion.

  • Randian||

    Talk about living in a fantasy world. You really think any state legislature or U.S. Congress is going to do all that work?

  • John||

    They have in some states. And since when does "its hard" mean we shouldn't respect people's rights?

    Here is what it comes down to Randian. You like gays and you hate Christians. Therefore, you are perfectly comfortable with using the government to fuck Christians for the benefit of gays.

    And that is your right to be that way. And maybe that is the right way to be. But if you choose to be that way, please do me a favor and stop pretending you care about liberty or not using government to get whatever desired end someone wants because you clearly don't.

  • Randian||

    Wrong, you lying chucklehead. You are now actively sacrificing your own integrity.

  • ||

    It's more like he's sacrificing his image of sanity. I guess they are somewhat related.

  • Randian||

    Either way. John is now crying about the end of religious liberty. FFS.

    Telling him over and over again that we don't support anti-discrimination laws seems to have no effect. What should we do with him?

  • John||

    Why is it wrong? Do you deny that you are advocating a position that you know that will result in people being forced by law to act against their religion?

    Do you not admit that discrimination laws are not going anywhere? And given that, isn't it the case that gay marriage is going to result in the government forcing people to act against their religion?

    It is your position.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.

  • John||

    Yes Randian, I won the argument and you no longer have a response other than to mindlessly repeat your discredited position. Thanks. Rarely do I get someone admitting to defeat like this.

  • ||

    Yes Randian, I won the argument

    I lolled.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.

  • ||

    Do you not admit that discrimination laws are not going anywhere? And given that, isn't it the case that gay marriage is going to result in the government forcing people to act against their religion?

    Same fallacy that nativists use to argue against open borders because of welfare.

    Same fallacy that anti-gun loons use to argue against the right to bear arms because criminals use them to kill people.

    HERP DERP I no understand difference between means and ends HERP DERP.

  • John||

    Yeah, Heller, understanding how something will work in reality is a fallacy. Whereas living in a fantasy world where all laws we object to are going to go away is the height of thinking.

    DERPPP!!!!!!

    God you are fucking moron on this issue.

  • ||

    If I thought that, then I wouldn't be arguing that the government should recognize SSM, would I? I would just say that the government shouldn't recognize any marriages.

    But thank you for confirming your support of these 'ends justify the means' arguments. You really proved what kind of intellect you possess.

  • Randian||

    Yeah, who knew John was such a utilitarian?

  • ||

    Yes John, being for one thing and against a different thing is living in a fantasy world. Derp.

  • Marla Singer||

    Well, we are righteously complaining about those laws on HnR. Isn't that enough?

  • ||

    Well, the reason I specified "in the currently constituted US legal environment" is that I cannot imagine in a million years that without other major changes (that would make the elimination of nondiscrimination laws just as likely anyway), any government-sanctioned contract would come without antidiscrimination strings.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To the guy in the photo with the "how is my marriage affecting you" sign:

    OK, you're right. So long as I'm not a baker, florist, wedding photographer, bed and breakfast owner, religious ministry which owns a wedding pavillion, T-shirt maker, or anyone else who offers goods and services to the public, I'm not affected. And if I *do* offer goods and services to the public, I am free to do what you tell me on penalty of fines or damage awards.

  • John||

    But Edwuard, the committed libertarians on Reason are going to work real hard to ensure that is not the case. You can trust them.

  • Randian||

    Oh look out. Someone is crying into their Red Kool-Aid.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "At first I thought it was a limitation on my liberty to be forced to bake wedding cakes for customers I didn't want to serve...but then a guy in a libertarian chat room made a joke about 'Red Cool Aid' and I felt much better."

  • Randian||

    What does that have to do with arbitrary discrimination in licensure?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A famous lawyer supposedly said that if you can think of something which is connected to something else, without thinking of the thing to which it is connected, then you have the legal mind.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, a law-journal article wants the courts to eliminate even the limited, inadequate exemptions in the New York SSM law:

    http://www.lawschool.cornell.e.....-final.pdf

  • Randian||

    That's not an answer.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're aware that I've been linking to numerous articles from such sources as the Village Voice and the HuffPo, illustrating my point about the connection between SSM and restrictions on private business? I don't have all the articles in front of me right now, so if you missed them at the time you're out of luck. Or you could do what I did and perform a single google search, which will discover these articles and more.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.
  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "A famous lawyer supposedly said that if you can think of something which is connected to something else, without thinking of the thing to which it is connected, then you have the legal mind."

    Read as many times as necessary.

  • ||

    That doesn't prove your retarded assertion that equal protection under the law forces you to bake someone a wedding cake. That other people think they should force you to bake said wedding cake, even in states that have no gay marriage law, doesn't make equality under the law a bad thing.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "even in states that have no gay marriage law"

    Which states do you have in mind, and what restrictions do they place on private activity?

  • ||

    New Mexico already had a case involving photography, where the court ruled the photographer can't refuse based on sexual orientation. New Mexico has no gay marriage OR civil union laws.

  • ||

    Court: Christian Photog Can’t Refuse Gay Ceremonies. It's possible the decision will be reversed, but it might not. Either way, it's proof positive that an absence of gay marriage recognition isn't a meaningful impediment to discrimination lawsuits.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I didn't say that lacking a formal SSM law was an absolute barrier to courts adopting aspects of SSM in the name of "antidiscrimination."

    But having an SSM law certainly makes it easier for courts and "human rights commissions" to limit the discretion of private parties.

    I and other posters have linked to state SSM statutes, which contain limited exemptions for religious groups (not broad enough, but let that pass) - thus signalling that private, secular for-profit businesses have no rights at all. Just like a law saying you can fish in the creek on Tuesday implies that you can't fish there on other days.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Human Rights Campaign says New Mexico has no laws against gay marriage:

    http://www.hrc.org/press-relea.....ic-justice

  • ||

    Again darius, giving 2% of the population another reason to use anti-discrimination laws is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is the point at which we lose our religious freedom.

  • ||

    Here's a story from 2005 in IL:

    The law will add "sexual orientation" to the state's existing nondiscrimination statute which already bans discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations or credit on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, marital status and military status. The definition of "sexual orientation" includes provisions to specifically cover transgender persons.

    IL still does not have gay marriage.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Illinois has civil unions (wikipedia has an article but Reason won't let me show the address).

    Do you have a case between 2005 and 2011 (date of the civil union bill) when bakers, wedding photographers, etc. were compelled to assist at a same-sex wedding?

  • John||

    I am not crying at all. I am quite enjoying calling people like you out for your hypocrisy. Liberty is great in all unless defending it requires defending something you don't like.

  • Randian||

    I have told you how opposed I am to anti-discrimination laws at least a million times.

    Now you just get the mockery, because you refuse to read.

  • John||

    But you support the creation of a constitutional right that you know in reality will mean the end of religious liberty. You know as well as I do that discrimination laws are not going away. And you know good and well that the result of court mandated gay marriage is making it illegal for people to act by their consciences.

    But you don't care about any of that because you don't like the people it affects. Sorry, but claiming you don't like the result may get you to sleep at night. But it doesn't make you any less hypocritical.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.

  • John||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    You say that. But then you support a position that you know will result in violations of equal protection. So your denial rings a bit hollow.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.
  • John||

    Yes Randian, if you just say enough the logical consequences of your position will magically go away. Everyone has a blind spot and everyone has times when their personal prejudices get the better of their principles. This is just yours.

  • sarcasmic||

    I jumped off the SSM bandwagon when I realized that no compromise would be accepted if it did not include the ability to initiate lawsuits.

    When someone claims that it's all about liberty, but rejects any compromise that does not include redefining the word marriage, that tells me that they support violating freedom of association.

  • Randian||

    In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association.

    Please read this as many times as necessary.

  • ||

    "In support of equal protection. Opposed to violations of freedom of association."

    ^THIS.

    HitNRunpublicans: You guys should join our side that violates equal protections because the other side might violate freedom of association. If you agree with the other side on equal protections, you must support violating freedom of association.

  • Randian||

    I jumped off the SSM bandwagon when I realized that no compromise would be accepted if it did not include the ability to initiate lawsuits.

    Anyone can initiate a lawsuit.

    The fact is that you do not support the laws that make one sustainable. Neither do I. That still is not a good reason to arbitrarily discriminate.

  • sarcasmic||

    Taint discrimination unless it is assumed that marriage is something other than a husband and wife.

    Changing the definition of the word is what makes such lawsuits sustainable.

    Refusing any compromise that does not include redefining the word tells me that the lawsuits are more important than equality under the law.

  • Zeb||

    The word has already been redefined. Gay people get married. It really happens.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not everyone recognizes those "marriages" as marriages.

    You could pass a law that defines apple pie as a pie that contains cherries, but most people would still refer to a pie that contains apples as apple pie and a pie that contains cherries as a cherry pie.

    Government is not magic.

  • Randian||

    When it comes to legal recognition, government really is magic.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's force. Not magic. Threat of violence is not magical. It's just violence.

  • Zeb||

    It's just violence.

    Then so is legal recognition of any marriage. Why is it OK for you to be married?

  • Zeb||

    It doesn't matter. Not everyone recognizes my marriage as a marriage either. My wife has been divorced. We're still married even though some Catholics might not think so.

    And it's not about government either. Gay people were getting married before any government recognized it.

  • John||

    The fact is that you do not support the laws that make one sustainable. Neither do I.

    Not only do you not support them, you pretend they don't exist. Who cares if you support them or not. You are advocating positions that you know will result in their being used to end religious freedom. But you never wanted that and that makes it okay.

    do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You have to. You are normally smarter than this.

  • Randian||

    *yawn* it lies moar harder, John.

  • John||

    Come on Randian, you can do better than that. "Lies"? That is all you have. Have you lost this argument that badly? I have to admit, I never thought I would beat you this badly. But like I said above, everyone has a blind spot. And this one is yours.

  • Randian||

    ha ha. keeping telling yourself whatever you need to boost your little ego.

  • ||

    Yes sarc, we know, you were for it before you were against it. You're a mensch.

  • kbolino||

    How many times can you say the same thing, be amply proven wrong, and continue to repeat it?

    You do not stand on the side of liberty, so you cannot claim the moral high ground.

    You can start proving your sincerity for the cause of liberty by dissolving your own government-sanctioned, coercively enforced, freedom-violating marriage.

  • John||

    Yeah that is some reasoned discourse.

  • kbolino||

    Can you please argue for your position in a way that does not boil down to "my cultural preferences should be enshrined in law, but your cultural preferences violate my liberty?"

    If not, then please try to recognize that I have a point, even if it is worded intemperately, and respond to it.

  • Zeb||

    It's not so bad. If forcing people to accept gay marriage kills religious freedom, then so does forcing people to accept any marriage at all.

  • John||

    then so does forcing people to accept any marriage at all.

    No it doesn't. Unless religions have all of the sudden stopped sanctioning marriage.

  • Zeb||

    But different religions sanction marriage differently. What about the example of Catholics and divorce? My wife was divorced. Does my marriage violate the religious freedom of strict Catholics?

  • Rabban||

    Pretty obtuse. SSM is a radically different transformation of the institution of marriage, than the other differences which have all been some variation of a man and a woman, largely for the purpose of a stable social unit to raise their biological offspring. Forcing this new definition on people is the application of force to promote a set of beliefs. Gay unions =/= heterosexuals ones as there is no biological reproduction capacity within the pairing in any gay marriage, whereas in most (but certainly not all)hetero-sexual pairings there is. The institution of marriage is a social construct created independently across the world (with variations, yes) to support the sorts of relationships that produce offspring. SSM does not have any capacity to fulfill that role without borrowing from another party, and thus it is not identical in capacity to a heterosexual pairing, and thus does not merit an equal standing.

  • kbolino||

    Unless religions have all of the sudden stopped sanctioning marriage.

    According to the Catholic Church, you are married for life. If you divorce, then you are denying your marital commitment, and if you remarry, you are committing adultery. Yet Catholic institutions are required to treat remarriages the same as first marriages in all the ways as they would hypothetically be compelled to recognize gay marriages.

    How is that not abridging their religious liberty?

  • John||

    Yet Catholic institutions are required to treat remarriages the same as first marriages

    Yes they are. And that is an infringement on their religious freedom, at least when they are employers. The question is does that infringement now mean we should go ahead and infringe more. I say no. And in fact, I would be totally on board with getting rid of that infringement.

  • ||

    "And in fact, I would be totally on board with getting rid of that infringement."

    And so would we. But you intentionally continue to claim we're going to want government to force employers and churchs to follow their definitions of marriage. And if we say we don't, you'll say "no, but your left-wing buddies will," which makes a whole lot of sense because it's not guilt by association or anything.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I don't believe this is true - I know someone, from the not too distant past, who divorced and was in the process of getting an annulment and remarrying her currently live-in partner.

    My understanding of her situations was this:

    Had the Catholic School she was paid to teach out found out about the living arrangement prior to the annulment & Catholic remarriage, she would've been fired.

    I don't agree with this policy, but I think it as an open one everyone understood. Cannot live in sin and any non-Catholic union is sin.

    Though maybe it's only for those in certain positions - not sure.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    & of course it wouldn't surprise me if the legal opinion of the Catholic organization on this point is wrong. Maybe if fired, she would've had a lawsuit.

    But that certainly wasn't her understanding.

  • John||

    kbolino

    In answer to your very valid point, Catholics effectively can't practice their religion when it comes to divorce. And if we have gay marriage, they will no longer be able to practice their religion when it comes to homosexuality. The question is, is that a good thing? I think it is not. Some would say it is. And maybe they are right.

    What is so infuriating about this discussion is not the position they hold. It is that they pretend they don't hold it or that they are not advocating for restrictions on religious freedom.

  • ||

    "It is that they pretend they don't hold it or that they are not advocating for restrictions on religious freedom."

    Find the quote. Find one single quote not by dumbasses like Tony on this board from one of us on the gay love boat claiming we support the state restricting churches or private associations from making their own determinations on the subject.

  • John||

    Proprietist,

    No. You don't hold it. You actually are in some ways worse. You pretend that it doesn't exist. You know as well as I do what is going to happen once gay marriage is a constitutional right. The same thing that abortion, the government is telling people to fuck off and violate their consciences.

    You think it is okay to give the government that power because somehow you don't think they should use it. Sorry, that is a cop out.

  • ||

    "You think it is okay to give the government that power because somehow you don't think they should use it."

    Wrong, I think it is okay to TAKE AWAY the government's power to discriminate arbitrarily based upon the religious precepts of the majority or any other arbitrary standard. If the government grants privileges or immunities, they should be granted to everyone. If those privileges or immunities are not inherently libertarian by nature, I support removing them altogether, but until they can be removed, I support equal protections.

    You've got it so backwards it's like we're talking from two different dimensions, and you are wildly speculating what I believe over in my dimension.

  • ||

    It is that they pretend they don't hold it or that they are not advocating for restrictions on religious freedom.

    ...in John's head.

  • Tony||

    I don't think you should have the right to life, as your living might someday result in you infringing upon my free association rights.

  • ||

    Derp!

  • thom||

    Wait, how many homophobic bakers and florists are there out there? 100? To be charitable, I'll say maybe 1,000. I'm talking so homophobic that they refuse to do business with gays. I imagine most homophobic bakers and florists will still do business with gay people, because of money and all that.

    Anyways, the idea that we would deny millions of people equal treatment to protect 1,000 homophobic bakers and florists from taking gay people's money seems absurd.

    I sympathize with the homophobic florists out there, but as far as government intrusion goes, this is relatively minor.

  • John||

    And the precedent to fuck those people will never be used to fuck you over. Never.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So these laws aren't a major problem because they only affect a minority? That's the "pro-gay" argument you're attempting to invoke?

  • John||

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-lose.html

    Interesting article from Mrs Suderman on gay marriage. Considering that upper middle class urbanites are some of the most judgmental conformist people on earth, she may have a point.

  • ||

    Oh noes, gays will lose their cool rebellious image if the government stops discriminating against them! How horrible!

  • sarcasmic||

    Civil unions are an unacceptable compromise is because while they give equal protection under the law, they do not give same sex couples the ability to sue.

    No lawsuits? No deal.

  • kbolino||

    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

  • John||

    So suing your neighbor is now petitioning for grievances?

  • kbolino||

    My point was that lawsuits will happen no matter what the legal situation is.

    Also, yes, that is, among other things, what the First Amendment protects.

  • John||

    So what? And the point is not lawsuits but the law that makes such suits possible and successful.

  • sarcasmic||

    The fact that no compromise that solves the problem of equal treatment under the law that does not include making the lawsuits successful tells me that the lawsuits are more important than the equal protection under the law.

    IOW Randian is full of shit.

  • Randian||

    Whatever you say.

    The fact that some in this movement want to sue does not render the justice of the position moot, any more than the fact that there are some racists who support the repeal of the 1964 CRA.

  • sarcasmic||

    I would support repealing the part of the CRA that prohibits racist business owners from discriminating.

    Let them identify themselves so I can choose not to give them my business.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    excellent

  • Randian||

    Some people against the Iraq War were communists. That does not make me a communist, nor does it make the Iraq War a good idea.

    Some people in the Civil Rights Movements were radical leftists. That does not make me a radical leftist nor does it make Jim Crow a good idea.

  • kbolino||

    sarcasmic, I don't see how calling them civil unions changes the legal situation appreciatively vis-a-vis lawsuits. Even if the laws explicitly disclaimed such suits, then people would simply sue the state playing the "separate is not equal" card, and the courts would eliminate the difference between civil unions and marriages.

  • ||

    "Civil unions" are the epitome of socon political correctness. Unless everyone gets a civil union, which I would support, but that's not what they're calling for.

  • ||

    sarc, those lawsuits are already being successful even without gay marriage or even civil unions, e.g. the New Mexico photography case.

  • ||

    Sarc, you do realize said lawsuits happen even in the absence of gay marriage recognition, right?

  • ||

    If gays can't have gay marriage because they might sue, John can't have a gun because he might kill.s

  • ||

    You can't speak because someone might illegitimately sue you for libel. Why do you love government oppression?

  • John||

    Wow. You just made everyone a little dumber there heller. It is called legal precedent.

  • ||

    Yup, it's a precedent that people with guns kill people. So hand over your guns and stop violating my freedoms.

    The only reason anyone would support gun ownership is because they want to murder people.

  • John||

    That analogy is moronic. We have a set of laws that say once you give benefits to one married person you have to give them all the married people you work for. If you change the definition of marriage, you change that law. That is not conjecture, that is what will happen.

    You are not this stupid. You know you are wrong. But you just want to believe a certain way so badly, you refuse to fucking even try to think rationally about it.

  • ||

    We have a set of laws that say once you give benefits to one married person you have to give them all the married people you work for. If you change the definition of marriage, you change that law. That is not conjecture, that is what will happen.

    Who said anything about conjecture? It isn't conjecture that people will be murdered if you allow people to have guns. It's a fact. Now why does your utilitarian argument only apply to teh gay scourge?

    You are not this stupid. You know you are wrong. But you just want to believe a certain way so badly, you refuse to fucking even try to think rationally about it.

    Projection.

  • ||

    Exactly, but the slippery slope is the last thing they have to clutch on to.

  • John||

    What is slipery or even slope about it? What makes you think that it wouldn't happen? It is the law. If you define marriage to include gays, that is it. It includes gays and anyone who offers benefits based on marital status is now offering benefits based on marital status must offer it to gay spouses. That is is. End of discussion. That is not conjecture. That is reality.

    When talking about the CRA, Libertarians always point to how the market would have solved it. How being racist was just no longer going to be tenable anymore. And they mostly correct about that.

    Here we are 50 years later and we have gay marriage. And libertarians have totally forgotten that argument. Even though tons companies offer same sex partner benefits, even though gays are free to call themselves married and live in peace, libertarians just can't let society work it out on its own. Nope, they are so in love with the culture war they are wanting the Supreme court to use the force of law to shove it down the country's throat. It is just amazing and really calls into question their entire commitment to liberty.

  • Randian||

    I don't want the Supreme Court to do that. Where did you read that I did?

  • John||

    I don't want the Supreme Court to do that.

    So you agree with me that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage? Sure could have fooled. Oh I know, you want the libertarian unicorn to come down and get the court to rule there is no such thing as marriage? You want that? Sadly that is not an option on the table.

  • ||

    There is no constitutional right to gay marriage any more than there is a constitutional right to any marriage. There IS however a constitutional right to equal protections.

  • Randian||

    No. I prefer the issue be left to the States.

  • ||

    Exactly. Where have any of us here supporting gay marriage also supported law or lawsuits forcing the Catholic Church to wed gays? Your arguments follow so many different fallacies, you could be the example they use in a logic classroom textbook.

  • John||

    Where have any of us here supporting gay marriage also supported law or lawsuits forcing the Catholic Church to wed gays?

    But it doesn't matter because those law suits are both going to happen and are going to be successful once we have gay marriage. It is like saying you don't support the flood even though you supported blowing up the damn. One will follow from the other.

    This whole argument is us talking past each other. I know you don't support those law suits. But I also know that most of the people who support gay marriage do and the legal precedent you are arguing for is going to both create those law suits and make them successful.

    Yes, I know, you never wanted that. But you are still advocating a position that will create it. Since we are not getting rid of discrimination laws, why not advocate for civil unions, a position that does the most good and creates little harm?

  • ||

    And murders are going to happen when you let people have guns. Does that mean we shouldn't allow people to have guns? Come on John, when are you going to start using "the ends justify the means' consistently?

  • John||

    Guns are not laws dipshit. The law says what it says. And when you change it, that has effects. The gun analogy is retarded and you are just fucking up the conversation by clinging to it.

  • ||

    Yes, John. I'm talking about cause and effect. Allowing people to have guns means that people will be murdered. Of course, one could argue that people should be able to have guns regardless of the consequences. But not you John. You've shown yourself to be a loyal utilitarian. So how about some consistency.

  • ||

    Yes, it does matter because that is exactly the slippery slope I'm talking about. You are arguing with US, not with the straw man you try to make our arguments out to be based upon the beliefs other people who share our stance in one area have on other areas.

    When the lawsuits or anti-association laws become an issue, I'll gladly join your team to criticize and fight them. But that's not an excuse to compromise my belief in equal protections under the law.

  • John||

    When the lawsuits or anti-association laws become an issue, I'll gladly join your team to criticize and fight them

    And that will be too late because you will have already worked with the liberals to create a legal structure where they will succeed. Don't you get that?

  • ||

    "And that will be too late because you will have already worked with the liberals to create a legal structure where they will succeed."

    Because we are defending the gay marriage bill on the docket with that bad section that bans Catholics from discriminating against gays right now, right? Certainly we aren't talking about knocking down unconstitutional laws already on the books that discriminate based upon sex.

  • John||

    But that's not an excuse to compromise my belief in equal protections under the law.

    But you can't have that. You can't have every get married but then have it also be okay for some people to not recognize marriages that violate their religion. You can't have both.

    And come on. Who are you kidding? The government is going to run right over people. When people said Obamacare was going to mean churches are going to be forced to fund abortions and contraception, the same arguments were made and sure enough that is exactly what happened.

    I am sorry but I have very little faith in Libertarians, many of whom are outright bigots on religious issues, having any commitment to religious freedom.

    Contrast the coverage this case is getting with the abortion funding cases? Not even close.

  • ||

    "But you can't have that."

    Oh, says you, a far more credible authority on what I actually believe than myself.

    "I am sorry but I have very little faith in Libertarians, many of whom are outright bigots on religious issues, having any commitment to religious freedom."

    I have very little faith in your definition of "religious freedom" if you think passing a law that offends some religion's sensibilities but doesn't force them to adhere to its definition is a violation of religious liberty.

  • ||

    When the lawsuits or anti-association laws become an issue, I'll gladly join your team to criticize and fight them. But that's not an excuse to compromise my belief in equal protections under the law.

    John refuses to accept that answer. I already tried it.

  • Randian||

    Me too.

  • John||

    Whatever Randian. You hate religion. And we have an even worse issue going on right now with the Catholic Church and abortion and contraception coverage. What has Reason ever done on that issue? They sure as hell publish ten posts a day on gay marriage. The religious freedom of tens of millions of Catholics? not so much.

  • ||

    Whatever Randian. You hate religion.

    KULTUR WAR!!!!!!1

    Right John, you are the stalwart defender of religion against these godless heathens. But we are the ones engaging in culture war bullshit. Riiiiiight.

  • John||

    I don't accept it because it is a meaningless answer. Who cares that you will feel all bad when religious freedom ends? You are not going to be able to do anything to stop it. Oh well, it won't effect you and you didn't like that. Big fucking deal.

  • ||

    Says you. Don't put those words in my mouth.

  • ||

    What makes you think people wouldn't get killed if we just allowed them to have guns? If you allow people to have guns, that is it, people get killed. End of discussion. That is not conjecture. That is reality.

    Come on John, why do you want people to be murdered?

    When talking about the CRA, Libertarians always point to how the market would have solved it. How being racist was just no longer going to be tenable anymore. And they mostly correct about that.

    Here we are 50 years later and we have gay marriage. And libertarians have totally forgotten that argument.

    Now we haven't, you idiot. The CRA is as likely to be replaced by the free market and freedom of association as the state's involvement in marriage is likely to be replaced by everyone just minding their own fucking business. The government should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and that is something that could realistically happen.

  • John||

    The government should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation,

    Why not? And if you get your pony on this issue, who you are you then to tell liberals they can't have their ponies? You think it is a one off deal. Liberals think that if there is a equal protection right to gay marriage, something that was affirmatively illegal when the amendment was written, there is an equal protection right to a lot of things.

    That is all you are left with is "you want it". Good for you. I wish you luck with that.

  • ||

    "Liberals think that if there is a equal protection right to gay marriage, something that was affirmatively illegal when the amendment was written, there is an equal protection right to a lot of things."

    And thus libertarians should be forced to answer for their future actions down the slippery slope? After all, you said it was "libertarians" who have "totally forgotten (the CRA) argument" when it comes to gay marriage.

  • John||

    After all, you said it was "libertarians" who have "totally forgotten (the CRA) argument" when it comes to gay marriage.

    Because they have. They, like everyone else, love the idea of using government to win in the culture war.

  • ||

    Because they have. They, like everyone else, love the idea of using government to win in the culture war.

    Again, this is obvious projection. You explicitly stated that this is only about religious freedom for Catholics, and not about freedom of association in general. That's all KULTUR WAR!!!!11

    Your lack of self-awareness is shocking.

  • ||

    It's like a car wreck of logic. I want to stop rubbernecking but I can't.

  • Randian||

    A car wreck that obviously left John with a good bit of brain damage.

  • ||

    "Dain Bramage: Enlightenment in Disguise"

  • ||

    Why not?

    Because justice is blind. Are you going to argue that the police should be allowed to discriminate? Judges? The legislative branch is no different. Either the government treats everyone equally or it is not a just government.

  • prolefeed||

    Stealing equally from everyone =/= Same civil rights for everyone

  • ||

    Stealing unequally from everyone =/= same civil rights for everyone

  • ||

    But it does = equal treatment under the law, which is an issue in itself.

    Unrelated, but what made you decide to switch back to your old handle?

  • Zeb||

    Well, that was fun.

  • ||

    Was it though?

  • GILMORE||

    Do you like watching bitches bitch slapping each other non-stop while crying they're both the victims? I DO TOO! Come to HIT & RUN, home of the bitchiest bitches to ever bitchslap since bitches came to bitchtown. Every day of the week = THEY SLAP! THEY CRY! THEY ALL CLAIM GOD AND THE LAW ARE ON THEIR SIDE! NON-STOP ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY! Bring the kids! Bring your Grandma! Bring your dog! (*note: dogs must be leashed and housetrained - bitches make them froth and shit themselves) NO ONE EVER LOSES, NO ONE EVER WINS! THE PERFECT SPORT

  • Rabban||

    Tony loses every single time. Seriously. Every. single. time. Still, I admire his pluck in coming back for more.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement