Social Security Starts Paying Benefits to Gay Widows and Widowers

Okay, there will probably be no rejoicing because the benefit requires somebody to die.Wikimedia commonsRejoice, libertarians, in the expansion of a federal benefit program!

Sorry, couldn’t resist presenting it that way because it makes some folks gnash their teeth. The Supreme Court ruling in Windsor v. United States earlier this year requires the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it’s been legalized. As a result, federal benefits extended on the basis of marital status now apply to many gay couples as well. This week, the Social Security Administration announced it has begun paying survivor benefits to qualifying widows and widowers. Courtesy of AlJazeera America:

"I am pleased to announce that, effective today, Social Security is processing some widow’s and widower’s claims by surviving members of same-sex marriages and paying benefits where they are due,” said Carolyn Colvin, the acting commissioner of Social Security, in a statement.

“In addition, we are able to pay some one-time lump sum death benefit claims to surviving same-sex spouses," said Colvin. "As I stated shortly after the Supreme Court decision on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, our goal is to treat all Americans with dignity and respect.”

Anyone who was married to their partner at the time he or she died, or anyone who was legally married for at least 10 years but later divorced, is eligible for Social Security benefits.

But Social Security uses a state's definition of marriage to determine eligibility. Consequently, a couple that married in a state where gay marriage is legal, but lives in a state that does not recognize their marriage, would not be considered married under current rules.

I know there are many libertarians who are frustrated that recognizing same-sex marriages has the additional impact of getting the federal government more involved in more people’s private lives rather than less, but that’s a completely separate fight. By all means, let’s work on unwinding these various tax-based benefits and burdens from marital status and legal recognition of private relationships. In the meantime, though, gays aren’t exempt from paying Social Security, so their relationships should get the same treatment.

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.

  • Invisible Finger||

    As long as the government becomes more insolvent.

  • John||

    Since gay marriage has not been recognized until just a few years ago, how do you tell who is a widow? As long as you are not married, this looks like a great way to collect social security benefits from any of your single friends who die. Hell, with the privacy laws as they are, no one would even know you did it. I don't think you would even have to know them. Just watch the obit pages for single, childless adults to die and go down and file as their spouse. It is the perfect crime. What SS bureaucrat is going to tell a gay spouse they can't have SS?

    I know there are many libertarians who are frustrated that recognizing same-sex marriages has the additional impact of getting the federal government more involved in more people’s private lives rather than less, but that’s a completely separate fight.

    That Reason will never get around to waging much less winning. I am sorry, but I am not seeing how more people on the government dole is a good thing.

  • Scott S.||

    It only applies to gay couples whose marriage was legally recognized by the states they lived in. It states as much quite clearly. No license, no benefits.

  • waffles||

    Shhh...your facts are getting in the way of John's storytime!

  • John||

    I am sure they will enforce this requirement strictly. Do you honestly think that you couldn't bluff your way through the system?

  • waffles||

    I think I could bluff my way through this system. But that's just because of my boyish good looks and glorious tenor voice.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Well then what does being same-gender have to do with it?

  • Zeb||

    Has this been a problem before? If not, I don't see why it would be now.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Someone brought up the guy parking his RV on a city street on the AM links, and now John raises the specter of phony gay marriage for the benefits.

    Life does imitate art, and I find it amusing that it's apparently imitating It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

  • tarran||

    Phony marriages will always exist so long as they are tied to benefits.

    One of my men was openly in one in the Navy. I found out he hadn't seen his 'wife' in two years, and was essentially paying her a stipend so he could live off ship rather than being crammed into berthing with all the other unmarried guys.

    And no, I didn't do anything about it; I was undermanned enough as it is.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Who's to say it's even fake, just because it's done just for benefits? Different people get married for different reasons.

  • John||

    Wasn't fake gay marriage benefits the plot of some horrible Vince Vaughn movie?

  • wareagle||

    people game the system for all sorts of things. Why is presuming that they won't over SSM a non-starter?

  • BakedPenguin||

    John - Adam Sandler and Kevin James. "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry." I haven't seen it, but I'm still willing to bet the Always Sunny episode had more laughs.

    wareagle - did it sound like I was presuming it wouldn't be gamed? Where there is free shit, there will be people collecting it.

    I'd say that Scott's point about equality before the law is relevant, though.

  • wareagle||

    did it sound like I was presuming it wouldn't be gamed?

    and now John raises the specter of phony gay marriage for the benefits.

    yes, that is exactly what it sounded like.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, replace "specter" with "image".

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Yes, because a gay person who wanted sham benefits would have never claimed to be married to a woman. Ewww, vagina!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or "concept".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I am sorry, but I am not seeing how more people on the government dole is a good thing."

    So you would be fine with passing a law prohibiting any government benefits or contracts going to Republicans under the theory that would reduce the number of people on the government dole?

  • waffles||

    Just Republicans? No. Everybody? Yes.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Why not just Republicans? Do you want more people on the dole, or less?

  • robc||

    There is a ruler to determine someones political party.

    Just sayin'.

  • waffles||

    Good point. I think we should tax Republicans more then too. Because they cause more damage to the environment. We could use this extra tax to create jobs.

  • Floridian||

    Outstanding! 15 minutes in and no one took the troll bait. Give yourselves a hand.

  • Floridian||

    Now I look crazy. John's post was not there when I posted.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I'm incapable of having a reasoned or thoughtful discussion on social security. I just can't stand it.

  • John||

    I hear you. The thing that drives me insane is that Social Security seems to be mostly anything but what it is sold as. I think social security I think of old people getting checks. In reality it is a whole lot of young people on the dole for some reason. If you want to help out the disabled, okay, maybe we should do that. But lets be honest and create a program that does that not tack it on Social Security.

  • ||

    Where it then starts to get irritating is in the whole definition of "disabled".

    Which is yet another reason why a blind system of income support (guaranteed minimum income or whatever) becomes more attractive. If you're going to support the poor, do it regardless of why and cut all the bureaucratic nonsense.

  • John||

    Yes. And I actually break from the libertarian orthodoxy about that. I think the government should help out the truly disabled who can't work or support themselves. But the disability judges and various crooked attorneys have carved out such a huge definition for "disabled" the whole thing has become a giant welfare fraud screwing the actual deserving recipients.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you think the government should help the needy, even though all attempts to do so have had the opposite result?

    Mumble mumble intentions trump results mumble mumble...

  • Zeb||

    I think it is a bit different for the truly disabled. If a person genuinely can't work enough to support himself, then a handout from the government will help them. The question remains whether a system can be set up that will not be open to the same abuse we see now and if private charity could work as well or better.

    The thing about welfare is that it does help individual needy people in an immediate sense. The problem is that it makes the problems of neediness and poverty worse. But people getting the checks are helped in a sense (though not in the motivated to improve your own life and have some self respect sense).

  • c5c5||

    I think handouts from voluntary givers would truly help them as well.

    Why do we have to resort to believing that government is the ONLY way to deal with hard cases?

    I guess force is a favorite.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    And I actually break from the libertarian orthodoxy about that.

    I'm pretty orthodox (to the point of ancap), but if the last libertopia battle was against a wheelchair-bound guy with ALS, I probably wouldn't fight it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I think the government should help out the truly disabled who can't work or support themselves."

    That is what charities are for (and I am not being funny about that).

    If the government wants to make its own buildings and programs more accessible to the truly disabled or wants to hire them, I am fine with that. But to take money from my pocket and spend it on benefits for who they deem disabled, no, no sale there.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Where it then starts to get irritating is in the whole definition of "disabled"."

    This, a thousand times this.

    There was an entire series on NPR a few months back detailing the skyrocketing number of people getting social security disability checks. It essentially has become a new welfare-unemployment program for anyone who says they have trouble sleeping or whose 'back hurts.'

  • wareagle||

    and I'm sure a respectable outlet like NPR was aghast and agog over that. I am actually surprised that NPR would do a story about it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I was surprised myself. The series was illuminating and, of course, outraging. I found it online here:

    http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

  • johnl||

    Thanks for that.
    """
    "I was in a 1990 Jeep Cherokee Laredo," Dane Mitchell, a 23-year-old guy I met in a coffee shop, told me. "I flipped it both ways, flew 165 feet from the Jeep, going through 12 to 14,000 volts of electrical lines. Then I landed into a briar patch. I broke all five of my right toes, my right hip, seven of my vertebrae, shattering one, breaking a right rib, punctured my lung, and then I cracked my neck.
    """"

  • Invisible Finger||

    This whole disability thing is a ploy by the states to get people off state welfare and onto federal welfare.

  • robc||

    Which is yet another reason why a blind system of income support (guaranteed minimum income or whatever) becomes more attractive.

    [SLD]
    Its why I could support the income tax changing to a flat tax with a very large deduction, creating a negative income tax. Then we could eliminate ALL transfer programs, including Social Security, as everyone would be guaranteed a minimum income that keeps them out of poverty.
    [/SLD]

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    We would also eliminate a huge chunk of the bureaucracy as well, which would be a selling point for me.

  • robc||

    Exactly.

    My support has SLDs sprinkled liberally all over the place, of course.

  • waffles||

    Let's be honest. If I were a 40-something guy from a rural town where I lost my manual labor job at the whatever ago and my unemployment has run out I might start to thinking about how my back really hurts. And my shoulder, and I've got depression or anxiety too. I might find a sympathetic doctor who not only prescribes me narcotics but officially labels me disabled and is willing to be an expert witness in any challenge. I win the challenge and spend the rest of my life being drunk and high. Sure my unhealthy lifestyle will lead to a heart attack, stroke, or type II diabetes but I will be taken care of until I die.

    Do these people exist? Probably. But I don't really know what you could do about the problem. You can't kill it, it's already dead inside.

  • John||

    Sure they exist. And yes the war on employment and the economy currently being waged by Obama and the Fed has made doing this a rational choice, indeed the only choice available for a shocking number of people.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have an ex-friend who finally hit the jackpot with regards to disability. His wrist pops. That's it. One of his wrists makes a popping sound. So he found a doctor who was willing to operate on it (and make it worse), meanwhile he applied to jobs who would not hire him. After a couple years he finally won his claim, and got several years of retroactive pay to boot. He will spend the rest of his pathetic life drinking beer and smoking dope on the taxpayer dime.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Hell both of my wrist and ankles pop. Maybe, I should get in on some of these goodies.

    My problem is if I do not actually need it will not take it, even at the plant when we shut down, and actually make a claim. I still will not. YOu know principles and all. Sometimes I feel like I am the sucker.

  • johnl||

    There are people whose wrists and ankles don't pop?

  • kinnath||

    I know a 40-year-old guy with multiple back surgeries, the latest one fusing multiple vertebrae. He will never be able to climb a ladder and put up siding again (his career to date).

    But since he is not fully dependent upon narcotics for pain relief, he was rejected by SSI for both full and partial disability.

    The system is totally fucked. It doesn't just give money to people that don't deserve it. It routinely rejects people that really do need some form of assistance.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "If I were a 40-something guy from a rural town where I lost my manual labor job at the whatever ago and my unemployment has run out I might start to thinking about how my back really hurts."

    In the NPR series they went to a county where one in five(!) residents were on disability. The local factory closed down and the town doctor just qualified anyone with a back ache as disabled when unemployment ran out for them. He admitted he was doing this.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Had a lady at the factory, who found out she could get a widows pension. She quit the job, and has about ten years before she hits 65.

  • waffles||

    Lucky!

  • R C Dean||

    But Social Security uses a state's definition of marriage to determine eligibility.

    I got no problem with that.

    And I agree with the fundamental claim that it is government entanglement with marriage that goes beyond licensing that is the real problem.

    However, can we not lose sight of the practical reality on the ground that gay marriage is being used as the stalking horse to further restrict free association rights, via the relentless pursuit of protected class status?

  • John||

    Sure we can. Reason does it all of the time. They just say "sure that is a bad thing RC, but that is a separate battle we can fight later".

  • Paul.||

    If you give the gun control movement this, they'll go away.

  • robc||

    And Epi calls me all kind of horrible things when I point this out, then claims he wasnt talking about me.

    Of course, you do the same thing on other issues.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Logically speaking, if you support the restriction of a government benefit to as few people as possible, you would vote to restore miscegenation laws. Right?

  • robc||

    No, I dont favor jailing people for claiming to be married.

    That was the issue with the miscegenation laws.

    No one is saying gays who get married should be jailed. Well, no one rational.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Would you support a law that said that interracial couples marriages would not be recognized?

  • robc||

    When did you stop beating your wife?

  • robc||

    Every marriage is between interracial couples as everyone is interracial.

    Does that make you happy?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You can say that about anything, literally anything, at any time.

    "can't we just admit immigrants are stalking horse Democrat voters and will take welfare benefits? Therefore, we can't talk about welfare reform"

    "can't we just admit that drug abuse will go up once drugs are made legal, and there will be more junkies on the welfare state? Therefore, we can't talk about reforming the War on Drugs."

    Conservatives crack me up - you hate the State until its involvement is convenient to your BS "purity ueber alles" arguments.

  • robc||

    And apparently some "libertarians" love the state if it expands a power they like.

    I oppose expansion of government power. Period.

  • mb||

    I don't know why this is news, spousal benefits (not just monetary) were the main reason for recognition.

  • Alice Bowie||

    esa loca !!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    'm incapable of having a reasoned or thoughtful discussion on social security. I just can't stand it.

    How long have you been a racist?

  • NoVAHockey||

    we'll, i started commenting here a few years ago ...

  • Swiss Servator, Alps avast!||

    Hi, I serve the Swiss, and I am a raaaaaaacist.

    /12 step program

  • Paul.||

    Rejoice, libertarians, in the expansion of a federal benefit program!

    I almost refuse to read this post. If there was anyone left on the planet who thought legalizing gay marriage wasn't about federal benefits, they weren't paying any attention.

  • Paul.||

    And... apologies in advance, after re-reading my post, it looks like I don't think gays should be eligible federal benefits. this is not the case. Some of my best friends are gays. (lulz)

    I was just stunned when NPR was reporting in the earlier days of the gay marriage debate that without legal marriage, gays were denied something like 8,000 federal benefits.

    I nearly drove off the road. My thought had nothing to do with gay marriage, but had to do with how we got to a place where our government gave out 8000 specialized goodies only to married people.

    I realized then that we were truly fucked, and gays had an absolute right to be fucked right along with us.

  • DJF||

    It was not just about getting federal benefits, its also about forcing others to recognize the marriage and making them do what they don’t want to do.

    That is what laws are about, forcing people to do what they don’t want to do. If they wanted to do something you would not need a law, they would just do it..

  • Paul.||

    I agree that's a secondary effect, but I that's a battle that has to be fought and won on its own merits. You can't deny gays marriage because you're afraid that wedding photographer might lose freedom of association, or an exclusive gay organization is forced to hire straight people as its officers.

  • robc||

    Yes, you can.

    Its not two separate battles, its one and the same.

    You know the saying about the perfect being the enemy of the good? It works the opposite way to.

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure I follow you, but assuming I do, I don't see that as a winning strategy. Let me make an extreme analogy, feel free to counter:

    We deny blacks the vote, not because we think they shouldn't be able to vote, but because we foresee a large number of bullshit civil rights and EOC regulations coming down which fuck up freedom of association in semi-related cases.

  • robc||

    As I said below, Im not going thru that debate again.

    Or, see below, we are all black.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    " Im not going thru that debate again."

    This does little to make your reasoning look stronger. If you find it too tiresome or effortful to explain your reasons why show up here and post (multiple times) as to your conclusions?

  • robc||

    See around, Ive explained it in this thread, multiple times now.

  • PRX||

    sorry IRS, my husband-grandpa's estate is community property!

  • Zeb||

    You have a valid marriage license with your and your grandpa's name on it?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If there was anyone left on the planet who thought legalizing gay marriage wasn't about federal benefits, they weren't paying any attention.

    But- but, TROO LUV! HUMAN DIGNITY! RESPEKT!

    You'd have to be some sort of monster to believe this whole thing is just another scam for people to stick their hands in somebody else's pocket.

  • robc||

    As someone who has opposed the expansion of marriage for the exact reasons that Shackford is mocking, of course SS has to pay out these benefits.

    Once a state licenses the marriage, its going to be valid for SS payouts.

    Its an expansion of federal power as well as state power.

    Liberty gets a little bit smaller.

    And some libertarians somehow support this.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    As I said above, it's for the same reason i would oppose miscegenation laws.

  • robc||

    As I said above, no gays are getting jailed for getting married or cohabitating.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but legalizing gay marriage means that gay marriage was previously illegal! That's what legalizing means! So there had to be gays in jail for illegal marriage! That's what illegal means!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are being silly, you know what he means. Now that we wasted time on that exchange you could answer what you knew his question was: Would you vote for a law denying recognition of interracial marriages?

  • robc||

    Its not my job to answer stupid hypotheticals.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Even when the hypothetical demonstrates where your faulty reasoning leads?

  • robc||

    I think argument via hypothetical is the worse form of argument.

    Just make your point on the actual stuff, no hypotheticals, no analogies.

    Those are crutches for the weak.

    And you havent answered my hypothetical up above.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The actual point is that were this the 1960s, you would have voted against repealing miscegenation laws.

    You don't believe in equality before the law.

  • robc||

    I oppose miscegenation laws as they make no fucking sense, as there is no such thing as race.

    Plus they jailed people for behavior that harmed no one.

    Like Bo, you cant fucking read and apply what you read.

  • robc||

    Also, I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments (months, in this case) ago.

    /parliamented

    There was a long thread on this, Im not repeating it.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I want to go on the record here as saying that Bo Cara, Devil's Advocate, is actually asking a good question in this case.

  • robc||

    No he isnt.

    All marriage are interracial marriages so the question doesnt even make any fucking sense. Or none are, as we are all mixed race.

  • Zeb||

    OK then. What about marriages between people with different color eyes? There is such a thing as eye color. Would you support laws forbidding government recognition of marriages between people with different eye colors?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    robc has of course an excellent answer, but he has already given it and is therefore precluded from ever giving it again.

    But to be sure, it was excellent and dispositive.

  • robc||

    And Ive posted in this thread 14 fucking times, but you cant read.

  • robc||

    Including right above your comment, 1 minute before you made it.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    First of all, that was my hypothetical.

    Second of all, yeah, I'm still siding with Bo here. robc is being evasive because he knows he would have to vote to approve miscegenation laws.

    The fact is the class of "those individuals who would marry other-raced individuals" were denied a government benefit. Then they weren't. The fact is now the class of "those individuals who would marry same-gendered individuals" are denied a government benefit. robc doens't like comparing the two for emotional reasons, but the logic is rock-solid.

  • robc||

    See above.

    You are wrong. There is no emotion involved.

    And you are right, my logic is rock-solid.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I have the solution: when I go to marry my hypothetical boyfriend, I'll just put down I'm a woman on the license. Unless you want to require a chromosomal analysis, you can't tell me I can't.

  • R C Dean||

    You are being silly, you know what he means.

    It would be nice if he would say what he means.

    As in "government-licensed gay marriage", not "legal gay marriage."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "And some libertarians somehow support this."

    I think what they (well, we since I supported it) supported was equal protection under the law. I mean, if there were a law saying only white children could go to public schools would you support that on the grounds that by excluding blacks it kept government smaller?

  • sarcasmic||

    I crown you King of Terrible Analogies!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Can you explain what is wrong with the analogy?

    In both cases we have a government benefit (schools/marriage) and a class of people the benefits could be expanded to.

  • sarcasmic||

    *shakes head*

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is that shaking it to mean 'no, I can not?'

    The analogy is spot on, you just do not like where it leads you. If it makes you less uncomfortable change 'blacks' to 'Romas' or something.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There was no loaded question in my analogy. Since you clearly understand what a loaded question is, can you tell us how my analogy commits it?

  • sarcasmic||

    I spend enough time explaining the obvious to my four year old. You're not worth the patience.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You can no do it, because there is no unjustified assumption built into my analogy. That is what makes a loaded question, you probably made the mistake that it was a loaded question because the analogy demonstrated the principle, if applied consistently, led to something hard to defend. But that is not a loaded question.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like robc said below, you are clearly not understanding his position. That is why your analogies suck. They misrepresent the position and imply racism. Fucking shit you're terrible at logic. You're as bad as Tony.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "you are clearly not understanding his position. That is why your analogies suck. They misrepresent the position and imply racism. "

    You just repeated three times 'your analogy is bad' without, still, explaining how or why.

  • robc||

    No, he just explained it.

    You cant make an analogy that is proper if you dont accept the other persons premises first.

  • sarcasmic||

    You just repeated three times 'your analogy is bad' without, still, explaining how or why.

    Read below, nitwit.

  • robc||

    Its a loaded question because it starts with the assumption that race exists.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With respect robc, that evasiveness Neoliberal describes below crossed the line into pathetic with that answer.

  • robc||

    I told you I didnt want to go thru it again.

    Now, scientifically, tell me where Im wrong.

    Define race for me.

    I want some test that will allow me to determine what my race is objectively.

    You cant fucking do it.

    Race doesnt exist.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Show me where love exists, and define it for me. Show me the science behind wonderment, joy, sadness, etc.

    I mean, seriously, fuck this specious bullshit.

  • robc||

    Show me where love exists, and define it for me. Show me the science behind wonderment, joy, sadness, etc.

    I hope that love, wonderment, joy and sadness are never basis for law.

    I oppose any laws that are based on those concepts too.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Race existing is not what my analogy was about. This is getting sad.

    Look, change the word 'black children' in the example to 'children with dark skin' if that makes you happy. I even said change it to 'Romas' if you would like. That should tell you that the analogy is not about the concept of race, but about applying your principle generally.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Seriously, change it to fucking aliens if you want, robc. The fact that you're fighting this analogy so hard is telling - you're a bullshit artist on this subject.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is something to see, is it not?

    robc told me that he sympathizes with social conservative lifestyle views. On the other hand, he (admirably I think) wants to be a libertarian. But I think he lets his need to be comfortable with the former push him into some weird places with the latter, and I think that is what you are seeing here. I for one am done playing at his 'move the can' game.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Jesus Christ, robc.

    Fine, then the gay marriage thing is "loaded" because it starts off with the premise that a defined (as opposed to fluid) sexuality exists.

  • robc||

    Fine, then the gay marriage thing is "loaded" because it starts off with the premise that a defined (as opposed to fluid) sexuality exists.

    Nope.

    Gender exists. Or sex. "Sexuality" doesnt come into it, I dont think.

    We can define peoples sex/gender* based on chromosomes with some exceptions for weird outliers.

    There is no way to do the same for race.

    *I know there is some difference between those terms for those in the whatever communities. But Im ignoring that bullshit too.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "That bullshit" sounds an awful like "your bullshit" on race. The genderqueer people say the same kinda dumbness you say about race.

    Please, by all means, go to a black church and tell them they're not black. That'd be hilarious.

  • robc||

    The genderqueer people say the same kinda dumbness you say about race.

    Yes, they do.

    The difference is, I have science on my side.

    That is why they distinguish sex from gender. I forget which is which, I think "sex" is the one based entirely on XX v XY (with outliers) while "gender" is something else. But I cant keep it straight.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    No, you don't have science on your side. You have defined sexes; you can't, according to them, define gender.

    you can scientifically define races, rob. No, there isn't a ruler where you can measure someone's blackness, but the same is applicable to many different types of social constructs, emotions, cultures, etc.

    I don't ever want to hear you say anything about "X culture" or "Y culture" ever again, because seriously, this "how many grains is a heap" bullshit is fucking ridiculous.

  • robc||

    I doubt I have used the word "culture" 5 times in my history of posting on reason.

    Are you confusing me with John or something?

    you can scientifically define races, rob.

    No, you cant. Some geneticists have tried it and they have failed.

  • robc||

    there isn't a ruler

    Thats the point. The law needs a fucking ruler.

    That is why law isnt (or shouldnt be) based on social constructs, emotions, cultures, etc. Race is a social construct, there is no ruler for a law to be based upon it.

  • robc||

    Actually, the analogy has one good aspect, as public schools shouldnt exist either.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Blacks would have been better off not going to government schools.

  • robc||

    We are all black under the one drop rule.

  • Paul.||

    Says you. I became white under the one drop rule.

  • robc||

    And that is the point. There is no fucking thing as race.

    We are all multi-racial, or just fucking human.

  • Paul.||

    People have been misusing the term race to define ethnicity for years. I don't much care any more. Identity politics is for small people.

  • robc||

    I value liberty more than equality.

    Equality under the law is nice, but not at a cost of even a drop of liberty.

  • R C Dean||

    And, of course, under a night watchman state, you get both.

    Its only when the state grows beyond a minimalist role that equality and liberty come into conflict.

  • PRX||

    what BCE means is that all blacks are on the down-low.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is there something around here that makes so many struggle with the entire concept of argument by analogy?

  • robc||

    Most analogies suck hard. Even the ones I sometimes make.

    Argue the actual point.

  • sarcasmic||

    Most analogies suck hard. Even the ones I sometimes make.

    Argue the actual point.

    But then he couldn't make veiled accusations of bigotry!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I had no intentions of making accusations of bigotry, veiled or otherwise. The point of the analogy was to show what a consistent application of robc's principle would look like, and if it leads to an ugly place it is not that robc is ugly but that the principle is flawed.

  • sarcasmic||

    I had no intentions of making accusations of bigotry, veiled or otherwise.

    My bullshit detector is going haywire.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Arguing by analogy IS one way of arguing a point. It makes your point general.

    Here your point, if consistent, amounts to supporting any move by government to treat groups different under the law as long as in doing so it makes government smaller (and of course this means opposing any move by government to treat groups the same under the law if doing so makes government larger). My analogy demonstrates what that principle would look like applied. That you seem unwilling to want to go to where it leads speaks something about your positions.

  • sarcasmic||

    That you seem unwilling to want to go to where it leads speaks something about your positions.

    Yay! More veiled accusations of bigotry!

    Shorter Bo: If you don't agree with me then you are a bigot, and the only way to prove you are not a bigot is to agree with me. Bigot.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    sarcasmic, you are being paranoid or projecting. I was referring to his position being one he would not want consistently applied and therefore failing a basic principle of logic.

    Not everyone is out to yell bigot at others.

  • robc||

    You clearly dont understand my position.

    supporting any move by government to treat groups different under the law as long as in doing so it makes government smaller

    Nope.

    I oppose any move by government that makes government larger. There are some moves by govenment that would make it smaller that I oppose. Those positions are consistent.

    You suck at logic.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Which means that you support any effort to make government smaller. Which means it would be OK to exclude people of a certain race or gender from public schools. Less public school students = less government.

    I rarely, if ever, side with Bo, but you're being deliberately evasive and you damn well know it.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I oppose any move by government that makes government larger. There are some moves by govenment that would make it smaller that I oppose.

    That's a bullshit answer. Sorry, but it is.

  • robc||

    That's a bullshit answer.

    No it isnt.

    It is a valid position.

    While Ive criticized Scalia for over-applying it, the position of not changing things to keep a system where people no what the law is going to be is valid.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's a bullshit answer. Sorry, but it is.

    Because saying the government shouldn't do something is the same as saying the government shouldn't do anything! Limited government is no government! Reductio ad Somaliism!

  • robc||

    Reductio ad Somaliism!

    Nice. I may have to use that term in the future.

    As Im not an ancap, support for some government is a given.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "There are some moves by govenment that would make it smaller that I oppose.

    On what grounds? In other words, if not making government larger trumps all other principles, what trumps making government smaller for you at times?

  • robc||

    On what grounds?

    Well, easy example.

    I would oppose government getting smaller by legalizing murder.

    I would support government getting smaller by legalizing heroin.

    Maybe you can figure out the underlying principle?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So, today, if there were a plebiscite on voting to deny men and men only SNAP benefits, your vote would be...?

    you have no underlying principle. If you had one, you would have articulated it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OK, well, how does this underlying principle not lead you to excluding blacks from public schools (and just to keep sarcasmic calm, I promise there will be no accusations of racism coming).

  • robc||

    how does this underlying principle not lead you to excluding blacks from public schools

    Have you read a single fucking post Ive made in this thread?

    Read them and apply it to that hypothetical.

    Explain your work.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    fine, we won't exclude them, we just won't appropriate any funding for public schools that have a certain level of black attendees.

    How's that for an analogy?

  • robc||

    Sigh.

    Missing the point yet again.

    And how about not arguing from analogy? Too difficult for you?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nope nope nope, rob.

    You said you would "oppose any move by government that makes government larger." When the funds for FY 2014 run out for schools, do you support government reallocating those funds for 2015 to the public schools? Would you support them only funding some schools? If so, would it be OK to de-fund black schools?

  • robc||

    When the funds for FY 2014 run out for schools, do you support government reallocating those funds for 2015 to the public schools?

    No.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So is it OK if government just chooses not to make itself bigger by not reallocating funds only to a certain set of schools?

    DON'T EVADE.

  • robc||

    I would be fine with that. They should probably stick within current federal law so that they dont end up spending even more money after they get sued.

    So, yes, they would have to fund rural schools too.

    I know you, you only wanted to fund schools inside statistical metropolitan areas, you anti-farmer bigot.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, it is your underlying principle. Stop keeping it under a bushel (and then moving the bushel around)!

    What principle underlies your opposing excluding blacks from public schools? It is your principle, you should be able to point it to me easily, right? And do not say 'I have already said it here' or 'I have said it a few months ago.' Say it in your reply. Blacks should not be excluded from public schools because ______.

  • robc||

    No, learn to fucking read.

    Im not your slave, I refuse to fill in your fucking blank.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nope. you're a bullshit artist and you're being deliberately evasive.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You can not then. My, why did it take so long to get there!

  • robc||

    I can, see all over this fucking thread.

    Take any of 2 dozen different posts and plug it into your blank. I will give you a hint: use my 1:03 post.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    If it's so easy, rob, you should be able to answer it again without having to go "nope see my posts from X time ago at Y paragraph on Z date" That's a hallmark bullshit argument. You're being evasive.

  • robc||

    Im having fun being evasive, because you are Bo are too dumb to just fill in the fucking answer yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Im having fun being evasive, because you are Bo are too dumb to just fill in the fucking answer yourself.

    They can't fill it in because that would require admitting that redefining marriage and refusing to educate blacks are not the same thing. Their only argument is that any disagreement is rooted in bigotry. That's all they've got. They can't give it up. I mean, without that ad hominem, they'd have no argument at all.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "They can't fill it in because that would require admitting that redefining marriage and refusing to educate blacks are not the same thing."

    We are not saying that. We are saying that if the reason you have for opposing recognizing gay marriage is that it would make the government larger to do so then that reason applies similarly to extending government benefits to other groups previously excluded as well. The government benefits are all different kinds of course, they are only similar in that they are benefits which are expanded by inclusion of a previously excluded group.

  • sarcasmic||

    We are saying that if the reason you have for opposing recognizing gay marriage is that it would make the government larger to do so then that reason applies similarly to extending government benefits to other groups previously excluded as well.

    Uh, no. Nothing (except your abject failure to understand logic) dictates that opposing something new that increases government requires opposing all old somethings that increased government. Nothing at all.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is pathetic robc. If you had an answer you would give it. 'Guess it yourself' is unworthy of a playground.

  • robc||

    How will you learn if you dont work out the problem yourself?

    As I just said, the only post I needed to make was my one at 12:19.

    From that, all else follows.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There is nothing for me or anyone else to learn, and I for one knew that at the start of the conversation. You have no articulable reasoning for your position, none that you are willing to apply consistently. It was fun to see you shuffle all over the place though (the digression into race as a social construct was of course the high point of that).

  • sarcasmic||

    Have you read a single fucking post Ive made in this thread?

    Read them and apply it to that hypothetical.

    Explain your work.

    You don't understand robc. The only possible reason why anyone would oppose using force of government to redefine marriage is that they hate homosexuals. The only possible way to prove you do not hate homosexuals is to support using government force to redefine marriage. Applying logic to that premise, anyone who opposes using government force to redefine marriage must oppose interracial marriage, because miscegeny laws once existed. So obviously anyone who opposes using government force to redefine marriage is a bigot in every way, and must want blacks out of schools.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    sarcasmic, like I said supra you are being paranoid or projecting. Neither I nor Neoliberal are accusing anyone of being bigots against homosexuals, we are giving examples of what application of robc's principle would look like and asking if he is fine with that. If he answers fine I for one have no plan to say 'bigot!', rather I would say 'I think your principle leads to a pretty bad place and I would therefore reject it.' No one has yelled bigot but you seem to hunger or need someone to do so.

    And this line 'using government force to redefine marriage' is ludicrous in the context of talking about which marriages government will recognize.

  • robc||

    the context of talking about which marriages government will recognize.

    The only context that needs discussing is "none of them".

  • robc||

    If he answers

    I answered at 12:19 but you were too thick to understand it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That was no answer to anything, and you know it. But it is fun to see.

  • sarcasmic||

    we are giving examples of what application of robc's principle would look like

    No you are not. You are clearly demonstrating that you do not (or refuse to) understand what his principle is.

    And this line 'using government force to redefine marriage' is ludicrous in the context of talking about which marriages government will recognize.

    Uh, how does government decide which marriages it will recognize? Er, um, by defining marriage? Maybe? Now you're just being obtuse.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    sarcasmic, tell me what his principle is. And then tell me how it applies to opposing gay marriage, but not excluding blacks from public schools.

  • sarcasmic||

    Opposition to new increases in government do not automatically equate to opposition to cherry-picked past increases in government. It's not that hard a concept.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As Neoliberal explained, the 'cherry picking' charge demonstrates you and robc's emotive response to a particular application of the principle he put forward at first (opposing increases in government). Paying more money and hiring more teachers to allow a previously excluded group (let us forget the word 'black' if it brings up such emotions) into public schools would make government larger, just as recognizing gay marriages would.

    So now what you are saying is that robc's point is some strange stare decisis that past increases in government (at least 'that' one) are unobjectionable, but this current one is? Does not THAT seem like 'cherry picking' to you? There still has to be some principle as to why the past one is OK (is it just that it happened in the past? Can not be as the torturous concessions neoliberal got from robc about school funding demonstrates).

  • sarcasmic||

    Opposing new increases in government does not equate to opposing past increases in government.

    "No, don't do that" is not the same as "No, don't do that anymore."

    You can keep insisting that it is, but it only makes you look like an ass who can't comprehend basic logic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Uh, how does government decide which marriages it will recognize? Er, um, by defining marriage?"

    How is the government defining what are the marriages it will recognize='using government force to redefine marriage?'

  • sarcasmic||

    How is the government defining what are the marriages it will recognize='using government force to redefine marriage?'

    I can't tell if you're obtuse or stupid. Whatever.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I want to know how the government changing its definition of marriage amounts to it 'using force' to redefine marriage.

    If the NFL changes its definition of what roughing the passer penalties are, is it 'using force to redefine roughing the passer?'

  • sarcasmic||

    I want to know how the government changing its definition of marriage amounts to it 'using force' to redefine marriage.

    Ask that bakery who has been compelled to make a cake for a same sex couple.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Those are anti-discrimination laws which I oppose.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those are anti-discrimination laws which I oppose.

    I supported the same sex marriage cause while it was under the guise of being treated equally under the law, but withdrew my support once the argument because one of civil rights. At that point I understood that the point was not equal protection, but an excuse to initiate force through the courts. Of course I was ridiculed for even suggesting it, but it turned out I was right.

  • sarcasmic||

    *became* not *because*

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think what they (well, we since I supported it) supported was equal protection under the law.

    I support equal LACK of protection under the law.

    But I'm not a Precautionary Principle Libertarian.

  • robc||

    I support equal LACK of protection under the law.

    As do I.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So, if the state said tomorrow it was going to cut back on government by not recognizing or acting on all contracts entered into by the Late P Brooks, but would continue to recognize and enforce all other contracts for everyone else you would be fine with that?

  • robc||

    See, stupid hypotheticals are stupid.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, if you think the analogy inapt please explain how.

  • R C Dean||

    How does signaling out P Brooks for lack of protection constitute equal lack of protection?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I know there are many libertarians who are frustrated that recognizing same-sex marriages has the additional impact of getting the federal government more involved in more people’s private lives rather than less, but that’s a completely separate fight.

    Uh, huh.

    "Aside from that, how did you like the play, Missus Lincoln?"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    but would continue to recognize and enforce all other contracts for everyone else you would be fine with that?

    Fail.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ipse dixit!

  • PRX||

    when I signed the social contract, spousal benefits were defined as generally going to little old lady homemakers, not able bodied males. is it time to revisit the idea of spousal benefits since definitions have changed?

  • robc||

    when I signed the social contract

    clap clap clap

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If I have savings earmarked for my "retirement" over which I have outright ownership and control, I can, in the event of my untimely demise, designate any beneficiary I wish, be it the American Communist Party, the Flat Earth Society, or my cats.

    Proceeds from a Ponzi Scheme run by the government are not the same thing.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Plainly, no action will ever be undertaken, for good or evil, absent a Law.

  • RishJoMo||

    Round man is not goign to like that.

    www.AnonGoes.tk

  • Bruce Hall||

    But on the plus side, there will be more work for divorce lawyers.

  • Head Stomp||

    I eagerly await for the libertarians so concerned with equal protection under the law to argue that:

    alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc should be prohibited
    pot possession should receive penalties equivalent to crack possession
    everyone should quality for food stamps, section 8, ssdi, etc

    Hooray analogies!

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    .

  • KPres||

    What a shitty thread.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement