Marriage Propositions Gaining Steam (and no one Cares)

Over at the Corner, Maggie Gallagher is celebrating the growing support for Florida's Proposition 2, California's Proposition 8, and Arizona's Proposition 102, each of which—if passed—would ban gay marriage in those states (and in the case of Florida, civil unions and domestic partnerships as well):

Younger voters are leading the swing against gay marriage, reports CBS News. Why? My best guess is: a lot of them are parents who don’t really want their schools teaching their 5 year olds about King and King (See the latest ad, at www.protectmarriage.com.)...

Meanwhile the Miami Herald is conceding that polls show the Florida marriage amendment commands a strong majority support.

Getting to 60 percent is a big hurdle, but the undecideds tend to break in favor of marriage amendments.

In Arizona the latest poll shows the marriage amendment is up 49 percent to 40 percent. 

It's the Corner, right? No surprise there. But what is surprising is that these developments aren't getting anywhere near as much airtime on the major networks, editorial pages, or blogs as other expressions of convervative bigotry. How is it that chastising Republicans for exaggerating Barack Obama's connection to Bill Ayers (which Michael Moynihan criticizes in the post below) is more important than covering the GOP's efforts at further alienating (to put it lightly) nontraditional families in two of the biggest, most affluent states in the country? (And Arizona—which has me searching to no avail for the appropriate superlative.)

Leave it to Dan Savage—a potty-mouthed, threesome-lovin', sex columnist, for chrissakes—to be the a leading critic of both bans (and of course, Andrew Sullivan):

The six biggest Savage Love donors to either www.noonprop8.com or www.sayno2 .com will see their letters in print, and everyone who makes a donation of at least $25 to either group—send me your donation confirmation e-mail along with your question—gets a personal reply from yours truly. The cutoff date for eligible letters is October 16. And if my readers in Canada want to play along, too, you're invited to send proof of a donation to someone, anyone, running against Stephen Harper.

(Side note: Gallagher is one of the most disillusioned, spiteful, and smug opponents of same-sex marriage in the game. One would think that the author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially would concede that even gays deserve to be happier, healthier, and better off financially.) 

Comments

robc | October 9, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Maybe if gays want to be happier, healthier and better off financially they should marry a member of the opposite sex. :)

robc | October 9, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Someone was gonna say it, I figured I would just do it first.

Mike Riggs | October 9, 2008, 4:02pm | #

Shame on you.

robc | October 9, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Actual conversation (not a transcript) between myself (R) and a roommate (G) of mine back in the mid 90s.

R: So why are you opposed to lesbians?
G: They reduce options in the dating pool.
R: Yeah, but Im not interested in them, they arent attractive.
G: True, but that doesnt matter. Some other guy may be and that reduces competition for the hot chicks.
R: Okay, so gay guys are okay because they reduce competition?
G: Exactly.

I cant argue with his game theory. And hence, for the same reason, I oppose my 3:59 "suggestion".

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 4:10pm | #

I can argue with his game theory; lesbians, by definition, are not attracted to men. even if a man is *temporarily* attracted to a lesbian, he (should) learn fast that the jig is up.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 4:10pm | #

Hmmm...now does that mean that gay men should oppose straight females? Cause that doesn't seem to work out in practice. They're always gathering in the beauty parlors and talking about me behind my back.

butch | October 9, 2008, 4:11pm | #

It doesn't matter if she's attracted to you if you are stronger than her.

| October 9, 2008, 4:12pm | #

*Yawn*

J sub D | October 9, 2008, 4:12pm | #

(And Arizona—which has me searching to no avail for the appropriate superlative.)

Driest?

It saddens me that some people's marriages/relationships are on such fragile ground that Lucy and Linda getting hitched would somehow cause it to collapse. I don't understand why a thinking person even gives a crap about how people they despise live their private lives.

gmatts | October 9, 2008, 4:14pm | #

I'm surprised that Gallagher, as an employee of Nat'l Review, didn't write an article on how Chris Buckley (who is now featured in an article on NRO titled "Anything Goes with Christopher Buckley) is so much "happier, healthier and wealthier" after he fucked his publicist, got her pregnant, decided not to marry her, practically disowned the kid, and is trying to pay less in child support (to stay wealthy, I assume).
I guess those are the virtues that us heterosexuals have which we can't let the queers aspire to.

robc | October 9, 2008, 4:14pm | #

TAO,

Yes, but that "temporary" attraction may be all you need to get first dibs on the straight woman. Leveraging small advantages. [Insert analogy about limit hold em vs no-limit hold em here]

Jennifer | October 9, 2008, 4:15pm | #

One would think that the author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially would concede that even gays deserve to be happier, healthier, and better off financially.

Awww, Mike, you're so adorable when you're being naive (pinches cheek). Do you think an anti-gay bigot wants homosexuals to be happy, healthy and prosperous? What kind of example would it set for The Children if they saw gay people doing something other than starving in a gutter?

robc | October 9, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Hmmm...now does that mean that gay men should oppose straight females? Cause that doesn't seem to work out in practice.

Its a well known fact (that I just made up) that gay men arent good at gaming theory.

Brandybuck | October 9, 2008, 4:15pm | #

My mom sends me scare-emails about Prop 8. Most of it is completely over the top. "Save your marriage! Oppose the Radical Homosexual Agenda! They're already talking about group marriage, next step is marrying animals""

I wonder how long until they start scaring people with rumours of elementary schools teaching kids how to properly lube a fist.

p.s. I think both sides are off base here, as both sides want government to be the marriage definer.

dead_elvis | October 9, 2008, 4:16pm | #

I had the pleasure of laughing at some poor guy going around door to door trying to get people to vote yes on Prop 8.

In hindsight, I should have strung him along for a while, just to waste his time so he had less time to annoy other people.

To tie in with the post down below, "You Don't Need a Conservative Pundit to Know Which Way the Wind Blows", any Californian who cares to vote based on the pocketbook should send this down in flames, as it is a good tourism boost. At least as long as most of the rest of the country still doesn't allow gay marriage.

MAX HATS | October 9, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Kathyrn Jean Lopez is having nightmares that even the homos will get married before she does. "Oh Mitt! Only you understand me!"

Warren | October 9, 2008, 4:20pm | #

robc,
I've heard that conversation before. But where? It was in a movie. Two cops were guarding a gay witness. Damn, I just can't place it.

old saw | October 9, 2008, 4:21pm | #

If the goal of conservatives is to reduce the amount of sex that gays have, isn't having them get married a step in the right direction?

Warty | October 9, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Its a well known fact (that I just made up) that gay men arent good at gaming theory.

95% of all facts are utter bullshit. This is a well-known fact.

Episiarch | October 9, 2008, 4:24pm | #

Do you think an anti-gay bigot wants homosexuals to be happy, healthy and prosperous?

Considering the state of so many people's marriages, if anti-gay bigots don't want gays to be happy they should be encouraging them to get married.

SugarFree | October 9, 2008, 4:26pm | #

The only practical problem about gay marriage is what to do with the abandoned overweight neurotic girl surplus it would generate. Maybe gay marriage in conjunction with limited hunting licenses right before bikini season.

Episiarch | October 9, 2008, 4:29pm | #

what to do with the abandoned overweight neurotic girl surplus it would generate

Maybe they could go lesbian. Even more marriages!

"This slot defeats the purpose. I can see your eyes! We might as well get married."

prolefeed | October 9, 2008, 4:30pm | #

each of which—if passed—would ban gay marriage in those states

Well, no, I'm betting none of these propositions strips away the First Amendment right of a same-sex couple to gather in a church with their loved ones, have a sympathetic minister read stuff out of scriptures, pronounce them married, have everyone in the room consider them married, and have the couple openly tell everyone they meet that they're married.

What I suspect these laws do is prohibit having the government officially recognize them as being married.

Which power I would like to strip away from government for any and all couples, and force the government to instead simply allow couples of any gender to enter into legal binding contracts about inheritances, hospital visitation, adoption, and so on, and then enforce those contracts if broken.

I recognize the importance of government treating its citizens fairly and equally, straight or gay, but I would vote for these propositions too, albeit for the opposite reason of most of their supporters -- because I'm generally opposed to expanding the powers granted to government.

Warren | October 9, 2008, 4:30pm | #

SugarFree,

I want to preface this so that you understand I'm speaking in a most rational manner and with the utmost civility.

Go fuck yourself

J sub D | October 9, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Its a well known fact (that I just made up) that gay men arent good at gaming theory.

95% of all facts are utter bullshit. This is a well-known fact.

A link.

SugarFree | October 9, 2008, 4:33pm | #

OK, Warren.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 4:33pm | #

I never pictured Warren as the overweight neurotic girl type.

Andrew | October 9, 2008, 4:36pm | #

I've campaigned as much as I could against Prop 2 in Florida. I'm incredibly frustrated at how well it's been polling lately.

The yes2marriage.org site (the official site of the people campaigning for the amendment in Florida) makes me want to throw my monitor out the window.

Episiarch | October 9, 2008, 4:38pm | #

Warren, would you like a pint of ice cream?

Warren | October 9, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Warren, would you like a pint of ice cream?

Why yes. Yes I would. French vanilla topped with hot fudge and crushed nuts please.

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 4:42pm | #

French vanilla topped with hot fudge and crushed nuts please.

Must...resist...entendre....

Episiarch | October 9, 2008, 4:44pm | #

French vanilla topped with hot fudge and crushed nuts please.

Must...resist...entendre....

Not me!

I'll squeeze that right out for you, dude. Want some whipped "cream" on it too?

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 4:47pm | #

I always thought "those people" preferred their nuts whole and dipped in the fudge.

D'oh...

robc | October 9, 2008, 4:50pm | #

I've heard that conversation before. But where? It was in a movie. Two cops were guarding a gay witness. Damn, I just can't place it.

Maybe. It might be where he got the logic. I was just surprised at his odd pro-gay but anti-lesbian attitude. It, if anything, was backwards. Hence, the start of the conversation. This was 1993 or 1994.

Mike Riggs | October 9, 2008, 4:50pm | #

Re: I think both sides are off base here, as both sides want government to be the marriage definer. & Which power I would like to strip away from government for any and all couples, and force the government to instead simply allow couples of any gender to enter into legal binding contracts about inheritances, hospital visitation, adoption, and so on, and then enforce those contracts if broken.

I agree philosophically, but when you consider the wild-eyed and frothy-mouthed responses to smart ideas (like abolishing state medical licensing), isn't it more sensible/realistic to press the the state to recognize gay marriages rather than suggest it get out of the marriage biz altogether?

Ryo | October 9, 2008, 4:51pm | #

prolefeed sayeth:

Which power I would like to strip away from government for any and all couples, and force the government to instead simply allow couples of any gender to enter into legal binding contracts about inheritances, hospital visitation, adoption, and so on, and then enforce those contracts if broken.

That sounds like a pain in the ass. So, instead of the common footing we have now, where only the exceptions are carved out using contracts (prenuptial agreements, restraining orders, wills, etc...), everyone has to get contracts? Sounds like something the National Bar Association would push for. Instead of showing up at the hospital with at most your marriage certificate instead you've got to show up with a lawyer and a trail of paper work.

The "power" that the government has over marriages seems fairly limited to me - defining who can do it in a legal sense. When the government sets regulations on requiring a business to provide spouse benefits, that's the government exercising power over private enterprise, not marriage.

By voting for these amendments, you're actually increasing what limited amount of power the government does have over marriages by further restricting who can enter into them.

Boston | October 9, 2008, 5:00pm | #

Younger voters are leading the swing against gay marriage, reports CBS News. Why? My best guess is: a lot of them are parents who don’t really want their schools teaching their 5 year olds about King and King

I dont get this. Aren't these really two rather distinct issues?

Hugh Akston | October 9, 2008, 5:03pm | #

Ryo,

The marriage license conferred upon happy couples by the state is a standardized contract that implicitly sets parameters for inheritances, visitation, adoption etc. So what prolefeed is proposing is pretty much what society already does, except that it denies this right of contract between certain consenting adults for arbitrary and political reasons, and conflates the contractual aspect with some religious and sexual practices that are outside of its jurisdiction.

:-/ | October 9, 2008, 5:04pm | #

and no one cares

Ahem. Is this thing on? (tap tap)
I believe it's all about surviving at this point. You know: not having to eat your pets and loan out your children for medical experiments in order to survive? Yeah, yeah, I watch Bravo network (while passing through) and I understand that gays are unhappy and neurotic and they want to flip properties and wear unwearable clothing and tattoo their necks and cut their hair in comical arrangements...but, if I may be so bold...this insensitive human has higher priorities. Gays will continue to thwart community standards and thumb their noses at blue-nose conservatives and I'm all for it. Have a blast! Insecure, unmarried, overweight girls just love you! But you're not very important at this time. The culture is ever evolving, and you've made great progress. How about we concentrate on saving the very culture that has made you what you are? Thanks.

Warren | October 9, 2008, 5:07pm | #

How about we concentrate on saving the very culture that has made you what you are? Thanks.

Well OK. But don't you think extending homosexuals equal protection under the law is a good way to do that?

FatDrunkAndStupid | October 9, 2008, 5:08pm | #

Prolefeed,

Especially when you consider this isn't a blanket expansion of freedom and equality. It's just a politically powerful interest group lobbying to let themselves in on the marriage racket too, but still leave up the barriers to everybody else. Passing Prop 2 will actually make true marriage equality harder, because once the gays get in the largest of the discriminated groups will be satisfied and nobody will be willing to fight for everybody else.

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 5:26pm | #

Gallagher is one of the most disillusioned, spiteful, and smug opponents of same-sex marriage in the game.

Only until Stanley Kurtz walks into the room.

Episiarch | October 9, 2008, 5:33pm | #

Only until Stanley Kurtz walks into the room.

You really think he's worse than Gallagher?

Ryo | October 9, 2008, 5:37pm | #

Hugh Akston said:

So what prolefeed is proposing is pretty much what society already does, except that it denies this right of contract between certain consenting adults for arbitrary and political reasons, and conflates the contractual aspect with some religious and sexual practices that are outside of its jurisdiction.

If a gay couple wanted to enter into a series of legal contracts that mirror what the government automatically grants married couples, they could do so legally right? With maybe the exception of marriage "rights" that are actually business regulations.

So, it's not that the government is restricting who can enter into a contract. It's restricting who can benefit from a legal convenience.

In other words, what freedom is gained if the government no longer recognized marriages or civil unions or any relationship between people for that matter?

Warren | October 9, 2008, 5:46pm | #

If a gay couple wanted to enter into a series of legal contracts that mirror what the government automatically grants married couples, they could do so legally right? With maybe the exception of marriage "rights" that are actually business regulations.

No. Marriage is a well establish institution and the rights, responsibilities, and privileges it bestows are recognized by the courts. A gay couple could enter into a contractual relationship that tries to duplicate marriage, but the courts are not obliged to interpret the union as such.

stop me if you think you've heard this one | October 9, 2008, 5:47pm | #

If a gay couple wanted to enter into a series of legal contracts that mirror what the government automatically grants married couples, they could do so legally right? With maybe the exception of marriage "rights" that are actually business regulations.

Exactly. Gay marriage is a wonderful litmus test for libertarianism. That is, anybody who tells you it's a libertarian issue obviously doesn't know what the fuck libertarianism is.

Is anybody being denied the freedom to have sex with who they want? To live with who they want? To make a contract with who they want? To arrange for disposal of their property however they want?

No, no, no and no.

The only thing gay marriage accomplishes from a libertarian perspective is bringing government coercion to bear on third parties who aren't signatories to the contract, forcing them to make accommodations for a relationship they do not wish to accommodate.

Libertarian, my ass!

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 5:48pm | #

You really think he's worse than Gallagher?

Nah, they're about the same. She's definitely more spiteful but Kurtz has got "smug" nailed.

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 5:56pm | #

[Is anybody being denied the freedom to] live with who they want?

Yes. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry and thereby confer permanent residency on a foreigner. Homosexuals are not. And no amount of fancy libertarian orthodoxy envisioning a fantasy world where the government doesn't regulate marriage is going to change that, unless you get the *entire world* to go along.

prolefeed | October 9, 2008, 5:56pm | #

That sounds like a pain in the ass. So, instead of the common footing we have now, where only the exceptions are carved out using contracts (prenuptial agreements, restraining orders, wills, etc...), everyone has to get contracts?

Ryo, a marriage recognized by the government IS a contract, and legally binding. Except, unlike every other contract you might enter into, this contract doesn't spell out all the terms in detail, and thus allow the parties to read it and maybe say, 'hey, this part is a bad idea, let's strike it out? OK with you too?' And so many couples get married and don't fully recognize that they ARE entering into a contract.

So, yeah, I would say that it would be a good thing if the government were to print up standard contracts covering all the things that marriage entails by default (unless a prenup or whatnot is agreed to), and that couples sign this contract after first getting an opportunity to read it through, or choose not to sign it, or to revise it -- it would make for a lot fewer divorces / breaking of said contract -- call it what you will.

Oh, and make that standard contract available to any couple or group of people, regardless of gender or number of people involved, and not limit it to just two people of the opposite gender only.

Go ahead and take a swing at me if you want, call me unlibertarian if you want, but that's my dream -- a government that is prohibited from discriminating against gays or polygamists, treating everyone exactly the same, giving them all the right to enter into identical contracts covering the rights and obligations currently in a marriage contract, but not calling it marriage.

Warren | October 9, 2008, 6:00pm | #

The only thing gay marriage accomplishes from a libertarian perspective is bringing government coercion to bear on third parties who aren't signatories to the contract, forcing them to make accommodations for a relationship they do not wish to accommodate.

FALSE

Gay marriage is a libertarian issue in so far as libertarianism requires equal protection. That is, it is a libertarian principal that the law applies to everyone equally therefor homosexuals need to have the same access to the legal status of married as heterosexuals.

Now, beyond that. The libertarian position should be that the state has no business licensing marriage in the first place, gay or straight. There is however a legitimate need for the state to recognize one's legal status as married.

prolefeed | October 9, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Yes. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry and thereby confer permanent residency on a foreigner. Homosexuals are not. And no amount of fancy libertarian orthodoxy envisioning a fantasy world where the government doesn't regulate marriage is going to change that, unless you get the *entire world* to go along.

Nope. The U.S. doesn't need the permission of ANY other country to change its rules for conferring citizenship or permanent residency for foreigners. It doesn't need to have state-recognized gay marriages to change this law. It just needs to change the immigration laws to permit couples of the same gender to have the same rights as couples of opposite genders to have their sexual partners live in the U.S. without fear of being deported.

Not saying this would be easy to pass. Just saying it's possible to enact such a law without state-recognized contracts entered into by gays that the state calls "marriage". You can call those contracts all sorts of other things besides "marriage", thus not causing the fundies to go apeshit and kill the legislation.

stop me if you think you've heard this one | October 9, 2008, 6:06pm | #

Gay marriage is a libertarian issue in so far as libertarianism requires equal protection.

Since when does libertarianism require equal protection? Cite your source, please. I thought libertarians recognized that equality and liberty were adversarial values, and when they conflict, liberty takes precedence. That's why it's called, uh, "libertarianism".

prolefeed | October 9, 2008, 6:13pm | #

I would have a bit less of a problem with the state recognizing gay marriages if proposed enabling legislation always including the recognition of polygamist marriages. But I've yet to see ANY such proposal include polygamists, which would lead a rational person to believe that maybe, just maybe, this is really about Team Red trying to preserve favored status for a very large special interest group that tends to vote for Team Red, and Team Blue trying to gain favored status for a much smaller special interest group that votes overwhelmingly for Team Blue, and both Teams screwing over an even smaller group that it is politically inconvenient to even talk about, much less treat fairly and equally.

Team Blue has a huge credibility gap. Throw in the polygamists with any gay marriage proposal, and then I would be inclined to vote in favor of it, despite my reservations about expanding the power of the state.

ChicagoTom | October 9, 2008, 6:19pm | #

I would have a bit less of a problem with the state recognizing gay marriages if proposed enabling legislation always including the recognition of polygamist marriages.

Right because supporting no expansion of rights is better than supporting an incremental expansion of rights.

Just stop please.

People like you have the credibility gap.

You can contort yourself into a pretzel to justify you preference for the discriminatory status quo all you want, but there is no valid reason that a government that currently does regulate marriage, and has no plans to ever stop regulating marriage, should regulate it in a way discriminates which partners one can choose.

Tacos mmm... | October 9, 2008, 6:21pm | #

Only until Stanley Kurtz walks into the room.

I don't know... I don't have to worry about being pummeled by fragments of crushed watermelon when Stanley Kurtz is around.

FatDrunkAndStupid | October 9, 2008, 6:22pm | #

State sponsored marriage is itself in conflict with libertarianism. That's the main source of libertarian conflict on this issue. The purists will argue the state has no right to regulate marriage at all. The wishy washy libertarians concede that major point to the state, and just demand that homosexuals get the same treatment as heteros. I'd feel a lot better about the wishy washies though, if they replaced the word "homosexuals" with "everyone". Because I'm not going to vote to grant "equality" to homos while simultaneously denying it to everybody else in a non-traditional relationship. To me, that is the tell that reveals the "libertarian" arguments behind the gay marriage movement to be a complete sham.

Tacos mmm... | October 9, 2008, 6:27pm | #

Team Blue has a huge credibility gap. Throw in the polygamists with any gay marriage proposal, and then I would be inclined to vote in favor of it, despite my reservations about expanding the power of the state.

Involving three or more people in a marriage contract adds complexity that simply changing gender does not. For example, proxy decision making (such as healthcare power of attorney)could not be easily divided between two people without providing either a system to mediate disagreements between two individuals with equal decision-making rights over an incapacitated third, or ranking spouses by priority - first wife, second wife, etc.

It sounds like it would create more problems than it would solve.

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 6:28pm | #

FDS - that's ridiculous. Most of us "wishy washy" types hope that this is more a "foot in the door" kind of movement.

I'm one of those people who hope that "gay marriage" is the first step to legalizing and recognizing all marriages.

As said before, you're just hiding behind faux egalitarianism because you like the capricious status quo.

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 6:30pm | #

Because I'm not going to vote to grant "equality" to homos while simultaneously denying it to everybody else in a non-traditional relationship

You would be expanding the protection, not denying it to people.

Since when does libertarianism require equal protection? Cite your source, please. I thought libertarians recognized that equality and liberty were adversarial values, and when they conflict, liberty takes precedence. That's why it's called, uh, "libertarianism".

Please don't have children. Libertarianism requires equality before the law, not general egalitarianism. You're either stupid or malicious. Either way, don't procreate.

Tacos mmm... | October 9, 2008, 6:33pm | #

Because I'm not going to vote to grant "equality" to homos while simultaneously denying it to everybody else in a non-traditional relationship. To me, that is the tell that reveals the "libertarian" arguments behind the gay marriage movement to be a complete sham.

What? Is there a third gender no one has ever told me about?

stop me if you think you've heard this one | October 9, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Libertarianism requires equality before the law, not general egalitarianism.

I still haven't seen a source.

Libertarianism deals with one thing - coercion, specifically coercion by the state. Equality is not it's concern. Who is being coerced, and how, by the state's failure to recognize gay marriage?

MAX HATS | October 9, 2008, 7:07pm | #

Due to the weight of law giving rights to the married, and with marriage being currently a strictly heterosexual institution, there is a positive coercion i.e. incentive made by the state to heterosexual marriage. If libertarianism has anything to say about the government giving people free stuff for no good reason (and I'm pretty sure it does), then it has something to say about gay marriage.

Neu Mejican | October 9, 2008, 7:17pm | #

Wow, someone who makes TAO's world view seem nuanced.

Wow.

Let's try this...

I've heard this one.
Stop.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 7:19pm | #

stop me: silly question, but who exactly is an authoritative source on what libertarianism is?

Anyway, libertarianism deals with all types of coercion -- in fact, a libertarian govt would be OBLIGATED to protect its citizens from coercion initiated by other private parties, presumably via laws and agencies punishing lawbreakers. Equal protection of the laws is a pretty basic requirement there.

However...there are some classifications where we need to be concerned about equal protection, and others where we don't. We care about making sure that the murder of a black person is just as well-investigated and has the same likelihood of being prosecuted as that of a white person. However, we don't care about it when considering the fact that most people who live in large counties have to travel longer distances to go to the county courthouse or DMV than those who live right in the county seat.

So just shouting "equal protection" doesn't mean that gay marriage must be provided; you must also show that the inequality is severe and not reparable by any other means.

Bigmouth | October 9, 2008, 7:19pm | #

Bigmouth strikes again
I've got no right to take my place
In the Human race
Oh ...

VM | October 9, 2008, 7:22pm | #

hay - fuck you all those anti love supporters.

fuck you.

love is love.

William R | October 9, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Gay Marriage food for thought

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 7:28pm | #

VM, Excuse me, we're talking about marriage here, which has nothing to do with love.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 7:36pm | #

As someone who is not married and never plans on getting married, I should add that I really don't care either way on this issue. If two people are masochistic enough that they want to sign up to take part in an outdated fairy tale of an institution that doesn't comport at all with the way we actually live in the 21st century, I don't give two craps if they do or not. I mean, the whole ceremony comes closer to a 5-year-old's letter to Santa Claus than it does to the sober contract initiation that it really is supposed to be.

What other contract can you sign saying it's valid until one party dies, and then bail out of a couple of years later when the going gets rough. Fuck, we take our car loans more seriously, and yet this is supposed to be some sacred institution that everybody has to have access to. A few years after homosexuals have won this gay marriage battle, they'll be rueing it because they'll find themselves in a gay divorce mess, the same as heterosexuals.

FatDrunkAndStupid | October 9, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Angry Optimist,

But isn't there a moral hazard implicit in the "foot in the door" approach? What if people take your arguments at face value? And I've actually seen people in the gay marriage movement, on more than one occasion, react with disgust and denial when a commentator asks them if gay marriage wouldn't logically lead to polygamy or dog-man unions, so this isn't just some hypothetical concern.

And the even larger issue is that for those of us on the anarcho-capitalist side of the libertarian spectrum, the heterosexuals are actually the ones being punished the worst under the current system. State regulated marriage for everyone would be the worst of all possible worlds.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 7:56pm | #

FDAS, the point is that gays don't want multi-marriages to be recognized. The point of this movement is to elevate homosexuality out of the range of "sexual deviance" and into the realm of respectable relationships. "We're monogamous, not like THOSE PEOPLE." Sort of like, during the late 19th century, the Irish were the biggest racists in America, desperate to ensure that some other group remained below them on the socioeconomic totem pole.

There will always be sexual deviance, however such is defined. To cohere, society needs there to be outsiders to define itself against.

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 7:57pm | #

I'm not going to vote to grant "equality" to homos while simultaneously denying it to everybody else in a non-traditional relationship.

Let the group marriage folks fight their own battles. Gay marriage is a lot more similar to straight marriage than to other "non-traditional relationships" into which you are trying to lump them.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 7:59pm | #

Gay marriage is a lot more similar to straight marriage than to other "non-traditional relationships" into which you are trying to lump them.

How so? Numbers aren't everything. Polygyny and polyandry involve heterosexual sex and the possibility of biological offspring, while homosexual relationships do not.

Gene Berkman | October 9, 2008, 8:02pm | #

How about "Arizona, Rock Garden capital of America."
Not exactly a superlative, more a descriptive.

Maggie Gallagher is quite the Orwellian - her idea of The Marriage Movement is to stop marriages, if she does not approve of them.

Do opponents of non-discriminatary marriage actually believe their own marriages are that fragile as to be threatened by someone else's happiness? Pitiful, in the sense that you have to pity someone so afraid.

A rarely stated libertarian argument in favor of marriage is that spouses do not have to pay inheritance tax on assets left by a dead spouse. Other property rights are also protected by marriage, and certainly libertarians favor equal protection of property rights.

Brandybuck | October 9, 2008, 8:04pm | #

Heterosexuals are allowed to marry and thereby confer permanent residency on a foreigner. Homosexuals are not.

Marriages of convenience have been around for a very long time. There's absolutely nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a foreign woman. If their goal is to simply confer permanent residency on someone then there's nothing stopping them.

Actually, gays have had the right to marry since the beginning. They just haven't had the choice of their partner's gender. Demanding the "right to marry" is somewhat silly, when what you really want is the "right to marry [insert-preferred-gender-of-spouse-here]".

As a single guy, I'm having problems working up sympathy for either side.

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 8:16pm | #

desperate to ensure that some other group remained below them on the socioeconomic totem pole

And some people are desperate to ascribe sinister motives to anything and everything outside their ken.

rhywun | October 9, 2008, 8:21pm | #

If their goal is to simply confer permanent residency on someone then there's nothing stopping them.

Maybe, just perhaps, the goal is to live with the person they love.

Actually, gays have had the right to marry since the beginning.

The old "you haven't found the right woman yet" argument. I figured that was coming--it always does. I know marriage means nothing to many people any more, but I'm pretty sure that to a gay man, marrying a woman is not the same as marrying a man.

Jennifer | October 9, 2008, 8:42pm | #

silly question, but who exactly is an authoritative source on what libertarianism is?

Dondero.

Polygyny and polyandry involve heterosexual sex and the possibility of biological offspring, while homosexual relationships do not.

Neither do heterosexual marriages involving infertile people or post-menopausal women. Shall we deny marriage rights to them, too?

KipEsquire | October 9, 2008, 8:51pm | #

SurveyUSA, the source of the (local) CBS polling data, is a bargain-basement outfit that uses short, pre-recorded messages to which people respond via the touchpad on their phone. The company is hired almost exclusively by television stations to determine what news stories to cover (i.e., which would get the highest ratings).

While a "Bradley effect" is certainly possible, it is implausible that the numbers could turn so severely so quickly and that the cause would be young people. The generation gap regarding anti-gay bigotry generally and same-sex marriage specifically is well-documented -- even among conservatives.

cunnivore | October 9, 2008, 9:01pm | #

I don't want to deny anyone access to their own marital hell. Just find it funny that, at the same time as homosexuals demand that heteros accept their relationships as equally valuable, they're quick to distance themselves from other non-traditionals.

Homo Lover | October 9, 2008, 9:10pm | #

Some of you just don't like the idea of gay people getting married, I bet. That's the impression I'm getting, anyway, judging by the shallowness of some of these rationalization. Gay marriage an expansion of state power? Give me a break.

MJ | October 9, 2008, 9:33pm | #

"...disillusioned, spiteful, and smug..."

Is not that a large part of Reason's hiring criteria for writers?

Coarsetad | October 9, 2008, 9:49pm | #

Brandybuck wrote:
"right to marry [insert-preferred-gender-of-spouse-here]"

let me fix that for you..
"right to marry [insert the person they LOVE]"

MJ | October 9, 2008, 9:57pm | #

"But what is surprising is that these developments aren't getting anywhere near as much airtime on the major networks, editorial pages, or blogs as other expressions of convervative bigotry."

Let's see:
1. The stuff surrounding the presidential campaign is of greater genereal interest.

2. It does not help the Democrats. The issue is such a loser that Dems will not be pinned down as being unequivically for it. Obama & Biden's official positions on gay marriage attempt to straddle the fence on the issue to such an extent that they are completely incoherent. See what Biden said in VP debate.

3. It's not bigotry. The thought process that leads someone to believe that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is untoward discrimination, is the same belief in radical equality that leads one to think that ladies night's at bars and that Hooter's won't hire males as servers is illegal discrimination against men. There are situations where it makes perfect sense to treat differently on the basis of gender differences. Marriage is one of them.

robc | October 9, 2008, 10:02pm | #

Coarsetad,

Marrying for love? Thats so 20th century.

KipEsquire | October 9, 2008, 10:08pm | #

MJ 9:57 --

If you had a single libertarian cell in your body, then you would understand that there is a fundamental difference between laws restricting private property owners and laws denying fair and equal access to what the government currently offers to some but not all.

If you're going to pat yourself on the back for your supposed non-bigotry, then don't do it around people who see right through it.

Kalmia | October 9, 2008, 10:08pm | #

The first three words of CA prop 10 are "Eliminates the right". Right there, all Americans should scream "No!". That this shit gets traction is disturbing.

stop me if you think you've heard this one | October 9, 2008, 10:23pm | #

stop me: silly question, but who exactly is an authoritative source on what libertarianism is?

Pick your poison. Any definition of libertarianism I've ever seen included the provision that the state has no business interfering in non-harmful consensual behavior. But I've never seen a single one that stated anyone's behavior was entitled to societal endorsement. If you can find one that does, I'd sure like to see it.

However...there are some classifications where we need to be concerned about equal protection, and others where we don't. We care about making sure that the murder of a black person is just as well-investigated and has the same likelihood of being prosecuted as that of a white person.

Murdering someone is clearly initiation of force, or aggression. Since when is failure to grant approval aggression?

Palin | October 9, 2008, 10:25pm | #

"I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers"

Coarsetad | October 9, 2008, 10:56pm | #

"But I've never seen a single one that stated anyone's behavior was entitled to societal endorsement. If you can find one that does, I'd sure like to see it."

I would assume by that statement that if you are "married", you didn't file a marriage certificate with the state; because why would need the government endorsing the your relationships, right?

lpcowboy | October 9, 2008, 11:08pm | #

Government shouldn't endorse relationships, but it does need to recognize them. For example the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination has been recognized by the Supreme Court to include married couples. I can't imagine why a couple, gay or straight, should be compelled to abdicate their constitutional protections.

Brian | October 9, 2008, 11:19pm | #

If a gay couple wanted to enter into a series of legal contracts that mirror what the government automatically grants married couples, they could do so legally right?

Depends.

S'pose I (as a gay man) have a same-gender partner from Mexico.

I want to live with him.

If we were opposite-gender, I could walk in to the local justice of the peace, get hitched, and three weeks later he'd get a green card.

As an Evil Homo Intent On Destroying Society Through Decorating Prowess, there's no such option for me -- even in the few places that do recognize such relationships. After all, there's no such thing as a "privately contracted green card." And sorta-libertarians who keep saying "just contract it all" and "I'm opposed to marriage licenses" have marriage licenses 90% of the time -- which sorta proves my point.

PS -- do I get a discount on paying Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other programs' taxes since my spouse wouldn't get "access" the way everyone else does?

PPS -- do I get extra government "services" because the health benefits, income transfers, and asset transfers I bring to my family are taxed higher because we're not "legally married"?

PPPS -- with lovely socialism right around the corner, do homos in California, Florida and Arizona get to tell the politicians of their state -- who will doubtlessly mouth the "we're all in this together" platitude -- to shove it because those states have voted them as effectively noncitizens?

As one of the US citizens of queer persuasion, I tire of Americunts (my new term for conservatives) lecturing me on how lucky I am to be free and living in a country that so cares for my freedom and rights that it's busy abridging all of them to put me in my place. At a certain point, I just decide to stop working my ass off and start wondering why, if I must live in a socialist paradise of someone else's making, I shouldn't go somewhere that will at least not be so damn hypocritical in its posturing.

PPPPS -- Maggie Gallagher is a noxious creature. She's so intent on "raising her family" that most of the time, she's on the road raging against homos and leaving the kiddies with a nanny in her Westchester County mansion.

PPPPPS -- All you goldbugs saying "there are bigger problems than your rights getting busted" had better not be bitching when they come for your sparklies. There are far more of we buggers than you bugs.

Brian | October 9, 2008, 11:22pm | #

There are situations where it makes perfect sense to treat differently on the basis of gender differences. Marriage is one of them.

Why is it that people who say this shit about "gender differences require people be treated differently" are suddenly up in arms when those of us excluded from "the club" don't want to have to foot the bill for your so-called "perfect sense?"

And why is it the only thing where the so-called gender differences matter -- the ability to make screaming children -- isn't where the difference is emphasized in the law?

Because deep down, it's all about hypocrisy.

Brian | October 9, 2008, 11:25pm | #

at the same time as homosexuals demand that heteros accept their relationships as equally valuable, they're quick to distance themselves from other non-traditionals

Yeah, that's curious considering all the love and acceptance to be found in American society for kids of the queer persuasion.

The way many of them act, you'd figure they were rejected, belittled and legally targeted throughout their childhoods and well into their adult lives or something.

Mo | October 9, 2008, 11:31pm | #

a marriage recognized by the government IS a contract, and legally binding. Except, unlike every other contract you might enter into, this contract doesn't spell out all the terms in detail, and thus allow the parties to read it and maybe say, 'hey, this part is a bad idea, let's strike it out? OK with you too?' And so many couples get married and don't fully recognize that they ARE entering into a contract.

Uh yes they do. Are credit card terms not valid because people don't read it all the way. There are plenty of ways to disagree with certain parts or create additional clauses, it's called a prenup. The terms are defined in each state's law. This is a bullshit argument against gay marriage.

As a single guy, I'm having problems working up sympathy for either side.

I'm not getting laid, so fuck everyone. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Kurtz is worse just because his douchebaggery extends far beyond gay marriage. Gallagher's pettiness is pretty limited.

I will say that denying polygamists rights does void the whole "tradition" argument for "pro-marriage" activists. Polygamy is older than the Old Testament.

Coarsetad | October 9, 2008, 11:33pm | #

Lpcowboy,

Recognition is accepting reality for what it is, and most important part, endorsement is just gravy.

The Angry Optimist | October 9, 2008, 11:33pm | #

But I've never seen a single one that stated anyone's behavior was entitled to societal endorsement.

Stop me if you've heard this before, but what kind of statist individual are you when you think that "government protection = societal endorsement"?

The Klan's speech is protected. It's not socially endorsed.

I can't believe I had to lead you by the nose to something so simple.

Brian | October 9, 2008, 11:38pm | #

So a green card for one's spouse, tax-free asset transfers, and defense against spousal incrimination are all "societal endorsement," eh?

That's a new one. Libertarians describing lower taxes and fewer government restrictions as "special rights." Eep.

Coarsetad | October 10, 2008, 12:12am | #

TAO

In my eyes, you just won the thread.

Replace freedom of speech with freedom of association and this argument is finished.

Now lets get back to the bailout.

Lamar | October 10, 2008, 9:18am | #

Prolefeed "I recognize the importance of government treating its citizens fairly and equally, straight or gay, but I would vote for these propositions too, albeit for the opposite reason of most of their supporters -- because I'm generally opposed to expanding the powers granted to government."

So you would support a constitutional amendment banning black people from getting married? I mean, anything to reduce gov't power, right?

Tonio | October 10, 2008, 9:53am | #

Late to the fight, but want to respond to a hugely falsifiable point posted by Stop Me, which everyone else missed...

Is anybody being denied the freedom to have sex with who they want? To live with who they want? To make a contract with who they want? To arrange for disposal of their property however they want?

Which Stop Me answered: "No, no, no and no."

Is anybody being denied the freedom to have sex with who they want?

Not now, not in the context of two-person gay relationships (post Lawrence v. Texas), BUT many states (ie, Virginia) still keep anti-sodomy laws on the books in the hopes that Lawrence is somehow overturned. So the animus and desire to deny sexual freedom are there, and for many years were codified into law.

To live with who they want?

Some states have anti-cohabitation laws on the books, though they're probably unenforceable post-Lawrence. These affect unmarried hetero couples, and polys, more than they do homos, though.

To make a contract with who they want? To arrange for disposal of their property however they want?

WRONG! Virginia's Marshall-Newman (anti-marriage amendment) states: This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.

So, yes, some jurisdictions are trying to deny gays the right to do this contractually.

DDP | October 10, 2008, 10:24am | #

So you would support a constitutional amendment banning black people from getting married? I mean, anything to reduce gov't power, right?

Exactly, it's that simple to debunk some of these ridiculously dimwitted arguments. Gummint does have legitimate purposes, one of those being protection of our rights, you dolts. One of those rights is equality under the law.

Libertarianism should be a home for those who want or fight for individual rights and protections under the law. All of you performing intellectual acrobatics to justify your bigotry are simply dishonest.

I joined the Libertarian Party because I thought it was the home of, you know, libertarianism. Some of you around here make me wonder why I want to be part of a philosophy that disguises its prejudices under the idea of liberty.

Tonio | October 10, 2008, 11:21am | #

Welcome, DD, to the "big tent" that is Libertarianism. As Jennifer stated above, only Dondero is a True Libertarian(tm). (That's a joke, BTW).

Seriously, not everyone who posts here is a Libertarian. We have our share of dissenters and trolls of all political stripes. Joe is an institutional liberal. Merritt comes across as a Bircher, etc.

In the roughly ten years I've been reading and posting here I've seen a huge shift in the majority attitude towards gays, gay rights and gay marriage. Some of that could simply reflect the increasing acceptance of teh gays by society. More importantly the majority of libertarians will fall behind an issue like marriage equality out of principal even if they find it personally distasteful.

That's the big difference between us, and them: D's and R's never met a principal they wouldn't compromise in the name of party orthodoxy. That's why I'm here. Hope you stay, too.

DDP | October 10, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Seriously, not everyone who posts here is a Libertarian. We have our share of dissenters and trolls of all political stripes. Joe is an institutional liberal. Merritt comes across as a Bircher, etc.

I realize that, but there are some people advocating outwardly bigoted policies in the name of libertarianism. That, to me, is a serious problem and one of the reasons that libertarians are often thought of as closet bigots. It's akin to arguing for states' rights in the name of liberty in order to advance racist policies. We should leave that for intellectually dishonest conservatives to engage in, not libertarians.

R C Dean | October 10, 2008, 1:09pm | #

I realize that, but there are some people advocating outwardly bigoted policies in the name of libertarianism.

You aren't really free unless you're free to be a bigot, DDP. ;-)

kwais | October 10, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Jennifer | October 9, 2008, 8:42pm | #
Shall we deny marriage rights to them, too?

YES

James Butler | October 10, 2008, 2:04pm | #

I love the "it's for the children" angle ... since when has anything about any kind of marriage been taught in school? Maybe it's a new thing, but I can't recall ever hearing anything about it in any class I ever took. So I'm pretty sure neither "I Have 2 Mommies" nor "Daddy and Mommy Fight" will be taught to any child by any school system in the U.S.

prolfeed:

It just needs to change the immigration laws to permit couples of the same gender to have the same rights as couples of opposite genders to have their sexual partners live in the U.S. without fear of being deported.

(my emphasis)

Not about sex, dude. It's about love and standing within U.S. law. In the case of a few of the immigration situations you refer to, it may be about neither love nor sex, but rather about protection or convenience.

cunnivore:

A few years after homosexuals have won this gay marriage battle, they'll be rueing it because they'll find themselves in a gay divorce mess, the same as heterosexuals.

Too late!

"They’ve given us no choice but to be married forever," says a Rhode Island woman. Her state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and the state where she was wed (MA) limits divorces to residents.

D.A. Ridgely | October 10, 2008, 2:18pm | #

Leave it to Dan Savage—a potty-mouthed, threesome-lovin', sex columnist, for chrissakes—to be the a leading critic of both bans (and of course, Andrew Sullivan)

Savage is one of Sullivan's leading critics? Who knew?

eye roll | October 10, 2008, 2:23pm | #

Some of you around here make me wonder why I want to be part of a philosophy that disguises its prejudices under the idea of liberty.

Hello Pot? Kettle on line 2.

Tonio | October 10, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Connecticut's supreme court just extended marriage rights to same sex couples.

Schweet!

Tonio | October 10, 2008, 2:40pm | #

[T]here are some people [here] advocating outwardly bigoted policies in the name of libertarianism.

Well, anyone can call themselves a libertarian. We don't march in lockstep like the R's or have the hive mind of the D's. What you're seeing here is real debate.

Join the battle, or run away. Your choice.

Hey, there's always Daily Kos, The Corner, Huffington Post, LGF, Democratic Underground, Feministing, CWA...

H&R is the worst political blog, except for all the others.

Paul Stravinsky | October 10, 2008, 7:18pm | #

I think this is one case when you can fight dirty back. I've given my money and time, Spielberg has given his money, even Wells Fargo has given money. As far as No on 8 (CA) I see it as theirs to lose.

I say come right out and call the supporters stupid and Unamerican. F**k em! If we lose we'll have made a long needed point and I'll consider my donations to have been well spent.

anon | October 11, 2008, 3:26am | #

The gays probably should have left this whole thing alone. Civil Unions are sufficient. "Marriage" is definitionally man/woman with a basis in reproduction.

Jennifer | October 11, 2008, 3:15pm | #

"Marriage" is definitionally man/woman with a basis in reproduction.

Then I ask again why nobody's ever denied marriage licenses to post-menopausal women.

Eric | October 11, 2008, 6:16pm | #

No one cares because the majority of Americans, especially the younger generations, already view homosexuals as equal and equal marriage rights are inevitable, and they view this political absurdity of banning rights of this and that as the extreme religious minority (and the politicians who pander to them) throwing a tantrum that no one cares what they think is a sin or not.

| October 12, 2008, 5:13pm | #

Then I ask again why nobody's ever denied marriage licenses to post-menopausal women.

Maybe because most of us are contented to make laws that cover the general case, and few of us are compulsively neurotic enough to insist they cover every possible case.

If you want apples, you cultivate apple trees. That is not a guarantee that all apple trees will produce apples, but using the failures as a justification for cultivating oak trees will surely not get you any more apples.

joe | October 18, 2008, 10:21pm | #

actually statistics show that gays are much more financially stable than same sex couples... and by the way we are just as healthy and happy as straight people! find something better do to than bad mouth something you know NOTHING about!