Civil Liberties

A Flipping Point on Gay Marriage?

|

Poll maven Nate Silver believes "it has become increasingly unclear whether opposition to gay marriage still outweighs support for it." Charting rising support against falling opposition, he sees the trend toward acceptance accelerating in recent years. He also questions the notion that court rulings striking down bans on gay marriage (such as last week's decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker) ultimately hurt the cause by arousing popular resentment:

While there is not necessarily zero risk of backlash resulting from things like court decisions—support for gay marriage slid backward by a couple of points, albeit temporarily, after a Massachusetts' court's ruling in 2003 that same-sex marriage was required by that state's constitution—it seems that, in general, "having the debate" is helpful to the gay marriage cause, probably because the secular justifications against it are generally quite weak.

Steve Chapman worries about the backlash here. I note the weak secular justifications here.

[via Outside the Beltway]

NEXT: California Roundup: What's the one thing we need in 2010? More Unions!

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.

  1. The shape of that graph is a joke, right? Tell me you’re that brilliant of a comedian, Jacob.

    1. Ditto

      It’s not April 1, is it? [checks wall calendar]

      1. I think that uncircumsized, sore-riddled chode need to become a flag. I don’t care what side waves it.

      2. It is Friday the 13th though.

    2. What Episiarch said. If this is an accident, Jacob, you’ll retain respect for your wit by not admitting it.

  2. probably because the secular justifications against it are generally quite weak

    Not any weaker than the secular justifications for it. Exactly what benefit to society at large do gay relationships provide that justifies legal protections?

    1. No “justifications” needed. Believe that it should be a given, unless it can be shown to harm others in some way.

      Kind of in a libertarian sorta way, but that’s just me…

      1. In that case, what relationships *shouldn’t* be entitled to legal protections? Bowling teams? Garage bands? Your relationship with your bestest friend in high school?

        1. Yep, all of those

          1. Why not?

            1. Sorry, read your orig as “should” be. It’s all good – protect them all.

        2. For starters, marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “fundamental right.”

          1. For what definition of marriage? If I want to call my relationship to my bowling team a marriage, does anyone have a right to object, and does the government have an obligation to legally privilege that relationship?

            1. Don’t worry. Same-sex marriage will apply to Neo-Nazis too, Slappy. You and Gunther can finally have the racially pure white wedding you’ve always dreamed of.

            2. yaaaaaaaaawn

    2. They piss off fascist retards like you. That’s good enough for me.

      1. Libertarians are “selling their souls!”

        1. The Kwik-E-Mart doors don’t open for me anymore…

        2. It’s my soul, so I can sell it if I want.

          1. Not on eBay you can’t.
            Try Craigslist.

        3. Research shows that among Americans, soul ownership is at it’s lowest level since 1928.

          1. I have a three year lease on SugarFree’s soul, but frankly I haven’t used it much lately…

            1. It’s a buyer’s market dude. You’re never getting rid of that thing.

    3. How’s that authoritarian collectivism working out for you, Slappy? Things have to provide a benefit to society at large to justify them? Or is it just your queer hate showing? I think it’s both.

      1. No, I don’t think things need to provide a benefit to society to justify them.

        I do, however, think a benefit to society is reasonable justification for that society to give them legal endorsement.

        1. Ideally, society would not legally endorse marriage, but given that it does, it should do so equitably without discrimination for such things as race or gender.

      2. Next I’ll have to show a reason why I should be “allowed” to carry my Glock concealed, rather than the state having to demonstrate good cause for why I shouldn’t be able to concealed carry.

        Oh, wait a minute…

        1. I never stated that you shouldn’t be allowed to carry a Glock. However, if you demanded that society at large owed you special legal considerations for carrying the Glock, I’d damn well want to know what society was getting in return for them.

          1. yaaaaaaaaaawn

            1. I zeeenk, Almanian, you have a grand mal case of ze snarkolepsy…

              I am ze [sic] afraid zere is nozzink to be done…

    4. Given the divorce rates in the western world, and associated litigation, what benefit to society at large do straight relationships provide that justifies legal protections?

      1. Given that absent straight relationships, you would shortly have no society at all, I’d think that one would be self-evident. Certainly it’s in a society’s interest to facilitate propagating itself.

        If you want to argue that the institution no longer provides any value and should be obsoleted, you might have a case. But even making that case wouldn’t be a justification for extending the institution where there’s no return value at all.

          1. Humans can only reproduce with a piece of paper from the government, Juan.

            1. Apparently the South is a hotbed of civil disobedience.

            2. Paper get me hot too.

            3. Humans can take a shit without public toilets, too. But given that taking a shit is something that humans have to do, it seems reasonable to organize our affairs to accommodate that reality, no?

              1. I bet you are all for public water fountians, too. As long as spics and nigras don’t use them, right?

                1. He’s not like that. The coloreds will have their own fountains.

                  1. Silly me. Of course. They can use them while they are being “incentivized” to go back to where they came from.

              2. I took a shit in a public toilet once.

              3. You certainly need a piece of paper to take a shit. A few pieces, in fact.

        1. Terribly sorry, I didn’t know the state’s legal protections were required in order to reproduce.

          That must have passed me by completely. Mea culpa.

          I’m intrigued by this notion of a ‘value return’, however. How are you measuring this? Providing value to whom exactly? And at whose cost?

          1. The “getting something in return” bit is a clumsy way of saying that the state (or society) owns you and expects some kind of reward for the dispensation of rights.

        2. Given that absent straight relationships, you would shortly have no society at all…

          C’mon Slappy, you can fuck girls (or boys if you’re female) without the sanction of a church or piece of paper from a government. You can reproduce without either sanction, too.

        3. Given that absent straight relationships, you would shortly have no society at all, I’d think that one would be self-evident. Certainly it’s in a society’s interest to facilitate propagating itself.

          You just moved the goalpost from “marriage” to “straight relationships.”

          Society does not sanction all breeding pairs, nor are all sanctioned relationships breeding pairs as is (i.e., there are plenty of unmarried parents and infertile married couples out there).

          But even making that case wouldn’t be a justification for extending the institution where there’s no return value at all.

          Yes it is. There are varying degrees of fairness. The most unfair is state-sanctioned marriage with gender discrimination. Less unfair would be state sanctioned marriage without gender discrimination. Most fair would be to get rid of state sanctioning entirely.

          1. You just moved the goalpost from “marriage” to “straight relationships.”

            Straight relationships are a prerequisite of reproduction (at least in any viable quantity). Marriage is a tool that facilitates maintaining those relationships. What got moved?

            1. Straight relationships are a prerequisite of reproduction (at least in any viable quantity).

              You really shopuld visit a cattle ranch sometime.

            2. I dunno. My reproductive attempts seemed to taper off after marriage.

              In fact, it leaves me wondering why people against gay sex are against gay marriage. Seems like that would be the quickest way to end it.

        4. But even making that case wouldn’t be a justification for extending the institution where there’s no return value at all.

          Why not? We extended the public education institution to you and received no return on that.

          1. Mighty big talk from a man who spent his entire career living off the taxpayer’s dime, no?

            1. Actually I haven’t. While I was a godlike firecontrolman in the US Navy for twenty years, I’ve also tended bar, bussed tables and written O&M manuals fior production machinery.

              But if you thuink you’ve scored a point bringing up my military career, I concede it. I went to sea on a DDG and got paid for it. Had some fun, went to strange places and met interesting people all on the taxpayer dime.

              BTW, the berthing accomodations on tin cans are luxurious and the food rivals that served in 4 star hotels.

    5. Gays benefit from legalized gay marriage. Nobody is harmed by it.

      Given that gays are part of “society”, it follows that society as a whole benefits from legalized gay marriage.

      1. The companies forced to pay for health insurance for partners of gay couples might differ about that “nobody is harmed by it”.

        Part of marriage recognition by the state involves mutual considerations by the two parties with no third party involvement. I’m fine with that.

        To the extent that it foists legal obligations on non-consenting third parties to do something that it is not in their interest to do, I’m not OK with that for ANY marriage, gay or straight.

    6. My question is, exactly what benefit to society at large does your life provide that justifies legal protections?

      Why shouldn’t we just come over to your house and kill you?

  3. I support gay marriages – all marriages should be happy times for anybody!

    That’s what you mean, right??

  4. Now that we have special citizens with extra special rights, we need providers. So all you bass ackward Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, and other mouth breathing idiots (except for Muslims) will now be drafted into provided marriage services for homos.

    1. WTF are you talking about?

    2. If you are saying, in a very retarded manner, “Now Catholic churches will have to marry teh gheys,” no, they won’t. Churches will have a first amendment right not to if it’s against their beliefs. The government, however, does not.

  5. I know reason is lazy and stuff, but the poll is about “same sex marriage” but the post title says “gay marriage”.

    1. No homo, but dude, if I want to marry my bro, that’s legit, right?

    2. “Same sex” is certainly more accurate. Nobody is arguing whether a man and a woman have marriage rights. In fact, if “gay” were removed from the debate language, most people would shrug and concentrate instead on the jobless Mexican obesity epidemic.

    3. State recognition of same sex marriage. They could marry right before the ruling, they just didn’t get the government entitlements that libertarians and non-libertarians have all seem to agree to think of as rights.

  6. Once enough seniors die, gay marriage is inevitably happening. Come on Obamacare death panels!

    1. What about the queer seniors?

      1. Death panels don’t discriminate*.

        * Unless you’re well connected.

        1. I hope your a memeber of my death panel.

          1. Don’t be so sure. I have yelling “off with their heads!” down to an art form. The impassioned delivery of that line usually brings tears.

  7. I have heard of your paintings too, well enough; God
    has given you one face, and you make yourselves
    another: you jig, you amble, and you lisp, and
    nick-name God’s creatures, and make your wantonness
    your ignorance. Go to, I’ll no more on’t; it hath
    made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages:
    those that are married already, all but one, shall
    live; the rest shall keep as they are.

    1. Or have we eaten on the insane root
      That takes the reason prisoner?

      1. If you stick your prick in us at a bad angle, do we not bleed?

        1. Lord, what fools these mortals be!

  8. Who cares? Why worry about popularity when you can shove the idea down the country’s throat via judicial fiat, right?

    1. It’s fun watching you go off the deep end, John.
      Somebody get a straight jacket.

    2. Indeed. Can you imagine if this where a country where homosexual acts were still illegal? Thank God for judicial fiat striking down sodomy laws!

      1. Although not often enforced against heterosexuals, particularly married couples, most sodomy statutes criminalized all acts of anal sex, regardless of the gender or marital status of the participants. Many, such as Virginia’s law (unchanged since colonial times, whee) also criminalized oral sex.

    3. If it is popular, how would it be throat shoving?

      1. throat shoving

        Given the subject matter, but we should move on from this imagery.

        1. Perhaps John is…projecting?

        2. throat shoving

          Given the subject matter, but we should move on from this imagery.

          How did I know that you would show up for this comment?

      2. If it’s popular, why do the homosexual activists need to enact their agenda through the judiciary rather than through the legislature?

        1. If it’s popular, why do the homosexual heterosexual activists need to enact their agenda through the ballot box rather than through the legislature or judiciary?

          The answer to this is as simple as the red line on the penis graph above — if they don’t get the hate enshrined into Federal and state constitutions very soon, they never will.

    4. Rights, John, rights. You know, those things you’re all in favor of for you and those like you, but which you seek to deny to those not like you.

    5. Loving vs. Virginia.

      1. Making a false equivalency between race and gender does not constitute and argument.

    6. “can shove the idea down the country’s throat”

      Time to come out of the closet, John.

      1. He’s out of the closet and has one foot in the rubber room.

  9. I will say it again: gay marriage will be the worst thi to happen to the gay community in American history. These gay marriage advocates are trying to tame gays, not liberate them, by integrating them into the dominant WASP culture.

    The vibrant and impressive gay culture that America has birthed will die out when they start trying to be like everyone else

    1. RyanXXX, based on your previous comments here on this issue, I don’t believe you have the best interests of gay people at heart. But please, keep spouting disingenous, self-serving bullshit. Always happy to see a defeated opponent impotently railing against modernity.

      1. http://www.takimag.com/site/ar…..age_sucks/

        That’s Justin Raimondo, the gay editor of Antiwar.com, who opened my eyes to this position. Are you more qualified on the “best interests” of homosexuals than he is? How about actually refuting my position rather than resorting to unsubstantiated personal bullshit.

        Sorry not everyone fits into the Left/Right, gays are evil vs. gays are like everyone else paradigm you worship

      2. Tonio, I think you’re a BIG FAG.

        (Not, uh, that there’s anything wrong with that! *chuckle-chuckle-chortle*)

    2. The vibrant and impressive gay culture that America has birthed will die out when they start trying to be like everyone else

      That died out in the 80’s with HIV.

    3. Maybe I’m wrong but I think most gay people wanting to marry are lesbains. None of the gay men I know want to marry. They want their freedom (e.g. open relationships) and the ability to break up without having to go through the hassles of divorce.

      1. The less attractive member of a gay male couple sometimes might want to marry and commit, and the better looking one, not so much so.

        Or so some gay friends have told me is the case in their relationship.

        Not all that different from a hetero marriage, except there the man, regardless of attractiveness, tends to be more inclined to want to sleep around than the woman.

    4. It’s possible. Let’s treat gays like adults and give them the same choice everyone else has, how about?

      I promise, we’ll retain our fabulousness.

      1. What choice did you people ever give to the gerbils?

    5. Most young gay men don’t care for your “gay culture” as we’re too busy enjoying our openly gay lives with all our straight friends.

      Say goodbye to segregation. It’s a good thing.

  10. The hysteria surrounding things like same-sex marriage is pretty hilarious when you think about it. Aren’t there better things to talk endlessly and pointlessly about?

    Look, it’s like this. Marriage is an outdated tradition derived from some daft religions (tautology, I know) which, really, should be 100% up to the people involved. But since the state gets involved with tax breaks and all that (presumably because it wants people to shag like rabbits so it can pay for itself), what exactly is the problem with ‘allowing’ same-sex … marriages. The state cannot be allowed to discriminate on arbitrary (read: Biblical) lines. Who cares, right? Who really gives a flying rat’s arse whether or not it’s constitutional? Do you care that much about someone else’s private life!?

    Honestly, some people are utterly laughable.

    1. The hysteria surrounding things like same-sex marriage is pretty hilarious when you think about it. Aren’t there better things to talk endlessly and pointlessly about?

      I used to think it was fairly unimportant, until I realized how important it was for libertarians to see the real issue here: allowing gov’t to redefine words that were already in use, and not a statutory term of art, in legal documents.

      Marriage is an outdated tradition derived from some daft religions

      No. Marriage is way, way older than religions. Religion and law have both treated marriage as a pre-existing fact.

      1. Retarded.

        No one is mandating you to call gays married. You just have to treat them fairly.

      2. Marriage as a concept is, not the 1 man 1 woman 1 life version. That’s pretty rare in history.

        1. The “life” part may be rare, but the 1 man 1 woman part has not been rare. What you seem to be forgetting is that a person may be part of more than 1 marriage at a time. Polygamy has hardly ever been construed as a complex marriage of 3 or more, but rather a situation in which person A is married to person B and also to person C, etc. A’s marriage with B and A’s marriage to C are separate constructs that started at different times; B and C are not married to each other. Each marriage is still 1 man and 1 woman.

    2. Who keeps bringing it up?

      It’s strange to see people complaining about there being more important thing then having to fight about an issue being the side who keeps picking fights over that issue.

  11. Finally! Perhaps 5 Justices can finally confirm the Natural Right to recognition of marriage by government for all people. Then perhaps you can actually write some articles about how government recognition based upon ANY definition of marriage is a bad thing.

    1. That’s change I can hope in.

  12. Everyone gets a civil union. No more state sanctioned marriages.Done. Resolved.

    How can one support gay marriage (state sanctioned) when one does not support state sanctioned matrimony of any sort. Like Pete told Ulysses: “That don’t make no sense!”

    1. This kind of talk will piss off a lot of chubby rich girls who have dreamed all their pathetic, pampered lives of a big, expensive, narcissistic church wedding.

      1. No, the point isn’t that marriage would be outlawed, any more than gay people are prevented from going to a church or elsewhere and having a marriage ceremony. It would simply mean that if you decide to call your personal arrangement a “marriage” the government doesn’t treat you differently.

        1. Sure, but the big church wedding, sanctioned by the earthly apparatus of an imaginary being, means a lot to the nation’s nitwits. They feel that allowing just anyone to get married cheapens their big narcissistic day.

      2. Up yours.

        1. I’m your father. Have a nice day.

    2. I’d like to get rid of not just government marriage, but civil unions as well. I don’t want certain relationships to be subsidized just because the government thinks they’re “special.”

      However, the fact remains marriage is here right now and right now homosexuals are discriminated against with that institution.

      In short: I want to get rid of government marriage, but as long as it’s here, it must be equal.

      Makes perfect sense to me.

      1. That’s shortsighted. You’re advocating more government involvement in marriage. It’s government doing the discriminating. And it always will, especially against people who don’t give a fuck about marriage. People don’t need the government to tell them how to organize their family units in any fashion. You would think society would be evolving away from the blessing of the fucking state.

    3. Everyone gets a civil union. No more state sanctioned marriages.Done. Resolved.

      Not by a long shot. What happens when someone takes a case to court (such as for insurance) that hinges on whether person A is person B’s spouse?

  13. Good thing we don’t have any homosexuality in Iran, so we don’t have to worry about this.

    Off to view the stoning of the adultress!! Bye for now!!

  14. Also, it may pain some people to read this, but civic “equality” is not necessarily libertarian.

    Extending “positive rights” to all groups equally does nothing to advance liberty. If, for example, the government announced tomorrow that black people will no longer be eligible for welfare, or that no mexicans could join the army, it would be despicable and racist, but not unlibertarian: no one’s rights are being violated. It would actually reduce the amount of wealth redistribution.

    I’m not advocating that sort of policy (shrinking the state for the wrong reasons), but it irks me how some “libertarians” champion causes that do nothing for freedom. Leave “equality” for the libtards

    1. In my view, it *is* very much libertarian to demand the state and especially its legislation treats every single citizen equally.

      Obviously most real libertarians don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all, but you can only play what you’re up against…

      1. In my view, it *is* very much libertarian to demand the state and especially its legislation treats every single citizen equally.

        How would this apply to say, bailouts?

        Libertarians oppose bailouts but since they are inevitable they should favor them for everyone in the name of “fairness” or “equality”?

        1. Sure. I opposed bailouts entirely, and if the money had to be pissed up the wall, I’d have much preferred everyone got a fat cheque, yes 😉

          Like I say, I oppose marriage as a state institution. But opposing same-sex marriage within the same framework is directly discriminating against certain people. In my country at least that leaves them financially much worse off. Making such a thing a closed shop is social engineering of the worst kind.

        2. Sure. I opposed bailouts entirely, and if the money had to be pissed up the wall, I’d have much preferred everyone got a fat cheque, yes 😉

          Like I say, I oppose marriage as a state institution. But opposing same-sex marriage within the same framework is directly discriminating against certain people. In my country at least that leaves them financially much worse off. Making such a thing a closed shop is social engineering of the worst kind.

          1. Sure. I opposed bailouts entirely, and if the money had to be pissed up the wall, I’d have much preferred everyone got a fat cheque, yes 😉

            The question isn’t if the payouts will be spread around, because they won’t, just like existing marriage licenses won’t be spread around, but if they will be INCREASED to include those it had not before? By the “logic” of fairness, it seems Libertarians, facing the inevitability of TARP, should have pushed for a 100 gazillion dollar TARP. You know equally, for all people.

            Favoring the expansion of State recognized marriage is favoring an increase in wealth transfers. Don’t all Leftards use “fairness” when expanding wealth transfers? How is this different?

            1. How will anyone be more free when homosexual couples receive marriage licenses? Yes, i suppose they can get the tax benefits and such, but that’s all bullshit anyway – social engineering.

              Shouldn’t libertarians advocate getting rid of the social-engineering, statist marriage system rather than expanding it equally?

              1. If they want to be politically irrelevant nerds rightly suspected of harboring homophobia and covering it up with esoteric mental masturbation about a libertopia that will never come to pass.

              2. You’re so head up in your ass about the money that you ignore the fact that there’s enormous gains in objective liberty when it comes to inheritance, hospital visitation, burial rights, etc.

                Legalized same sex marriage is a liberty gain NOW. Eliminating government marriage is another liberty gain LATER. Stop standing in the way of progress.

                1. What, can’t even put your name on that? Can’t say I am surprised.

                  Amazing when the idiot trolls are not any less logical than the usually reasonable regulars.

                  There is no legal prohibition for anyone to secure the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation ect. Having the government do something, anything, isn’t, by definition, “Liberty”.

                  You’re so head up in your ass about the money

                  Yes, because it isn’t money that falls from the sky, Leftard, but money that someone actually earned. Finding more people to take from the productive isn’t “Liberty”.

            2. ‘Favoring the expansion of State recognized marriage is favoring an increase in wealth transfers. Don’t all Leftards use “fairness” when expanding wealth transfers? How is this different?’

              I don’t follow. Marriage is whatever the people involved define it as. Mandating that it should be only between man and woman is a religious hangover we could do without. So either all people get the ‘right’ to be married (for whatever that’s worth), or the state gets out of it altogether.

  15. Threadjack, but this is bullshit:

    SC Senate Candidate Greene indicted. What a load of crap. The charge and the timing are both bullshit.

    1. You didn’t really think they could just let this guy run, did you? What would that say about SC Dem voters? You can’t make up the kind of bad PR he represents.

      1. I kind of hoped that I live in a country where a man with $10000 and nothing better to do could still be a Senate candidate. Now the lawyers will get him DQ’ed.

        1. He’s indicted? That just means as a senator he would hit the ground running.

    2. The charge is total BS, but it has been pending since before he became a candidate.

  16. Marriage was important when the state made it the only legal refuge for sex.

    Since that is no longer the case the remaining benefits are things like taxes (fair or not), inheritance, and things like insurance coverage and hospital visitation. But my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that in California, all of these legal options are already available to same sex couples. So in California the whole Prop 8 issue is more about getting a piece of paper that says “married” with no additional legal benefits. So why has there been so much energy spent there while in places like my state, Ohio, gay couples still can’t get these legal protections?

    I’m want to see an equality in the legal protections granted to same sex couples without being so concerned about whether it’s a “civil union” or a “marriage”. I also want to make sure that there is no coercion against dissenters. The wedding photographer being sued because he didn’t want to work for a gay couple should be as free to make decisions regarding his life as the gay couple is. It always seems like when there is a major change in policy that the state tends to go too far in the opposite direction.

    1. Sorry Big Chief, but the wedding photographer being sued is a straw man. Was there an epidemic of wedding photographers being sued out of existence because they refused to shoot pictures of a miscegenated wedding after Loving V. Virginia? If you were planning your wedding would you want to legally force someone to photograph the happiest day of your life who despises you or vehemently disapproves of your union? Or would you just move onto someone else? Would a Jewish couple choose to force a neo nazi photographer into working for them?

      Besides, everyone knows that there are no gay photographers, bakers, DJ’s, wedding planners, dressmakers, or clergy. There may, however, be a few gay florists around…

      [:`)

  17. The vibrant and impressive gay culture that America has birthed will die out when they start trying to be like everyone else

    That already happened. But “they” didn’t do it. It was done to them. But eventually they got into it, because, hey, people adapt.

    Always happy to see a defeated opponent impotently railing against modernity.

    Yeah, like that.

    Also a perfect statement of the only principle of Libertarianism?.

  18. it seems that, in general, “having the debate” is helpful to the gay marriage cause, probably because the secular justifications against it are generally quite weak complete hogwash that high school forensics students would have no trouble refuting.

    Much better.

    1. I was on my high school debate team. Teacher said I was the smartest one of them all. And then she gave me a lollipop!

  19. Looking at this graph I see such an opportunity wasted. If almost half of the people support gay marriage, something unheard of 10 or 20 years ago, just imagine if some Libertarian thinkers had simply written some articles explaining to these people that government expansion of positive rights was wrong! Couldn’t, in the name of “fairness”, those same people who support expanding the government recognition of personal relationships have come to support ending the government recognition of personal relationships? Who knows what minds might have been opened with just an article or two about the actual Libertarian position on marriage? In between the dozens and dozens about “fairness” of course.

    1. Maybe it took libertarians a while to wrap their heads around the idea of a “right” to a government entitlement.

      1. Exactly. Liberty has nothing to do with this. You only have a “right” to a marriage license the same way you have a “right” to welfare, bailouts, or joining the military. As in, the kind of bullshit positive statist rights that libertarians should oppose

        1. Jeebus –

          You haved a right to equal protection under the law. Nobody has a right to public housing but if it exists the government must treat all applicants/teneants equally unless they can demonstrate a compelling reason to do otherwise.

          Nobody has done that with regards to state recognition of same sex marriage. That’s all the judge in California said about the subject. It should be a compelling argument for those with multiple functioning neurons between their ears.

          1. Nobody has a right to public housing but if it exists the government must treat all applicants/teneants equally unless they can demonstrate a compelling reason to do otherwise.

            Public housing is a bad example. Isn’t that a positive right? Don’t Libertarians oppose public housing?

            If a group of people who do not currently qualify for public housing claim it unfair, should Libertarians then support the expansion, based upon fairness, of public housing? In regard to SSM it is really, really, really, unfair so that makes it different?

            Name any welfare program. Aren’t they unavailable to many people? Should Libertarians say “increase welfare because some people don’t qualify”? Or should they say, “end welfare because some people don’t qualify”?

            The “compelling reason” argument is based upon Libery, or government dictat?

            1. Gill, you homophobe.

              The equal protection argument is highly debatable, but one side of the argument has generally dug in and there’s no good reason for me to engage in it again here, unless I get the hankerin’ to be called a gaybasher or stupid (you used to be cool, J sub D).

              Was the government denying gays their right to wed? Was it imprisoning them? Government wasn’t recognizing the marriage. It was continuing to exclude them from the benefits, just like our social engineering overlords have done to those among us who continue the natural state of singleness.

              A right is something we have which the state cannot rightfully take away. It’s not an entitlement that the state hands out on whatever whim.

        2. Not according to the supreme court on at least 14 separate occasions in which marriage was defined as a fundamental human right.

          But I guess rights are whatever libertarians say they are.

          1. Science, Tony, since when did Libertarians believe that SCOTUS rulings defined rights? You have been here long enough to know the difference between positive rights and negative rights, try not to play the idiot.

            You have every right to do anything that does not effect others, like marrying. That does not make a demand upon others. When you expect tax breaks or other forms of government benefit, you are not asking to be “left alone” but attempting to acquire government special treatment. I understand that the terminally Leftarded believe that government benefits are “worthy”, and fall from the sky, but Libertarians are supposed to recognize that they are coerced from others, not support their expansion until the day of the rapture Libertopia arrives.

            1. So tell it to straight people. When you can convince them to give up marriage benefits, then we’ll have achieved equal rights. Until then, a day which will never come to pass, why are you in favor of unequal rights?

        3. Don’t focus on the license. If marriages weren’t licensed at all, anywhere, don’t you see that the legal question of whether someone could be considered to have a spouse of the same sex would still be in play? Do you think it would’ve made any difference to the controversy if marriages had never been licensed?

          1. Exactly. Robert++

          2. If marriages weren’t licensed at all, anywhere, don’t you see that the legal question of whether someone could be considered to have a spouse of the same sex would still be in play?

            Name one where it would, from a Libertarian perspective. There wouldn’t be a legal definition of “spouse”. And license is a misnomer. You don’t have to get one to perform a civil or religious ceremony and call yourself “married”. It is really only a prerequisite for attaining benefits.

            Do you think it would’ve made any difference to the controversy if marriages had never been licensed?

            If the government had never recognized marriage, what would be the purpose of government recognizing gay marriage?! If the government had never granted benefits for marriage, which benefits would be available for SSM? None and none.

            1. Courts are part of gov’t, no? What happens when someone takes someone else to court for benefits that were promised to their spouse?

              This whole business is about how a court should rule when someone is claimed to be someone else’s spouse, and the condition of having or being a spouse is named as part of a contract provision.

  20. I have actually changed my mind on this too. I’m all for it now. I also think you should be able to government-marry as many people as you want whenever and however you want. So if you don’t want to testify against somebody in a trial, you should be able to marry them and then you can’t be able to testify against them. There has to be some tax dodges in there too. One the government sees that arbitrarily extending definition of marriage under a bogus equal protection argument costs them money and power, they’ll stop start taking steps to get the government out of marriage altogether, which I think we all agree is best long term solution.

    I guess the whole not-testifying-against-your spouse marital privelege is actually kind of in the constitution, but I think compelled testimonty is wrong anyways, so I’m OK with them not being able to get rid of that one.

    1. Excellent point. The best way to get rid of government interference is to make it untenable.

      Being against same sex marriage because of puritanical libertarian sensibilities is what’s shortsighted.

  21. IMHO, this “a marriage has been defined as one man + one woman since infinity plus one years before the big bang” nonsense needs to go.

    It shouldn’t be news to anyone that marriage has at different times included polygamous unions as well as same-sex unions. As an example, same-sex marriages were recognized in Rome for hundreds of years…until 342 BC, when some douchebag Christian emperor not only declared them illegal, but executed all married same-sex couples.

    And this idea that opposite-sex unions predate the state, so marriage must be defined as 1M+1W ignores the fact that same-sex unions also predate the state. So the idea that marriage MUST be defined as 1M+1W for historical reasons seems just to reflect modern-day monogamous, opposite-sex chauvinism.

    If the real, unpolluted definition of marriage includes much more than a 1M+1W arrangement, and federal courts have recognized marriage to be a fundamental right, then prohibitions on any form of marriage ought to pass the strict scrutiny test of judicial review.

    Bans on same-sex marriage? My guess is they won’t hold up to strict-scrutiny. Bans on man-dog marriage, or giraffe-man-dishwasher marriage? Probably will. Polygamy? If it’s important to you, bring it to court and find out.

    1. AD…342 AD

    2. when some douchebag Christian emperor not only declared them illegal, but executed all married same-sex couples.

      There are states where that guy could get elected governor.

  22. Note the nice lil spike in opposition after we “won” the war in iraq.

    Americans are easily distracted? Nah. Well, only if there’s two dudes having sex involved.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.