Why Does Boehner Have Such a Hard-On Against Gay Marriage?

Over at the Daily Caller, columnist Ron Hart notes that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) is hell-bent on defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) now that Obama has announced that his Justice Dept. won't enforce the Clinton-supported legislation effectively banning federal recognition of gay marraige.

Republicans won a landslide election in November with a clear message: Get America's fiscal house in order and reduce the role of government. So what do they do with their mandate? They start trying to end man dates and impose their social values by requiring that the feds go after gay marriages. Jeez, guys, did you not learn anything from the demise of the GOP under Bush? Don't invade the wrong country and keep your nose out of people's personal lives. It seems like déjà vu all over again.

Both parties are a study in hypocrisy. Obama wants everyone to provide proof of health insurance that he deems acceptable but thinks no one should have to prove he or she is in our country legally. Republicans believe in "limited government," except for wire taps, data mining, wars of choice, reproductive choice, whom you marry, etc. In this "honeymoon period," they are spending their post-election political capital making sure gays cannot have honeymoons….

With all of our festering economic problems, I do not know why the GOP has to waste its currency making life difficult for consenting gays. I guess politicians don't understand, since such a small percentage of their sex is actually consensual.

The fundamental right to be left alone, as long as what you do does not hurt others, is vital to freedom-loving, human existence.

More here.

Comments

[Rich]

The GOP is not called "The Stupid Party" for nothing.

[Null Void]

Good old John Stuart Mill.

[2012 Voter]

Neither side seems able to recognize the vast difference between governing and meddling.

This.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Republicans won a landslide election in November with a clear message: Get America's fiscal house in order and reduce the role of government.

Pee-SHAW! That was the teabaggers' mandate. The conservative mandate remains unaltered.

[Fatty Bolger]

I wish these guys would wake up to reality. Social cons didn't put them into power, and they won't be able to keep them there, either.

[Ken Shultz]

"Why Does Boehner Have Such a Hard-On Against Gay Marriage?"

Because once it's no longer against the law for gay people to get married?

Then there won't be anything to stop them from having sex with each other!

[Lost_In_Translation]

Then there won't be anything to stop them from having sex with each other!

Which really should be an argument for gay people to get married. It certainly works for straight couples.

I think its the spectre of gay divorce that scares conseravtives.

[Ken Shultz]

I think that really is the justification in the minds of many though...

If they can't get married, then they can't have sex!

Somehow.

[OhioOrrin]

goldwater noted the (then potential)damage to the GOP by allying with the evangelicals.

[heller]

Boehner is lashing out at all those gay bullies that made fun of his name in school.

[Vermont Gun Owner]

I bet he couldn't get pizzas delivered either.

[Pablo]

Prob. could never get anyone to page him at the airport, either.

[Paul]

Is the picture suggesting the Boehner looks gay? Because he does. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Paul]

Better alt-text: "Not that there's anything wrong with that..."

[sage]

He looks more like a tan pear shaped loser. With a golf club.

[Gregory Smith]

Who cares about government marriage? Seriously!

#1. Marriage should be handled by the CHURCHES. It was never meant to be a government institution or a state ceremony.

#2. States should regulate civil marriages if they wish. That's federalism, don't like Alabama? Move to San Francisco and enjoy paying for the sex change operations of government workers. See? Federalism is fun.

#3. ANYONE can get a will and a power of attorney.

#4. Taxation must stop rewarding married or unmarried status.

#5 The GOP doesn't need to kiss gay ass to get gay votes. The GOP already gets 30% of the gay vote and 10% of the black vote, yet whose ass do you think they kiss more? Here's a clue, Chairman Steel isn't gay.

Oh, and by the way, Obama opposes same-sex marriage, so go ahead, write an article about him!

CONGRESSIONAL REPORT DEMANDS MORE DIVERSITY IN THE MILITARY.
http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....-more.html

[Old Mexican]

I actually agree with some of Greg's points here, especially point 4.

However, I do not agree that marriage should be exclusively handled by the churches. Who's going to enforce that, government? Defeats the purpose of having government say OUT of marriage.

If churches want to marry only heterosexual couples only, that should be their right. If some churches want to marry homosexual couples, that should be their right. What I don't like about the DOMA and like laws is that they a) Open the door to endless litigation and b) Suddenly makes marriage a civil right. Once marriage itself becomes a positive right (granted by government fiat), homosexuals can then harrass churches endlessly into changing their doctrine, in violation of their freedom to freely associate. Basically, these laws that pretend to protect or give away marriage end up violating someone else's rights.

[Gregory Smith]

Well, I'm glad you agree with some of my points. I guess not everyone is a damn contrarian.

Moving on:

Churches can marry anyone they want, besides, Unitarians and other liberal denominations have no problem marrying gays.

Of course, I realize that government marriage is going to remain popular for a long time. Maybe someday gays will even get GM, but they need to chill and stop being so annoying about it.

DOMA was a defense of state's rights, I don't like it but seeing how some activists like to turn lawsuits into laws I think it's a fair compromise.

Personally, I think government marriage is a big joke, I've been to Las Vegas and have yet to find the "sanctity" of marriage in that city.

[Libertymike]

States don't have rights. Why should the state of Alabama regulate associational rights?

[Gregory Smith]

Aw, you need to study American history because States do have rights. Why do you think medical marihuana and euthanasia are legal in some places and illegal in others?

[Libertymike]

Individuals have rights, not states. We did not fight a revolution upon the principle of "state's rights". I have an inalienable right to possess, use and distribute maryjane and my right to do so can not be impinged by any state or the feds.

[Paul]

Unfortunately marriage, like the drug war, has a certain 'bi-partisan' support.

Progressives like the state being involved in marriage because it allows all sorts of policy and taxation shenanigans.

Once again, libertarians are on the wrong side-- well, the right side morally, so maybe out in the cold-- on this issue. We're in our proverbial dark corner.

Both parties have a strong interest in making sure the government remains in the marriage business for different social ends/outcomes.

Progressives want to expand the definition to allow for gay marriage, but if given the option of eliminating the government role in marriage thus making the debate on gay marriage moot, or leaving the government in charge but expanding the definition, they'll take expanding the definition every time, even if it means a political fight every time they want it expanded. Think of it like "No Child Left Behind". They may rail against the details, but there's no way they'd abandon those levers to power.

[jacob]

Who cares about government marriage? Seriously!

Exactly! Why would the dipshit GOP insist in enforcing the defense of Marriage act when the government has no place in marriage?

[not so hard]

the government has no place in marriage?

Be sure to tell the gays. They seem to care a lot about marriage and government.

[???]

The ball's still on the tee, John. But nice finish, I suppose.

[]]

Fucking practice swings, how do they work?

[Really?]

Fucking played out catchphrases. How do you stop them?

[rather]

no shit-is that too clich? ?

[Rrabbit]

Why Does Boehner Have Such a Hard-On Against Gay Marriage?

The usually three possibilities:
a) he is gay
b) he cheats on his wife
c) both a) and b)

[Troy]

I think he has a self-esteem problem. He is obviously so god damn ugly. I've heard lots of gay guys say that they rather fuck Rosanne Barr.

[Gregory Smith]

He's ugly? Compared to whom? Obama? Bush? Self-esteem problem?

You're so wrong, Boehner smokes and doesn't apologize for it unlike our Marxist-in-Chief.

[Pablo]

"Washington is Hollywood for ugly people."

[Jackie]

I think he's ruggedly handsome, if orange. And his name is pronounced "BAY-ner," people.

[?]

The GOP is not called "The Stupid Party" for nothing.

They're a character called The Stupid Party. He's the heel.

His dual role is to 1) split and depress the non-left (of all kinds) by never shrinking the state, and B) to keep the Democrats' class-bloc wedges intact by foregrounding this kind of media-unfriendly inaction?gestures that give social-cons nothing, and sustain their press image as wang-obsessed weirdos.

And the GOP plays the character brilliantly.
(I can't come up with a better explanation for why they expend so much energy thwarting popular Rand Paul-type conservatives and all the popular things they're elected to do.)

[Gregory Smith]

The stupid party my ass. The GOP is the party of freedom (so is the Libertarian Party but they never win) It's the DNC that was responsible for segregation, our entry into WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, the progressive income tax, the new deal, social security, and all that mess.

[Chupacabra]

The party of freedom?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Almanian]

Please, allow me to join you for a minute:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks!

[Null Void]

GOP? Party of Freedom? Dream on. LP? Maybe, whether or not they win is relevant in regards to principles.

As for marriage, why even have it? It's a relic from the status society. We live in the post-Enlightenment era, which is supposed to be a society of contract.

Want a ceremony? Then have one. As for me, shacking up is sufficient. Fuck family values.

[Gregory Smith]

You can shack up if you'd like, but when you get married in front of family and friends you're more likely to stay together just to avoid the embarrassment of a divorce.

Still, I'm no advocate of family values, so you'll get no argument from me.

Oh, and in politics winning is everything, otherwise what you have is a nice social club.

[not so hard]

As for marriage, why even have it? It's a relic from the status society.

Progressives have been saying that for what 150, 200 years? Children and those who never grow up rebel against any restrictions on their behavior, but adults recognize that all long-lived, functioning societies maintain standards of personal behavior. Adults also realize that there will always be dissenters who rail against the existing standards - so keep bitching if it makes you feel better.

[J sub D]

... but adults recognize that all long-lived, functioning societies maintain standards of personal behavior.

Women belong to their husbands or their fathers if not married.
Slaves should obey their masters.
Apostates should be stoned.

You been a fucking idiot your whole life or is this a recent phenomenon?

[not so hard]

Not all standards of personal behavior are equally desirable. I don't recall expressing my approval of any of the values expressed in your post.

I stand by my original statement that only the child-like maintain a "I don't care what anyone says, I'm gonna do whatever I want." attitude.

[Tony]

There's plenty of evidence that marriage leads to more stability and more success for children. So why do you want to deny some people the right to marry again?

I think you just want to deny some people the right to be gay like they were born. That's what I think.

[not so hard]

There's plenty of evidence that marriage leads to more stability and more success for children.

True. I would further add that human societies are composed of both men and women and that even a less-than-ideal heterosexual couple provide a better environment in which to raise children than a homosexual couple. There is a community of academics devoted to claiming that it doesn't matter if the couple is gay or not, but it is hard for me to give credence to their claims. I admit I'm relying on what I consider to be the common sense idea that a man can never truly replace a woman as a role-model and a woman can never truly replace a man as a role-model. For this reason, I oppose the demand by gays that gay couples be considered as candidates to be adoptive parents in the same way that hetero couples are. If there were a shortage of hetero couples wanting to adopt, I would support letting gay couples adopt since I consider the personal attentions of a gay couple to be superior to the impersonality of an orphanage or the uncertainty and dislocations of foster care, but there isn't and I don't.

So why do you want to deny some people the right to marry again?

Marriage is an institution, not a right. And, for the record, I have no objection to allowing divorcees to remarry.

I think you just want to deny some people the right to be gay

People have a right to be gay. I have no objection to letting anyone who wants to be gay to be gay. Neither I nor the government has any legitimate authority to prevent people from engaging in gay sex.

be gay like they were born.

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. There is, however, an academic industry devoted to generating pseudo-science purporting to show that homosexuality is genetic. This industry is very much like the academic industry devoted to generating pseudo-science purporting to show that human activity is warming up our planet. Your tax dollars at work.

[Tony]

You can't just pick which fields of science you want to ignore, especially if they're the ones that conveniently contradict your common "sense." Let yourself be challenged by new information.

[not so hard]

I do let myself be challenged by new information, but I have witnessed the intimidation tactics of the left in academia when their orthodoxy is questioned. The anonymous death threats, the bogus ethics charges, the demands for punishment. Such tactics are not needed when a strong scientific argument is on your side.

Are gay couples as suitable to be parents as heterosexual couples? That is a hard question for any researcher to answer without introducing their own bias whether they support traditional values or not. If one cannot trust the research results of those who claim to be experts, the only thing left is to rely on what seems to be reasonable.

In the case of a genetic basis for homosexual, I have read some of the literature and what I have read is so full of holes that it is not worthy of being called science. I don't know how it even made it past peer review. I also have an uncle who has worked his whole professional life as an academic geneticist. About fifteen years or so ago, he was excitedly explaining how he was taking his research in a new direction and was going to "find evidence for the genetic basis of being gay in order to help the cause". He caught himself after saying that, realizing how bad it sounded. As you might have guessed, he is about as slaved to leftist ideology as can be. Eight months or so later I asked him how his research was going and he dejectedly mumbled that "there just isn't anything there". So my opinion is based on a skimpy sampling of the literature, a recognition of the "win by any means necessary" attitude of the radical left and the view of an expert whom I know personally to be a good scientist. You may judge for yourself whether I have a reasonable basis for believing what I believe.

[Tony]

Sorry, dismissing science you don't like with accusations of bias won't cut it. That's not a casual charge to make at scientists, so you better have something to back it up other than intuition.

It seems commonsensical to me that gay parents would be just as good as straight parents in raising children, all else being equal. What could possibly cause them not to be?

[jacob]

The GOP is the party of freedom to invade countries that never attacked and kill innocents!

TEAM AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

[Gregory Smith]

SARCASTIC MOMENT: Boo, hoo, hoo. Poor Saddam Hussein, he only gassed those annoying Kurds. Sob. Sob. And his poor son Udai? All he did was torture soccer players, rape women, and for that he got killed by those evil American troops. And those poor Iraquis, we liberated them but it turns out some of them would rather be slaves of Saddam. America Culpa, America Culpa, America Maxima Culpa.

SARCASTIC MOMENT END: Seriously, innocents? Yeah right.

[jacob]

Kurds? Who gives a fuck about them? Just cause you have some dipshit bleeding heart cause on your mind doesn't mean MY tax dollars should pay for it. You sound like a big welfare fan.

[Jack On]

In all seriousness, why even keep calling yourself a libertarian? You support the war in Iraq apparently (judging from the comment above), support DOMA as a fair compromise (according to a previous comment in this thread), and state that the GOP is the party of freedom, while the Dems are the party of presumably everything that isn't freedom.

All things considered, I'd say this aligns you with the mainstream republican party. No shame in it, just say it. You're a republican.

I'd recommend reading "Constitutional Chaos"; there's a great section in the middle of the book about the Judge's conversion from being a conservative to a libertarian (an actual libertarian, not someone who calls himself one, then proclaims the GOP to be the party of freedom and goes on to defend them in every comment thread that is negative towards them).

[Britt]

Eh, I prefer the GOP to the Dems, which isn't saying much. I don't know. Maybe it's because they tend to be a lot less self-righteous/stuck up. Maybe it's because I like guns a lot, and being straight the whole gay marriage thing just doesn't place on my priorities as high. My personal lifestyle in general is much closer in line with generic Republicans.

Plus I don't consider the Dems in favor of personal freedom at all. They're in favor of their kinds of lifestyles. Look at their attacks against of home schoolers, for example. Not to mention the whole green thing. Freedom to associate is unlimited to them, unless you're hiring in which case your workforce has to be of the right diversity level.

It gets to me though, this whole bleacher sitting, poo throwing style. I was at that big march in DC that Glenn Beck put on. The local LP was not doing outreach or attempting to persuade this crowd of mostly Republicans, they were shouting the parts of the platform guaranteed to turn them off. You can persuade a law and order Republican away from the Drug War. I've done it, and it takes like half an hour. You don't do it by ridiculing them or shouting. You do it by coming at the issue from their side. Republicans love the Constitution (rank and file, not politicians), and they distrust the government. So you come at it from that. I see a lot of libertarians defend drug use as an awesome, positive thing, and if you think it is, then that's fine. The average GOP voter is going to be much more receptive to a "it does more harm then good" argument made hitting on the things they believe in.

I consider the GOP the party of freedom the same way I consider Kenny Powers to be an athlete. He was once, and could be again, but it's going to take a lot of work, and it won't happen unless he wants to return to his former glory.

[not so hard]

You can persuade a law and order Republican away from the Drug War. I've done it, and it takes like half an hour. You don't do it by ridiculing them or shouting.

HELLO! Do libertarians understand this?

[Britt]

Some do. You have to remember, there is a fairly large portion of libertarians who are more in line with Nock's theory of the remnant. Essentially that things have gone too far, and that the chances of actually achieving a libertarian polity are remote, to say the least. It's more important to be the Irish monks, painstakingly preserving the flame through the Dark Ages.

There are people here who will not vote, not for anyone, because they see voting as an endorsement of the system. You have people who vote for gridlock at every election, or who vote for the Libertarian Party. Hell I knew one who voted Democrat every election because he wanted them to overload the taxpayers and force the collapse of the State, because he thought the rebuilding process would lead to his desired end.

This is going to sound elitist and arrogant, but I think a lot of libertarians are people who read a lot about history and science. They're usually very logical people, and so they get very frustrated when John Q. Public does his research in November by watching campaign ads instead of doing actual research. To say nothing of Team Blue/Red's Pavlovian support of their side. They don't really understand how oblivious the general public is.

Take the Balko articles. I see a lot of comments that are under the impression that the general public is aware of these abuses by police and prosecutors, but approves of them for various reasons. Allegations of racism are frequently asserted, for example. Except that's not true. Sure there are some people who hear "druggie" and want the gallows built. But people don't know cops and lawyers from reality, they know it from TV. No one on TV ever gets a life sentence based on the testimony of a paid informant and a crackhead, there's always incontrovertible forensic proof which forces a dramatic confession. The cops on TV never hit the wrong door and kill somebody. When a cop (that angry guy on Law and Order SVU) roughs up a suspect on TV, there is never any doubt that he is bad man. They apply this fiction to reality, and so they really do think all these incidents are isolated ones.

Wow, I meandered on that one.

[not so hard]

No one on TV ever gets a life sentence based on the testimony of a paid informant and a crackhead ...

Wasn't The Shield a series premised on morally ambiguous behavior on the part of the cops? I only saw part of an episode a long time ago.

Uncertainty breeds insecurity and stress. Most people don't want a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity.

I agree that John Q. doesn't pay much attention to and is not knowledgeable about politics. Is that because of laziness or because they are busying trying to live their lives? A little of both, I suspect.

[Kreel Sarloo]

You can persuade a law and order Republican away from the Drug War. I've done it, and it takes like half an hour.

Yeah, and fifteen minutes later he'll be going on about how we have to win the war on drugs again. And then you've got to spend another thirty minutes going over it again.

You might have time to waste like this; I don't.

[Ken Shultz]

"The GOP is the party of freedom (so is the Libertarian Party but they never win)..."

Further support for the suggestion that the difference between those who are libertarians and those who aren't?

The ones who aren't libertarians think politicians are the solution to our problems.

Freedom doesn't come from politicans, Buddy Roe. Not from the Democrats, not from the Republican--not even from the Libertarians.

[not so hard]

Why Does Boehner Have Such a Hard-On Against Gay Marriage?

Because the overwhelming majority of American voters don't want marriage redefined. There, it isn't really so difficult to understand a wishy-washy politician's attitudes now is it?

[Jim]

So we subject equal rights to a majority vote now?

[not so hard]

Marriage is an institution not a right, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Why do you believe that 2-3% of the population should be able to force a redefinition of society's most fundamental institution onto everyone else? To use the words commonly used by gay activists themselves, "who gets to decide"?

[KPres]

How the hell do you force a definition on somebody?

Define marriage however you want, but people get freedom of association.

[not so hard]

How the hell do you force a definition on somebody?

A sympathetic Justice in one State orders the State's legislature to pass a law redefining marriage to include homosexual couples. The State's legislature passes the law, gays flock to that State, get married under the new definition, then disperse to other States. The "married" gay couples then file lawsuits demanding that those other States recognize their "marriage" under Full Faith and Credit. The case gets appealed to the SCOTUS and, after rolling its dice, the SCOTUS declares that all the States of the Union must recognize the new definition of marriage. Under such a scenario, the majority of the People of the US will have had a redefinition of marriage forced upon them.

Define marriage however you want, but people get freedom of association.

No one is preventing gays from associating with anyone who wants to associate with them. Stop pretending that gays are being denied their Constitutional Rights.

[Jim]

Who cares how you define the word? Don't pass laws that specifically prohibit one group of people from entering an institution that you grant to others. It's an extremely simple concept that anti-gay activists try to twist all day into semantic debates.

It's easy. Do you believe people are equal, or not? If so, then why tell some churches that may want to perform the marriages, that the state will not allow it? Why have the state grant the right of a JP marriage to some taxpayers, but not others? I would say in issues involving liberty, the burden of proof should be on those who want to prevent it, rather than on those who want to expand it.

[not so hard]

Don't pass laws that specifically prohibit one group of people from entering an institution that you grant to others.

If a single, adult, gay man wants to marry and can find a willing, single, adult woman, he can marry her anywhere in America. Gays are not being denied anything other than the authority to redefine marriage according to their own desires. It is gay activists who distort the debate by insisting that they are being denied some non-existent right or that they are being treated differently under the law.

[Britt]

You can have your Model T in any color you want, as long as it's black.-Henry Ford.

[Jim]

"If a single, adult, gay man wants to marry and can find a willing, single, adult woman..."

Words fail me. There is no point in debating further; you simply believe in treating some people differently under the law, based on your valuation of their moral behavior. I do not. You keep referencing "society" and gays "forcing" it to change; well, if society is wrong, then it had better fucking change! Pathetic arguments like yours have been used for centuries to always justify the "status quo", as you state in a post further down. For you, the fact that a majority of people believe something, which is the status quo, is justification in and of itself to maintain that thing. For me, it is meaningless. I do not care about what a plurality of people think is right; I care about what is right despite popularity. I don't give a shit about the status quo; if it's wrong, destroy it.

[not so hard]

you simply believe in treating some people differently under the law

No I don't. Gays are not being treated differently under the law. I thought my post made that clear.

if society is wrong, then it had better fucking change!

And, of course, you declare yourself to be the judge of whether society is wrong or not.

For you, the fact that a majority of people believe something, which is the status quo, is justification in and of itself to maintain that thing.

I have not asserted that the status quo should be maintained just because it is the status quo.

You seem to want to discard the wishes of the majority. What is your alternative? Let gays decide on the definition of marriage? Why? Just because they are complaining? Once the will of the majority is discarded, society is put in the situation of deciding which minority opinion should prevail. How would you decide which minority gets to impose its will? Would you support NAMBLA if it demanded that majority opinion should be ignored and the law should be changed because NAMBLA's members think that adults having sex with children is healthy? If you were to get your way, what argument would you use to convince NAMBLA that they can't have their way? I think if you are honest, you will realize that letting a sliver of the population impose its morality on society is nothing more than tyranny and can be used to push society to the point where nothing is taboo and nothing is forbidden. Of course, maybe you approve of adults having sex with children.

For me, it is meaningless. I do not care about what a plurality of people think is right

Clearly, the only thing you care about is yourself and your desires. Thankfully, most people in society are not as selfish and self-absorbed as you. If your attitudes are ever adopted by a sizable portion of society, our country will not be free and will be a very unpleasant place in which to live.

[danwgre]

Sexes are treated differently under the law.

The point is, the modern application of marriage is different than the historical application of it. Is fair that a man and woman that are simply in love, get benefits that two men also in love can't? How is that equal protection under the law?

[not so hard]

the modern application of marriage is different than the historical application of it

Says who? And what's love got to do with it? The institution of marriage wasn't created on the basis of romantic love. That's Walt Disney talking.

[danwgre]

says reality.
unless you popped a baby out; there is ZERO difference between man on girl and man on man coupling.
If you supported marriage being defined AS biological parenthood; I would support you 100%. (Of course that would be problematic, right.... polygamy?)
But as long as marriage is just two adults that really dig each other, segregating it by sexes is bullshit.

[not so hard]

unless you popped a baby out; there is ZERO difference between man on girl and man on man coupling.

If there were no difference, then there would be no political conflict. But there is conflict, ergo there is a difference.

If two adults really dig each other, I have no complaints and I don't care. That isn't the issue.

[linbegone]

Look, I dont understand what you're saying about marriage being an institution. What sort of institution is it?

Marriage in the eyes of the government is nothing more than a merger contract binding two entities and is supposed to grant equality of properties and protection of both parties in the eyes of the law.

We all know what a crock of shit that is, just ask any divorce liar (lawyer) how profitable marriages are and aren't.

The gay community isnt asking for anything unusual, they want to be able to obtain that same merger certificate so they are able to handle tax affairs, health care insurance under a family plan, etc just like the heteros do.

While I personally dont approve of their lifestyle, why shouldnt they be equals in our society. I dont care what two consenting adults do amongst themselves, thats their business.

And NO, a majority may never push their morals or ideology on the minority, that would obfuscate any meaning of a free society.

[not so hard]

I dont understand what you're saying about marriage being an institution ... Marriage in the eyes of the government is nothing more than a merger contract

Apparently, you do recognize that marriage is an institution and have your own characterization of it. I emphasis that marriage is an institution in order to combat the dishonest claim that marriage is a right.

The gay community isnt asking for anything unusual, they want to be able to obtain that same merger certificate so they are able to handle tax affairs, health care insurance under a family plan, etc just like the heteros do.

The gay isn't asking, it is demanding and what it is demanding is unusual - that the rest of society change its values and institutions to a accommodate the wishes of a small, but influential subculture. All of the contractual matters you mention can be handled through contract law. There are lots of gay lawyers and lawyers willing to help the gay community for minimal compensation. If the community used those legal resources to create streamlined, prefabbed legal documents to service the particular needs of the gay community instead of using those resources to attack the rest of the culture, there would be much less strife and tension in our country. The fact that gay activists behave the way they do politically clearly indicates that the contract aspects of marriage is not what really motivates them.

While I personally dont approve of their lifestyle, why shouldnt they be equals in our society.

I don't personally approve of people who stink because they don't wipe their ass after they take a dump. That doesn't mean that I have to treat them as equals. The fact that I treat and view people differently based on their behavior also doesn't mean that I am hateful or harbor any particular animus, it just means that I am a human being. Yet I and anyone who doesn't cave into the demands of the gay community are constantly called names and accused of the most vile motivations.

I dont care what two consenting adults do amongst themselves, thats their business.

Neither do I, but that's not the issue.

And NO, a majority may never push their morals or ideology on the minority, that would obfuscate any meaning of a free society.

The majority isn't pushing its morals onto the minority in this case. It is the minority that is attempting to push its values onto the majority. The majority doesn't have to push its values. Those values are simply the values reflected by most of society. The minority doesn't like it, so they are throwing a political and legal tantrum.

Be honest about the actual roles being played. You will find your own candor liberating.

[DesigNate]

You know, the same fucking argument was used 100 years ago about white's and black's intermarrying.

[Divorced]

Because the overwhelming majority of American voters don't want marriage redefined.

Man I sure do...

[Pip]

Which brings to mind the old adage, "Why is divorce so damned wxpensive?"

Because it's worth it.

[oft]

the demise of the GOP under Bush

The demise of the gop under Bush had more to do with hypocrisy, on morality and spending. No one can make a definitive claim al queda would not have taken over Iraq.

You have a beef with the Founding Fathers. They are the ones who executed homosexuals. Why do you think those Christians did that, yet gave us unalienable rights? And don't bring up the straw man of slavery. James Madison specifically wrote if they tried to stop slavery, there wouldn't have been a country, and it was best to leave the problem until the union was established.

They believed as long as the people remained virtuous, no other power could destroy them because God had their back.

But they understood sin would destroy us:

As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.

--The Father of the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention. Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), p.966.

[Null Void]

They were not Bible-beaters. They weren't pure secularists either, and Baptists were the loudest in calling for a separation of church and state. Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Founded by Southern Baptists.

There's this book called "Founding Faith" which examines the complex religious and secular dynamics of the Colonial and Founding Eras. For the record, Madison was referring to the deist god.

Most of the Founding Fathers were not terribly religious, at least not in a traditional sense.

[oft]

They weren't pure secularists either, and Baptists were the loudest in calling for a separation of church and state. Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Founded by Southern Baptists.

By the morality they enforced, the framers were definitely Christian fundamentalists, especially as the North instigated their own Second Great Awakening that swept all of New England.

The separation doctrine today is not even close to what the Baptists wanted. Baptists wanted the govt. out of the church (the prohibition of a National Church, like that of England). Separation today is church out of the govt. where you can't even post the ten commandments, yet the framers mandated Bible reading in every school.

If you want the scoop on James Madison, my blog has more information on His Orthodoxy than anyone. I have Madison quoting the Trinity.
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogsp.....es+madison

[TrickyVic]

""Baptists wanted the govt. out of the church""

And what better a way to get goverment out of the church than to erect a wall preventing government from mingling in church business, and not allowing government to endorse any religion it's self?

""By the morality they enforced, the framers were definitely Christian fundamentalists, ""

You do realize that much of the morality they endorsed/enforced existed hundreds of years prior to the birth of christ. Man not killing man, not stealing from each other, was part of the first known written code.

And then you have Jefferson, sure he carried a bible and thought Jesus was one of the greatest men that ever lived, but he can't be a christian since he didn't believe in the immaculate conception, the resurrection, or any other "magic" contained in the bible.

[rather]

You do realize that much of the morality they endorsed/enforced existed hundreds of years prior to the birth of christ.

Yes, and that includes taking care of the weak, sick...

[KPres]

10%, not 30%.

[oft]

And what better a way to get goverment out of the church than to erect a wall preventing government from mingling in church business, and not allowing government to endorse any religion it's self?

Since when did a personal letter make policy?

You do realize that much of the morality they endorsed/enforced existed hundreds of years prior to the birth of christ. Man not killing man, not stealing from each other, was part of the first known written code.

They attributed morality to the O.T.

Jefferson is only one man and an outlier.

[not so hard]

You do realize that much of the morality they endorsed/enforced existed hundreds of years prior to the birth of christ.

One of the most powerful functions of religion is that it perpetuates and reinforces a set of standards of behavior. The western system of morality and ethics has been perpetuated largely by Christianity. If it makes you feel good to focus on the idea that the moral principles of Christianity did not originate with Christianity, go ahead. I don't know why it is so important to you to deny Christianity credit for anything positive, but I guess that's just your hangup.

[Jim]

"One of the most powerful functions of religion is that it perpetuates and reinforces a set of standards of behavior."

The problem being, it's usually their OPINIONS on what should be standard behavior, that they try to reinforce, through the gov't if need be (banning gay marriage, for example). I think if you did some polling, you'd find a surprising correlation of fundamentalist Christian belief overlapping with things such as belief in anti-sodomy laws, belief that "drugs are bad" and thus need to be prosecuted, etc.

I don't want your religion, and I don't want your morality. If some unitarian church wants to marry gays, I have no idea why so many christians (and muslims, and jews) feel that it's the proper place of the gov't to step in and prevent them from doing that.

[not so hard]

The problem being, it's usually their OPINIONS on what should be standard behavior, that they try to reinforce, through the gov't if need be

Just who is the "they" you are referring to? The status quo is the status quo. Gays don't like it. I can understand that. They engage in behavior that most people don't approve of. Laws reflect society and it standards. Always have. Always will. Whatever your standards of morality, there are likely to be communities in America where your standards are accepted. Despite the hyperventilating, America is not a horribly oppressive place and I think that anyone who thinks it is should spend more time traveling in other countries.

banning gay marriage, for example

You are distorting the issue by the phraseology you use. The issue is whether or not gays are allowed to force a redefinition of marriage onto the rest of society. "Gay marriage" is a non-sequitur commonly used by gay activists to suggest that they are victims being denied something to which they are entitled.

I don't want your religion, and I don't want your morality.

How do you know what my religion or my morality is? Surely you can understand my concern that letting 2-3% of the population use government policy to force its moral code onto the rest of society creates political tensions that could easily lead to a backlash that no person of good will could want. The biggest victim of such a backlash will be the 2-3% that tried to push its values onto everyone else.

If some unitarian church wants to marry gays, I have no idea why so many christians (and muslims, and jews) feel that it's the proper place of the gov't to step in and prevent them from doing that.

Traditionalists are not trying to get the government to step in to prevent Unitarians from joining gay couples in what they call marriage. It is gays who are demanding that the government step in and recognize the unilateral redefinition of marriage by Unitarians. It was gays who demanded, under threat of lawsuit, that eharmony, a private company, offer dating services for homosexuals despite the existence of dating sites that catered to the gay community. It is gays who are demanding that the military change its policies, not to increase its efficacy in fighting wars, but to cater to the desires of the gay community. It was the NJ state attorney who tried to use NJ anti-discrimination laws to try to force the boy scouts to accept openly gay scout masters. It is gays who frequently insist that gays be given the special legal protections that have been afforded to racial minorities in housing and employment.

Have I made my point that it is gays who are the political aggressors who are trying to use the power of government to change the status quo although they portray themselves as victims and accuse their political opponents of using the very tactics that they themselves are engaged in?

[Jim]

"Traditionalists are not trying to get the government to step in to prevent Unitarians from joining gay couples in what they call marriage."

Yes, they are. If traditionalists, by a majority vote, decide that the unitarian marriage is not recognized by the state, but the others are (which is what the "status quo" is in many states), then that is EXACTLY what you are doing: getting the gov't to step in and prevent a marriage, by not recognizing it's legal validity.

[Tulpa]

"Not recognizing" is an instance of inaction, not action. So the govt is not really stepping in to prevent anything.

[not so hard]

So the govt is not really stepping in to prevent anything.

It's amazing how inside out the thinking of proponents of redefining marriage is.

[not so hard]

By the morality they enforced, the framers were definitely Christian fundamentalists

That's a bit of a strange statement given that the modern definition of Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes that the words in the Bible are literally true, as opposed to allegory.

Enforcing a code of morality is a somewhat separate issue. In the America of today, there are Fundamentalists, non-Fundamentalist Christians who wish to maintain a Christian code of morality and others who either wish to adopt a non-Christian moral code or who think they want to live in a society with no moral code whatsoever.

[oft]

A fundamentalist does not believe all the Bible is literal--there are many passages that are allegory.

and others who either wish to adopt a non-Christian moral code or who think they want to live in a society with no moral code whatsoever.

If that code contradicts the Scriptures, they aren't Christians.

[not so hard]

If that code contradicts the Scriptures, they aren't Christians.

By "others" I meant non-Christians.

[Tulpa]

James Madison specifically wrote if they tried to stop slavery, there wouldn't have been a country, and it was best to leave the problem until the union was established.

Yeah, lots of people come up with justifications for their misdeeds or negligence after the fact.

[oft]

You wouldn't have a country if they didn't compromise.

[Jim]

Good. I hate the Empire, and fight from within at every turn to have it dismantled. Bring back the articles of confederation.

[Tulpa]

Yep, the northern states would have just up and vanished like so many cowboy poetry fans.

[Null Void]

What's wrong with expanding the definition of marriage, anyway?

[Tulpa]

Herr Gillespie, please explain how DOMA prevents man dates and gay honeymoons, and how lack of special privileges from the feds make homosexuals' lives difficult. And don't give me the garbage that those are Hart's words, because you're quoting them approvingly and providing supporting illustrations with alt-text.

[Null Void]

God, so many conservatives out tonight.

[Tulpa]

Do you have an argument, or are you just going to call names? (misapplied names at that)

[Citizen Nothing]

Red light cameras!
God -- that never gets old.

[TrickyVic]

""and how lack of special privileges from the feds make homosexuals' lives difficult.""

Special privileges? Is that what it's called when the feds want states to honor other states' marriages?

One example would be two gays that can't get divorced because the state they are in doesn't recongize their marriage. Not getting divorced when you really want to does make things difficult, straight or gay.

[Paul]

Not getting divorced when you really want to does make things difficult, straight or gay.

As a divorced person, I sure wish I could have just said, "Lessee, I'll take what I brought into the marriage, you take what you brought in, we'll split the rest, and uhh yeah, leave your keys on the dresser seeing as I brought the real estate into this motherfucker".

It's when the state gets involved that divorce gets difficult.

I'm not bitter or anything.

[Tulpa]

Oh yes, it's much better for federalism if one wacko state is able to define marriage for the entire country.

And if the state they move to doesn't recognize their marriage, under DOMA they're ipso facto divorced once they establish residence there. Problem solved.

[grrizzly]

I thought you couldn't get married because you were an ugly white guy and not because you proudly rejected a special privilege.

[Tulpa]

I don't recall claiming any proud rejections. I'm not interested in marriage at this time because of my own self-interested motives, as well as questions about whether marriage is even a relevant institution in the modern world.

The fact that we wink-wink at "till death do us part" shows that we already understand, on some level, that it really isn't well-suited to modern society.

[Paul]

Herr Gillespie, please explain how DOMA prevents man dates and gay honeymoons, and how lack of special privileges from the feds make homosexuals' lives difficult.

At the risk of offending everyone, I believe that a lot of the gay marriage issues really present technical hurdles for gay couples, but hardly anything that amounts to lunch-counter-move-to-the-back-of-the-bus-you-can't-vote issues.

You'd almost have to have gay people who were denied marrige give you concrete examples of what they are, because honestly, I'm not sure what they all are.

The biggest issues that I can think of really are spousal/insurance/employer benefits (which ironically are being fixed more and more regularly by insurance companies/employers)- no government intervention required.

One thing that gets mentioned which I really believe is a mountain made from molehills are the visitation "rights" of spouses/partners in healthcare situations. While I'm sure some have been real, and real suffering has been endured on some isolated cases, as someone who has worked in healthcare for an entire career, plus had an abnormally large number of family members in hospitals for extended stays from regular hospital beds all the way up to ER/ICU units, never once ever ever ever in my history of ever have I or anyone I know ever been "challenged" to provide identification or proof that I was related to the patient.

And in fact, during my brief, whirlwind marriage, I didn't even share the last name of my betrothed, so had I needed "proof" that I was the husband, I couldn't have provided it. As far as the hospital was concerned, I was some guy with a different last name trying to get into the hospital room.

Any hospital that denies visitation rights because you're not legally married to the patient is either in the stone age, or has some magical super-double-secret spy technology to tell or know that you're actually legally married to the patient.

And I mean, fuck, hasn't anyone ever heard of lying?

Gay couple in emergency room:

Nurse ratchett: Excuse me sir, are you related to the patient?
Gay man: Yeah, I'm his brother.
Nurse ratchett: Prove it.
Gay man: How?
Nurse ratchett: Uhh, let me see your ID.
Gay man: What's that going to do?
Nurse ratchett: If you're brothers, you'll have the same last names.
Gay man: No we won't. Ever heard of Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez? Now let me in or I'll have your fucking job.

[grrizzly]

Hospital visitation rights are mostly bullshit. The lack of legal immigration privileges, on the other hand, is absolutely real. I'm well aware of libertarians' responses to that: government out of marriage all together, no immigration restrictions, etc. They just don't have anything to do with the real life.

[Paul]

Immigration via marriage, of course, brings in a whole host of legal issues I can't comment on.

[Joe R.]

What "special privileges"? (that aren't already given to heterosexuals)

[not so hard]

Does anyone have a link to that political cartoon in which a manager is telling his subordinates that he has to lay someone off? The intermediate frames have all the employees pointing out that they are black or a woman, etc. and, in the last frame, the last employee, a white guy, says, "Umm ... I think I might be gay."

[Tony]

No one's ever been oppressed as much as heterosexual white men, after all.

[danwgre]

A real white guy would be self-employed, dumbass

[Tony]

Equal rights are not special privileges.

[not so hard]

... and not everything that gays complain about is a right.

[Tony]

Marriage is a fundamental human right according to existing supreme court precedent.

[Tulpa]

The state can still restrict who you can marry, just not on the basis of race (assuming you're talking about Loving v VA). Otherwise incest and bigamy laws would be unconstitutional.

[not so hard]

Otherwise incest and bigamy laws would be unconstitutional.

More injustice! This cannot stand!

[Tony]

Nobody confuses marriage with incest or bigamy except people who are being deliberately obtuse in the service of denying gays equal rights.

[The Ingenious Hidalgo]

Hey! What's wrong with incest or bigamy?

[not so hard]

Should brothers be allowed to marry one another, Tony? Is there any expansion to the definition of marriage that you would not support?

If an institution can mean anything, then it ultimately means nothing.

[The Ingenious Hidalgo]

I for one am fine with it meaning nothing. Get the government out of marriage. People can draft contracts and hold ceremonies and call their relationship whatever they want. So what if two brothers want to marry each other? Does it harm anyone?

[not so hard]

Get the government out of marriage.

I would support this. Getting the government out of marriage makes these arguments go away. Of course, getting the government out of marriage means rewriting inheritance law, immigration law, tax law and many employment contracts and there are a whole bunch of vested interests that would fight it tooth and nail.

[The Ingenious Hidalgo]

Alas, all true.

[no so hard]

Marriage is a fundamental human right according to existing supreme court precedent.

Yeah, and so is abortion.

[Tulpa]

And slogans aren't arguments.

[bubba]

Doesn't congress have an institutional duty to defend its own laws? Otherwise that's quite the sneaky Veto power you're giving to the President. "Here, challenge this law and I won't defend it."

If DOMA was such a crappy law, why didn't the Dems repeal it when they ran everything?

Recall that DOMA does not in and of itself ban gay marriage. It simply allows states to choose that option without being overridden by their next door neighbors. If anything, it's the kind of compromise that "moderates" should support.

[Jim]

Thankfully a lot of us aren't moderates. I'd rather go down guns blazing Waco style, than compromise on issues of liberty. Obviously the best answer is, gov't out of marriage altogether. The second answer, is all marriages treated equally, which is what we're pushing for now.

[Paul]

Obviously the best answer is, gov't out of marriage altogether. The second answer, is all marriages treated equally, which is what we're pushing for now.

There is a third answer: Make all marriage, gay and straight illegal, which is my preferred prescription.

[not so hard]

There is a third answer: Make all marriage, gay and straight illegal, which is my preferred prescription.

Don't forget polygamy, letting adult family members marry each other, group marriages, marriages with a defined limit on their length, marriages between people and other species, etc. Quite being so discriminatory!

[DesigNate]

Okay I can't take it anymore and I had to comment. What is so fucking hard to understand about the idea that two (or more) CONSENTING adults should be able to enter into a contract with each other without the state saying diddly squat about it?

Obviously as a libertarian I believe the state should be completely out of the whole mess that is marriage. That is never going to happen.

Marriage, much like health care and retirement, is not a right. On this we both agree. However; as long as the government does pass out permission slips, they are bound by the Constitution to pass out those slips to people equally.

[not so hard]

two (or more) CONSENTING adults should be able to enter into a contract with each other without the state saying diddly squat about it?

They can right now. You want to enter into a contract with another person? Good ahead and do so. No one is stopping you.

as long as the government does pass out permission slips, they are bound by the Constitution to pass out those slips to people equally.

The government does. What is it that you have a problem with? What you really want is the approval of society. The Constitution does not require the government to endorse the lifestyle of any subculture that makes a lot of noise.

[DesigNate]

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. You know, a hundred years ago people like you were saying that a black man and a white woman had the ability to be married, just not to each other.

And way to ignore my point that the government shouldn't be involved at all in the marriage business.

The point is that the government DOESN'T hand out the permission slips equally. But I wouldn't expect a conservative douche nozzle like you to get that since you continually revert to the tired "If a single, adult, gay man wants to marry and can find a willing, single, adult woman, he can marry her anywhere in America".

[name]

and people like you are probably making that same argument in favor of man-boy relationships. what's the point of such analogies? that similar arguments should be subject to the same taboo?

And he wasn't arguing that gays could engage in precisely the same contracts as straight marriage. It was that they could make contracts to do whatever they want beyond what straight people would choose to do, like bequeath all their belongings to each other etc.

I agree however the right path is to get govt out of it. It really seems silly for libertarians to want to argue for the broad expansion of a completely unnecessary government intervention into personal lives. It still discriminates against single people btw.

[DesigNate]

First of all, reading comprehension fail. I said consenting adults so that would preclude your man-boy thing.

Secondly, he actually did say that up thread, that's the part in quotation marks. The fact that they can draw up wills and contracts and what not doesn't mean diddly squat when the family of one person refuses their partner entry to the hospital room or custody of their children.

Most libertarians, myself included, have argued ad nauseam that the government should butt out, especially since it discriminates against singles (at least as far as taxes are concerned). But it is not a broad expansion of government to expect them to treat everyone the same.

[name]

I was referring to your godwin-esque comparison to racism. You don't get to pick which details of your argument get used in the analogy attacking you. Its a conflict of interest. You think the other poster would agree with your replacement of race for sexual orientation?

And you dodged the question. Do you weight your principles on how similar they are/aren't to the arguments of archetypal evildoers? That might explain the present contradictory stance. Don't you hate it when republicans state one set of principles but then just vote for a slightly-less-liberal-sounding version of liberalism? Perhaps we can see how that comes to happen. Perhaps you guys are on your way to being a force in politics. It will happen right around the time you've compromised your way into your own version of "better" authoritarianism.

[Paul]

If DOMA was such a crappy law, why didn't the Dems repeal it when they ran everything?

Because why would you use representative democracy to engage/disengage something you believed in when you can rely on unelected career bureaucrats?

[Aresen]

What are the odds on Boehner being outed in the next 2 years?

It would be fun to run a pool on which prominent anti-gay politician or preacher gets outed next.

[Paul]

Hate to disappoint you, but there's no way any self-respecting gay man would wear an outfit like the one Boehner's wearing.

[Aresen]

He's a politician.

"Self respecting" doesn't enter into it.

[Paul]

Touch?.

I'm adding this next sentence because the server squirrels rejected the single word as some kind of "pinko, snail-eating frenchy script".

[juris imprudent]

Come to think of it, I don't many gays who golf.

[juris imprudent]

frak! Missing "know" in there - and not in the Biblical sense.

[Ex-GOPer]

"The fundamental right to be left alone, as long as what you do does not hurt others, is vital to freedom-loving, human existence."

Equal rights is not part of the GOP agenda. The US (world) not aligning with the GOP world view, hurts the GOP.

[oft]

Homosexuality destroys whatever civilization it became normalized.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The penis goes in the vagina. Or the vagina's mouth, if it's your birthday. End of story.

[not so hard]

A bold statement that I'm not sure I believe.

[Tony]

I bet you in every one of those civilizations there were more heterosexuals. Maybe heterosexuality caused their doom?

[not so hard]

I believe oft was referring to moral standards.

[Tony]

It just stands to reason, if sexuality can cause a civilization's doom somehow, one might first look to the dominant one.

[not so hard]

It doesn't stand to reason at all. If a civilization has a birth rate of 3 children per woman and every woman is exclusively heterosexual and then the civilization suddenly changes its sexual mores so that 40% of the women are exclusively homosexual, then the birth rate drops to 1.8 children per woman and the civilization dies even though it is still majority heterosexual. Of course, sexual morality may just be an external expression of more fundamental values.

[Fatty Bolger]

Right. It might take 500 years, but eventually they are dooooomed! Dooooomed I say!

[Tulpa]

Which civilization are you referring to? In ancient Greece, obligate homosexuals were outcasts, particularly men who allowed themselves to be penetrated. The homosexual behavior that is associated with the upper classes of that time was actually only frottage (genital rubbing, usually on the legs), which doesn't involve penetration...and the participants were either adolescents too young to marry, or were married to women.

[danwgre]

I think civilizations that are built on an overly moralistic dogma regarding fucking; will show signs on loosening up once the populace quits buying into the bullshit. If collapse of said civilization then ensues, so be it.

[not so hard]

So deep and so nihilistic.

[danwgre]

so let me get this straight... you really believe that despite all the amazing technological progress we have had over the last 1000 or so years, the continuation and survival of ALL of that rests on who a minority of individuals decide to fuck?

[not so hard]

I'm not telling you and or anyone else who to have sex with. You sure are doing a lousy job of reading my mind.

I was merely noticing the hostility in your post and the casual way you wrote of the collapse of civilization. It's clear to me that you are a very thoughtful person.

[Tony]

We've got to get rid of party primaries. All they do is force politicians to radicalize. Half the Republicans in DC are gay for Christ's sake. The GOP now elects leaders according to who can pander the most to the stupidest people.

[not so hard]

The GOP now elects leaders according to who can pander the most to the stupidest people.

I'm surprised you want to change a system which is such a clear benefit to you.

[Paul]

We've got to get rid of party primaries. All they do is force politicians to radicalize.

So we want all of our politicians fall within a narrow ideological band?

[Tony]

I think I said the opposite.

[Tulpa]

Only half?

[scratched]

I think many of you are missing the point (probably due to the biased slant of the article). The law in question prohibits the federal govt from recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't prohibit gay people from marrying. It simply saves the country money by not having to cover all those govt employee's "significant others". If this were to be overturned...in states where gay marriage isn't legal the federal govt would still have to honor the marriage as if it were legal, causing major litigation to ensue. The article of course doesn't point that out. It continuously outlines the falsehood of all GOP against gay marriage. While many of them (GOP) may not like it, state law is recognized in that state over any federal law. Pick your battles people. State elections is where you can win the war not federal.

[not so hard]

The definition of marriage certainly has big financial consequences (Does the government or a corporation have to provide spousal health care benefits to all 37 of the men a particular woman is married to?), but the real issues are political and cultural. I seriously doubt that the Obama administration was thinking about money when it announced its policy.

[danwgre]

How about dropping all involuntary spousal benefits.... I don't want to pay for your wife to sit at home and get healthcare anymore than you want to pay for who ever I fucked at the local bathhouse to get treated for HIV.

[not so hard]

How about dropping all involuntary spousal benefits

Finally, something that you and I agree on. The one legitimate claim that gays have is in the area of spousal employment benefits. The solution to that injustice (an injustice born by many single or childless heteros too, by the way) is to eliminate employment benefits and just compensate employees with wages or salaries. But the current system of employment benefits makes corporations cooperative agents of manipulating government busybodies so eliminating that system would be difficult.

[juris imprudent]

With all of our festering economic problems, I do not know why the GOP has to waste its currency making life difficult for consenting gays.

Because cutting govt (welfare to farmers, welfare to corporations, welfare to old people, etc.) might actually piss off someone that votes for us; bashing gays is easy and makes us look tough to the social-cons. And it won't cost us a single vote.

[B]

"The fundamental right to be left alone, as long as what you do does not hurt others, is vital to freedom-loving, human existence."

In a recent online conversation with some fundies I realized the problem with this statement. You see, the fundies will agree with the above statement: as long as you're not hurting anyone, no one should intervene.

Unfortunately, fundies believe that if you are not living exactly as THEY see fit, you ARE hurting society - even your lustful thoughts are harming society, even when you don't and would not act on them.

They really believe this, and they really believe that the mere existence of gay people harms society, and so justifies every sort of pernicious law.

Somehow, however, their own madness which causes them to persecute everyone who is different from them is an exception to the rule and harms no one. Well, no one who matters.

[not so hard]

So deep, so insightful.

[oft]

Unfortunately, fundies believe that if you are not living exactly as THEY see fit, you ARE hurting society - even your lustful thoughts are harming society, even when you don't and would not act on them.

Fundies believe this because the Chief Fundamentalist Jesus Christ believed this. Take it up with him.

The Founding Fathers believed this as well, and they formed our Laws based on the Bible. This Law, Common Law is in the Constitution, so it cannot be retracted.

The framers specifically said not to change any of the fundamental laws. If we do, our nation will suffer God's judgment:

"As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."

--The Father of the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention. Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), p.966.

Somehow, however, their own madness which causes them to persecute everyone who is different from them is an exception to the rule and harms no one. Well, no one who matters.

This is the problem with liberalism. It does not believe in truth, or any absolutes. There is no morality to liberalism, which is why it destroys Nations.

Homosexuality is a life choice that violates Divine Law and the Law of Nature.

History shows once a nation normalized Homosexuality, that Nation was destroyed.

[scott]

great post

[MJ]

Shorter Ron Hart: Why can't conservatives just stop defending what they believe in and cave in to our anything goes attitude towards marriage?

Hart delivers a whinging temper tantrum, not an argument.

[MJ]

"With all of our festering economic problems, I do not know why the GOP has to waste its currency making life difficult for consenting gays."

Because that issue is before the courts right now? If Hart does not want politicians focusing on DOMA rather than on other matters, maybe he should blame the people who brought it before the courts in the first place?

[JanetZep]

I read the whole column and this guy reminds me of an edgy PJ O'Rourke. Maybe back when he was with Rolling Stone. Well written humor and very intuitive. And, very correct.