Family Issues

If You Won't Change Your Mind About Gay Marriage, Will You Limit Your Opposition to Quiet Grumbling?


Adam Serwer makes a good point about the politics of gay marriage:

Sadly, this argument never had its day in court.

Many recent national polls have shown that support for marriage equality is growing. But what's also interesting is that the opposition, while still present, may be growing less fervent.

Let's take New York as a test example. Despite the recent passage of a marriage equality bill, support for marriage equality in New York isn't that much higher than in the country as a whole—it's currently at 54 percent, according to Quinnipiac, which is similar to the low-50s level of support we see in national polls.

Support for same-sex marriage in New York varies depending on religion, with white Catholics being evenly divided at 48 percent opposed and 48 percent supporting. But white Catholic voters in New York approve of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who drove passage of [the] marriage equality bill, is at a nearly 3-1 margin. White Protestant opposition to same-sex marriage is even higher at 54 percent, and yet 60 percent of white Protestants approve of the job Cuomo is doing.

What this suggests is that some of the people opposed to same-sex marriage rights nevertheless support Cuomo anyway. This gets to something I think polling has yet to properly examine—the dwindling importance of same-sex marriage to even those voters who voice opposition to it. The shift towards support for marriage equality isn't just a matter of more people saying they support it. It's also a function of people who are nominally opposed caring less about the issue in general as the inevitability of marriage equality becomes more apparent.

Read the whole post here. Read more on same-sex marriage here.

NEXT: Why Schmancy Train Projects Always Cost More Than Forecasted

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Government recognition of same-sex marriage probably isn’t a top ten public policy concern for most people. That might explain Cuomo’s enjoyment of positive polling among white Christians (everyone’s favorite target demo).

    1. While I don’t even think government should be regulating marriage in the first place, I think this issue has been inflated beyond all sense of proportion.

      The proper solution isn’t legalizing gay marriage, polygamy, the union of humans with animals, or whatever else we come up with. The solution is not being in the marriage business in the first place. Government can recognize and enforce contracts, which is what marriage really is.

      To the extent that the contract is against public policy–like a parent trying to marry a minor child, let’s say–then the contract will be null and void and whatever crimes have been committed can be prosecuted.

      1. Exactly. As long as you have “government approved” marriage are you not then “discriminating” against people who choose to not get married? It’s none of their business what your relationship status is as long as it’s consensual.

      2. You express the authentic libertarian position.

        The authentic libertarian goes further and opposes “gay marriage.”

        Why? The first stance of the authentic libertarian always is to oppose any act that expands Officialdom at the expense of Freedom as well as any act that expands collectivism at the expense of individualism.

        So many get it oh-so wrong when they champion “gay marriage” including the editors of and the many pseudo-libertarians who contribute to comments on

        For the exact reason, these same pseudo-libertarians get oh-so wrong illegal immigration by standing as champions for it and thus expansion of government.

        One day, those pseudo-libertarians shall awaken to truth: They are progressive pragmatist liberals.

        1. opposing the state discriminating what contracts it recognizes as legitimate based on the gender of the parties involved, and promoting that the state not wall us into it’s geographic area but allow greater and more freedom of travel are examples of EXPANDING the powers of the state?

          WTF kind of newspeak logic is that?

          conservative… i see you
          slavery is freedom right?

          1. Humans have sex. Languages have gender.

            That you conflate gender deep-seated progressive pragmatist liberal indoctrination, which has trained you like a chimp to accept false beliefs like transgenders become legitimately the sex of their their sex-change mutilation.

            1. *That you conflate gender with sex reveals your …

              1. wtf? nobody mentioned transgenders man…

            2. you didn’t even try to answer the question…

              1. I answered you already. See below this comment.

        2. I’ve abandoned anti big government libertarian free-market principles to save the free-market system libertarian beliefs by growing big government

          ~ George W. Bush | peottre

  2. Um, because Liza is a woman?

  3. “If Liza can marry two gay men, why can’t I marry one?”

    Greatest. Picture. Ever.

    The thing is, no one really gives a shit about gay marriage, even the fundies, except as a wedge. As soon as it’s commonplace, everyone will cease to use it as a KULTUR WAR cudgel, and homos will settle into the exact same cycles of marriage and divorce as breeders. And then they’ll have the same rights–as they should–as the rest of us, and we can stop fucking talking about this shit.

    I do look forward to the first few spectacular Hollywood gay divorce debacles, though. That should be pretty fun.

    1. Mannequin 3: This Time… It’s Impersonal

      1. Are you implying that Andrew McCarthy is gay? Or that Kim Cattrall is a man?

        1. Seriously, though. If you were standing beside either of those “malesque” creatures and they begun to move as if alive, you’d jump out of your skin.

          1. It happened in Nordstrom’s once, dude. I ran and ran and never looked back. I’ll never shop there again.

    2. Then Christian Republicans will rewrite history to say that they were the first to support marriage equality, and they will express outrage that anyone could dare compare gay people to whomever they hate then.

      1. Glenn Beck has already come out in favor of gay marriage.…..o-america/

  4. This time it will be different.

  5. You can also look at polls of younger evangelicals as well to see that they don’t really care about gay marriage.

    Abortion, OTOH, will remain a salient and divisive issue. But like animal rights, that’s an issue where the basic moral framework isn’t anathema to libertarians, simply a profound disagreement about an initial premise of who qualifies for having rights.

  6. then we can stop fucking talking about this shit

    You can stop now. Why don’t you?*

    *Rhetorical question

  7. I haven’t dived into any of these threads, but I’ve noticed there has been a ton of gay marriage posts on Reason.

    Is there any particular libertarian angle? Or is this just more of Reason morphing into an Atlantic-lite, liberal-tarian joint.

    I guess it’s not more Welch/Gillespie self-promotion, which is something.

    1. IMHO the libertarian stance would be to get the government out of the business of putting violent force behind the definition of the word marriage, and let any two individuals, regardless of gender, enter into a civil union.

      Instead it seems that many libertarians here want to use force of government to impose a definition of marriage that some people find to be offensive.

      1. More people find unequal rights offensive. Here’s something you may not know: we don’t make laws according to religious bigotry in this country.

        1. What if the objection in question isn’t religious-based?

          But, hey, if you’re still hung up on getting a fucking piece of paper giving you permission to call yourself married, it stands to reason (drink!) you’d grasp at the religious-bigotry straws as your only answer.

          1. There is no secular objection that passes a rational basis test. If you have one, I’m all ears.

            1. You’ve read several, on here.

              1. There are none that he will accept, and if he doesn’t accept it then it doesn’t exist.

                1. True, because it’s all about the symbolism of the piece of paper slash permission slip.

              2. No I haven’t. Protecting a word doesn’t cut it–if traditions aren’t sufficient then dictionary definitions certainly aren’t. I want an explanation that maintaining inequality under the law prevents some kind of harm.

                1. *yawn*

                  1. I’ll take that as an admission of defeat. If you can’t demonstrate how equality harms anyone, then you have no basis for arguing against it.

                    1. I’ve said many times, I’m all in favor of ALL couples getting the legal goodies “married” people get.

                      The piece of paper is, however, bullshit.

                    2. How would that work exactly? Two people in proximity of other magically gain legal entitlements? Maybe the entitlements should go away completely and there would be no such thing as legal marriage. Now convince straight couples to go along with it.

                    3. You’ve sarcastically stumbled on the only fair and equal solution.

                    4. He’ll never cop to it, Fist. It’s all about the maaaagical piece of paper.

                    5. Abdicating my government approved marital status wouldnt matter because my marriage was performed as a religious ceremony so we’d still retain all the authority we need. We only got a marriage license to comply with the law. Marriage is a religious rite after all. Private contracts are fine by me.

                2. Inequality under the law? Perhaps you can recall this argument the next time you argue in favor of racial quota systems… excuse me, “affirmative action”, Tony.

                  1. We don’t need affirmative action anymore.

                    Someone calls me racist in 3…2…

      2. “IMHO the libertarian stance would be to get the government out of the business of putting violent force behind the definition of the word marriage, and let any two individuals, regardless of gender, enter into a civil union.”

        I would agree that the libertarian opinion should be ‘Government out of marriage’ in sum. That’s why I’m surprised to see all the ‘social justice’ fluff around these parts.

        I’m not against gay marriage. Vote it up or down. What I don’t like is BS, smudge arguments that try to paint social preferences as policy justice. That seems like what most are doing.

        1. You must know that the “get the government out of marriage” stuff is just as much of a distracting excuse not to support equality as sarcasmic’s hyperventilating over semantics. You have the right to choose not to marry. The government will not be a part of whatever relationship you choose to make with someone. Since marriage contracts, i.e., government-enforced agreements, have been around since the dawn of time and aren’t going away any time soon, you are wasting time fantasizing about imaginary worlds instead of addressing a very simple question of equality under the law.

          1. Just call KingTaco a bigot and get it over with, Tony. You know you want to.

          2. “You must know that the “get the government out of marriage” stuff is just as much of a distracting excuse not to support equality as sarcasmic’s hyperventilating over semantics.”

            Holy shit man, *this is a libertarian site*. The whole point is focusing on over-reaches of government.

            “Since marriage contracts, i.e., government-enforced agreements, have been around since the dawn of time and aren’t going away any time soon, you are wasting time fantasizing about imaginary worlds instead of addressing a very simple question of equality under the law.”

            To recap what you’ve said:

            1. The definition of marriage has been around a long, long time. It should change by fiat because some find it unfair. Tradition is no excuse to stop progress.

            2. Marriage as a social contract has been around a long, long time. It’s tradition, and you can’t change it. Don’t try.

            Shorter version:

            1. Tradition is bad

            2. Now that I have want I want, tradition is good.

            1. Holy shit man, *this is a libertarian site*.

              For the record, Tony is the local contrarian. He does not claim to argue from a libertarian angle.

            2. Tradition isn’t bad, but it’s not sufficient by itself to justify maintaining inequality under a particular law.

              I spend practically zero time here fantasizing about my socialist utopia. It’s practically all you guys do. It’s a waste of brain power and I don’t understand it.

              There’s a single, obvious answer to this debate for anyone who cares about freedom. Pick your battles, because “getting government out of marriage” is so ludicrous a thing to bank on that invoking the possibility as an excuse not to favor equal rights makes it seem like you just don’t favor equal rights.

              1. We don’t fantasize about your socialist utopia, Tony.

                1. Socialist utopias make us wet!

      3. Instead it seems that many libertarians here want to use force of government to impose a definition of marriage that some people find to be offensive.

        Some people also find the status-quo definition of marriage offensive. I don’t really care who finds what offensive, though. I simply see it as a slight improvement. I agree with arguments that the government should get out of the marriage business as much as possible, but failing that, I’m willing to see getting rid of gender discrimination in marriage agreements as an improvment.

      4. You are right, sarcasmic.

        No authentic libertarian supports “gay marriage.”

    2. “Is there any particular libertarian angle?”

      um, yeah, government telling you that you are not legally entitled to makes decisions (such as medical/probate/ect) that the guy next to you can (based soley on your gender) seems like a fairly simple example of state abuse to me…

  8. “And then they’ll have the same rights–as they should–as the rest of us..”

    Adults who wish to enter into multiple partner marriages won’t have the same ‘rights’.

    Or have we all decided it’s wrong to define the orientation of marriage partners based on social norms, but still okay to define the number on the same arbitrary basis? Again, I’ve missed most of these threads.

    1. I’m all for any kind of contractual consensual marriage you want, of any arrangement. However, that ain’t happening any time soon. So first step: let homos get married. Next step: consensual polygamy. After that, bestiality.

      “Sex with animals?!? There’s no time, man!!!”

      I find it…puzzling that people who advocate for any step towards legalizing drugs as positive won’t do the same for marriage rights, and that the reason always seems to be those disgusting, discomfiting gays. Don’t you?

      1. I hear they touch their penises together.

        1. OH MY GOD

          Well, then, no rights for them, because that’s just icky and makes me uncomfortable. Because now I’m thinking about it all the time, and I don’t like my wife any more.

      2. “Marriage rights”? No one has a right to a government benefit plan, which is precisely what “marriage” is in the current context. The laws don’t discriminate against gays, they discriminate in favor of male-female pairs. It’s an important distinction.

        My father and his partner were perfectly able to “be married” in the context you’re using; they lived together, shared ownership of property together, has powers of attorney over each other, etc. What they didn’t get was the government benes.

        If “the perfect” is no one receiving government benefits based on the kind of interpersonal relationships one engages in, then surely increasing the number of people who benefit from such discrimination cannot be “the good”.

        1. We are so thankful that you are protecting us from evil government benefits that any straight person can get while drunk in Vegas.

          You can think it’s wrong for government to subsidize marriage, but you don’t get to use that as an excuse to maintain legal inequality.

        2. You’re right Pedant.

          These other jokers who champion “gay marriage” like they’re Freddy Mercury are not authentic libertarians.

          Anything that expands the scope of Officialdom is the stance of the progressive pragmatist liberal.

          The authentic libertarian opposes all action that expands Officialdom, especially the grant of privilege under the rhetoric of “rights.”

          1. So the “authentic” libertarian would have tolerated all manner of legal racial discrimination because they can simply hold out hope for their government-free utopia. Sounds like an excuse and nothing else.

            1. As always, the Authentic Libertarian would have fought for no laws with respect to discrimination, which is natural and yet foolish.

              For the profit-maximizing profiteer hires the best skilled at least cost regardless of skin color.

              However, the so-called Civil “Rights” did nothing more than institutionalize racism — living by forming a group based on an arbitrary characteristic and then racing for the spoils of income taxation redistribution and political privilege.

              1. And if you don’t get English, the which clause pertains to the word discrimination.

                Thus, to help you Tony,

                … discrimination, which is natural and yet foolish to discriminate.

    2. Male-female couples who don’t want the permission slip – uh, marriage license – would be in the same boat.

  9. All this bullshit about “marriage equality” and “same-sex marriage rights” is getting tiresome.

    Be honest and call it what it is: redefining marriage.

    Personally I’m all about car equality.
    As a driver of a hatchback I feel inadequate that my car does not have a trunk. Therefor I want the legal definition of sedan to include hatchbacks so I don’t feel so bad about myself. So what if a hatchback isn’t a sedan. If I can get the government to change the definition of sedan to include hatchbacks, then hatchbacks will become sedans and my fragile emotions will be assuaged.

    1. Why don’t you be honest and admit that you think your entitlement to a word’s denotation is more important for government to protect than gay people’s entitlement to equal rights under the law?

      1. Why don’t you be honest and admit that redefining marriage is more important to you than the legal protections that come with the union?

        1. But that’s not true. “Redefining marriage” in law is the entire point–so that rights are equal. Gay people’s equal rights trumps your claim to special government protection of your sensitive feelings over the definition of a word. Sorry, I’m sure you’ll be fine.

          1. Since you will not accept equivalent rights under a different word, I must conclude that you are the one with sensitive feewings because you will accept nothing that does not include the word “marriage”.

            1. I accept nothing but equal rights under the law. Why do you have such a problem with that?

            2. why is the label of the contract so damn important to you sarcasmic?

              1. Since homos will not accept anything that does not come with the label, I must conclude that the label is important to the homos.

                Why is the label of the contract so important to the homos?

                1. Because having two separate institutions means there isn’t legal equality. The real question is why is it so important to you? What harm is done to anyone that justifies keeping the law unequal?

                  1. “The real question is why is it so important to you?”

                    No Tony. You are switching the burden of proof. I will not play into your logical fallacy.

                  2. Why aren’t hetero couples worried about such inequality despite being equal except under a different name?
                    The whole point is about forcing cultural acceptance.

                2. why does it matter to you as long as it doesn’t negatively effect you? again you are evading…

                  Let’s say this has nothing to do with the rights covered under the specific legal civil contract known as “marriage” (absurd but let’s just say…)

                  Let’s say that homosexual individuals really just want to have the word “marriage” changed within the government to include same-sex relationships just for the hell of it…

                  how does that negatively effect you or anyone else?

                  1. It’s all about the brass ring, poettre. It has nothing to do with equality… if gays had every legal right as straight married couples EXCEPT FOR the marriage license/permission slip, they’d *still* bitch and whine.

                    1. What Mr. FIFY said.

                    2. and? again… how does this change effect you?

                      btw: “nothing to do with equality… if gays had every legal right as” I can’t think of a more clear example of cognitive dissonance than this right here. in the same sentence you claim it has nothing to do with equality while admitting that inequality exists…

                    3. peottre, gays should focus on gaining the legal equality, and say fuck it to the sheer symbolism of what is, in the long run, just a piece of paper handed out by a government agency.

                      It has nothing to do with how it will affect me, as it won’t, and I don’t give half a shit either way. I just think it’s stupid to insist on paying for a document saying nothing but “this license gives you the right to call yourselves ‘married'”.

                    4. that piece of paper also allows me legal standing in a court of law that unfortunately doesn’t exist without the piece of paper.

                      i’d rather barter than trade in paper “money” as well, but i still got to do business with the paper money, and i still have to have the piece of paper to have the legal standing in court that marriage under the law brings.

                  2. Why does it matter to you if you get all the rights without the word?

                    The burden of proof is on the one who wants to change things, not the defender of the status quo.

                    1. Sheer symbolism, sarcasmic. That is ALL Tony cares about.

                    2. That is quite a string of pathetic excuses. Gay people don’t deserve equality because they “whine.” You should be on the supreme court FIFY.

                      How do gays have equal rights without the license? You’re not making sense.

                    3. If you had EVERY legal goodie straight married people have, Tony, why would you even need the permission slip?

                      Nice stab at calling me a bigot, though.

                    4. Sheer symbolism, sarcasmic. That is ALL Tony cares about.
                      reply to this

                      I just wish they would be honest and say “What we really want is social acceptance that comes from the ageless institution of marriage. Society doesn’t full accept us and that makes us feel bad. If we can use the word marriage then maybe society will fully accept us.”
                      Instead they go through these legal contortions and try to use the courts to force this acceptance under the guise of “rights”.

                      It’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest bullshit.

                    5. I just wish they would be honest and say “What we really want is social acceptance …”

                      What the fuck is wrong with wanting that? You’re saying people are entitled to idiotic bigotry but gay people aren’t even entitled to be treated as equal human beings, until the bigots say it’s OK?

                    6. What the fuck is wrong with wanting that?

                      Nothing. Nothing at all. My problem is with the dishonesty more than anything else.

                    7. So you basically want to control how people think? Nice…

                    8. In having had the conversation with a lesbian friend of mine, she came right out and admitted as much. I commend her for the honesty, but I don’t see an equal protection issue arising if civil unions were to confer an identical bundle of rights as a marriage contract.

                    9. Why does it matter to you if you get all the rights without the word?

                      What does it matter to blacks if they ostensibly get all the same school resources, just in separate schools?

                    10. Not the same thing.

                      Good stab at trying to call sarcasmic a racist, though.

                    11. Not saying he’s racist, I’m saying it is exactly the same thing. It’s “separate but equal” under the law, which in one of the most important civil rights insights in history, is understood to be inherently unequal.

                    12. Not a valid comparison. You WANT it to be, but it isn’t.

                      Keep tilting at the windmills of symbolism, Tony. You’re wasting your time pining for the permission slip, when you could be an activist for equal legal protections.

                    13. Would whites care about this? If not, why not?

                    14. all those rights are the definition of the word. You give me, as a homo, all those rights, and it’s called marriage, that’s the name/label/description of the contract and the rights, to call it something else cause of the genitals involved is ridiculous and arbitrary. especially if the sole reasons for doing so are “tradition” (we really want to go there? miscegenation laws were tradition, not a convincing arguement) and that it “might offend some people”. your opposition to homosexual couples enjoying the same contractractual rights as heterosexual couple have nothing to do with legality or equality under the law (libertarian positions) if your basis is tradition and feelings (conservative positions).

                    15. If you’re talking to me, poettre, I *have* no opposition to “homosexual couples enjoying the same contractractual rights as heterosexual couple[s]”.

                      I just think the whole “marriage license” bullshit should be done away with.

                      This would also extend to straight non-married couples, as it should.

                    16. “miscegenation laws were tradition, not a convincing arguement”

                      Those laws prohibited mixed race marriages. They did not prohibit blacks from marrying each other. For that comparison to fly homos would be permitted to marry each other but not marry straights. Besides, those laws came from the belief that mixed race children were inferior. It was all about the chuldrinz. Tell me, how do two men or two women produce chuldrinz?

                    17. I’m down with the swirl!

                    18. “Tell me, how do two men or two women produce chuldrinz?”

                      What does that have to do with marriage?

                    19. *rolls his eyes*

                    20. Loosen up, peottre, that was sarcasm. The spelling of “children” should have tipped you off.

                      Damn, are you wound up tight.

                    21. all those rights are the definition of the word.

                      No. The definition of the word is “husband and wife”.
                      The legal stuff that comes with it is separate. They can, and should, be disconnected.
                      Your refusal to see that tells me that you are either stupid or dishonest.
                      I’m leaning towards the former.

                    22. The definition of the word is “husband and wife”.

                      Depends on which dictionary you consult. Since the entire point of the debate is to “redefine” marriage in law to include nonheterosexual couples, your objection is based on circular reasoning.

                      What you’re arguing for, in case you missed it, is bigger government: you want government to go to the bother of writing two separate laws for straight and gay couples when it simply could liberalize the law as it is so that all couples are treated equally. You are supporting big government to enforce inequality.

                    23. No. I want government out of the marriage business. Marriage is the subset of civil unions that includes members of the opposite sex. Same sex unions are civil unions, marriages are civil unions.
                      That’s this thing called logic. Do you need a Venn diagram?
                      I’m done wasting my time with your tiny brain. Have the last word. I won’t read it.

                    24. so you are advocating for a new subset of civil union that includes the legal rights that the subset of civil unions called marriage has, but without the word marriage, because that word means something special to you and you don’t want it to change.

                      we understand you sarcasmic. and your feewings.

                      but you are still wrong, morally, and the courts can see, legally/constitutionally as well

                    25. “No. The definition of the word is “husband and wife”.”

                      In a Christian Church, sure.

                      “The legal stuff that comes with it is separate. They can, and should, be disconnected.”

                      They are, one is “marriage” in your church. “the legal stuff” is marriage as a contract under the law.

                      They are both called marriage.

                      but the latter has nothing to do with the gender of those involved in a growing number of states.

                      The former doesn’t either in a growing number of religious denominations.

                      this is, of course, ignoring the fact that “marriage” means many thing in many different cultures and religions.

                      Thankfully we seperate culture/religion from government in this country. the state recognizes for legal purposes “marriage” even if it wasn’t done in the catholic church, or the mormon temple, or the local mosque. Even if you can’t reproduce. Even if you’ve been married previously. Even if your parents don’t agree on the union.

                      Cause your definition, is bullshit, and not universal.

                    26. And yet your whole relationship is based on a different name that you self identify as.

                      Seriously, your argument is about as valid as wanting homosexual to be included in the term heterosexual….does not compute.

                    27. the relationship is the same. Homo or Hetero Sexual is the orientation. We’re still talking about the same relationship between those individuals though. If i have a son and a daughter they are both my kids, I have the same type of relationship if though one is a SON and the other is a DAUGHTER.

                      Jesus, i cant believe i have to explain this shit.

                      Steve and Max have the same type of relationship and Steve and Maxine, it’s only the gender that has changed, not the relationship type.

        2. Why don’t you be honest and admit that you don’t think homos should be entitled to the same shitty rights under the law that we all get, even though those rights are statist and shitty? Please, explain to me why allowing two people to get the same rights under the law is “redefining” marriage. I don’t give two shits about your definition of marriage. I know how the state has defined it, and unfortunately, that’s what counts.

          1. Honesty I think homos should have all those rights.
            My problem is with having the right to take someone to court for not wanting to recognize two men or two women as “married”.
            I was a same sex marriage supporter when I thought it was about non-interference.
            I stopped supporting it when I realized it was about going after people who do not want to use a word to describe two people of the same sex, not about the rights that come with the word.

            1. What you’re saying right here is that you think government should use its force to protect people’s rights to be anti-gay bigots, but it shouldn’t protect gay people’s rights to equality under the law.

            2. example? citation? i mean as far as i can see you are stating that 2 people can’t enter into a certain contract due to the genitals involved, and that is ok with you, cause you and the other person in your legally recognized contract have the right combination of genitals…. and somehow the wrong combo genital folk, by trying to get their contract recogniged as well, are attacking you…

              seems a little twisted dude

            3. Your hangup on the semantics of marriage is either retarded or a cover for anti=homo bigotry, and neither choice is pleasant. I don’t understand why people like you continue to fight so hard against something so basic and harmless, unless you really do have a deep-seated issue with homos.

              1. I have a problem with liars.

                The claim that this is only about legal rights is a lie.

                I fully support homos having the right to visit their partner in the hospital or put their partner on their health insurance.

                But the insistence that it must include the word “marriage” forces me to conclude that the word is more important than the rights.

                I will not support liars.

                1. “But the insistence that it must include the word marriage…”

                  so… you are on board as far as equal rights under the law, you just don’t like the word they want to use, so you oppose the whole thing? Is the label of the contract going to harm you in some way? is it going to infringe on your rights in some manner?

                2. Your contortions are unbecoming, dude. You’re twisting yourself like a pretzel to oppose something over semantics. Looks like there’s more under the surface than you’ll admit, which is unsurprising, as that’s usually the case.

                3. Fine, then straights don’t get the word “marriage” either. I don’t understand why you think separate-but-equal should be good enough. For what purpose? To protect the sanctity of your dictionary? Even liars have equal rights under the law.

                  1. The proper solution is to get government out of the marriage business entirely and let all couples enter into civil unions.
                    To use government to force a definition of marriage onto people who find it offensive, be it homos who are offended by husband/wife, or religious folks who are offended by Adam and Steve, is wrong.

                    1. “who find it offensive…”

                      oh, i see, we are not talking about “the homo’s feewings”… we are talking about your feewings, and how they might be hurt if gay people get to use your word for the contract that would be the same as yours… well that’s completely different

                      retard confirmation

                    2. So you find the very long history of government recognition of heterosexual marriage to be just as offensive as gays trying to redefine it? Wow, you are sensitive. I know, why doesn’t Congress spend all its time weeding through laws and trimming away everything that offends someone.

                    3. Since you will accept nothing that does not include the word “marriage”, since you will turn down every legal right that comes with the contract if it doesn’t include the word “marriage”, I must conclude that what you really want it the word “marriage”.

                      Why is that word so important that you will thumb your nose at the legal protections you claim that you desire if they don’t come with the word?

                    4. Cause that word describes that contract that has those legal protections, f*cking duh! You claim you are okay with same-sex couple having all the legal protections of marriage without it being called or refered to as as marriage, but marriage is the appropriate term and contractractual aggreement for those very rights. why deny that simply because of the genitals involved? it makes no sense.

                    5. For the record I am anti-marriage. I don’t need the word. I just think it’s past time that gay people are treated as equal citizens. Every single argument offered against recognizing gay marriage stems from the assumption that gay couples are inferior to straight couples, and that is simply unacceptable.

                    6. Every single argument offered against recognizing gay marriage stems from the assumption that gay couples are inferior to not the same as straight couples

                      Not the same. Different words to describe different things.

                      Are apples inferior to oranges because you use a different word to describe them?

                    7. sarcasmic,

                      How are gay couples different from straight couples in a way that is meaningful to the current understanding of the role of marriage in society?

                    8. How are gay couples different from straight couples…

                      Does the word “duh” mean anything to you?

                    9. Do the words “read the rest of the sentence” mean anything to you?

                    10. Tony, my problem is with the dishonesty of the argument. The claim that it is about legal rights, but not accepting the legal rights if they don’t come with a word. That tells me that the word is more important. But there’s no way in heck any of you homos will say it. That is dishonest.
                      Then there is the semantic part of it. I happen to like the fact that I can say I am married and communicate that I have a wife. That is what married means. I do not want to have to qualify that.
                      Personally I do want same sex couples to have the same legal protections that I enjoy. But use a different word.
                      Or be honest and say you want the word as well as the rights.
                      Claiming that it is all about the rights and refusing to discuss your wanting the word is dishonest.

                    11. You don’t have to trust that I’m being honest before you support equality under the law. I’m saying it’s only about equal legal rights, and you’re choosing not to believe me and using a claim of dishonesty as an excuse not to support legal equality. Of course I want the word–without the word it’s not equal rights. There is no jurisdiction in the world in which having two separate institutions for marriage means rights are equal. That’s true for tangible entitlements as well as the inequality inherent in a separate-but-equal institution.

                    12. without the word it’s not equal rights.

                      Really? If you have every legal right as a married couple, except a different word is used to describe it because the word “married” means “husband and wife”, it isn’t equal?

                      By “equal” do you mean “same”?

                      Is an apple somehow not equal to an orange?
                      They’re not the same. Is one inherently superior because a different word is used?

                      Sorry but I don’t buy it.

                    13. sarcasmic,

                      In the context of this discussion, it is inappropriate to say the difference is like apples and oranges. Any differences between gay and straight couples are irrelevant to whether they deserve equal treatment under law according to the current status of the marriage tradition in the US. No one is forced to sign a pledge that they will biologically reproduce, or reproduce at all, before they are allowed to marry. So how the sex organs happen to look really doesn’t matter and is certainly no excuse to deny equality.

                4. Sounds like he chose retarded.

                  1. “why doesn’t Congress spend all its time weeding through laws and trimming away everything that we don’t need


                  2. mr simple FTW, assist to Epi.

              2. Your hangup on the semantics of marriage is either retarded or a cover for anti=homo bigotry


                1. This what?

                  BTW, ask Tony about bigotry. He admits to it downthread.

          2. My issue is government/court power.

            From the dawn of recorded time, people have based laws on social customs and norms. There’s no scientific test to determine when you should be allowed to drive, where to vote, how to cross a street, etc. We make laws, and we change laws with time.

            Like gay marriage? Fine. Let’s vote it through. No issue there.

            My issue is that the prime reasoning coming from courts and activists is we’re expanding marriage because we can’t make laws on arbitrary social norms. That was Judge Walker’s whole bit. Except it’s absolutely bunk; as explained, we do it all the time. Most supporters of the decision don’t even believe it, as they are quick to shoot down things like polygamy by pointing to marriage as ‘a well established tradition between two people’.

            It Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Social custom is *legally* wrong….until it’s useful to power/elite. Then it’s OK. That’s why I believe the government should be out of marriage. That’s why I’m OK with voting in gay marriage, but not comfortable with handing the government/courts the ridiculous gift of defining when and if something is OK, and pay no mind if they contradict themselves a moment later. I would have thought that a pretty basic libertarian concern, but hey, in this new liberal-tarian world what do I know?

            1. and that’s where “equal protection” comes in Taco!

              They are not changing the laws, they are saying the already existing laws must be applied equally to each individual. “You can’t do this legally because of your gender/race/ethnicity…” is not applying the already existing law equally to all individuals. That is seperate from the restricting the number of individuals allowed to enter into certain contracts.

            2. Walker’s reasoning was that tradition alone isn’t rational basis for upholding a law.

              And you are 100% entitled to a marriage in which government plays absolutely no role. You can marry a goat for all anyone cares. Now if you want the legal entitlements that come with marriage, go to court and prove that there is no rational basis for denying your (and your goat’s) access to those rights. Or take your harem. I’d be interested to see if the courts find rational basis for keeping marriage between two consenting adults, but that’s not the gays’ responsibility to prove before they get equal rights.

            3. Some of us choose to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Incrementalism is good in that it allows the masses to get a taste and realize it’s not as bad as they thought. I understand that there is the possibility of people becoming complacent when they are given just a little more freedom or something like marijuana becoming a ticketable offense so people stop pushing for legalization. However, that just means we have to keep tirelessly agitating for the ends we seek. There is no way we can get the masses to vote in libertopia tomorrow; we must show them little by little that it is a good place to be.

        3. sarcasmic, i don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Are you claiming some kind of anti-marriage conspiracy? like this isn’t about a gay person being able to make the same legal and medical decisions that a straight person can concerning their partner? that’s just a ploy so shadow figures can “re-define marriage”? to what end?

    2. Be honest and call it what it is: redefining marriage.

      Our culture is redefining marriage, and has been for centuries. The law is simply changing to keep up with society.



  11. “Adam Serwer makes a good point…”
    Wait, what?

  12. Is there any particular libertarian angle?

    For me it is the fact that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in a court of law. I think that if one group of people is allowed to enter into a contract that affords this protection then all people should have that opportunity.

    Antics with semantics notwithstanding.

  13. “For what purpose? To protect the sanctity of your dictionary?”

    There, now you won’t have to actually READ it out of yucky, outdated analog paper-based books.

  14. Regarding those antics with semantics:

    Some view ‘marriage’ as the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of god as a result of a ceremony performed by one of His earthly proxies. Should two atheists be allowed to marry, or should their status be relegated to a civil union?

  15. Sure, the Libertarian Party is open minded about SS Marriage, but are they open minded about free speech? Not quite! Erik Viker the Viking of Censorship got me BANNED from the LP Party Facebook wall. Apparently, he didn’t like my politically incorrect libertarian opinions.

    Apparently, if you don’t kiss black ass you’re a racist.

    Apparently, if you celebrate the heritage of the CSA you’re a bigot. Yup, I’m not even allowed to like Gone with the Wind by the PC LP’s!

    Apparently, if you don’t welcome illegal aliens with open arms and support the rule of law, you’re a fascist.

    Me a fascist? Far from it! First of all, Hitler has more hair than I. Secondly, I don’t have any concentration camps. Thirdly, I don’t like telling people what to do, I simply want them to get out of my way and stop f-cking with my freedom!

    1. Censorship doesn’t mean what you think it means.


      1. Yes, I know the difference between government censorship and private censorship. However, the Libertarian Party claims to stand for freedom, yet they censor me? A fellow libertarian? Hypocrites.

        1. LP’s freedom of association trumps your (nonexistent)freedom to muck up their webpage. They choose not to associate with you, deal with it.

          1. Yes, because political parties are built by rejecting people.

            If the GOP can accept GOProud why can’t the LP accept that some people don’t want Speedy Gonzalez invading his country?

            You know what? Whatever, the typical member of the LP is really an anarchist. Have you heard about Libertopia? They’re actually committed to non-violance. Are you kidding me? Libertarians are supposed to like guns! A libertarian who hates guns is a dead libertarian, what is he gonna do? Call 911? You might as well be a a liberal.

            1. I’m sure that A3P would have you.

    2. Me a fascist? Far from it! First of all, Hitler has more hair than I. Secondly, I don’t have any concentration camps.

      I have decided Gregooooo’s lines are all written by the same people who write Tracy Morgan’s lines for 30 Rock.

    3. Oh Grego, I feel for you. You’ll always be welcome here… until you’re not.

  16. “Fine, then straights don’t get the word ‘marriage’ either.”

    NOW we’re cookin’!

  17. I lived with my “ex” for about eight years. We never got married, but we had a joint bank account, we had utilities in both our names, et cetera… and we didn’t have equal legal protections the married couples next door had.

    No one ever saw ME carrying a protest sign, because I didn’t.

    1. You had the legal right to choose to marry. You may be able to demonstrate that heterosexuals enjoying marriage benefits harms you in some way, and good luck with that, but until that time don’t you think it makes sense for everyone to have the same rights?

    2. “No one ever saw ME carrying a protest sign, because I didn’t.”

      Congrats that you were never in a situation where probate court was involved, or medical intervention, or community property laws, or medical insurance, or the IRS…

      but hey both your names were on the water bill and the checkbook, so you must definetly understand the hardship, right?

      1. “You may be able to demonstrate that heterosexuals enjoying marriage benefits harms you in some way”

        When have I ever done that?

        1. peottre, if my “ex” and I had the stuff you mention above, without haing to spend money on a permission slip… we’d be on the same wavelength, you and I.

          But we didn’t then, straight unmarried couples AND gay couples don’t have it now, and that is *all* that matters.

          The marriage license is just a symbol, and as George Carlin put it, symbols are for the symbol-minded.

  18. Mr FIFY there is a big difference between: “We never got married” and “Our marriage wasn’t recognized in court, because we match from the waist down.”

    1. We didn’t WANT to get married. Just had no interest in it.

      Still don’t.

  19. I don’t understand why people can’t separate their personal feelings from matters of law. I harbor bigotry against heterosexuals. I think they are inferior in most ways except producing offspring, and what’s that really good for? But I still think they deserve equal rights under the law. It really doesn’t matter what goes on inside your brain–however addled and warped it is by a religious upbringing or by never having experienced life outside of your provincial little existence in which you are a part of every majority–you still should be capable of figuring out what the constitution and American legal tradition require.

    1. “I harbor bigotry against heterosexuals”

      And yet, you bitch when anyone you even PERCEIVE – even incorrectly – as being the slightest bit not on your side, as being “bigoted” – in which case bigotry is The Worst Thing Ever.

      Fucking hypocrite.

      Nice use of “provincial”, btw. Really shows off what you think of people you consider lesser beings than yourself.

      1. As I’ve said, I don’t care what goes on inside your head. I’m no puritan. I care about the practical implications of the policies you favor. I don’t want law to discriminate; you do. That’s all that matters.

        I think experience of people who are different is the single most important factor in determining what they think. If you’re a poorly traveled white heterosexual male you’re likely to think that the world revolves around you, that you’re “normal” and everyone else is a variant on you. So go inside a gay bar and see how you’re treated–probably much better than straights often treat gays, but you’ll still be an outsider, a minority. And that’s an approximation of how gay people live in normal society every days of their lives. The same can probably be extended to racial and other minorities.

        1. I’m no prude, nor do I want the law to discriminate.

          If you had every single legal goodie your hated straight married breeders have, why the fuck would you care about a meaningless document YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR?

          Nice tapdancing around “it’s okay for me, Tony, to be bigoted against straights… but it’s NOT okay for gays to experience bigotry”, by the way.

          I’ve been in gay bars before, for the record. Had some fun, even. But since it didn’t convince me to switch teams, it must be due to my intense hatred… right?

          1. If you had every single legal goodie your hated straight married breeders have, why the fuck would you care about a meaningless document YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR?

            I can’t tell what the hell you’re talking about with this license stuff. It’s not a meaningless document, it’s the document that signifies the benefits we’re talking about, right?

            But since it didn’t convince me to switch teams, it must be due to my intense hatred… right?

            Um, no. You were born that way.

            1. MARRIAGE LICENSE, you fucking twit.

              But you knew that.

              1. One of your intellectual bretheren told me, years ago, that my unwillingness to protest in favor of gay rights – and my unwillingness to even experiment with homosexuality – made me, quote, a hate-filled sub-human, unquote.

                No bigotry there, sheeeit.

    2. Good thing your parents were hetrosexual or you wouldn’t be here.

      You are always the first to complain about any perceived bigotry whether real or not on this board, but deep down you are a bigot.

      The fact that homos cannot produce should probably tell you that nature believes that homos are not superior whatsoever.

  20. Doug Stanhope has the only fully correct argument:

  21. “Our culture is redefining marriage, and has been for centuries. The law is simply changing to keep up with society”


  22. I’ve never seen people agree on so much and yet debate so fiercely. (Well, outside of theological debates between two or more religious people, that is.)

    Can’t we all just agree that any two adults being allowed to marry is better than any two adults who also happen to belong to different sexes being allowed to marry, even if other arrangements might be even better? And can we then keep any potential bizarre conspiracy theories about the gay semantic agenda to ourselves?

  23. The politics of gay marriage show that the power of the fundies is waning generally, not just on that issue. Frankly, most people have bigger issues to deal with these days. Even the anti-abortion stuff is mostly emotionless boilerplate now.

    The GOP always used the fundies and their fixations as nothing more than wedge issues, but that’s not politically necessary anymore.

    I also read somewhere that evangelical denominations have been on the decline for a number of years. I don’t have time right now to Google it, but it should be easy to find. Over the course of American history, the Christian Right of the last three decades may be nothing more than the latest “Great Awakening.” These have all had political impacts but then faded away.

    1. Actually 3 anti-abortion bills passed recently here in Ohio, including the so-called “heartbeat bill”, demonstrate that the fundies are still alive and well. they don’t campaign as much on the wedge issues, but they still take action on them unfortunately.

      1. Separate issue, and if you’re gay… why should you give a shit?

      2. Interesting. That may also be something of a strategy to focus more on state and local government, where a small but motivated interest group can have outsized influence.

      3. There are many non-“fundies” who also oppose abortion. Many libertarians oppose it as an outgrowth of NAP and the primacy of the right to life.

        Abortion is not as red and blue an issue as many people want to make it out to be.

  24. We are certainly aware that supporters of SSM believe that, if people have to live with it, they will come to passively accept it, and opposition will weaken and disappear. Don’t count on it. That’s what some conventional wisdom held years ago about the abortion issue, but that’s not what happened. Issues do not go away when one side walks all over what large segments of the population believe to be fundamentally and indisputably true. I predict I’ll be signing up for the March For True Marriage in 2031.

    1. Bitter, party of one.

      Isn’t a little early to be predicting you’ll be protesting what hasn’t happened yet?

      Oh, and the majority-rule trumps civil-rights thing doesn’t fly real well on libertarian sites.

  25. “It’s not a meaningless document”

    Funny how you’ll put so much stock in a marriage license, yet have so much disdain for the Constitution.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.