Gay/Lesbian Issues

Discussions on Libertarians, Tolerance, and GAY GAY GAY

|

AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FORCES CATHOLICS TO PAINT THEIR GAY WEDDINGS PURPLE???

Over in The American Spectator, W. James Antle, III (an occasional Reason contributor) gives a thumbs-sideways review of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America. The end of his review is interesting:

Breezily written and mostly correct, this book's biggest flaw is its failure to recognize that "lifestyle libertarianism" does not necessarily lead to the political variety. Consider gay marriage. Certainly, on one level it involves people peacefully pursuing happiness as they define it. But marriage by necessity also limits one's pursuit of happiness, peaceful or otherwise.

If the police were breaking up gay weddings and throwing both grooms in jail, like a Stonewall riot at the Metropolitan Community Church, libertarians would obviously be correct to fight this injustice. But giving gay couples licenses and benefits from the state, forcing them to hire lawyers when they no longer wish to live together, and using antidiscrimination laws to tell Catholic Charities where they must place children for adoption at the very least raises different questions than letting someone paint their house purple.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Or to return to Gillespie's earlier example, which society would be more libertarian: one where the prudish innkeeper is free to ban unmarried couples from his hotel rooms or one where such insidious discrimination is illegal? When freedom and tolerance conflict, which is more important?

The question itself helps explain why many people who broadly share Welch and Gillespie's politics don't share their optimism that freedom is on the march. (Where have we heard that phrase before?) Despite positive social trends, government is growing. Unmarried couple or not, you can check out anytime you'd like but you can never leave.

As in so much of the gay marriage debate, I don't see how a single one of Antle's arguments here couldn't be used against interracial marriage as well.

Chilling

For a more direct spasm of revulsion at letting lesbians marry, I recommend this blog post by Glenn T. Stanton over at National Review's The Corner:

My daughter and I were in Manhattan over this weekend so I could do some research at the Met. Waves of people were coming into the city for Sunday's big gay-pride march, where they could celebrate the Empire State's new same-sex-marriage law. We sat behind some of them on the train, three young women with a precious, excited toddler girl in tow. The very evident leader of the clan was the patriarch. Adorned as if she might be an actor portraying a hip-hop teen from Cleveland, she had her meticulous corn-rows tucked under a backwards navy-blue flat-billed ballcap, a matching wife beater revealing a mural of tats on her arms, shoulders, and back. Baggy jeans rode low, leading to her construction boots with untied laces dangling free.

She was the only one of the adult threesome that interacted with the child, mindlessly uttering reassuring words like "Daddy will be right back" or "Sit over here by Daddy." […]

Gender does matter

And while this adorable little girl on the train got to call one of her parents "Daddy," did she really have a daddy? Well, her DNA would prove that she does somewhere, but in reality she only has a woman playing make-believe daddy, and like make-believe games, it's all about the world this woman has created in her mind for her own imaginary fun and games. One problem: There's a little toddler as one of the props.

Gender does matter for marriage, the family, and society, and those trying to teach us that it doesn't can't help but default to the very thing they are trying to overthrow.

This is the primary fallacy of the legislation New York just passed — not in theory, but in the reality of this little girl and her "daddy" on the train at Penn Station.

Of course, "the reality of this little girl and her 'daddy'" came into being long before gay marriage was officially recognized by the state; that horse left the barn when technology enabled individuals to design their own reproduction, and when New York began allowing openly gay couples to adopt (let us never forget that many of today's anti-gay marriage activists–including Glenn T. Stanton–were yesterday's insistents that it was better for kids to be orphaned than raised by homosexuals).

Reason on gay adoption here.

Speaking of tolerance and libertarianism (and interracial marriage, and The Declaration of Independents), there's a bunch of follow-ups to the David Gordon/Matt Welch exchange over at EconLog, from (in order) Bryan Caplan, David Henderson, Bryan Caplan, and David Henderson.

UPDATE FROM ANTLE: "Matt Welch Misses the Point"

NEXT: An Economic Lesson from 9/11

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Deregulate privation property land title, the big-government entitlement.

    Officer, am I free to gambol across plain and forest now?

    1. *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Copy/Paste*
      *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Refresh*
      *Copy/Paste*

      HEHEHE! I’ll show those guys I mean business…

      *fap, fap, fap, fap, fap*

      1. Link….you forgot link.

  2. Faggots attack the free exercise of religion just as we always knew they would.

    See you in Hell, fascist butt-fuckers.

    1. While I’m sure you change a lot of minds with that well reasoned argument and impeccable logic, I must point out that you interoeration of the linked article is flawed. No one has a right to money from the government, no matter who or what or what religion they are. In short: fuck off, retarded slaver.

    2. Mmm, that’s tasty homophobia. Why don’t you go watch some gay porn to get your hate back?

      1. Then he can flagellate himself again in penitence.

        1. Everybody wins!

        2. Yeah, I always wanted to be flexible enough to try…..Oh…. “flagellate”….well never mind then.

    3. Does your “see you in Hell” comment mean that you realize you’ll also be in Hell with them?

      1. I think there might be a window.

    4. This is a parody, right? I laughed, but maybe that’s because I read this in Randy Quaid’s voice.

    5. S&N – pls explain exactly how gay marrage harms straight marrage.

    6. “We” all the same agenda, don’tcha know.

      1. (insert “have”)

  3. BIG GAY IS RIPPING US OFF!

  4. From what I gather, conservatives tend to want Federal protection of a State’s right to choose to recognize some marriages and not others. Liberals tend to want Federal recognition of gay marriage, regardless of state law.
    Since both sides pretend to be the real champions of liberty, and refuse to believe the intrusiveness created by their agendas, I hope they both lose somehow..

    1. They would feel no bigger loss than if they would no longer be able to define marriage through licensing. Take that away and you get your wish.

      1. That’s not true. Licensing something does not create the fact of it, and neither does absence of licensing. People still recognize a difference between dogs & cats in the absence of licensing; a dog license is neither necessary nor sufficient to make an animal a dog.

        1. Giving Chinamen licenses does not make them able to drive.

    2. So now federal non-interference constitutes “protection”?

      DOMA was intended to prevent a perverse application of the FF&C clause by federal courts. ie, federal interference.

      1. That is only true to a certain extent, Tulpa. DOMA also mandated how the federal government was to interact with its employees and other beneficiaries. And I fail to see how application of FF&C in this case would have been “perverse”. If driver’s licenses are good across states, why not marriage licenses?

        1. Because marriage licenses have been radically and unilaterally changed by some states in the interim.

          If Arkansas decided to give out drivers’ licenses to seven year olds, other states would have legitimate reason to refuse to recognize them.

        2. Oh, and employment relationships are not coercive, so the 14th amendment doesn’t apply.

        3. “If driver’s licenses are good across states, why not marriage licenses?”

          Would be nice if we could get rid of drivers’ licenses, but in the meantime getting rid of marriage licenses would solve a lot of problems.

          1. I would prefer equal application of a shitty law, so that all parties involved would realize repealing them would be in their best interest.

      2. “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

        Yeah. Non-interference, right?

  5. Baggy jeans rode low, leading to her construction boots with untied laces dangling free.

    The horror, the horror.

  6. As in so much of the gay marriage debate, I don’t see how a single one of Antle’s arguments here couldn’t be used against interracial marriage as well.

    If your argument is one that is against the government-sanctioned marriage, then that argument naturally includes being against government-sanctioned interracial marriage. It just sounds worse if you only include that aspect.

  7. I do not understand the Catholic Charities example. Catholic Charities as I understand it was operating as a tax exempt organization:

    The civil union law, which takes effect June 1, prohibits agencies that take state dollars from discriminating against same-sex couples. So far, Catholic Charities has been unsuccessful in lobbying efforts to amend the law to allow them to continue referring co-habitating couples to other agencies.

    I know of no provision in libertarian theory that would allow the State (or by extension those that receive state funding) differently when they’re similarly situated. In fact, while libertarian theory would generally allow private discrimination most libertarians would be horrified, as I understand it, by government based discrimination. That’s why, for example, libertarians simultaneously oppose Jim Crow laws and laws that force private employers not to discriminate if they’re so inclined (while finding such discrimination abhorrent)

    1. Just to be clear, the remedy for Catholic Charities should have been to refuse state funding if it wished to discriminate. I do not understand how ANYONE claiming to be a libertarian can take a different position.

      1. Can Catholic Charities refuse the state funding and still place children with foster families? Is acting in this matter contingent on taking money from the state? Secondly, the funding is primarily for paying the foster parents to take care of the children. Is Catholic Charities really being funded in this sense, or are they just a middleman for accounting purposes?

        Also, is excluding homosexual couples from foster care unjust discrimination, or a rationcal choice based on the best interests of the child?

        1. If CC is not being funded and is just a middleman, then you could say that it’s especially the government acting, and thus the discrimination should not be allowed. That distinction seems to be without difference.

          And I think that the overwhelming social research shows that there is no rational basis for believing that gays cannot raise children as well as their heterosexual counterparts. Apparently Illinois thought so too.

          1. If we allow single persons who are not hermaphrodites to have custody of children, it’s hard to see how 2 parents of the same sex would be inferior to that. However, in a competitive situation, if there is any advantage to opposite sex parents, that factor should be taken into account. Judges take all sorts of factors into account in custody decisions; hard to know how scientific any of them are, or if it’s even possible to be scientific about such a value-laden decision.

      2. If they dropped the govt funding, would they be allowed to resume their work – eg, in Massachusetts? Does the Mass. discrimination law apply only to state-subsidized entities? Most discrimination laws are not so limited.

        1. while I’m not sure of the specific wording of the law in Massachusetts apparently the decision to no longer place kids with gay couples
          led to a loss of a large grant
          :

          The Boston Globe reported that a $1.2 million grant from the United Way may be lost because of the decision to not permit children to be adopted by same sex couples.

          I find it hard to believe it would matter if they lost that money if they were no longer allowed to function as an adoption agency at all.

          1. The United Way, I understand, is a *private* charity which chooses to donate only to gay-friendly causes. The thing about the government shutdown of CC is whether it’s based on a govt subsidy a law applicable to all private entities.

            1. it’s a government subsidy because the charity accepts children from the state and then uses the payment from the new parents to cover operational expenses. Since the state decides matters of custody, you cannot run an orphanage unless you are feeding from the state.

    2. I would imagine that the papists take some government money as payment for providing the contract services.

      1. That’s the point though. If I’m paying someone to perform the service I’m dictating the terms you will provide that service to me under. If you don’t want to follow my rules I’ll give someone else the money to perform the same service my way.

  8. “Of course, “the reality of this little girl and her ‘daddy'” came into being long before gay marriage was officially recognized by the state; that horse left the barn when technology enabled individuals to design their own reproduction, and when New York began allowing openly gay couples to adopt (let us never forget that many of today’s anti-gay marriage activists?including Glenn T. Stanton?were yesterday’s insistents that it was better for kids to be orphaned than raised by homosexuals).”

    Saying “that horse left the barn” does not answer the argument that such was negative development. You are also ignoring the eveidence that the enviroment for children raised by opposite sex couples is preferable to same-sex couples while you officially enshrine in law that both situations are equivalent.

    The point Welch seems determined to ignore is that mandating “tolerance” is an intolerent act that limits freedom itself.

    1. You are also ignoring the eveidence that the enviroment for children raised by opposite sex couples is preferable to same-sex couples

      Really? What evidence? And beyond that, isn’t a child being adopted by a same sex couple better than no adoption, no matter what?

    2. No one is mandating tolerance. They are just makin it legal for same sex couples to adopt; your personal opinion doesn’t come into play. If your orphanage doesn’t want to allow same sex couples to adopt the children you care for, that’s fine, you just don’t get any state money. The choice isn’t between straight couples and same sex couples; it’s between same sex couples and no couples. I don’t think any qualified straight couples are being denied a child so that a same sex couple can adopt, as if to fill some quota.

      1. If your orphanage doesn’t want to allow same sex couples to adopt the children you care for, that’s fine, you just don’t get any state money.

        So if you aren’t sufficiently tolerant, the state subsidizes your competitors with taxpayer money.

      2. Welch frames same-sex couples as the adoptees of last resort, so you think he has no issue with putting an opposite sex couple ahead of a same sex couple where there is a option in the matter? If you are framing this in terms of “discrimination”, you are advocating that there are no reasons to prefer a child going to a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple.

        1. “you are advocating that there are no reasons to prefer a child going to a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple.”

          There aren’t. Based simply on the sexual makeup of the couple, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. It is perfectly possible for a gay couple to be better parents than a straight couple, even if you think that overall straight parents are better.

          1. “There aren’t.”

            And your reasons for asserting that are…what? That it is inconvenient for your ideology that there is no difference between male and female?

            “…even if you think that overall straight parents are better.”

            If prefering a heterosexual couple is defined legally as “discrimination” then you cannot act on that thought, ever.

            1. No, you miss my point completely (and you have no fucking clue about what my “ideology” is, so please stop assuming). Even if I grant that there is evidence that in general straight couples make the best parents, you cannot conclude from that that this one particular gay couple would not be the best parents in the world. There is no basis to prefer a particular straight couple over a particular gay couple unless you think that there is something inherently so harmful about a gay couple being parents that it should be banned outright.

              1. “There is no basis to prefer a particular straight couple over a particular gay couple unless you think that there is something inherently so harmful about a gay couple being parents that it should be banned outright.”

                Catholic Charities was exercising its judgement that heterosexual couples are preferable to homosexual couples. CC’s ability to act on that preference is being disallowed, but CC did not prevent same sex couples from adopting, they referred such couples to other agencies that would. Yet CC being prevented from acting on their beliefs is “tolerance”.

    3. “You are also ignoring the eveidence that the enviroment for children raised by opposite sex couples is preferable to same-sex couples…”

      Citation please.

    4. “Saying “that horse left the barn” does not answer the argument that such was negative development. You are also ignoring the eveidence that the enviroment for children raised by opposite sex couples is preferable to same-sex couples while you officially enshrine in law that both situations are equivalent.”

      The legal recognition of the arrangement in no way attempts to equivocate the various combinations of individuals, nor counters any evidence of “optimal” arrangments. It simply grants them the same legal standing.

      “The point Welch seems determined to ignore is that mandating “tolerance” is an intolerent act that limits freedom itself.”

      Not even. Claiming that equal before the law is a limitation of freedom is absurd.

    5. Assuming for a second that you didn’t pull “the evidence” out of your ass, it is still a piss poor argument. Even if the average straight household were “better” for the children, it most certainly not the case for each individual household (there are good and bad parents of all types!). Even beyond that these aren’t children in normal perfect households, they are orphans. You would have to show that being raised by gay parents would be worse than being raised by orphanages, foster parents and the state. Finally, if being raised by opposite sex couples is so optimal that it should be enshrined in law, are you proposing that all children of single parents be taken away and given to couples?

  9. Libertarianism should be a difficult doctrine to follow; it should require you to tolerate things you don’t like all the time. If you can’t even get as far as supporting equal marriage rights, then perhaps radical individualism isn’t for you.

    1. What does granting people government benefits for getting married have to do with radical individualism?

      1. What government benefits? You might get a lower tax rate if your spouse doesn’t make much money, but what are the other wonderful government benefits you get by getting married? I recently got married and the only additional benefits I have noticed are from my employer.
        In any case, the point isn’t about benefits, but treating similarly situated people similarly.

        1. There are certain privileges/rights the government grants married couples that it grants nobody else: the right to not testify against your spouse in court and to bring a foreign-national spouse here to live with you are the two I recall offhand. I think there are also some tax privileges involving inheritances: you can leave your spouse a certain sum of money without it being taxed; you can’t do the same for someone who’s merely your “partner.”

          So if the government is going to grant certain legal privileges exclusively to members of state-recognized couplings,it shouldn’t place restrictions on what “kind” of adults are allowed to enter into them.

          1. The 5th amendment protection for spouses is a relic of the era when wives were legally property, and should be done away with.

            The other stuff can be fixed by extending the privileges to civil unions.

            1. My wife’s not legally my property? Why did I bother getting married?

              But seriously, why would that matter? With a warrant, my property can be seized and used against me in court. Why should a wife be treated differently?

            2. That’s not the reason that exists. Spouses are mutually dependeent on each other, and are in legal sense, one person. Forcing a spouse on the stand invites that person to act against their own interests or perjure themselves.

              1. “The other stuff can be fixed by extending the privileges to civil unions.”

                Exactly.

                1. This unabashed singlephobia is sickening. Why won’t you extend these benefits to singles? Why do only married couples and civilly unioned couples get these privileges?

                  No, that’s okay. You all enjoy your little club. While you can.

              2. Lots of pairs of people are dependent on each other and aren’t protected from testifying against each other. And in most areas of the law, spouses are treated as two separate individuals.

          2. No one should ever be forced to testify about anything.

            1. Curious, do you also apply this to police in police brutality trials?

              1. Yes. If they don’t want to tell the truth, they aren’t going to anyway.

        2. And since gays tend to make a bit more and both work, it’s pretty likely that they’d be paying a marriage tax penalty if anything.

        3. see the Mass gay marriage decision from a number of years ago – it goes through a whole litany of “benefits”

    2. What does “tolerance” have to do with this, Tony?

      Me, I give half a shit if people are gay. I suspect a lot of people really don’t care if gays exist, either. Live and let live.

      Of course, your “supporting equal marriage rights” only equals *your* stance. Those of us who take the sensible route, are somehow intolerant because we’re not pounding drums or pavement for “gay marriage”.

      Fuck marriage licenses. To blistering hell with them.

      How’s THAT for “equal marriage rights”?

      1. How is advocating a radical alternative that’s never going to happen “sensible”? Why can’t you just say you’re for equal rights under current law until your utopia arrives?

        Besides, it’s suspect to advocate for stripping legal marriage benefits at the exact moment we’re talking about extending them to gays. Not that you have a problem with gays, you’re just “uncomfortable around them.”

        1. In other words… you’re calling me a bigot.

          Fuck you, Tony.

          Are you uncomfortable around straight people? From what you’ve said in the past, it would seem thus.

          As for the “utopian” in this particular two-way argument… again, I’m not the Democrat. Hint.

          1. Also, as usual, you danced around answering the question. Damn, but are you good at that.

        2. Straight & Narrow|9.6.11 @ 12:12PM|#

          This, Tony, is a world and a half apart from my “uncomfortable”ness. People like S&N (if this isn’t a parody troll, and I doubt as much) are your real enemy.

          But, hey, keep wasting hours of your life scrabbling for your liberalism-fueled utopia engine to get past the R&D phase.

        3. Why can’t you just say you’re for equal rights under current law until your utopia arrives?

          Because if we did we wouldn’t be able to feast on little children. They also fetch a nice price on the market.

          1. Damn… I’m out of Sweet Baby Ray’s AND child meat. Help a brother out, yonemoto?

    3. Libertarianism should be a difficult doctrine to follow; it should require you to tolerate things you don’t like all the time.

      Could be. I found that when I began thinking fewer things should be illegal, I began disliking fewer things as well.

    4. Do you believe straight, unmarried couples should have the same legal bennies as married couples, Tony?

      Or is gay marriage your -*ONLY*- concern?

  10. As in so much of the gay marriage debate, I don’t see how a single one of Antle’s arguments here couldn’t be used against interracial marriage as well.

    This is all you’ve got in response? One sentence? Nice to see that you spent more time shooting fish in the barrel with the second author.

    Antle’s not arguing “against gay marriage”, he’s questioning how it’s a libertarian issue either way. And of course historical anti-miscegenation statutes did involve throwing people in jail, which Antle explicitly states would be something libertarians should oppose. And of course he nailed you guys dead to rights on the topic of interfering with freedom of contract.

    In any case, anti-miscegenation statutes required much more arbitrariness — the state had to define whether a half black woman could marry a 7/16 black man, for instance. Unlike gender, race is a continuum (and even the races themselves are somewhat arbitrary).

    1. Should be freedom of association, not freedom of contract.

    2. Unlike gender, race is a continuum (and even the races themselves are somewhat arbitrary

      1. Not personally a fan of the cut-paste-strike because they can be ambiguous.

        Are you claiming that gender is a continuum? You have an argument to back that up, I suppose?

        1. You should have said “sex” instead of “gender”. I’m inclined to think it is mostly bullshit, but the female “daddy” mentioned in the post demonstrates that gender is treated as somewhat of a continuum by some people, at least.

          1. “…but the female “daddy” mentioned in the post demonstrates that gender is treated as somewhat of a continuum by some people, at least.”

            That does not mean it is true, or any less absurd.

    3. Unlike gender, race is a continuum.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..terus.html

  11. Strictly speaking, each side wants govt support for its preferred definition of marriage. Neither wants to deregulate it. The SSM group wants to increase regulation of private, “discriminatory” groups.

    “I don’t see how a single one of Antle’s arguments here couldn’t be used against interracial marriage as well.”

    Flip that around, and the same arguments libertarians make for the rights of private businesses, homeowners, churches, etc. to discrimination against gays could also apply to the right to discriminate against interracial couples. Are there any relevant differences? Those who support the right of private discrimination – how is this right to be defended in practice? How to protect private hotels who don’t want to rent their ballrooms for Adam and Steve’s wedding party?

    1. That depends, how many of my tax dollars is the private hotel receiving?

      1. Assume none – if a state govt gives out SSM marriage licenses, what to do when same-sex couples start sending out demand letters to private businesses insisting on access and privileges equal to those of opposite sex couples? The same-sex couples will say, “why is it be legal for you to discriminate against a govt-recognized relationship? After all, you have no right to discriminate against interracial couples, and they are now legally equivalent to same-sex couples!”

        1. I don’t know what should be done in such a case. But it is a completely separate issue from whether gay marriage should be legally recognized.

          1. No, the issues are inseparable; actually they’re not issues, they’re a single issue. What did you think “legally recognized” meant?

        2. From my perspective the government should generally do nothing. However, we don’t live in a vacuum and I also recognize that there are various laws that offer special protections based on status.

          As a libertarian my response would be to end special protections based on race, sex, religion, etc in terms of private discrimination and that would include not extending such protections on the basis of sexual orientation.

          I could honestly end there and give you a complete philosophical response that I sincerely believe. HOWEVER, ultimately as a libertarian I do not believe the government can or should be treating people under the law based on status. As long as groups receive special protections based on their status I don’t see the reason to exclude sexual orientation from that special protection. I think the preferred status we give individuals based on innate characteristics are philosophically wrong but it would be irrational from a policy standpoint to INCLUDE other groups based on the historical discrimination they face and EXCLUDE other groups merely because the discrimination they face is more socially acceptable.

          Again though, do I “like” laws prohibiting private discrimination? No. Do I think gays should be included under that umbrella? I would prefer to say I see no rational reason to EXCLUDe them from it.

          1. So then, you would be ok forcing a pastor that belives homosexuality is a sin to marry to gay people?

          2. I certainly see what you’re saying.

            I don’t agree, however, about being forced to clamp down further on the private sector on the grounds that we’re simply following the logic of prior interventions.

            Historically, liberty has developed from isolated exceptions to tyranny, the exceptions often seeming “irrational” by themselves, and only later do the exceptions broaden into a bigger, principled system of freedom. To squelch the existing islands of freedom because these islands don’t fit in with the (alleged) logic of existing statism, is not only repressive but helps preclude future development of freedom.

            Also, it’s not irrational to say that you can socially tolerate certain relationships without giving them the full state backing which is given to marriage. There are plenty of relationships without spousal benefits, but with no stigma attached: Roommates (real roommates, not “roommates, nudge nudge), drinking buddies, fellow-members of a bowling club, old friends from the war, etc. These couples and groups are “inferior” to married couples, and rightly so, because the rationale for the special recognition of marriage doesn’t apply to them.

            The debate is whether SSM couples are more like interracial married couples, or more like a couple of nonsexual roommates or drinking buddies.

            1. “I don’t agree, however, about being forced to clamp down further on the private sector on the grounds that we’re simply following the logic of prior interventions.”

              Agreed. If this wasn’t happening, I think there would be less push back.

  12. What is with the smiling in the top picture? Nobody is ever THAT fucking happy. Knock it off.

    1. You are just afraid of that level of happiness. Embrace it, wylie.

    2. Why do you think they call it “gay”?

    3. I like the grin on the face of that bald guy whose picture they’ve put up several times this year. Makes me feel a little more carefree whenever I see it.

  13. Antle is being dishonest. He decries giving subsidies to gay couples yet fails to mention that straight couples get the same subsidies. Of course, that’s because he prefers the latter.

    Since government intervention in marriage is not going to be removed, the next most preferred course of action is to maximize freedom by allowing gays to marry. The increase in freedom to gays is more important than the decrease in freedom caused by government subsidies/benefits. This does not mean that libertarians support government subsidies.

    The same reasoning must be used for the adoption agency conundrum. Libertarians would prefer that subsidies/tax exemption for and regulation of charities would be removed. But since this is not going to happen, libertarians should prefer the increase of freedom caused by the removal of regulation than the decrease in freedom caused by subsidies. Allowing adoption agencies to discriminate is a more important increase in freedom than the decrease caused by subsidizing them with taxpayer money.

    1. To sum up, libertarians would prefer to remove both regulations and subsidies. But in cases where only one can be removed, libertarians should generally prefer the removal of regulation over the removal of subsidies.

    2. Antle’s not being dishonest. Like me, he’s just thinking about this issue more than you. In the 1990s when I heard of marriage equality my immediate rxn was to favor it. I didn’t think about it much then. Since then with some study but especially thinking about the subject, I changed my mind.

      Basically you’re a little confused about what marriage is, and you’re confusing “allowing” with what the issue is really about: whether official law is going to be subservient to custom or to dictate to it.

      However, not even Mr. Antle has used in his analysis the precedent that exists in gov’t redefinition of money terms. I seem to be the only one who’s caught on to that historic parallel.

      1. No I think it’s you that isn’t thinking. From a libertarian perspective, there is no dichotomy between the law serving custom or custom serving law. The two should not interact in the first place. Therefore no law should disallow two people from entering a certain agreement called marriage because someone else’s custom says that they should not.

        1. Nor should they have to pay money for a piece of paper from a government official granting them *permission* to call themselves “married”.

          But Tony, of course, disagrees.

      2. Your post reads like a Nat’l Organization for Marriage press release, complete with “scare” quotes.

        The SoCon meme about gays and lesbians suddenly redefining marriage. Who, exactly, has been funding the multi-million dollar campaigns based on fear and loathing to defile centuries old constitutions to define marriage for the very first time as exclusively heterosexual? (hint: not Teh Gheys)

  14. “Gender does matter for marriage, the family, and society, and those trying to teach us that it doesn’t can’t help but default to the very thing they are trying to overthrow.

    This is the primary fallacy of the legislation New York just passed ? not in theory, but in the reality of this little girl and her “daddy” on the train at Penn Station.

    I do think this is a big issue. Not so much that it overrides the fact that orphans need parents, but this rings true. All the liberals can say what they want and try to deconstruct what they perceive as some patriarichal conservative anglo society, but really it’s the society of the entire world. Almost every society everywhere has had a strong gender role dichotomy and man-woman marriage, so I know it’s not in fact solely a social construct, like standardized measurement systems or road traffic rules. Even chickens, even if you raise them without their parents, will automqticallyt go to a similar big-strong male, smaller female dichotomy, wqith males fighting over females, and the males trying to find food asnd shelter for their females, etc. etc. It’s just a sexual dimorphism that some species exhibit. I’d imagine that the same would happen with people if you drop off a bunch of babies in the wilderness and they had to start their own society anew.

    1. I hear a hundred thousand years of evolution will have that kind of effect.

    2. The “reality” is that basing one’s principles on an extreme edge-case (She calls herself “daddy”? Who does that?) is disingenuous.

  15. I guess Snoop wasn’t Glenn Stanton’s favorite character from The Wire.

  16. What do you want? That dude is from “Focus on the Family”…. James Dobson et al?

    They’re against mommy being a daddy? Shocker.

    I think they also have a program to help people Pray Away The Gay. They do outreach to help pastors/priests cure themselves of Gay-Tolerance and help them do what God wants them to do, which is to Curse them, Damn them, Shame them, and pray that their souls burn in a firey pit for all eternity.

    Cause thats how jesus shows us he loves us! He melts homos in lava.

    They also are concerned about not having enough Jesus in Government

    The First Amendment’s guarantees were intended as a check on the power of government. They were never intended as a check on religion’s influence on the government.

    http://www.focusonthefamily.co…..oints.aspx

    Almost every society everywhere has had a strong gender role dichotomy and man-woman marriage

    So what?

    We also have a lot of single-parent households around the world. Whats your point? That gays *shouldnt be allowed* to be parents?

    Its besides the point.

    1. “homos melted in lava” sounds like some kind of delicious dessert recipe

    2. Fuck Dobson, too. He’s just as dangerous and annoying as any 180-degree-away liberal version of Dobson.

  17. “it’s suspect to advocate for stripping legal marriage benefits for ALL couples

    That, Tony, is how you *should* have typed it.

    1. Or something like that.

      Actually, it should read “it’s a good idea to extend legal marriage benefits to all couples, gay or straight”.

      But, hey, if you’re hung up on spending money at a local government dispensary for a sheet of paper with words on it…

      1. ARGH

        “it’s a good idea to extend legal marriage benefits to all couples, gay, straight, or unmarried

        There. Fuck, that “preview” button IS down there, isn’t it? I need new glasses or something.

        1. So unmarried couples can be married? Any two people within a few feet of each other get automatic marriage benefits? Don’t you see that the entire point is to have the same kind of contract for all married couples–not to render the situation absurd.

          You’re twisting yourself in knots trying to find ways to be against marriage equality for gays. It’s unnecessary.

  18. The gay is much better than girls…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.