Ron Hart on Why the GOP Needs Gay Marriage


Libertarian columnist Ron Hart in the OC Register:

Those consumed with denying gays the right to marry are relics of the past. They are like AM radio stations that still play music. You know they exist, but you wonder why – and who listens.

I am not sure why the GOP-ers think that, but for their vigilance, everyone in America might run off and get all gay-married. The GOP needs a big tent; who better to decorate it than gays?

The anti-gay article of "faith" is so ingrained that now Romney and Marco Rubio, or whatever Republican Romney picks for a running mate, are boxed into a corner and will have to be against gay marriage. That's such a shame – they would make such a cute couple.

Whole thing here.

Especially in light of Thaddeus Russell's provocative anti-all-marriage piece from yesterday, the operative notion here, I think, is marriage equality, or the idea that if the state's gonna be in the marriage biz, it should treat all of us equally.

Reason on this.

NEXT: 3 Lies About the Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Recall

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. 1ieth! Blah blah blah...

    1. just as Rebecca implied I am blown away that some people able to profit $9938 in 1 month on the computer. did you read this

      1. Are there cougars at that site?

    1. Is he dead?

      1. He died with registration.

  2. Anti-marriage licensing is "provocative"?

    Its fucking obvious.

    1. That piece was full on stupid and all the worst things about docrinaire libertarians.

      Since when is restricting people's right to associate "libertarian"?

      1. I only skimmed it, but I dont see anything in it about restricting people's rights to associate.

        1. It is a few paragraphs of whinning about how marriage is rooted in the hated religion and then finishes with this.

          Even today, we pay dearly for that option, not just in legal fees but also from the stigma of having "failed" at what all good Americans are expected to do.

          So let us say to our gay brothers and sisters fighting for the "freedom to marry," who once led the fight for freedom from marriage: be careful what you wish for?you'll probably get it

          He seems to be implying at least that marriage is this horrible unbreakable life time contract that people need to be saved from.

          If he is not implying that, then he is just wasting time and not making a point. Not sure which it is, but both are equally stupid.

          1. Look at the previous 10 or so paragraphs, it is all a criticism of STATE SPONSORED marriage.

            Im still waiting for you to point out his opposition to freedom of association. Even if he thinks the association is a bad idea in general, he only appears to be opposing the state sponsorship of it.

            I would recommend to anyone who asked that shooting up heroin is a bad idea and that they should do it. That doesnt mean I support drug laws.

            1. SHOULDNT do it.

            2. If the state is prohibited from recognizing it, then most of the benefits of it are gone. It would be like ending state sponsored land title. Yeah, I could still live on land, but the title doesn't mean much if I can't sue to keep people off of it or borrow against it.

              More than a few self proclaimed "Libertarians" will just as gladly stick a boot on my face as any liberal or socon.

              1. If the state is prohibited from recognizing it, then most of the benefits of it are gone.

                No, none of the benefits of MARRIAGE are gone. The benefits of state licensing are gone, but marriage had benefits before the state got involved and all of those still exist.

                1. Exactly. There's a difference between state licensing and giving you benefits based on discriminatory granting of such licenses which is the current state of affairs, and the state getting out of the licensing business and letting individuals create their own licenses with each other AND the state recognizing all of them as legitimate, rather than preemptively banning certain types of licenses or activities or contracts or legal status, which is the case now.

                  Of course, all privileges granted by the state would and should be gone as well. Why should taxpayers help subsidize people with children? Two people as a group in whatever contractual relationship, "marriage" or whatever else, should have no more rights than the same two people as individuals.

                  The whole idea of getting rid of marriage licenses somehow "restricts" someone's right to associate is a complete strawman.

  3. Good afternoon, my name is Eduard and I will be your right-wing troll.

    Let us start out with a WTF for the following: "If you support minimal government and individual responsibility, how can you insist on legislating such personal matters?"

    Once again, this insinuates that the opponents of SSM are somehow uniquely statist. Yet I will reiterate - the SSMers want to legislate the private behavior of employers, landlords and even wedding photographers and churches. When did the anti-SSM crowd propose to have the government tell private parties whom they could enter into contracts with?

    Then there is the praise of Obama for his states-rights stand, as if Obama won't "evolve" beyond this as soon as convenient. He's already denounced the DOMA as unconstitutional - his respect for the states will only last up to the election, then (whether he wins or loses) he will announce that on further reflection blah blah he has decided that equal protection requires a right to SSM despite what the states want.

    1. But Eduard. It is okay when we use the state to stick it to the fundies and get our way in the kulture war.

      1. I can't wait for the first credible lawsuit against a church for not performing a same-sex marriage. The biggest media spectacle I can imagine.

        1. Judge: the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state's Law Against Discrimination when it denied Ocean Grove residents Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster the use of its boardwalk pavilion for their 2007 civil union ceremony. The association had allowed members of the public to rent the pavilion and had never before declined a permit other than for scheduling conflicts until it received Paster and Bernstein's reservation request. The association rejected the couple's application to use the space, stating that civil unions violated its Methodist doctrine.


        2. it would be w/o merit. the state cannot currently, or in the future, compel churches to perform or not perform marrages.

  4. "Those consumed with denying gays the right to marry are relics of the past. They are like AM radio stations that still play music. You know they exist, but you wonder why ? and who listens."

    About half the country disapproves of gay marriages. Hardly a relic of the past or a music playing AM radio station.

    1. Dave Weigel has an article in Slate right now headlined "Can the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement Bounce Back?"

      They just won a crushing victory in North Carolina. What exactly are they supposed to be coming back from? I guess the crushing blow of a President no one listens to or cares about coming out against it.

  5. Whether you are for or against the state licensing of marriage, I would hope everyone could agree that the one thing the state SHOULD have to do is recognize that a marriage exists (in our current state of affairs). It's fine if Texas wants to say "we will not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples" but how the state can say they won't recognize a wedding license from another state that does issue them is hard for me to fathom.

  6. ...I am not sure why the GOP-ers think that...

    I don't know their reasons, but I know for certain they are wrong.

  7. If the GOP wants to have a political future it needs to stop doing two things:

    1. Stop bashing gays
    2. Stop ignoring Ron Paul

    1. I'm with you 100% on the Ron Paul thing, but I'm not sure that not wanting gays to marry is the same as "bashing" them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.