Schumer Shocked Over Push-Back on Ex-Pat Bill, Etan Patz Suspect Arrested, UK Goes on Spending Binge: P.M. Links

|

  • And my wife tested a program under which the four officers behind me will find that sock you lost in the dryer last week.

    Senator Charles Schumer is appalled — appalled, he says — that anybody would compare his proposed legislative plan to fleece anybody who wants to leave the country to a similar law enacted decades ago and wielded by a famously nasty regime.

  • The case that haunted the headlines in 1979 may finally be solved. Pedro Hernandez, a former convenience-store clerk, was arrested and charged with murdering Etan Patz.
  • Gary Johnson's so-far Internet-only "Peace is Cheaper" advertisement is "red meat" intended to reach antiwar activists and fiscal hawks alike. See it here.
  • Curt Schilling's 38 Studios is the latest government-favored, taxpayer-subsidized company to go belly-up amidst the stink of fail. The video-game outfit was lured to Rhode Island in by a $75-million loan guarantee from the state.
  • Berkeley, California, Police Chief Michael Meehan assures critics that he would send ten cops to retrieve anybody's iPhone, just like he did for his son.
  • Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's tolerator-in-chief, says there's no place in his country for homosexuals. Left unspoken is that there's not much place in the country for anybody else, either.
  • UK government spending hit record levels, despite an official policy of "austerity." With the country's recession worse than anticipated, economists describe the binge as "unsustainable."
  • The SpaceX Dragon private spacecraft dropped by the International Space Station for a cup of coffee and a chat. Well … Something like that, anyway. It was historic.

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

NEXT: But What Does Every Black Celebrity in America Think About Gay Marriage?

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. It’s 2:24 PM ET. Do you know where you P.M. links are?

    1. Schumer can suck my throbbing member. And does. Often.

  2. Hi. I’m Schmucky Chumer, and I am a blithering moron. Furthermore…hey look! A camera!!! Be sure to get my good side guys, ok?

    1. Hello, Schumer.

      /Seinfeld

    2. That’s really a mean thing for you to say about Schumer. Didn’t you know that he lost a few relatives to the Nazis?!

      1. What, did he turn them in himself?

        1. Its like batting practice in here.

      2. Which is why it’s sad that he apparently didn’t learn a goddamned thing from it.

        1. Yes. It’s amazing how thick some people can be … and then, there’s Congress.

      3. Hey Mary! Got all your prescriptions filled for the three day weekend? Wouldn’t want you to run out. We all know how that goes.

        1. Hey Mary??

          1. Funny, there’s a missing comment between mine and yours. I know it was there.

    3. …good side?

      1. Where his little bitch titties are at their perkiest.

        1. Those are full blown saggy old moobs.

    4. If I had the spare dough, I’d pay a reporter and cameraman to stand on the other side of a street from Schumer at all times. He would eventually get ran over trying to get to the camera.

    5. “And saying that a person who made their fortune specifically because of the positive elements in American society in turn has a responsibility to do right by America is not even on the same planet as comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews.”

      And the government is responsible for every positive element to ever exist in any part of America. And the only responsibility a citizen has in a free society to respect the rights of his fellow citizens, not empty his wallet to some greedy, grasping tax-fed leech from New York with pretensions that exceed his intelligence or understanding of history.

      “Silly me, I thought renouncing one’s citizenship was un-American”

      Don’t feel bad Chucky. The English probably thought the colonists were being very un-British when they renounced their citizenship en masse. It’s a common mistake among tyrants.

      1. People are successful in spite of the government, not because of it. That especially includes public schools.

  3. If you feel like getting depressed. All these people saying that only the right can behave like members of the National Socialist Workers’ Party.

    If I had plenty of free time and a lack of something better to do, I think I would have great fun registering on the Huffington Post site and create a Neil like sockpuppet that only made arguments that Hitler made in Mein Kampf.

    My guess is I’d have a huge base of followers/friends after a year.

    1. … er, rather If you feel like getting depressed, read the Huffington Post comments….

      1. Those Huffington Post comments are pretty bad. Usually when it comes to abuses of the State, the HuffPo denizens are a mixed bag, but Grover Norquist got involved and the whole commentariat went RAH RAH TEAM BLUE.

        1. Still what a bunch of commies in training. I guess I know where they’ll find the prison guards. America love it or leave it but don’t take the money with you.

        2. Yes, that is how they roll over at Fluffington Host.

          Civil rights abuses by team red: Baaddddddd

          Civil rights abuses by team blue: Goodddddd

          1. There’s some hope yet. An Obama-lovin’ friend just posted on FB, Penn Jillette’s drug war/Obama imprisoned rant.

            1. The night that NDAA passed, I was posting over at the fluff, as well as other sites, and there were a surprising number of posts condemning NDAA, over 1000 posts I am sure. By the next day, none of the progs remembered what it was all about. I think that rainbow colored kool-aid does serious damage to short term and long term memory.

              1. No, see it’s the way Team Blue cleanses hypocrisy. If Obama does something like the NDAA, then a nice solid round of scolding in the comments means you are free to continue your support of him in the future.

                This means they can support civil rights and the NDAA signing Obama without any conflict, because the righteous scolding is all they need to wipe the mark of hypocrisy away.

      2. HuffPo comments are the worst. It is such a stark contrast between commentors there and the commentors at the blogs I regularly read (Hit and Run, Mises.org, Market Urbanism, Conglomerate Blog). One of the reasons I love Hit Run is that the comments are lucid (except o3, of course). I can’t decipher the grammer those HuffPo gorks use, let alone their logic. The comments at HuffPo seem to be the product of some Goodwill Industries work program, which trains mental deficients to type.

        Good god, I need a bourbon.

        1. Ooh, that’s a good idea.

          I’ve got a bunch of mint growing gangbusters at home. I’m going to mix the two together. It’s a cocktail I just invented. I call it a “mourbon”.

          1. Hey, I’ve got fresh mint in my fridge. Looks like I’ll be pouring some juleps this afternoon. Thanks for the reminder, Trespassers. Drink up!

            1. Ain’t that a Mint Julep?

        2. Not that you haven’t already seen samples of it by visiting Huff Po, but try posting for a while at Politico. LMAO, there are some of the dumbest luddites on the face of the earth that are regulars there.

        3. The funny part is HuffPo comments are moderated. So the unreadable shit, let alone the specious logic, actually passed an editor.

        4. “I love Hit Run is that the comments are lucid”

          When I first read this I thought it said “lurid.”

          I think my version might be more accurate.

        5. I can’t decipher the grammer those HuffPo gorks use, let alone their logic. The comments at HuffPo seem to be the product of some Goodwill Industries work program, which trains mental deficients to type.

          As the resident Retard Whisperer, I’ll gladly try to translate any comments you might find perplexing. This service shall be performed on request in the PM Links each weeknight. SO IT IS WRITTEN, SO IT SHALL BE

    2. Not to go off the deep end, but this whole thing is downright frightening. I realize that Schumer is the worst of the worst, but this seems to be a whole new level… and throwing out the patriotism card? How the fuck is that not EXACTLY what the Germans did?

      1. It’s socialism and nationalism! Two great tastes that murder people by the millions together!

        1. You got socialism in my nationalism!

          And you got nationalism in my socialism!

          1. What do we call it? Natso? Sonat?

            1. “The status quo”

            2. Let’s call the whole thing off!

            3. I’d call it Amsoc.

              But that sounds like a website that would get me a red screen at work.

              1. How about the Natfrees?

                1. Can I put ketchup on that?

                  1. That’s freedom fries. These are Natfrees.

      2. It’s not like what the Germans did because Schumer had relatives die in the Holocaust.

        Somebody didn’t read the article!

      3. Are you saying that he is worse than McCain, Lieberman, and Graham? Just curious.

        1. Yes, Schumer is the biggest asshole in a Congress chock full of assholes.

          1. That is a great accomplishment for the Shumie, it must take a life time of dedication to acheive such excellence in a career of evil.

          2. I must disagree with you on that point. He’s certainly way up there on the sleaze scale, but he falls far short of the assholeishness of those members of the Ruling Party who actually have some influence.

            -jcr

            1. …but he falls far short of the assholeishness of those members of the Ruling Party who actually have some influence

              What? He’s the 3rd ranking member of the Senate and has served as chairman or VC of a whole mess of Democratic committees and work groups.

              Now if Ben Cardin (D-MD) had been the one saying this, it wouldn’t’ve seen the light of day. The only reason that this is getting the air play that it’s getting is because of the fact that Schumer is absolutely, severly influential.

      4. The next gas-enabled showers will be built by Jews and the re-imposition of slavery will be enacted by a black POTUS.

        1. http://www.haaretz.com/news/na…..y-1.432374

          Likud MK Danny Dannon called to remove African asylum seekers from population centers in Israel. “The infiltrators must be distanced immediately,” he said. “We must expedite the construction of temporary detention facilities and remove Africans from population centers.”

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..nts-jewish

          Israel PM: Illegal [Jewish] African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state

    3. If I had plenty of free time and a lack of something better to do, I think I would have great fun registering on the Huffington Post site and create a Neil like sockpuppet that only made arguments that Hitler made in Mein Kampf.

      This is a great fucking idea. Goddamn if someone pulled this off and had good writing skills to describe the process they could write a goddamn best seller.

      Keep a journal and post something every day:

      …Day 1, from Mein Kampf page one..

      1. Too bad that punking HuffPo readers is like dynamite fishing in the shallow end of the gene pool.

      2. Everybody should read Mein Kampf. Really.

        Not for the bits where you say “what a fucking monster”, but for the bits where you find yourself thinking “yeah that makes sense”. Hitler wasn’t some nutjob who happened to get lucky and be in the right place and the right time to take advantage of some mass psychosis.

        Rather, the guy was a demagogue par excellance and the self-examination triggered by the exercise is a great way to inoculate oneself against his modern day heirs – e.g. guys like Schumer Lieberman.

        1. And let’s not leave out McCain and Graham from the same pool of toxic scum.

        2. I’m actually afraid to be associated with the book. In this day and age it’s gotta be some kind of death wish to check it out from the library or buy it from Amazon.

          1. Here you go

            gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

            — you can probably find a ebook version there or at its sister site if you dig.

            1. Good to know. Thanks.

            2. Apparently I can’t offer gratitude without being flagged as spam, so please accept my sentiment in this roundabout way.

              1. You’re welcome.

                /helped create that site a while back 🙂

          2. Spot on comment though. When I was in junior high, it wasn’t considered a big deal to check it out, and there were a few copies available because someone was always doing research on it. I doubt if they carry it still in the current climate though I’d be glad to be proved wrong. The same school had the Time/Warner occult series as well. Come to think of it, the old biddies who you would expect to shitfreak about these matters must have been napping for a few decades until PMRC was formed.

    4. What would be the fun in everyone agreeing with you? That would force you to have to think like a progressive… scary…

      1. Identity politics. If they agree with you, but then find out your ideas came from Hitler, then maybe about 2% of them will actually rethink their premises.

  4. WASHINGTON — After being compared to the Nazis for targeting people like the Facebook co-founder who renounced his U.S. citizenship and thereby avoided taxes, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) hit back Thursday. He said it was appalling to make such a comparison, and appalling that conservatives would turn a “tax dodger” into a “hero.”

    If you’re not a victim of Schumer’s virtual act of attainder, you’re a hero. Sounds about right.

    1. I understand the main reason for the American tax revolt pre-1776 was because of lack of representation, so why can’t an American renounce his citizenship, without fear of punishment, if he no longer feels he is properly represented?

      And now the left has gone fully to the right with its talk of “patriotism.” Or maybe it’s just that self-serving assholes are self-serving assholes.

      1. Chucky has confused patriotism with serfdom.

      2. It may have been Hayek I originally came across a comment that in Germany of the 1920’s and 30’s the communist and the fascist were constantly shifting personnel between the factions, but neither side’s adherents found classical liberalism at all appealing as it was considered failed and declasse by the children of the progressive era at the time.

  5. Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe says homosexuality doesn’t belong in Zimbabwe.

    He said it violates women’s rights by denying the union of men and women needed to bear children.

    Denying women the glory that is their seed. That’s an interesting angle on homophobia. Or maybe not.

    1. How many gay men are offended by the male gaze?

    2. “I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence.”

  6. Senator Charles Schumer is appalled ? appalled, he says ? that anybody would compare his proposed legislative plan to fleece anybody who wants to leave the country to a similar law enacted decades ago and wielded by a famously nasty regime.

    So, when is Schummer introducing his law to ban such comparisons?

    1. America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles! America Uber Alles!

  7. …charged with murdering Etan Patz.

    Someone should tell that dead kid’s parents how to spell “Nate”.

    1. “Not like ‘Katz’. It’s pronounced with a long ‘A’, like ‘paisley’.”

    2. Nate Ztap? Who knew?

  8. “Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios is the latest government-favored, taxpayer-subsidized company to go belly-up amidst the stink of fail. The video-game outfit was lured to Rhode Island in by a $75-million loan guarantee from the state.”

    Those evil public equity firms (RI, USA, etc.) are killing this country.

    1. On NPR they were no-shit talking about the need for “angel investors” to salvage the company and remake it into something profitable.

      Which is funny, since I thought venture capitalists were vampires.

      1. NPR is likely so economically ignorant that they have no idea that angel investors are not charitable institutions or eleemosynary in nature.

        1. “eleemosynary”

          Had to look that one up. lEarned something new, thho. Thx!

        2. Props Randian. Making us all a little less dumberer.

      2. Well, an Angel investor is a venture capitalist with a soul.

    2. No, no. Blizzard and Bethesda are at fault. They made superior games, released them at times that were good for them and not for the public, and therefore should be punished!

    3. This story is all over the news here in Boston. The consensus seems to be, “Curt Schilling is a cool dude, it’s sad that he’s hit the rocks and stiffed Rhode Island.”

      I have yet to see one person – newscaster, politician, otherwise – admit that, you know, the whole point of a loan guarantee is that the venture is too risky to get loan on its own, so the state assumes that risk instead. Everybody seems shocked – SHOCKED – that a startup video game company might go belly up. It’s just ignorant that this has turned into so much of a scandal.

      1. Exactly, it wasnt a sound business, so no logical investor made an investment. 38 should have went out of business earlier, to free up their talented staff to work for someone who knows what they are doing.

      2. But steps 3 and 4 were fool-proof: ????? and profit! How could it go wrong?

  9. I think anyone in Berkeley who loses an iPhone should call the cops and see how well that works out for them.

    1. I just going to attach GPS tracking devices to all my possesions. Then, if I’m ever robbed, the cops can track down my stuff, instead of saying there’s nothing they can do, and these things usually never get returned.

    2. Interesting that the picture above shows the Berkeley PD holding a press conference at the Freight and Salvage, better known as a concert venue. Although, being Berkeley, it wouldn’t have surprised anyone if the cops started to play Zydeco instead of answering questions.

  10. A humble journalist’s thoughts on global warming.

    But here’s the good news. Normal people are not buying it. A new survey by Atticus research shows when Canadians are asked to rank their environmental concerns, global warming comes in dead last, out of 7 choices. People are sick of the propaganda, sick of being told what to think and sick of being told that we are in a perpetual crisis and I think people are sick of high energy prices, high gas prices for your car, high power prices at home. And we’re sick of the hypocrisy of David Suzuki with his 3 homes lecturing the rest of us to cut back.

    1. And we’re sick of the hypocrisy of David Suzuki with his 3 homes lecturing the rest of us to cut back.

      Oh, that’s one fuckstick who has galactic-sized schadenfreude coming to him.

        1. UN now says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’
          Don’t step on that slug! He’s protected by the U.N.

          1. Aw, jeez. Now we get the blue helmets in here raping and prostituting our children.

          2. Schumer is protected by the UN?

    2. People are also sick of having to buy gas infused with corn juice, by government mandate of course, which sends MPG through the fucking floor, especially on my big ass Tundra. All I want is real fucking gas.

      I’ve looked incessantly since acquiring my truck, but I can’t seem to find a local source.

      And no, buyrealgas.com nor pure-gas.org list anything close.

      If anyone knows of a gas dispensary in the Lexington, KY area which sells real fucking gasoline, I’d love a tip.

    3. Shhh . . . don’t tell Ken! Climategate, the evisceration of the UN report, and the shift in public support have never occurred on his planet. I’m anathema for the Republican party according to him (funny, I don’t feel like a Republican, nor vote for them). Hey, I don’t give a fuck about the success of your team, Ken. If I can bring them down by declaring the apocalyptic global warming religion bullshit, that would be a very satisfying result!

  11. Anybody else find the Gary Johnson ad boring? The message is correct, but I prefer the spike TV approach of the Paul ads from this season. Come in with dual guitars blazing and blow up some fucking cabinet level departments!

  12. Just when you were thinking that the John Edwards sleazefest could not get any more unseemly we have for you Juror Flirting!!

    1. Gross. I mean seriously, the slime just oozes off him.

    2. Also, the judge should get rid of her, it is apparent she can’t perform her duty in a conscientious fashion, if she is going to behave like that.

      1. Maybe she’s laying a cunning post-trial trap for him, black widow-ish.

  13. A problem with the devices used to guide the Dragon as it approached the station forced an initial retreat.

    Sounds like my prom night. Hey-ohhhh. Except my dragon breathed fire. (Later. Forcing a trip to the clinic.)

    1. Yikes! That sounds like a terrible prom night. Well, afterward, anyway.

    2. Yeah…and unlike prom night the Dragon eventually connected.

    3. Good grief, Fist.

      I trust you remember *now*: “Urinate. Wash. Urinate again.”

      1. Do you recommend the alcohol or witchhazel handi-wipes?

    4. Sounds like my prom night. Hey-ohhhh. Except my dragon breathed fire. (Later. Forcing a trip to the clinic.)

      Was that an awkward conversation with mom and dad, or were you able to sneak an appointment without their knowledge/consent?

    5. Did it melt like the towers of Harrenhal?

      1. Fire cannot kill the dragon.

        1. If it needed a trip to the clinic, then…it was no Dragon.

    6. Your prom night involved spacedocking? Yikes.

  14. Government spending prevents worse double dip recession

    Economists have warned of a fresh threat to the recovery after official figures showed that the country is being propped up by “unsustainable” Government spending.

    Someone in journalism school explain the juxtaposition between the headline and the subtext?

    1. Paul, just read that again. It’s simple logic.

      1. I dig deeper.

        “Propped up by “unsustainable” spending.”

        Let’s focus on “propped up”.

        The concerns emerged after the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the double-dip recession was even worse than feared. The economy shrank by 0.3pc in the first quarter of the year, the ONS said in its second estimates, rather than the 0.2pc initially thought.

        They’re in a double-dip recession. Not possibly kind of facing one if and when blah blah. They’re in it right now. So now I’m confused between “propped up” and “the economy shrank”.

        Or is it a but-for argument? But for government spending, the economy would be shrinking harder-er?

        1. But for government spending, the economy would be shrinking harder-er?

          Well, of course. The headline clearly says they were saved from a “worse” double-dip, not from any double-dip. Just like we really did keep unemployment down with the stimulus?you have no idea how bad it would have been without it!

          1. You wanna know how bad? The Earth would have been hit by a cascade of meteors and all living things made extinct without the stimulus.

            1. Not while Bruce Willis is still alive.

          2. It’s clear to me that the writer of the article really really hates austerity.

            1. It’s clear to me that the writer of the article really really hates what he thinks is austerity.

              Imagine actual austerity!

    2. Hey, there must be some Brit who isn’t yet taxed at 100%.

    3. And so we must ride that train of logic until it wrecks Bridge on the River Kwai-style.

      1. Honestly, I think Britain is already doing the Alec Guiness 3 minute death stumble. I’m just hoping it gets to the detonator before it dies.

    4. You are missing the most important aspect of the article – they have quotes from both Geoff Dicks and Ed Balls in the same article. Apparently Martha Tits and Delores Snatch were unavailable for comment.

      Yes, I have the maturity level of a 13-year-old.

      1. God damnit. Why aren’t you *my* wife?

        1. Hear, hear. Thanks for making me laugh on a pain-filled Friday!

      2. *snickergiggle*

  15. Let’s jump start this narrative!

    “Pedro Hernandez, a white Hispanic…

    1. …, admitted to having several White Russians that day.”

  16. UK government spending hit record levels, despite an official policy of “austerity.” With the country’s recession worse than anticipated, economists describe the binge as “unsustainable.”

    Really? And here I thought that spending is what makes the world go round – Paul Samuelson told me so, after I spent $80.00 on his fucking book just to pass the class.

  17. Obama has a secret plan to legalize drugs! (see final part of article)

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/0…..ce-rights/

    1. 1) Donate $100M to his re-election campaign

      Wait, where’s the rest of the plan?

      1. 2) Profit

    1. Your tears are so yummy and…salty?

      1. Savory, Epi. Savor them.

    2. Who’s tears? Salty Ham Tears? If so then no thanks.

      But I will, however, gladly sate my libertarian instincts by seasoning my Bengal tiger steak with the salty tears of orphaned child laborers.

      1. You’re going to set off the Mary Stack Parrot Video Director alarm again.

        1. She has two new videos up, by the way. I haven’t gone over to see them yet, much to her dismay (as she has posted comments on my blog to that effect).

          1. I took one for the team and watched them. She sure has gone down in quality since the first one.

            Oh, and apparently we are all really single men who can’t get dates or something.

    3. Hmm. Martin Briley should be informed.

    4. Which one of you magnificent bastards put your orphans to this excellent use?

      1. Smitty: You’re under arrest for child cruelty, child endangerment, depriving children of food, selling children as food, and misrepresenting the weight of livestock.

        Bender: If you had kids of your own, you’d understand!

        1. Just the right amount of me.

          1. Mary Stack: her obsession with us is so great, that even when she can barely post, she reads more avidly than anyone else who comes here. Irony is so wonderful.

            Hey, Mary! You like being obsessed? How about getting utterly PWND by reason? Did that feel good?

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. If this is trolling, it’s at least trolling I can live with. I’d say about anon-bot level of annoyance, tops.

    5. They all taste the same anyway. Don’t let the labels fool you.

  18. New book details Obama’s high school pot-smoking.

    “‘Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated,’ explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo.”

    1. Posted down blog.

  19. “Stan Lee said, ‘You’re the ultimate Nick Fury,'” Hasselhoff told the site. “[Producer] Avi Arad, when they bought it, said, ‘Don’t worry, you’re going to be the Nick Fury forever,’ and they lied. [Pause] But that happens to me all the time. That’s when you realize life isn’t fair.”

    http://www.ign.com/articles/20…..-nick-fury

    1. I don’t follow comics, so I don’t have an informed opinion as to who would be best in the role, but I seriously doubt David Hasselhoff would’ve brought as much to the role as Jackson, a much better actor, has.

    2. That’s when viewers realized that life *is* fair.

      Am I right?

    3. “Stan Lee said, ‘You’re the ultimate Nick Fury,'”

      That makes what Marvel did with the name for it’s alternate universe just seem cruel… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Nick_Fury

  20. Oh, Chuckie, you are so shocked that everyone doesn’t want to be taxed at 100% so that you can steal everything that they worked for, and that there can be no escape for them from your criminal theft. So shocking for such a dipshit corruptocrat like you. More shocking things are in store for you Chuckie, just stay tuned.

  21. Texas honor student, guardian of her sibling, jailed for missing too many days of school.

    Girl works two jobs to take care of her sister, but the judge wanted to make an example of her.

    1. Rules is rules!

    2. Texas: Minting New Libertarians Daily!

    3. The example is NOBODY gets away with avoiding State Assistance in their lives.

      1. And there should be BIG fucking scare quotes around “Assistance.”

    4. Motherfucker. I grew up around there. Fuck this guy.

    5. “But the judge said Tran’s case was bigger than the individual situation of one student.”

      They always say something like that before they start lining people up against the wall.

    6. She’s also supporting her brother who is going to Texas AM.

      1. She’s also supporting her brother who is going to Texas AM.

        So her brother is Special Needs as well? This makes it all the sadder.

    7. Did he sentence her again because she was behind bars instead of in school?

      What a shithead. Tar and feathers is too good for him but it’d be a start.

  22. I realized just about every single argument against gay legal marriage is a logical fallacy.

    Ad Hominem/Poison the Well: “Proponents of gay marriage wish to force the gay lifestyle upon me.”

    Anecdotal evidence/ argument from authority: “All the gay people I know say they don’t even want to be married.”

    Appeal to motive: “Gay marriage advocates want to brainwash your children!”

    Appeal to heaven: “God/the Bible said being gay is bad. Therefore gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

    Appeal to emotion: “America is sliding into a den of immorality and sin. These people want to make America into Sodom and Gomorrah. Let’s stand up for what we believe in and reject their assault on our way of life and our faith.”

    Appeal to tradition: “Marriage has always been this way.”

    Argument ad populum: “Since the majority voted for the law (or lawmakers), the courts have no right to overturn the will of the people.”

    Bandwagoning: “We can’t change the definition of marriage because most people throughout history said it has to be this way.”

    Begging the question: “Two people of the same sex can’t marry because marriage means one man and one woman.”

    Blind loyalty: “I oppose gay marriage because my church/family/Team Red do.”

    Essentializing: “Gays probably don’t even want to get married.”

    False dilemma: “If you support gay legal marriage, you also support forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.”

    1. Guilt by association: “You know, many Democrats and commies also support gay marriage.”

      Moving the goalposts: “OK, so some tribes or ancient civilizations may have had equivalencies of gay marriage. Regardless, 99.999% of the time, marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman. ”

      Non-Sequitur: “Gays shouldn’t want to get married, because gays are naturally promiscuous.”

      Political correctness: “I might be ok with it only if we call it ‘civil unions’ for gay couples. Calling it ‘marriage’ is offensive.”

      Perfect Solution Fallacy: “The only libertarian solution is civil unions for all (or marriage for nobody).” (*not an option currently on the ballot / under debate*)

      Red Herring: “Gays shouldn’t be able to get married. They can’t reproduce through gay sex.”

      Reductionism: “Support traditional marriage!”

      Slippery slope/argument from consequence: “If they win at getting gay marriage, soon they’ll win getting woman-dog marriages and man-infant marriages.”

      Straw man: “If you support the legal marriage equality for gays, you obviously support more state involvement in personal affairs.”

      While I don’t deny that gay marriage advocates also rampantly use fallacious reasoning (esp. appeal to emotion, ad hominem, guilt by association, straw man), I have never once heard a single non-fallacious argument from gay marriage opponents.

      1. Well done, dude. Very well done.

      2. Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

        In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

        Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

        And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

        -Thomas Sowell

        1. Fallacies galore!

          Argument from consequence: “We need marriage laws so women can seek alimony when the marriage ends.”

          Essentializing: “Men don’t need compensation for their failed investment, though”

          Begging the question: “Same sex couples don’t have the same biological asymmetries as straight couples.”

          Red Herring: “Gays can’t reproduce, therefore don’t deserve marriage.”

          Same sex couples can have children in the same manner as a straight couple with a barren or post-menopausal woman or a sterile man: adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, inherited from a previous heterosexual relationship, etc.

          If Sowell’s argument is consistent, he would also support banning post-menopausal women from marrying, since they, too, can’t naturally produce a child from their own vagina, and thus shouldn’t need alimony.

          1. “Same sex couples don’t have the same biological asymmetries as straight couples.”

            Medical fact. “Argument from Definition.”

            adoption – Granted at the behest of the state, regardless of gender or race. Adoptions have been contested based on both. Can a straight, single male adopt children with no prior marital relation?

            surrogacy – The surrogate surrenders all rights to the child, regardless of maternity, which can be scientifically proven.

            artificial insemination – Technically and scientifically irrelevant as insemination can be done through conventional means, and was done so before the advent of IVF/GIFT/ZIFT procedures.

            inherited from a previous heterosexual relationship

            I was under the impression sexuality is not a choice, but hard wired genetically as a discrete genotype, therefore expressed as a behavioural phenotype. Science has yet to prove/disprove the existence of a “Gay Gene”, even in animals that display homosexual behaviour. Also goes to prove artificial insemination premise.

            1. Addendum to surrogacy and reproductive adjuncts: If an XX + XX or an XY + XY bears a child in either way, and in the event of a divorce (yes, gay marriages or “garriages” do end in divorce) does the spouse with no genetic ties (science) , but has marital familial ties to the child, absent formal adoption, have a claim to full custody? And if a formal adoption has taken place in the event of a prior heterosexual relationship of one of the spouses and parental rights have been surrendered or quashed of the previous biological parent?

              IANAL, so I don’t know. Also, people do get married for reasons other than “love” and it can actually be a marriage of convenience or a business arrangement. Sowell is correct here, since even with a rational decision to marry coupled with a emotional investment, there is demonstrable value in the relationship. Even moreso if it produces children in the old fashioned way. Because of this, polygamists actually have more standing to have their marriages legally recognized than gay marriage would. However, if a fedgov definition that calls gay marriage “Garriage” were specifically crafted here…or is it more important to redefine the term for axe sharpening reasons? I’m really trying to accept your argument here, Proprietist, but you’re pulling fallacies out of your ass at this point.

      3. That’s because there aren’t any rational arguments for it. It absolutely boils down to rationalizing that one group of people should have fewer rights than another group.

        1. n the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

          Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

          In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet “gay marriage” advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

          -Thomas Sowell

          1. False dichotomy: “Legal marriages impose legal restrictions and therefore cannot expand rights.”

            Equivalent arguments:
            “Legalizing but regulating weed imposes new legal restrictions, and therefore does not expand rights.”

      4. What about “The State should not be involved in a concept such as marriage, other than to enforce contracts between individuals. Therefore, all forms of state sponsored marriage, including marriage of two homosexual persons, should not be recognized, as they all represent legitimate, excess, and inappropriate exercise of state power.”

        1. Perfect Solution Fallacy: “The only libertarian solution is civil unions for all (or marriage for nobody).” (*not an option currently on the ballot / under debate*)

          1. I call bullshit.

            If tomorrow the government decided to start a program that gave hetero-couples a pony, would you be out in the street protesting about the unfairness to gays? Or would you protest the idiocy of giving anyone a free pony?

            Mind your own damn business, if a couple wants to contract the things we today call spousal benefits, that’s fine, but they have no right to have the government cater to their sensitivities on what is the definition of marriage, and that includes both sides of the issue.

            1. It isn’t a “perfect” solution, it’s the only morally defensible solution. I will not let the state have more power over social areas, even if it results in a more equitable solution.

              1. “I will not let the state have more power over social areas, even if it results in a more equitable solution.”

                This is about as good of an argument as one can levy against gay marriage, but it is still fallacious.

                The premise that more access = more power is a non-sequitur: “A man can get legally married only to a woman, but allowing the man to choose between a woman or man is a growth of government control.”

                This does not follow, as allowing access to the same institution with a man instead of a woman is not an expansion of government control, but of individual choice.

                And regardless, you’ve appealed to consequences. “Allowing gays to marry to the same sex means more will inherently will seek licenses that wouldn’t have each done so (with the opposite sex) otherwise, which means more legal administration by government, which means more social control. Therefore, we should not allow gays to get legally married.”

                This is a fallacy because it a.) determines the legitimacy of the access itself by the potential exercise of that access and b.) asserts that we could even know the actual net difference.

                As for the argument itself, removing the ability of government to discriminately apply access to a legal structure that exists means the government has less power over that structure, not more. The status quo is the most statist outcome as not only does government have the legal structure, but it also has the power to grant or deny access to it.

            2. Could two dudes draw up a contract that essentially gave each other spousal benefits? Would the State recognize that contract so the couple would hold assets as community property, rights to medical decisions, etc? Would they have to spell out each specific spousal benefits, or would the contract just be for general spousal benefits? Would private entities be compelled to honor the rights of the dudes as if they were spouses?

              1. Would the State recognize that contract so the couple would hold assets as community property, rights to medical decisions, etc? Would they have to spell out each specific spousal benefits, or would the contract just be for general spousal benefits? Would private entities be compelled to honor the rights of the dudes as if they were spouses?

                It depends on how anarcho you want to get. Anarcho-capitalist position would be the contract would only be enforceable between parties that consent to it: the two adults, the court that draws it up, and whatever number of private entities that accept it.

                But in our present situation, I would argue that the 14th amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause would, at the very least, mandate that all states recognize civil unions and the right of gay couples to community property and all that jazz. Of course each state may have different laws regarding what is community property and such, but there is a basic common law standard that all states should have to honor.

            3. The state is just not ever going to stop sanctioning marriage. Never. And so long as they’re doing it, they shouldn’t get to arbitrarily discriminate on who gets to participate.

            4. If the program giving out the pony was in no credible way up for debate for canceling, and I knew that there was basically zero chance in hell of getting it canceled, I would immediately say that it was not equal protection under the law to withhold ponies from homos.

              That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hate the program. It means that you have to work within a reasonable framework, and not appeal to the Perfect Solution. And you can still make whatever efforts, however futile, to end the program.

              Every fucking time this gets pointed out, it’s so damn clear that it stuns–and frankly, bothers me–when people continue to make your argument.

              State marriage recognition isn’t going away. Stop using such a stupid fucking argument.

              1. Gays being denied fair representation from the state will accelerate both the use of private arbitration and the delegitimization of the public courts. For their own good, the statist should recognize the rights of gays as defined under their parameters as we anarcho-capitalist will gladly use their attempts to keep the status of gays in legal limbo to our advantage.

        2. Yeah, the perfect solution fallacy. That’s where I exist. I can point out that, right now, same-sex couples can marry. However, the state does not recognize it, and therefore benefits are missed out on. (As a single person, awesome as I am, I don’t get them either. So I feel your pain.)

          I don’t argue against recognition of same-sex marriage, per se. In reality, I view it as a societal positive. But in the abstract world where we sometimes live here on the internet wide web, I consider it unlibertarian. It is expanding an entitlement group that I think instead should be done away with. But, that notion doesn’t play well, even here in Libertarianland, for some reason. It’s even met with a hostility usually reserved for statists.

          I don’t know the specific arguments for marriage licenses other than that’s the way it’s always been. I don’t think that without licensing people will stop coupling up or any less will be creating stable family units than they currently are.

          Anyway, it’s not an option currently under debate. So mazel tov, same-sexers.

          1. That’s my position: expanding the entitlement pool means that the entitlement pool will never go away. Therefore we should fight for the opposite end: the elimination of marriage licenses and go back to basic contracts between consenting adults.

            So what if it isn’t currently up for debate? You can’t start a debate if you concede to an alternative view.

            1. If the discussion is “should I vote yes or no on Proposition X declaring marriage between only a man and a woman”, or “should I vote yes or no on Proposition Y declaring gays have the right to legal marriage”, your perfect solution (which I also agree with and would support if it were an option) is not really an answer to the debate over whether gay marriage should be legal or not under the assumption that marriage will still have a legal status one way or another whether the proposition passes or not.

              If the premise (“marriage is a currently recognized legal status”) is true, “I’d prefer the premise were not true” may be a perfectly valid statement, but it isn’t an answer to the question within the scope of the premise.

              It’s the same fallacy many libertarians fail on with weed. If the ballot initiative under debate is “Legalize weed and tax and regulate it like alcohol, yes or no”, saying “they shouldn’t tax and regulate it” doesn’t answer the choice between “legal, but regulated and taxed” and “illegal” under the premise that you have only two options.

              Note, that “lesser of two evils” is also a fallacy, but in this case there are only two actual choices under the premise. “I am about to kill you. Your two choices are poison or being hacked to death with a dull, rusty axe.” “I wish you wouldn’t kill me” doesn’t address the question and allows the other person to make the choice for you.

          2. OK, so I missed the “Perfect Solution Fallacy.” However, I don’t necessarily think it’s a “perfect solution.” A Perfect Solution would have to exist in a perfect world, which we don’t have. Therefore, the antiutilitarian stance should suffice: do the least harm, and favor the fewest number possible above others. Therefore, eliminate the entitlement of groups unfairly elevated over others.

            Just thinking out loud here. I have nothing against gay marriage that I don’t have against “normal” marriage.

          3. The invocation of the perfect solution fallacy is fallacious in itself; it is no more than a thinly-disguised false choice — just another way of saying that if you are not for us, you are against us.

            A person doesn’t have to support either of the mainstream positions.

            1. See my comment here where I address the potential Lesser of Two Evils fallacy.

              1. I’m trying to extract some meaning from that, in the context of my argument, and not coming up with much.

                If the city passes an ordinance saying that all houses will be painted either bright magenta or bright cyan, I see it as being a perfectly reasonable reaction for one to refuse to express a preference, on the grounds that to do so would be to demean oneself.

                Let’s go full absurdist/Godwin on the question. Hitler says the Jews are to be expropriated, with the proceeds being distributed amongst the male Aryan population. Should you vote yes or no on the question: are Aryan women entitled to receive an equal share?

                My position is that I am not voting on that. I am aware that it’s going to happen one way or the other, but I am not taking part.

      5. I have never once heard a single non-fallacious argument from gay marriage opponents.

        I’m pretty sure you have, since I’ve been here for a while.

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Oh Professor Pomeranian, your delusions about the strength and logic of your moronic contrarian arguments are one of the most entertaining things about you.

          1. Yeah, my arguments are no match for the buzzword-laden insults you spew in response.

            “Contrarian” is a little more upscale than “projection”, so at least your taste in empty buzzwords is improving.

        2. List one. I would seriously, honestly be interested to hear it.

      6. You’re a regular entomological Cyrano de Bergerac.

        No homo.

        1. :::sigh::: fugging spell check…

          entomological = epistemological.

          1. BTW, you misspelled “fucking”….

      7. You forgot “No True Marriage…” Other than that, I’m pretty sure you hit every known logical fallacy and it looks as though they’re all in the anti-gay marriage playbook.

    2. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

      Leviticus 18:22

      So “lying” with mankind is an abomination. Fair enough. What about blowjob? Nobody has to lie down to get their dick sucked.

      1. Those are presumably forbidden regardless of the combination. Somewhere.

        1. Yes. You can only use your penis for urination and procreation. The question is invalid. (But, if you’re already supine, it’s one less thing you have to do before going to sleep afterwards.)

          1. You can only use your penis for urination and procreation.

            And Solomon had all of those wives and concubines for the good of the country and to produce lots of heirs, not because he was a horny little monkey.

        2. For quite awhile it fell under sodomy laws (my own historical framework is the Middle Ages and Renaissance, so I am not sure when that stopped being the case). As did anal sex, intercrural sex, and withdrawal. Basically anything that was non-reproductive.

          1. The UCMJ wasn’t explicit about it – just “unnatural carnal contact” between two people or with an animal.

    3. You realize that your list attempts to show, not that every gay marriage opposing argument is a fallacy, but that every fallacy corresponds to a gay marriage argument.

      Which, of course, you could easily do for any political position. Making an argument that matches a fallacy is easy.

      You need to list every gay marriage opposing argument and match it to a fallacy to prove your actual claim.

      1. Shifting the burden of proof. I think I covered quite a bit of ground in both directions, although admittedly I should have worded my initial sentence better to limit it to what I have personally heard. It would be impossible to prove every argument because I haven’t heard nor should be forced to defend every possible argument (for instance, “Gays shouldn’t get married because violets are blue”, “Gays shouldn’t get married because 2+2 doesn’t equal 24” both of which are fallacious arguments but could possibly be made.)

        You have to provide only one example to defeat my initial, very falsifiably worded argument that all possible arguments against legal gay marriage under the premise marriage remains a legal status are fallacies. I’ll be the first to admit Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

    4. What’s an argument for homosexual marriage that is not a fallacy?

      i.e False Equivalency: Equal protection demands legal same-sex marriage!

      1. – The 14th Amendment promises equal protection under the law to all Americans. FACT

        – Loving v. Virginia found that there is no legitimate legal basis for states to refuse to grant interracial couples marriage licenses under the 14th Amendment. FACT

        – Reed v. Reed and many cases afterwards applied the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections clause to sex and gender by definition. FACT

        – For the purposes of the equal protections clause, both race and gender have been defined by the legal system as classes worthy of full privileges or immunities. FACT

        – Therefore, we argue that Supreme Court rulings have already logically illegitimized discrimination against legal intragender marriage as a violation of the Equal Protections Clause, but this fact not been formally construed by either the Supreme Court or the law. Any ruling by the Supreme Court that doesn’t construe this is logically incoherent with their own precedents and their existing definitions of the equal protection clause.

        The closest to a fallacy you can draw for the above argument is “argument from authority”, but as the Constitution is the legal premise for the country’s laws, and the Supreme Court are the interpreters within that premise, it technically avoids the fallacy. Denying this premise asserts the Constitution has no authority and guarantees no rights, and that the Supreme Court has no legitimate role.

        1. Your premise relies on the idea that differences in gender are as materially insignificant as those of race. You would set androgyny as a legal principle, which is biologically false. Also, there are plenty of instances where distinctions made on gender differences that pass legal muster.

          “Any ruling by the Supreme Court that doesn’t construe this is logically incoherent with their own precedents and their existing definitions of the equal protection clause.”

          And SCOTUS precedent also says that government can order you to not grow corn for your own consumption because it counts as interstate commerce. Denying that premise does not deny the Constitution has authority but recognizes that the court abandoned sanity in interpreting it.

          It’s easy to ascribe an opponent’s arguments as fallacies when you assume your conclusions as a premise. Most people would find the legal androgyny that you assume the Constitution requires to be nonsense on stilts, and you have not presented an argument as to why you think it is not.

          1. So you’re essentially making this argument ?

            The thing is, we’re both sort of right, because the Supreme Court is notoriously inconsistent in its application of equal protections. It has not struck down selective service registration for men only, and upheld different legal protections for maternity leave vs. paternity leave, for instance. Yet, Reed v. Reed said that courts couldn’t prefer men over women regarding administration of estates – and many, many rulings since have upheld that gender is an equally protected status.

            So yeah, I’ll grant that the Court’s incoherence about gender-based legal equality potentially invalidates my argument that Loving has to be construed regardless of gender.

            Even so, plenty of non-fallacious arguments for gay marriage rights can be construed from the very explicit wording of the 14th Amendment regardless of S.C. interpretation or misinterpretation.

            Occam’s razor implies that we must follow the most logical definition of the words involved, and by those definitions, the idea that fundamental biological differences forfeit equal protections becomes harder to defend without fallacious reasoning and appealing to definition.

            1. fallacious reasoning and appealing to definition.

              “Appealing to definition” is not a fallacy. That is just bad argumentation, Proprietist. Before you attempt to debunk science here, I have a few questions for you:

              1) Do you accept the scientific, testable, falsifiable, and provable definitions of:

              XX == Female. Given.

              XY == Male. Given.

              XXY, XXXY, and XYY == all genetic aneuploidies and testable, falsifiable, and provable. The first two are generally genetic mules, sterile and unable to reproduce, and often are spontaneously aborted and surgically aborted.

              YY == Scientifically and genetically impossible. Such a combo, even if possible, would miscarry.

              Is Oprah’s “Pregnant Man”, who has a uterus and XX chromosomes a man?

              Ms. Tacklakova, the Miss Canada: XY chromosomes. XY + XY == homosexual marriage. Can she marry another man? If XY, but claims “female” + XX, is she gay?

              If we are to reject Mendelian genetics, as they are understood, proved and disproved, then we need to throw out: Ancestry lineage, Paternity tests, DNA exonerations of crimes, and Mendelian genetics as we know it, which would affect both the taxonomy and classification of genetic diseases.

              Definitions matter in science, Proprietist, and to gay people too. Otherwise, why have LGBT designations under the banner of “The Gay Rights Movement”? Not all of these designations are strictly speaking, gay, and I must repeat, there is no genetic evidence of homosexuality.

        2. “Therefore, we argue that Supreme Court rulings have already logically illegitimized discrimination against legal intragender marriage as a violation of the Equal Protections Clause, but this fact not been formally construed by either the Supreme Court or the law. Any ruling by the Supreme Court that doesn’t construe this is logically incoherent with their own precedents and their existing definitions of the equal protection clause.”

          Sorry, Undistributed Middle applies.

          1. Agree: “Supreme Court rulings illegitimized (some) race-based legal discriminations. Supreme Court rulings illegitimized (some) sex/gender-based legal discriminations. Therefore the Supreme Court holds race and gender fundamentally equal and all rulings based on these features are thus interchangeable for legal protections.”

            Withdrawn (with clarifications above). That’s just how I wish they would apply the 14th Amendment, as the wording is pretty damn explicit.

      2. “i.e False Equivalency: Equal protection demands legal same-sex marriage!”

        What’s false?

        1. That homosexual pairings are functionally equivalent to heterosexual pairings.

          1. Begging the question: “Marriage requires a heterosexual pairing. A homosexual pairing is not heterosexual. Therefore homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

            Red Herring: “Same sex legal marriage is not covered by equal protections, because homosexuals are different from heterosexuals.”

            And the original wording “Equal protection demands legal same-sex marriage” is a straw man, as equal protection applies to gay marriage, but does not demand it must occur. (Perhaps it’s just inelegantly worded?)

            1. Your side is asserting that homosexual couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples without making an argument as to how. You are claiming your conclusion as a premise.

              “…but does not demand it must occur.”

              My understanding is that you believe that equal protection requires that homosexual marriage be accepted as legal, therefore I do not see how “demand” is an inappropriate phrasing.

              “Begging the question: “Marriage requires a heterosexual pairing. A homosexual pairing is not heterosexual. Therefore homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

              Nice straw man. No, I am stating that equal protection does not apply to homosexual pairings, so therefore equal protection cannot be used to trump existing law that does not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages.

              1. Your side is asserting that homosexual couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples without making an argument as to how. You are claiming your conclusion as a premise.

                And your side keeps pointing out the obvious doo-dad differential b/w hetero- and homosexual relationships as if whose junk you like to touch is somehow the only criteria you need to – what… LOVE? WTF is wrong with you?!?!?!?!

                What you seem to be implying is that you’re perfectly satisfied with the Man-Woman power arrangement as it is. IOW: you’re not really against gay marriage but, rather, you’re strongly in favor of keeping power relationships the way they are.

                If you’re married, I hope that your wife (asuming you’re a man, Mickey) reads this and is as disgusted as I am to realize that she’s nothing more than a genitalia-pleasuring machine for use at your discretion.

                I think it’s time for your side to recognize that, when you’re 87 year old, and the Love of Your Life for say, 50 years, is dying, that no couple – gay or straight – is in the ICU saying “God, if I could only touch your junk one more time…” Again, I sure hope that your wife doesn’t know that that’s what you’ll be thinking when one of you is on your deathbed.

                That said, it’s time for your side to identify what what rights of yours are being violated. That is what’s being compared here, not whether you and your lover both have an innies or outies or not.

                1. LOVE

                  Qualify and quantify this ambiguous term please. It would require of me a level of supernatural discernment as a physician treating someone who is married to one person, but has a DPOA/DNR designating another person the medical decision making authority, AKA a “Marriage of Convenience” (these do happen and have dealt with one end of life medical situation where this happened). Where this became sticky, so’s to speak, is where the legal spouse wanted spousal privilege to override the DPOA/DNR authority of the designate.

                  DPOA/DNR, as the last legal, documented wish of my patient, and to whom I have the most responsibility, is for whom I am going to advocate and two other physicians and a judge agreed with me, denying the legal spouse medical decision making authority. In this case, spouse was an XY, and medical designate was XX. Medical designate won the Kewpie doll.

                  DPOA/DNR can, depending on the state law, be overridden by the attending physician and are challenged by family (or the state in some cases) regardless of stated sexual preference of the patient.

              2. But WHY doesn’t equal protection apply?

                Also, homosexual couples can be very equivalent to heterosexual couples. Or do you think there’s no such thing as a relationship where the woman is physically stronger than the man? (Not that that is the only way in which the relationships could be equivalent.)

      3. How about this idea:
        Heterosexuals get to have “marriage”.
        Homosexuals get to have “garriage”.

        Each is completely identical in the eyes of the law but called something different. Thus the religious and historical cannot claim anything about ‘marriage’ is being destroyed.

        There is an analogy in medicine. MDs and DOs are considered equivalent licenses in terms of the law, with identical privileges, but typically had somewhat different schooling and overall approach — and a different degree name, but both are considered doctors.

        “Civil Union” sounds like it came from the gas and electric company. Let’s get people Garried.

        1. I can support this idea and it is certainly both valid and sound when deductive logic is applied, thus not failing “Argument from Definition,” since this approach does not rely on the traditionally (and state constitutionally defined in many states) accepted definition of “marriage” b’twixt a man and a woman.

          Props for the medical analogy, Anacreon. DO’s get a bit of hazing from MD’s for being, “Back crackers with a license to RX.” (Never mind I completed an MD residency.)

        2. I can imagine someone howling about the difference, but they’d have to be totally bereft of a sense of humor.
          Why does Gloria Allred come to mind?

        3. See also: “Political Correctness” fallacy.

          1. Bzzzt. Not that one. See: “Argument from definition.”

            1. Technically, that’s correct – assuming he’s proposing changing the word “marriage” to “garriage” not out of personal attachment to the word “marriage” but out of the need to extract a compromise from the people who do argue from the PC Fallacy.

              1. Technically, that’s correct – assuming he’s proposing changing the word “marriage” to “garriage” not out of personal attachment to the word “marriage” but out of the need to extract a compromise from the people who do argue from the PC Fallacy.

                Remember a while back arguing over the definition of sex v. gender, Proprietist? Ms. Canada. This applies here. Since Ms. Tackalova is considered “female” (I still dispute this on medical grounds) can she get married and have it legally recognized?

                Moreover, the definition is precisely the point: If gay marriage proponents are not interested in redefining marriage, and only want legal legitimacy in all areas like a heterosexual marriage, does the term really matter here? I agree with the Gov. of WA when she said, “Will you civil union me?” that it seems distasteful. But “Garriage” seems a bit more appropo, if the only stumbling block is taxonomy. I don’t see how Brown v. Board of Topeka applies here either, since the new definition would ensure matrimonial equality.

                To put it another way: XX + XY == heterosexual marriage. XX + XX or XY + XY == Homosexual marriage.

                The two are not congruent, and would, by deductive necessity, require a new definition to be crafted out of whole cloth.

                Unless the whole idea is to purposefully redefine the term as a means of swinging a very dull ideological axe. If that is the case, then they lose me.

                1. Don’t forget, I admitted upfront many (most?) pro-gay marriage arguments are based on rampant fallacies as well. Hell, I’ll be the first to admit if my arguments are fallacious, although I’m trying to teach myself not to be fallacious at all.

                  ME: “Gays won’t have the same rights until their legally equivalent union is called by the term “marriage”.

                  YOU (I think): “As the word marriage itself holds a specific (special?) meaning, there must be a verbal distinction between legal institutions for straights and gays since gays and straights aren’t the same.”

                  They’re both converse arguments from definition. Though this isn’t my primary argument, the legal context we have to draw a case for gay marriage comes from both straight marriage and equal protections. How can I assume the equivalent right of gays to garry, because straights have the right to marry?

                  1. YOU (I think): “As the word marriage itself holds a specific (special?) meaning, there must be a verbal distinction between legal institutions for straights and gays since gays and straights aren’t the same.”

                    Me: [Argument from Mathematics (Biology specifically)]

                    XX == Female

                    XY == Male.

                    Even on a genetic test, Ms. Tacklakova is going to be XY, though superficially she is not.

                    Assuming this is correct, and science, Mendelian genetics specifically, says it is by proxy of testable, falsifiable and repeatable tests, then these definitions apply. This, Proprietist is precisely why I made this argument back then, as I knew it would come up again, just not a beauty pageant.

                    Gays already have the same rights, but require the proper definition, in this case, XX + XX or XY + XY in order to be a valid, sound argument. By naming it “Garriage”, then the terms become congruent, therefore logically true.

                    You fail by “Assuming the Conclusion” that gays must have to have the word marriage to be legitimate. This is demonstrably not true.

    5. I have a legit argument against gay marriage:

      “The state has no right or authority in sanctifying marriage of any kind.”

      Of course, this would destroy state-sanctioned marriages of all kinds, but that should be considered a good thing.

      1. As Epi cogently points out, sloop, that one is not going to happen.

        Proprietist has made a very well thought out and compelling case, and much introspection is now required on a subject that I previously didn’t want to give much thought.

        It would be intellectually dishonest not to consider his post as, quite frankly and inductively speaking, it has made a very compelling case for “gay marriage”.

        Ponder, I shall.

        1. Yay! After all these years, I sort of accomplished something on the Internet!

        2. I’m awaiting Tulpa’s contra-argument to start pondering.

          1. I mean my point is pretty falsifiable. I think they have one potentially non-fallacious argument they could possibly make, but it is pretty damn hard to argue:

            “Gender should never have been a “suspect class” protected by the 14th Amendment, since men and women are more inherently different than two people of the same gender of different races. This notion is legally upheld by selective service registration, which the SC has defended. If two people of different genders do not deserve the same legal privileges or immunities on the basis of gender, then gender is not inherently interchangeable in regards to access to legal institutions. Therefore it is valid for government to treat man-man or woman-woman configurations differently from man-woman, since the legal protection balance for the people in these configurations is not inherently weighted the same.”

            1. The closest I can get from a Constitutionalist/Originalist viewpoint:

              1.) “Gays should not be allowed to get married because the Constitution does not explicitly list marriage as a right or a government responsibility, despite the 9th Amendment saying rights don’t have to be explicitly enumerated to exist.”

              2.) “The Founding Fathers didn’t believe the right to be legally married was implied by the 9th Amendment.”

              3.) “Because the Founding Fathers didn’t believe it was a right, gay marriage is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional actions by government and courts granting straights marriage licenses is irrelevant to the question of whether they have the right to expand access to gays.”

              Constitutionality is a valid argument, but originalism (i.e. “what the Founding Fathers” believed) is inherently an appeal to authority. Without that appeal to authority, the logic is inherently contradictory, as the non-enumeration of an right does not mean expanding that right is unconstitutional if rights don’t have to be enumerated to be constitutionally protected.

              1. This is well and good, but “any rights not guaranteed by the BoR shall be returned to the states.”

                These rights guaranteed in the BoR are negative rights, not positive ones, and therefore, inalienable.

                Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.

                1. Several points of disagreement if not fallacy:

                  1.) The 10th Amendment Argument is based upon the errant premise that the rights returned to states to establish marriages for straights only is not overridden by the requirement by the 14th Amendment to provide the same privileges and immunities to all. Is the sequence of subsequent amendments is not the basis for constitutional interpretation?

                  2.) I’m not clear on the factual basis for the implication that the 9th Amendment couldn’t potentially apply positive rights (although I wish this were true). My primary criticism of the Constitution is its incredible vagueness in defining rights. It should have explicitly asserted more, plus a catch-all enumeration clause.

                  1. 1) Admittedly, I am not entirely sure on that one. The problem here is, by proxy of sexual preference, and gays overwhelmingly argue it is genetic (science has neither confirmed nor R/O this theory). By strict definition, gays and straights are not the same here, which is why racial demographics do not apply here, a la Brown v. Board. The gay argument hinges on being different.

                    2) The minute The Founders would have did that, Proprietist, then the notion of inalienable rights went out the window a LONG time ago and every argument Tony makes about being able to put a gun to my head to make me treat patients is as true as the day is long, and I would hurry even quicker to leave.

                2. If it’s a state by state thing, couldn’t the fed just delete DOMA and say that the states have to recognize marriage performed in another state, but it’s up to the people of each state if they are going allow them to be performed?

                  Cause to me, it is a total violation of equal protection that I could run off to Vegas with a nicely stacked stripper I met online, get married, and the State of Texas would automatically recognize that union. But if you and I decided to run off to Vermont to tie the knot, they wouldn’t recognize our marriage thanks to the constitutional amendment passed in ’05.

                  1. If it’s a state by state thing, couldn’t the fed just delete DOMA and say that the states have to recognize marriage performed in another state, but it’s up to the people of each state if they are going allow them to be performed?

                    No. This is called “Monarchy”, “Autocracy”, and “Despotism”.

                    [I]t is a total violation of equal protection that I could run off to Vegas with a nicely stacked stripper I met online, get married, and the State of Texas would automatically recognize that union. But if you and I decided to run off to Vermont to tie the knot, they wouldn’t recognize our marriage thanks to the constitutional amendment passed in ’05.

                    That is up to the State of Texas to either recognize or not recognize the validity of the marriage. It would also be up to the State of Texas to either grant or refuse to grant an annulment or divorce decree regardless of where to marriage took place, instead of requiring you are your stripperiffic newlywed to divorce in Nevada. The same would apply to a XX + XX garriage or XY + XY garriage, should they choose to recognize them, and as per the state constitution, they don’t. I suggest we stay in VT, but I hate Bernie Sanders. 🙂

                    1. “…where the marriage…”; “…you and your…” Sheesh!

  23. his proposed legislative plan to fleece anybody who wants to leave the country

    And this is the slanted misrepresentation that has, unfortunately, come to be the norm at a once respectable magazine. I would threaten to cancel my sub but it’s free.

    The bill applies to renouncers of citizenship, and you don’t have to renounce your citizenship to leave the country, J.D. But I’m sure you and your buddies will continue to post this “spun” representation of the bill because you, along with Riggs, Steigerwald, Krayewski, and Dalmia, are a bunch of dishonest hacks who are transforming Reason into a purportedly libertarian counterpart to Kos and RedState. The fact that your dishonesty is mostly oriented toward helping positions that I agree with you on doesn’t make it any better.

    1. The bill applies to renouncers of citizenship, and you don’t have to renounce your citizenship to leave the country,

      Oh, for the love of fuck, you really think he was disseminating to obscure this point? It was implied. You need to examine why that went over your head. Get tested.

      1. If you have a more plausible explanation for why a supposedly qualified journalist misstated such an important point, I’m all ears.

        1. Your complaint doesn’t invalidate his argument. If he included a clause noting that, it would be the same damn argument, only stronger. Therefore, implied. How is it you don’t see that?

          1. He didn’t make an argument, he just made a statement that was factually, demonstrably false, in a way that makes the other side of the issue look worse. If that happens once it might just be an honest mistake, but this has been going on a ton recently.

        2. Tulpa the White|5.25.12 @ 7:24PM|#
          “If you have a more plausible explanation for why a supposedly qualified journalist misstated such an important point, I’m all ears.”

          Maybe he figured Mr. Pedantry would show up, so he didn’t bother?

          1. I suppose all the Reason articles chiding the MSM for failing to mention Ron Paul in their delegate totals and cover him in their primary coverage were “pedantry” also?

            He made a misstatement that totally changes the nature of the issue he’s talking about. It ain’t pedantry to point that out.

        3. PEBCAK, Tulpa. Unless you mean to make the argument that even one person could exist, who, having read the snippet above, now literally believes that Schumer intends to prosecute people for the simple act of leaving the country.

          So it’s not a stretch to say that the author isn’t the one who’s being dishonest here. You do get some credit for walking it back from misrepresentation to misstatement, though.

          1. I didn’t walk it back at all. We all agree it’s a misstatement, I was asking if he had an alternative explanation for that fact that doesn’t involve misrepresentation on the part of Mr Tucille.

    2. Hey Tulpa, eat shit and die. If someone decides that they don’t want to remain a subject of the imperium, that’s not a justification for robbing them. It was wrong when the Nazis did it, it’s wrong for Schumer to call for it, and you’re an asshole for trying to defend it.

      -jcr

    3. It’s not exactly a fair comparison to begin with, since most nations let you off the hook for taxes just by leaving. The Empire is uniquely rapacious in that regard.

      1. So, it’s worse…
        Not good news.

    4. Dude, that was obviously what he meant (renouncers of citizenship). A blind monkey could have told you the subtext of “anybody who wants to leave the country”.

      1. If I didn’t already know about the bill in question, I would have thought he meant that anyone traveling out of the country was getting “fleeced”.

  24. In case I haven’t mentioned it recently, Charlie Schumer is a greasy little shyster who would happily wipe his ass with the constitution ten times a day if he thought it would get him any more votes. Fuck anyone who ever voted for that slimy little turd.

    -jcr

  25. This sounds like it might just make a lot of sense.

    http://www.Anon-Guys.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.