Gay Marriage

Why Gay Marriage is Winning

|

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' pledge of $2.5 million to support same-sex marriage in Washington is just another sign of growing support for gay marriage inside the United States.

Earlier this year ReasonTV's Kennedy explained why libertarian-leaning Republicans have been central to the recent success of marriage equality in state houses across the country.

Here is the original text from the February 22, 2012 video:

With Washington state recently legalizing same-sex unions and Maryland about to follow suit, gay marriage hasn't been on this big a roll since Bert and Ernie first shacked up on Sesame Street. When Maryland finalizes its bill, seven states and the District of Columbia will sanction the practice.

But before you bust out the appletinis and Indigo Girls CDs to celebrate, consider that just last year in Maryland—a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics—gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom due to resistance from socially conservative African Americans in the Democratic Party. Indeed, while 71 percent of white Democrats in the Old Line State favor gay marriage, just 41 percent of black Democrats do.

So what's different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.

Inconceivable even a generation ago, gay marriage is well on its way to becoming mainstream as a growing majority of Americans now favor it. The only question is when, not if, folks such as Maryland residents Justin and Phillip Terry-Smith will join heterosexuals in the joys of getting married—and divorced—happily ever after.

About 2.30 minutes. Produced by Joshua Swain. Written by Nick Gillespie and Kennedy, who also hosts.

NEXT: No Longer Skeptical: Global Warming Real and Man-Made Says Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Director

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. Justin and Philip Terry-Smith get what they deserve for living in Maryland in the first place. IT’S A CHOICE.

    1. I concur.

    2. To paraphrase the Rock, “IT DOESN’T MATTER if it’s a choice!”

      And it also doesn’t matter why marriage was instituted in the first place. Times have changed, technology has advanced, the old factors that justified marriage and monogamy early on (inheritance rights, disease, paternity matters, etc.) can now be resolved without the need for a marriage license.

      If two consenting adults – no matter the gender of those involved – want to pledge their fidelity to each other, live under the same roof and raise a family, they should be entitled equally to the benefits of marriage.

  2. Until gay polyandry is accepted and honored by all right-thinking people, this country will be a hell-hole of civil rights abuse.

    1. dont the mormons like group marrage?

      1. Obama’s half brother is a Mormon?

      2. dont the mormons like group marrage?

        Not for over a century now. Do try to keep up. And learn to spell. And to think.

        1. Not out of any principled repudiation or anything, though.

          1. If I ever neEd a lawyer and the ONLY choice is between you and MNG. I’m going with MNG.
            His terminal degree maybe in “academic administration” but at least he can lie and argue in bad faith, COMPETENTLY.

  3. Government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage beyond allowing consenting adults to file domestic partnerships for legal purposes.

    1. Government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage beyond allowing consenting adults to file domestic partnerships for legal purposes.

      Why even that?

    2. True. Gov’t perks for married homosexuals is a completely trivial, anti-libertarian issue, but many people go along with the fad as a form of ideological signalling.

      1. Not really. Government discrimination in favor of one group over another is a bad thing.

        “Fixing” it by the government handing out more goodies is kind of retarded, instead of ending all the handouts, but that’s the reality.

      2. Good to see ya commenting again, Flemur.

        (assuming it is the old Flemur)

  4. Gay Marriage is winning, as long as you ignore DOMA and that California has stopped recognizing new gay marriages.

    One more non-conservative state might change their laws, Maine, but that’s about it for the time being, while Washington and Maryland are having referendums to roll back their laws.

    1. Interesting legal fact: It doesn’t matter if California has a law requiring that government employees not recognize gay marriages. They have to anyway.

      Why? Because the U.S. Constitution requires, as a condition of membership in the United States, that all states recognize eachother’s legal acts. One state cannot refuse to recognize a will simply because it was written and witnessed in another state. One state cannot refuse to recognize the driver’s licenses issued by neighboring states. And the same applies to marriage licenses.

      If any of the 50 states has gay marriage, then even the states that do not must recognize those marriages as valid. Any law (like the one in California) that forbids state employees from doing so is unconstitutional.

      1. Interesting.

        A friend whose drivers license was suspended claims to have gone to Puerto Rico to get a license (using a local acquaintance’s address), which then allowed him to drive anywhere in the US. The loophole exists because PR DMV apparently doesn’t check with the US states to see if or why the individual has lost his or her license.

        1. At least here in Massachusetts if your license is suspended you can’t drive with an out of state license, but you should be able to drive in the rest of the country.

      2. If any of the 50 states has gay marriage, then even the states that do not must recognize those marriages as valid.

        No they do not. That’s what DOMA is all about. Congress can restrict full faith and credit amongst the states, and they did that via DOMA.

        1. That’s a questionable application of FF+C.

          Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

          I don’t know that a law targeting a specific subset of one type of “act, record, or proceeding” is sufficiently “general” to qualify. As an opponent of one state being able to force SSM on every other state I wish it were, but I’m not convinced.

          1. Congress may generally state that in all 50 states in general, again, there is no obligation to recognize other states’ marriage licenses.

            1. That would require a constitutional amendment.

      3. On a related note, I don’t get how drivers’ licenses have to be recognized but CCW permits don’t. I get that CCW involves a potentially dangerous to public safety and thus it makes sense for states to have more control over who gets one, but that’s true of driving as well.

        If Arkansas passes a law saying they’ll give a drivers license to anyone who sends a check for $200 to the DMV, with no test or record check, why does every other state have to recognize that but not a laxly-given CCW permit.

        1. Because different states have different requirements to qualify for a CCW. In some states, it’s REALLY HARD to get one, and in others, almost anyone can.

          States don’t like recognizing permits issued by other states to people who would not qualify for such a permit under local law. And many states have laws that allow them to not recognize such permits unless it is reciprocal.

  5. Gay Marriage is winning, as long as you ignore DOMA and that California has stopped recognizing new gay marriages.

    One more non-conservative state might change their laws, Maine, but that’s about it for the time being, while Washington and Maryland are having referendums to roll back their laws.

  6. The government has no business defining what a marriage is. The government’s job is to recognize that one has occurred, and apply the standard benefits thereof (joint tax filings, visitation rights, etc).

    If the government can’t walk into a church and forbid a man and a woman to get married there, then they cannot do the same in a different church where a man and a man want to get married, or a man and two women (or a woman and two men) want to get married. If one of those situations is legal, then they all are.

    1. I guess then I can just marry my house. Or my dog. Or more than one person…and continue to get tax deductions and required health insurance coverage for my dog or my multiple wives.

      1. I guess then I can just marry my house.

        How exactly are you planning to consummate that marriage? Actually, no, nevermind! I don’t want to know. I don’t even know why I thought to ask.

      2. Last time I checked, neither your dog nor your house is capable of providing informed consent, which is one of the standards necessary for creating a contract, such as a marriage, between two individuals.

        But if you want to continue to spew reductio ad absurdum falacies like a fucking moron, keep on truckin’. It’s not for me to keep you from looking like an idiot.

        1. Thank you GS. I fucking hate the, “I can marry my dog, or a seven year old” argument. Informed consent. A basic law class should be part of every high school curriculum.

          1. Still doesn’t change the “I can get free shit for all of my wives” argument. Anyone claiming they would be at all interested in having a state-sanctioned marriage in the absence of the goodie basket of benefits they get in exchange for it is completely disingenuous, and that includes any so-called “libertarian” who supports perpetuating an utterly moronic system that grants permission to seek rent based upon the type and number of person one prefers to have sex with.

            1. There are two different considerations here, PM: If the government should be able to discriminate against consenting adults because of some arbitrary reason (which we argue they should not be able to do), and whether or not married couples continue to get subsidized (which we argue they shouldn’t).

              You’re conflating the two, which is not helpful. Getting the government to stop subsidizing married couples is not going to be easy for a myriad of reasons, starting with the fact that too many people have vested interests in continuing that status quo. In the meantime, I think it’s perfectly valid to work towards the separate issue of discrimination, especially since there are other issues not related to free shit involved in that discrimination.

              1. No, conflating the two is unavoidable, because you can’t make a shitty institution less shitty by expanding it. If you think people have vested interests in maintaining the status quo now, giving more people a vested interest is a good way to end up with a lot more of the same instead of any meaningful progress toward actual equality. It’s important to remember that homosexual couples are only one constituency against whom the legal institution of marriage currently discriminates. It’s just the most vocal one.

          2. To GS and EDG:

            This is what Gindjurra wrote:

            The government has no business defining what a marriage is.

            I don’t see anything about informed consent in there, do you? Saying that informed consent is implicit means that on some level, yes, government does have “some business” defining what marriage is.

            Also, PM got the other point already.

            1. Maybe if you wanted to make that point, you should have actually made that point, instead of doing a pretty good imitation of the absolutely retarded objections that homophobes generally come up with do argue against legalizing gay marriage.

        2. what about necrophilia someone could sigh before they die

    2. The government can forbid a marriage by not issuing a license.

  7. pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York’s gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal

    I see what you did there.

  8. That mannequin is wearing NO pants!

  9. Government has no business recognizing any type of religious union, which marriage traditionally has been. If they want to recognize unions of any nature, they should recognize them without prejudice and without benefit or penalty.

    1. What does that even mean? The government recognizes unions all of the time. It is called contract law. Want to get rid of that too?

      1. My point was that government has no right to determine who or how many people enter a voluntary contract. Arbitrarily determining who can enter these contracts is just wrong.

        If you read my post, it clearly states that contract law should be neither arbitrary or prejudiced in who can enter into a contract, and that should apply to survivorship, custody and familial status.

        So no, I do not want to get rid of contract law. I just want it to be administered equitably, which it certainly is not.

        1. It is now. Gay people can contractually bind themselves to anything they want. They can adopt kids, have parental rights, own property together, hold themselves out as married, give each other healthcare and various other powers of attorney. Where is this “discrimination” you speak of?

          1. Where is this “discrimination” you speak of?

            In immigration law. A person cannot sponsor someone of the same sex for a fiancee or marriage visa.

            1. That is a legitimate point. But you could fix that by letting people sponsor close friends or people they were willing to cohabitate with and help get established in the country.

              Immigration law is the one legitimate area of discrimination or where marriage actually gets you something. Mostly marriage is a sham. It just means higher taxes and having to get the state’s permission to break up.

              1. That is a legitimate point. But you could fix that by letting people sponsor close friends or people they were willing to cohabitate with and help get established in the country.

                Or by, you know, recognizing unions the same regardless of the makeup.

                1. Or by getting rid of the special privileges for fiancees of US citizens.

                  They should get in line with the rest of the prospective immigrants, imho. If your relationship with your Peruvian fiancee is that important, maybe you should move to Peru with her.

          2. Gay people cannot contractually bind themselves as they want. Many states that passed anti gay-marriage laws also passed laws forbidding the state from recognizing any contract, contracts, or other attempted legal arrangement meant to imitate marriage or in any way mirror its benefits.

            So this is just legally incorrect.

            1. Many states that passed anti gay-marriage laws also passed laws forbidding the state from recognizing any contract, contracts, or other attempted legal arrangement meant to imitate marriage or in any way mirror its benefits.

              Bullshit. Give me links. Show me the state that makes it illegal for two people of the same sex to hold themselves out as “married”. Show me where two people can’t buy property together if they are gay. You pulled that completely out of your ass Randian.

              1. It’s in the law, John.

                Gay people cannot, contra what you said, in some states have joint parental rights. Gay people cannot grant themselves hospital visitation rights. Gay people cannot contract around the intestacy statutes, so they have to have a will (something straight married people do not necessarily have to do, as intestacy statutes take care of their needs most of the time). A gay person cannot add his significant other onto his insurance plan in violation of state law.

                It’s right there in black and white in many state constitutions.

                1. Gay people cannot grant themselves hospital visitation rights.

                  Yes they can. It is called a medical power of attorney. That visitation thing is such a load of shit.

                  Gay people cannot contract around the intestacy statutes, so they have to have a will

                  So does everyone else, if you have a dead beat father you don’t want in your will or have children that need a trust for their benefit.

                  A gay person cannot add his significant other onto his insurance plan in violation of state law

                  You can add anyone you want on your insurance policy. that is just a total lie. Your ass must be bleeding from pulling this shit out of it.

                  1. John, I am citing black letter law. I have no idea where you are getting any of this.

                    It’s ironic that you call shrike a “nasty little fuck” and then you say things like:

                    Your ass must be bleeding from pulling this shit out of it.

                    You pulled that completely out of your ass Randian.

                    My God Randian. You really don’t know anything about the law.

                    Try to be nicer.

                    Regardless, you are wrong. Gay people cannot force their insurers to add their spouses onto their health plans. That is a legal advantage straights get that gays do not.

                    The visitation thing is not a canard, first of all. Second of all, creating a medical POA where one is not required for straights is a burden, like it or not.

                    No, not everyone has to have a will. My wife and I are DINKs; the intestacy statutes serve us just fine. Not so for gay couples.

                    1. my father inlaw is the first person on my insurer so that part is wrong sorry

                  2. I don’t get this issue over hospital visitation rights. Where exactly are visitors restricted according to sexual orientation? None of the hospitals I’ve ever worked at have limited visitation to family members. Anybody can visit anybody else unless there is a court order, or the patient requests that they not have visitors, or (rarely) if the patient is on reverse isolation for certain conditions. Where is this an issue? At my hospital we don’t have visiting hours anymore. I had a patient a few weeks ago whose girlfriend spent the night in the bed with her. Where is this an issue?

                    1. It’s not an issue. There was one case where a patient’s family limited visitation and excluded her girlfriend, as I recall. I’ve worked at hospitals in the Bible Belt for years, and never seen or heard of it.

                      It’s made up.

                      There are no bans on who you name as your power of attorney, who you can name in your will, who you can hold property jointly with, etc.

          3. Where is this “discrimination” you speak of?

            Everywhere they interact directly with government. They cannot file taxes jointly. They do not enjoy survivorship benefits the same as hetero-married couples do. They are not given the same rights to not testify in a court of law.

            The above you listed are private contracts entered in the court record. The items I listed are what marriage automatically confers upon couples yet are not afforded automatically unless the two parties are of the opposite sex…and they are not afforded to polygamous couples at all.

            1. They cannot file taxes jointly

              Which is a burden not a benefit. They are better off not doing that. Try again

              They do not enjoy survivorship benefits the same as hetero-married couples do.

              bullshit. They don’t get it automatically. But there is nothign to stop them from writing them into the property deeds. And again, that is a burden not a benefit. If you are married, you have to share with your spouse as the government sees fit. If you are not, you can contract as you like. Gays are more free in that regard than married couples.

              They are not given the same rights to not testify in a court of law.

              Oh so they can’t commit crimes together and then claim immunity. That is certainly worth getting upset about.

              Try again Sloopy.

              1. Which is a burden not a benefit. They are better off not doing that. Try again

                Not correct. If it were, why do so many people file “Married Filing Jointly”?

                They don’t get it automatically. But there is nothign to stop them from writing them into the property deeds.

                yes there is. There is considerable institutional discrimination built in favor of Opposite Sex Spouses when it comes to inheritance.

                Oh so they can’t commit crimes together and then claim immunity. That is certainly worth getting upset about.

                It is a benefit they do not get. You can pish and tosh it all you like, but he is right and you are not. Marginalizing it does not mean you “win”.

                1. If it were, why do so many people file “Married Filing Jointly”?

                  Because married filing separately is even worse. Once you are married you can’t file separately anymore and your spouse income is taxed at your highest rate.

                  yes there is. There is considerable institutional discrimination built in favor of Opposite Sex Spouses when it comes to inheritance.

                  No there isn’t. You can leave your stuff to whomever you want. Only spouses have a forced share. Again, gays are more free than traditional married couples because there is no forced share.

                  My God Randian. You really don’t know anything about the law.

                  1. It is convenient how you move the goalposts in arguments, John. First it was “gays can overcome inequality through contract law”, and then when you were proven wrong on that, you hand-waved and said “well, these inequalities either don’t matter/benefit gays anyway”

              2. They cannot file taxes jointly

                Which is a burden not a benefit. They are better off not doing that. Try again

                And you are the arbiter of whether or not they should be treated equally? (It’s about equality, not burden/benefit)

                They do not enjoy survivorship benefits the same as hetero-married couples do.

                bullshit. They don’t get it automatically. But there is nothign to stop them from writing them into the property deeds. And again, that is a burden not a benefit. If you are married, you have to share with your spouse as the government sees fit. If you are not, you can contract as you like. Gays are more free in that regard than married couples.

                Oh, I didn’t know gays were able to get the survivorship benefits SSI, medicare or madicaid grant. Perhaps you could provide a link and enlighten me.

                They are not given the same rights to not testify in a court of law.

                Oh so they can’t commit crimes together and then claim immunity. That is certainly worth getting upset about.

                If a wife cannot be forced to testify in court against her husband (and vice versa), that right should apply equally to gay couples. Trivialize it all you want, but it is a pillar of our criminal justice system.

                Try again Sloopy.

                Not necessary since your arguments didn’t address the inequality that currently exists. You just shifted your stance and moved the goalposts.

                1. More places where John is wrong: adoption.

                  Single individuals can adopt in Ohio. Despite no explicit prohibition, courts have not allowed same-sex couples to do so. Second-parent adoptions are only available to someone recognized by the state as the spouse of the first parent

                  Therefore, gay couples are effectively blocked from making children “their own”. Only one parent gets legal custody. Heaven forfend that parent die – then the child goes to…grandparents maybe?

            2. That’s not an inherent problem with not calling the arrangment a “marriage”. Civil unions could accomplish all of that.

              Plus the prohibition on forcing spouses to testify against each other is bull. Not every part of common law is a good idea.

              1. Tulpa, had you followed along with the original conversation, you would see that sloopy and I were disputing John’s thesis that because gays have the power of contract, there is no discrimination against them. Whether you agree with the common law privilege or not, it is a version of discrimination that gays cannot contract around.

                Adoption, as I pointed out, is yet-another state law that gays cannot contract around.

                SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid inheritance rights are not able to be contracted around.

                1. sloopy’s original post made it sound like any refusal to allow gay marriage itself was categorically discriminatory.

                  Later on you were talking about the state of the law in some states which does effectively forbid civil unions. So maybe I should have replied to sloopy’s post instead.

                  1. No, Tulpa, it did not sound like that at all.

                    John wrote:

                    Where is this “discrimination” you speak of?

                    And then sloopy wrote:

                    Everywhere they interact directly with government. They cannot file taxes jointly. They do not enjoy survivorship benefits the same as hetero-married couples do. They are not given the same rights to not testify in a court of law.

                    That does not sound like “any refusal to allow gay marriage itself” is categorically discriminatory. That sounds like sloopy providing specific instances in response to John’s false assertion that gays can do anything straights can do through the Magic of Contract.

                    1. By “original post” I meant the first one of this subthread at 1:59pm.

                      That is a common meaning, so please don’t accuse me of arguing over definitions of words.

    2. I keep seeing this meme, “type of religious union, which marriage traditionally has been”, which is not true. Marriage is traditional, all right, but it’s a tradition predating all religions. It’s older than gov’t too.

      That’s the problem people fail to realize when they examine this issue superficially. When religions came along, where necessary they had to take acc’t of marriages. The religious marriage is a relatively recent invention, useful primarily in inducting someone from another religion into the spouse’s.

      Gov’t has had to similarly accommodate existing practices of marriage, partly in deciding when a couple is to be treated as a unit in law, and partly in civil law involving 3rd parties, in determining the question of fact, whether someone is married and if so, to whom. This is not some privilege bestowed by gov’t.

      1. Some form of marriage predates all currently practiced religions, but some form of religion has been around for at least all of recorded history. Along with some form of government.

        1. But marriage is prehistoric, and, from all evidence I know of, pre-human!

      2. This is not some privilege bestowed by gov’t.

        Not philosophically. The part where you go to the government, get a permission slip, and then use that as your all-access pass to seek rent though? That’s a privilege bestowed by government. One that should be terminated for everyone in the name of actual equality.

        1. True. But the same could be said of fishing licenses. The presence or absence of a license has no bearing on the question of whether you’ve caught a fish, or of what kind of fish it is. A municipal dog license doesn’t convert a cat to a dog, for purposes of a dog show, say.

  10. A majority of people support pot legalization. How is that working out?

    1. A majority of people support pot legalization.

      They do? Got anything to back that up?

      1. Yup

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..37685.html

        But few of them are willing to vote on the issue, so it doesn’t matter. I suspect gay marriage is the same.

        1. But few of them are willing to vote on the issue, so it doesn’t matter. I suspect gay marriage is the same.

          I agree.

        2. I don’t vote on that legislation because I don’t think the government has a right to legislate, manage, tax a naturally growing weed. It’s a freaking weed, and you want to beg the government to let you grow it? Once the government gets it’s hand into something it never works out to anyone’s benefit but their own.

  11. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma…..n-control/

    The coming 3D printing revolution and the end of gun control.

    1. Fucking cool.

  12. http://www.ktla.com/news/landi…..2315.story

    Former Miss Nevada drug out of bed naked during wrong door no knock raid. Apparently the difference between apartment “A” and apartment “D” was beyond the baboons conducting the search. And they were in such a hurry to get to the right apartment, they hung around for the show involving the innocent naked women.

    1. And the difference in Apartment “C” and Apartment “D” is beyond the baboon that wrote ^^this post^^.

      /pedant

    2. I’m sure Dunphy can provide us with completely legitimate reasons as to how this mix up occurred and why the police involved won’t be punished.

      1. Do recall this is one side of the story. Just because someone is complaining about cops’ actions doesn’t make everything they say unassailable fact.

    3. Uh…What kind of aggregating amateur journalists are you homos?
      OT subthread is worthless without pictures

    4. Those comments are disgusting. People in LA really love that boot on thier neck.

  13. How about a triumphalist video about how Big Government is Winning?

  14. Scalia: “there is no right to privacy in the Constitution”

    http://videocafe.crooksandliar…..t-contrace

    Scary.

    1. Palin’s Buttplug|7.29.12 @ 3:05PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom
      Scalia: “there is no right to privacy in the Constitution”

      http://videocafe.crooksandliar…..t-contrace

      Scary.

      Blind squirrel meet acorn.

      1. It’s a shame we can’t listen to cell phones, read e-mails, from LEOs and the NSA/FBI/CIA – like they do to us.

  15. Starve the troll, people. It’s the only way. Trolls are like flame; you have to suffocate them to get them to stop burning.

    1. Telling people to stop feeding the troll is a form of nourishment, too. Chicken and the egg.

      1. Then I guess I should know better than to tell people not to reply to you either.

        1. Depends on whether you’re using the “troll” label to starve out unpopular opinions.

          I listen and respond thoughtfully to others’ arguments. I’m not a troll by any definition that wouldn’t include you if you went to Daily Kos.

          1. He said, as he disputed what the word “indication” meant.

            1. Perhaps being an honest, non-troll, you could point to where I disputed the meaning of that word.

              1. Crickets. You know what that means.

                1. People who have more money than they know what to do with have been known to spend it on silly things. So no, it’s not an indicator.

                  1. That’s not questioning what the meaning of the word is.

                  2. So if I say the sky is not green, I’m questioning the meaning of the word “green”?

  16. Scalia: “there is no right to privacy in the Constitution”

    Fuck Scalia.

    Happy now?

    1. I sincerely doubt either you or PB up there can grasp the reason Scalia says things like that. I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t to confirm your own biases.

  17. For the record, I do not believe in a Constitutional “Right to Privacy” whatever that is.

    I do believe the Constitution was intended to defend me from pervasive “democratic” usurpation of my freedom. My right to be left the fuck alone, so to speak.

    Based on this- Fuck Scalia.

    1. The right to privacy was cooked up out of whole cloth because the county’s realized too late that their wholesale gutting of the Constitution had opened the door to Unintended Consequences.

      Enforce it as written, and privacy becomes self-executing.

      1. County’s = courts.

      2. The right to privacy was invented to strike down state laws against contraception and abortion. Not sure how interpreting the US Constitution as written is going to accomplish that, even if one thinks it should be accomplished.

    2. intended to defend me from pervasive federal “democratic” usurpation of my freedom

      ftfy

    3. In my opinion is correct. He’s a tool, but he’s correct. In my mind, 4th 9th amendments indicate a preexisting right to privacy. It’s just not specified in the document.

      Unfortunately, the fed ignores 4th and 9th all the time, so we only have a right to privacy or anything at all really inasmuch as we believe it to be so.

  18. Why Gay Marriage is Winning ?????

    You call this “winning”–

    …In each of the 32 states where voters have been permitted to express their views, “marriage” has been certified as a union between a man and a woman, period, by an overwhelming majority of voters! (and that includes california !!!!)
    …In several of these states, corrupt, activist, leftist judges have trashed and rejected the will of the people on marriage and substituted their own personal sexual preference instead. (The most obscene such case is in california, naturally)
    …The ONLY states that legally support non-traditional marriage are those controlled by the d-cRAT socialists. These states have imposed the leftist marriage ideology by legislative fiat and have prohibited citizens from directly voting on this issue. (A recent example of this is Maryland)
    …In the recent vote in North Carolina that was overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage, blacks (who are mostly registered as d-cRATs) voted 2-1 in support of traditional marriage.

  19. And the Chick-fil-A CEO coming out and delivering a big fuck-you to gay marriage, and sticking to his guns in the face of shameful abuse of power by elected officials, is a sign of… ?

    Oh, wait. Political positions of CEOs are only indicators of trends when they agree with you.

    1. So you dispute it is an indicator, then?

      1. People who have more money than they know what to do with have been known to spend it on silly things. So no, it’s not an indicator.

        Now, there are other indicators that the population is become less hostile to gay marriage, but this isn’t one of them.

        1. More money to the coffers of pro-gay-marriage advocacy is not an indication of rising support of pro-gay-advocacy?

          From the article:

          Bezos joins Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and companies like Starbucks Inc. and Nike Inc. in supporting the campaign to uphold Washington’s law. And while fast-food chain Chick-fil-A set off a furor opposing same-sex unions this month, other companies – including big names like General Mills and Nabisco – are brushing off fears that support for same-sex marriage could hurt their bottom line.

          Sorry you don’t think that’s enough of an “indication”. I think you just like to nitpick.

          1. Questioning the fundamental truth of the first sentence in the post is nitpicking? Without the Bezos donation there is no reason for this post to exist.

            Does BO’s hugantic war chest indicate that the country is in love with him as president?

            Must be a nice job as a Reason writer, where you can make any statement you want and anyone who questions it must be a “nitpicker”.

            1. Does BO’s hugantic war chest indicate that the country is in love with him as president?

              Uh, at least half of it is, yeah Tulpa…whether you like it or not.

              1. He doesn’t have above 50% in any polls I’ve seen, and even then most of those who support him are not in love with him.

                Of course, now I will be assailed for nitpicking my own words, probably.

  20. Bert y Ernie? What about Bert y Harry?

    It’s a generational thing.

  21. Why is gay marriage winning?

    Well, because it wins a majority of the vote in every state where it’s been on the ballot.

    Because black people have become convinced that this is the new civil-rights cause of our era.

    Because opponents of gay marriage have to go behind the voters’ backs and black gay marriage by court decision…

    (whisper whisper)

    Oh, wait, never mind…

  22. Gay marriage is very common in some countries. They already allow same sexes to get married.

  23. The brouhaha about gay marriage makes me question why the state is in the business of sanctifying marriages in the first place.

    Why do two adults need permission from the state to declare themselves as spouses?

    The fact that it has been this way since time immemorial isn’t a reason why it should be.

    From a legal standpoint a marriage is a contract between two people. The only role the state should play is in enforcing that contract, not in deciding which contracts are socially acceptable and which are not.

    1. It all stems from the asymmetry between the sexes. Women have to put themselves out of the workforce (even if it’s just 2 weeks) to have a baby. In exchange, society says- ok, let’s make it so you can have half of this guy’s belongings. That is why marriage is not a “right” so much as a restriction.

      95% of what is stated about the marriage debate does not actually have anything to do with marriage. Marriage has never traditionally been about romance or consent or rights.

      1. Btw, I know that last sentence seems insane…but if you think about it historically, it’s true.

        1. True except for that last bit about rights. If nothing were at stake, the law would never have come into play.

    2. More or less, the state got into the business the same way they did recording deeds for real estate. AFAIK, marriage registr’n started in the UK as a way of adjudicating accusations of bigamy — basically the same fx as for adjudicating land claims.

      The common law (and equivalent in other countries) has been that the question of whether a couple is married is a fact that can be resolved by witnesses. This is why a marriage is supposed to be done in public. You have witnesses to the fact that they got married. Absent that, a marriage could be established by witnesses who observed at some point that a couple held themselves out to the public as married.

      At some point in many jurisdictions, the local gov’t provided its service as official witness. It’s a trivial step from there to registr’n.

      1. Along a similar line, even a very traditionalist country like Vietnam is thinking about taking a practical approach to gay marriage:

        The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting assets and adopting children.

        “I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

        http://seattletimes.com/html/n…..=head_main

  24. But before you bust out the appletinis and http://nikeshoxhomme.blogcindario.com/ Indigo Girls CDs to celebrate, consider that just last year in Maryland – a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics – gay marriage went down f

  25. So what’s different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York’s gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.

  26. What perplexes me is; why does the gay community want to be June and Ward Cleaver, living in a little house with a Wally and a Beaver of their own? If this is “normal” what about the gay people who don’t fit into this category? What are they now?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.