Gay Marriage

The GOP Reserves the Right to Screw With You, Especially When You're Not Hurting Anyone

|

Today the Republican platform committee overwhelmingly rejected an amendment supporting civil unions for gay couples. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (right) presumably spoke for many when he said:

I oppose this amendment. I think the wording is too broad. Especially the last sentence: "As long as there are no infringements on the rights of others, it is not the role of government to judge." Well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard people completely affecting themselves like, for example, the use of controlled substances, like, for example, polygamy that is voluntarily entered into. We condemn those activities even though they're not hurting other people, at least directly.

Mediaite columnist Andrew Kirell comments:

Right there Kobach explained, in a nutshell, the mainstream Republican worldview that has alienated libertarians for many years. It goes something like this: We support "liberty" and "freedom" to do as you please, so long as those activities aren't things we find to be yucky, abominable, or uncomfortable. In those cases, freedom does not exist.

It may offend many to hear a Republican official compare gay marriage to drugs and polygamy, but those activities all do have several things in common: they are victimless and they are voluntary.

And government has no business outlawing them.

The platform committee rejected a plea from a Nevada delegate who argued that "the freedom to marry is in line with our core belief in limited government and individual freedom" and quoted former Vice President Dick Cheney: "Freedom means freedom for everyone." Nor was it moved by Rhode Island's representative, who identified herself as a Roman Catholic and said: "There's nobody in this room who believes [more than I do] that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. But those are my religious beliefs, and this country was founded on the separation of church and state."

The GOP seems to be producing a platform that is more socially conservative than its presidential nominee. Mitt Romney (whose great-grandfather was a polygamist, though almost certainly not a pot-smoking polygamist) has said he supports "domestic partnerships" that would offer gay couples "the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship" as well as the ability to jointly adopt children.

NEXT: Syphilis Cases Shut Down LA Porn Sets

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. When it comes down to it, Republicans are grossed out by gays.

    1. This.

      There’s no real problem with a pre-rational reaction (personally, I’ll admit to being grossed out by the concept of gay sex), but there is a problem when this reaction preempts more rational responses and actions which infringe on rights — or more generally, personal and profession interaction (e.g., denying someone a job or being an asshole to someone on the basis of sexual orientation).

    2. If I had access to omniscience for an hour, one of the things I would intuit is how much overlap there is between self-described Republicans and dudes who are greater than 50% gay.

      I make the typical jokes about Team RED as much as anyone, but I would like to really know if that’s what animates their hatehatehate of teh gheyz.

      After that I would just intuit hot chicks taking showers.

      1. Taking showers? Hugh, we have to talk buddy.

        1. Hugh’s only 11 years old, he needs to grow into it.

        2. What would you pick? Watching them have sex? Most guys are pretty ugly, and the ones that aren’t are douchebags. I don’t want to watch that mashing up against an otherwise splendid female form for 15 minutes before Breaking Bad starts.

          Sex isn’t as glamorous as pr0n videos make it look. And even the majority of those are painfully lame.

          1. I’m sorry, I was wrong. Hugh is 90.

            1. Maybe I’m just inexperienced. We can’t all have the jaw-grinding, rug-burning, capillary-bursting sex that you and Warty enjoy together.

              1. Not at 90, no you can’t. That’s why I stay in such good shape.

          2. Sex isn’t as glamorous as pr0n videos make it look.

            Porn is now glamorous?

            Go on.

    3. And until a few years ago so was the Democrat Party. Seriously. The only reason the Democrats latched onto the “gay agenda” despite overwhelming opposition from their core constituencies was because anti-gay somehow got identified with Republicans so naturally Democrats had to do the opposite. You can’t have the two major parties agreeing on anything other than continuing wars and bailing out cronies.

      1. that’s pretty much it. It’s not as if the Dems suddenly found principle over individual liberty. The Repubs at least have the jesus wing to fall back on, to say they see marriage as one man, one woman. The Dems just hate anyone having fun without the govt knowing about it regardless of what the activity is.

      2. Clinton wanted to address gays in the military just days after he took office in 1992.

        Which is fine. I just thought it was interesting that gays and national health insurance were the first two things he wanted to do and he had never mentioned either during the campaign.

        1. Then he signed DOMA.

      3. I ran for my state’s legislature in the 1990s on a platform that included gay marriage. I was mercilessly ridiculed by both major parties’ candidates, but particularly the Democrat.

        It’s mostly groupthink today.

    4. Santorum is kind of gross. But it’s none of my business.

    5. When it comes down to it, most heterosexual men and a lot of heterosexual women are grossed out by gay men.

      FTFY

  2. The GOP seems to be producing a platform that is more socially conservative than its presidential nominee.

    The DNC platform is more socially liberal on this subject then its presidential nominee.

  3. Yes, I am grossed out by gay men and ugly or really butch lesbian sex, and old heteros having sex too. Come to think of it, I am grossed out by all sex that involves a man other than myself. Sex with ugly or fat women is gross also. What does this have to do with the government providing benefits to individuals due to their personal relationships?

    Why is it that 1 or 2 or 3% of the citizens not being included in “marriage” is a crime against humanity but the 10 or 20 or 30% of the people who are single it is just A OK?

    Why a zillion articles about how screwed gay people are and not a single fucking one about how single people are also treated unequally?

    The Reason staff needs to just go to Vermont and get their gay marriages already. Clearly someone is having a relationship with Steven Chapman. (why else publish his garbage?) I don’t care if they call themselves husband and husband or pitcher and catcher. There are literally millions more single people that are getting fucked than there are gays.

    Liberty for the politically correct and everyone else can eat shit?

    1. Could you incorporate yourself and somehow get some of those gov’t goodies?

      But yeah I don’t think couples and house owners should be taxed differently than singles and renters either.

      1. The Libertarian answer, though not evident on this website except for the comments, is the elimination of marriage benefits altogether.

        1. Way late to the party, but agree 100%. I think all benefits in general should be out. All it does is enslave people to vote for the party that gives out more favors.

          1. Why do you hate Free Shit(TM), gB?

            Boo this man!

        2. You are correct.

          And you know what?

          Opponents of SSM know that too, which is why they say that SSM will ‘destroy’ marriage. Which makes them smarter, in the sense of realizing the foreseeable consequences of actions, than the overwhelming majority of SSM advocates.

      2. I think you just potentially solved the controversy. What if, we simply changed the government status from “married” to “incorporated?” Then Republicans can no longer cry about “changing the definition of marriage” since you are leaving marriage alone and merely creating a new type of corporation.

        BONUS: also gets around all those pesky state constitutional amendments.

        1. Here is an even better idea. Individuals making individual contracts according to their own desires and NO government benefits.

          Aren’t gays supposed to be more wealthy than average? Why in the fuck would we increase government benefits to a more successful segment of society?! If we just give these people some more welfare then we can end it?

          1. Of course that’s ideal. But I’m just thinking of something that would both work and annoy both TEAMS, because neither would be satisfied, even though all their “talking points” would be covered.

            By the way, you are only half-right about their wealth. Gay men are indeed wealthier than average. Lesbians are actually poorer than average.

            1. I have a few lesbian friends and they are indeed poorer then the rest of my peer group. They spend all their DI on softball equipment and league fees.

        2. if we all change status to incorporated, by Dem standards (oxymoron, I know) that makes us all evil and subject to all manner of taxation, doesn’t it?

    2. Come to think of it, I am grossed out by all sex that involves a man other than myself.

      +1

      1. I actually have to amend this. I once made the terrible mistake of filming my wife and I while we had sex. Even sex that includes me is gross.

        1. I think you should post it up here, so we can judge for ourselves.

  4. I fucking love this guy’s argument: You may say that we shouldn’t fuck with people who are’nt doing anything wrong, but we already fuck with people who arn’t doing anything wrong all the time.

  5. B-b-but this is unpossible! Commenters have told me on here for years that it’s only teh gheyz who reject civil unions because they want to redefine the word!

    1. Nah, its been both sides all along who rejected civil unions for all. That would deliver the legal equality that the gay activists want, and wouldn’t take anything of legal substance from the socons.

      But, contrary to their protestations, the gay activists don’t want to settle for legal equality, and the socons aren’t really worried about the legal status of marriage.

      What both really want is the blessing of State Almighty.

      Which is weird, because you’d think the SoCons would think it was the deity’s blessing that mattered, and you’d think the gay activists would say their relationship doesn’t need anybody’s blessing, fuck you very much.

      1. From my experiences, RC, two positions seem to dominate: those that can’t fathom marriage as being ANYTHING but a State license and those that wish to enshrine their belief in the sanctity of marriage through the State.

        As for the civil union status, my understanding was that gays were concerned that it wouldn’t afford the status and protection, across all 57 states, that outright marriage would.

    1. You SF’ed the linky.

    2. Stupid ampersand-eating squirrels. This link should work.

      1. John H. Galt that strip is retarded.

        1. Wait a minute now. You’re not against betterness, are you?

  6. Right-wing LGBTs are coming out of the woodwork and they not going away. The Republican Party has two choices: either welcome them or choose eventual political irrevelance.

    1. That’s something I never really got. The GOP is actively driving people away into the other camp who would otherwise agree with them and try to advance a small gov’t agenda, just because they find them morally unworthy. How the fuck do you expect to have a major political party stay viable in the long-term with that sort of strategy?

      1. They’ve managed to do it for decades, and like anything governmental/bureaucratic, they automatically assume things stay the same forever.

        They’re going to get a rude awakening as the younger generations don’t respond as well to WE HATEZ TEH GAYZ.

        1. Don’t worry Epi, someday, the love you share with Warty will be accepted by both major parties. Then you can finally join a Team.

          1. I don’t know if Warty’s rapeosexuality is capable of love. He doesn’t even return my calls!

            1. He’s probably out right now with that diabetic slut. Their two states do share a border, so they’re probably in eachother’s arms right this very minute.

              1. I’ll kill him!

                I mean NutraSweet, of course. Or…if I get there soon enough, maybe I can join in?

                1. Instead of choking eachother for a sexual rush, Warty just pours a bag of sugar down his throat, and then to save himself he has to “exercise”, if you get my drift*.

                  *exercise here refers to buttsecks

                  1. How fast do you think I can get to the Ohio/Kentucky border?

                    1. Not sure. Though now that I look at it on a map, it does look like Ohio is giving it to Kentucky doggy-style. And their abbreviations are, “OH, KY!”

                    2. ‘”OH, KY!”‘

                      +10 internetz for you

                    3. The Ohio/Kentucky border isn’t a physical place so much as it is a state of mind somewhere between despair and impaired function due to inbreeding.

                    4. Well in that case, JJ is already there. Maybe he can tell me where Warty and NutraSweet are holed up.

                    5. “Maybe he can tell me where Warty and NutraSweet are holed up.”

                      I see what you did there.

                      And if I had my way, they’d be holed up at my hole. I’ll leave which one specifically up to your imagination.

                    6. Also, the next time anyone accuses me of being immature, I’m going to link them to this subthread, to show just how mature I really am.

                    7. Compared to me, even you look mature, JJ.

                    8. You’re not mature, you’re just old. And by old, I mean that you can’t sustain an erection.

                    9. I told you my Viagra prescription is being refilled and will be ready tomorrow!

                    10. I told you my prescription is being refilled and will be ready tomorrow!

                    11. These comments are all very hurtful.

      2. I think the answer is contained in the question Gojira.
        Since when has the Republican party done anything to advance small government?

        1. Touche my friend, you are quite correct.

      3. Don’t forget the brown immigrants the GOP is driving away even though they are probably more religious than those doing the driving. Irrelevance indeed.

      4. Because the Democratic evolution into a pro-gay party is actually relatively recent. This will be the first year that gay marriage is a line item on the platform, isn’t it? Even if it isn’t, recall that it was the last Democratic president who signed DOMA.

        Anyway, there hasn’t been anything for the Republicans to lose until recently because Democratic politicians haven’t been actively pursuing gay marriage as an agenda item. It’s been “wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we’ll get to you NEXT election” type stuff.

        Once Team Red starts shedding voters, I expect them to come around pretty quick. Unless they can find a way to court evangelical blacks away from the Democrats, that is.

    2. The LGBT community is far too small to condemn any party to political irrelevance.

  7. I doubt the extent to which conservatives would accept the Kansan politician’s rationale. Most conservatives I know have a Confucian approach to marriage (as a public/private duty, rather than a right), and argue that a homosexual union doesn’t belong in the set of marriages because it doesn’t correspond to the duties or functions that marriage was established for (childrearing, societal/clan/familial stability, etc).

    It’s still the wrong way to approach the issue (and is non-responsive vis a vis the question of civil unions and contract law), but less offensive IMO.

    1. True, IT, this is a constant argument I hear from conservatives regarding the State’s intervention into marriage. “The State has a vested interest in incentivizing marriage to promote stable families and children”. Thank God the State was invented or else we would die out within a few generations.

  8. Breaking: DailyKos is running a climate change blogathon right now. Lots of stupid stories. http://www.dailykos.com/user/Climate Change SOS/history

    1. working link
      http://is.gd/yAikj6

    2. It’s as hot as it was in 1936. How many SUVs did we have back then?

    3. I saw, “It’s Not Just Berries and Fish,” and thought, “wow, really Taking on Rothbard eh?” Boy was I disappointed when it was actually just about fucking rain.

  9. The GOP noticed that wherever voters had a chance to reject unisex marriage, they did so. Since the GOP wants voters to vote for their candidates, they’re giving this a try.

    1. that is a good point. Even CA said no. The only states that have pushed it through have done so through their legislatures.

      That is where issues should be decided anyway; part of running for office is having to make tough choices that could cost you your seat. Of course, those choices could also guarantee re-election. Farming the decision to voters is wimpy.

    2. Yeah, but that calc sucks because it’s the blacks that tip the scales every time and they sure as hell aren’t voting republican.

      1. Why not?

  10. These so-called victimless crimes aren’t always so. Probabilities have to be acknowledged. PCP and bath salts are far more likely to visit harm not only upon the users, but upon innocents nearby. Essentially, they induce a temporary insanity–obliterating right and wrong. Marijuana is not in this category.

    http://whatdirectdemocracymigh…..-of-drugs/

    Libertarians might also ask themselves if the real issue at stake in the gay marriage debate ought instead be that married couples, straight or gay, receive a special tax status–or any other special privileges, public or private.

    Regardless, children ought to come first. Though it isn’t politically correct to say so, with regard to adoptions, it would be better if homosexual kids went to homosexual parents–were it even possible to determine this–and heterosexual kids to heterosexual parents. Fostering the deepest bonds possible comes before equal rights for adults.

    1. Lolol, come back when you have some actual risk evidence of violence rates of people that take those drugs. They also ignore the existing framework in place for alcohol and how it would relate to other chemicals. If you take a known psychotic agent and then eat someone’s face off you are criminally liable. Or more analogous to dui laws, if you are out in public on above a certain amount of psychotic chemical you are in violation of the law. There is nothing presented illustrating a harm so significant that a blanket prohibition is required.
      Now, the chemicals like bath salts exist mainly because of the prohibition of other substances that are not as dangerous to the public at large. Legalize those and the sensationalised danger which when one considers the quantity and frequency with which these substances are consumed should become incredibly small.

      1. Dude, go check out this dipshit’s website and read some of his incredibly turgid prose. Hilarious.

        1. Why did you make me do that Epi?

          I hate you.

        2. I had to stop at, “that we are not so.

          I hate you too.

    2. ITS FOR THE CHILDRENZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

      *barf*

      1. Ya, I threw up in my mouth a little bit, too.

    3. 9/10. This one has serious potential.

    4. PCP and bath salts are far more likely to visit harm not only upon the users, but upon innocents nearby.

      Far more likely than what? Not alcohol, I’m quite sure.

  11. *listens intently for the cries outrage from the “libertarian” Tea Party organizations*

    1. The TP is held together by a detente on these issues to focus on the fiscal/economic ones.

  12. Well, if you’re going to go by the Bible, polygamy shouldn’t be banned at all.

    1. Polygamy shouldn’t be banned because I want a natural law relationship with twins.

  13. The Koback cunt is a cunt but I’m happy to see young Republicans/conservatives propose and defend this. Gives me hope for the future.

  14. There is only one mature, reasonable and polite response to this post:

    The republican party must be destroyed.

    1. We’ll kill it with our unicorns.

  15. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has a gayly spelled name. Also, I can not confirm whether I have ever seen him proposition a Topeka lot lizard.

  16. “Today the Republican platform committee overwhelmingly rejected an amendment supporting civil unions for gay couples.”

    Presuming that Sullum would find civil unions an acceptable poistion. The courts that overturned California’s Prop 8 rationalized their action on the basis that having civil unions meant that there was no rational reason for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. Could Sullum at least acknowledge that the courts broke civil unions as a compromise position?

    1. Its still a viable position, as long as its civil unions for all. The CA court got all panty-bunched over marriage for straights, civil unions for gays.

  17. archduke, the dailykos link, amazing. My day at work will no longer be wasted with all the jerks at reason, I got me some climate to learn

  18. Too bad. This could have applied to non-married straight couples, too.

    No wonder, then, that the GOP shitcanned it.

  19. I totally agree. “Marriage” should be a religious thing, separate from the government. “Civil unions” should be a government thing, separate from the church.

    Do the candidates get to remove or restyle the individual planks in the party platform? If not, that makes it difficult for the candidate to support the platform or for the party to support the candidate should he not buy in to all the planks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.