Big Wins for Gay Marriage Supporters, NSA Dumps Untruthful 'Fact Sheet' Down the Memory Hole, IRS Official Takes the Fifth: P.M. Links


Get and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: Ethnic Clashes in China Kill 27

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

  1. The National Security Agency removed from the Web a “fact sheet” about surveillance that recent revelations have revealed to be untruthy.

    Replaced it with a redacted middle finger.

    1. Alexander said he agreed that the fact sheet posted on the NSA Web site last week “could have more precisely described” the requirements governing the collection

      It was probably the least unprecise fact sheet posted.

      1. Damn you both!

        1. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone so blatantly steal from two other comments.

        2. Perhaps if you weren’t trying so hard to avoid the NSA you could have posted earlier.

    2. “”Mr Senator, I’d like to refer you to section A-65, subsection b in the law where we explicitly default to the “Pedicabo tu, est Quare” reasoning which we feel has provided more than sufficient justification for our policies…”

        1. Very well, let me whip out some Mary Poppins.

    1. “The family will be required to apply for a Exhibition Class Permit under the agreement.”

      The Genesee County Board of Commissioners announced today that the cost of a Exhibition Class Permit will be immediately raised to $50,000.

  2. The Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal goverment from recognizing same-sex marriages, was found unconstitutional in a much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling.

    Marital affirmative action.

    1. Everyone’s favorite ex-reasonoid writes something.

      1. That’s not Lucy. Or Virginia. Say, what are you trying to pull here?


        2. Is it Balko in drag?

          1. Wiegal as himself. Ratfuckers.

      2. The Progressive’s Bachmann hate if unfucking believable.

  3. The family of a pastor shot to death by a deputy in the parking lot of his own business will receive a $2 million settlement. The sheriff concedes no wrongdoing, of course.

    If he does it two more times he’ll have to take a paid vacation.

    1. They just paid two million dollars out of kindness. If one of your relative dies, the city will often give you two million dollars because they feel sorry for you.

      1. Well, expending taxpayer money in the name of sympathy and compassion is a thing these days.

    2. Yet another case of a murderer who is not charged for his crime because he was wearing a uniform.

  4. Yes, just who signed DOMA into law, anyway? One of those Bushes? Fuck them.

    1. They mind-controlled him into doing it. What, you think I’m kidding? How do you explain the last 7.5 years?

  5. County clerks in that state are expected to start issuing marriage licenses ASAP.

    That’s right, sheep, queue up to get your certificate of societal acceptance! (Said in the most bitterly anti-marriage tone possible.)

    1. “(Said in the most bitterly anti-marriage tone possible.)”

      I’m repeating myself here, but when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like my ex-wife.

  6. Gregory Roseman, who worked as a deputy director of acquisitions at the Internal Revenue Service, invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about $500 million in contracts channeled to a friend.

    Why and for what is the IRS giving out $500 million for contracts?!? Don’t they already have an enormous workforce?

    I know, I know. I should be surprised it isn’t $500 billion.

    1. From an earlier posting: Taxpayers who receive unfair treatment from the Internal Revenue Service should be eligible for $1,000 “apology payments” from the IRS, the agency’s own taxpayer advocate proposed Wednesday.

      (Total number of taxpayers)*$1K extracted from the IRS budget might get their attention.

      1. Hey, they can keep the money, so long as Congress shuts ’em down now.

    2. all consuming Big Data systems hovering in the Cloud do not build themselves for free.

    3. I have an idea. How about 100% refunds for all of us? Individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations. Can you imagine the stimulating effect that would have on the economy?

      1. Surely we can try it for just ONE MEASLY YEAR.

        1. Yeah. One year. Come on, it’s not like the federal government won’t just spend whatever money it doesn’t have, anyway.

      2. I’m getting a boner right now just thinking about it.

        1. And don’t forget the $300K/year they’re costing us–we should get that back, too, along with our refunds. Fuck, I’m moving on up!

    4. Um, if I recall correctly, it was conclusively proven recently that there is no scandal, and that if there were, that it could be laid at the feet of the previous president. END OF STORY.

      1. “So-called” scandals are the best scandals. I’ll bet quite a bit that someone, somewhere said that about Watergate.

  7. Gregory Roseman, who worked as a deputy director of acquisitions at the Internal Revenue Service, invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about $500 million in contracts channeled to a friend.

    Well, he’s not going to go around awarding contracts to his enemies, is he?

  8. So, the IRS is taking the Gangster’s Defense yet again. Seems appropriate.

  9. So John asks in a previous thread if categories of sexual orientation are as fixed as those of race. I can’t answer, but I am curious. I don’t even think this has to be reliant on a discussion of the origin of sexual orientation, only whether at some point in a lifespan one’s orientation becomes as immutable as one’s race.

    1. I predict it’ll be found that categories of sexual orientation are as indeterminate as those of race.

    2. I am curious.

      yes, but are you bi-curious?

      1. “I think somebody’s a little bi-curious!”

        “I ain’t no bi-curious. I’m a man’s man!”

        1. Says the meatball dressed like the biker from the Village People.

        2. Not anymore! I’ve planted the seed of doubt!

          1. You don’t say that! I’m a man, and if you need me, I’m gonna be in the garage hangin’ sheetrock ’round an engine I’m rebuilding.

        3. “F—ing women’s for poofs.”

          (That and what’s her face are about the only things I remember about Layer Cake.)

    3. So John asks in a previous thread if categories of sexual orientation are as fixed as those of race.

      That’s easy…NO.

    4. You’re curious, Tuberville?

      Why, hello there. Giggity giggity.

    5. at some point in a lifespan one’s orientation becomes as immutable as one’s race

      Skin color is mighty awful hard to alter, even for a moment, just ask MJ. Like it or not, sexual orientation involves behavior, and behavior always involves choice to some extent.

      1. Right. What do you call a committed vegetarian who eats sausage from time to time?

        1. “Darling!”

          1. +1, freshly married 3 weeks ago

        2. On the down low?

      2. Okay, but cannot the government discriminate against behavior that stems from some intrinsic or in some way involuntarily aspect of one’s biology or, at the very least, psychology? Especially while the government is at the same time condoning and, indeed, sanctioning the equal behavior of the opposite orientation?

        1. Uh, pedophilia is a psychological disorder.

        2. The government should not be able to discriminate against any behavior that does not harm anyone else.

    6. As an upfront statement, I am fully in support of gay marriage (provided the states get to decide). When the repeal of my state’s constitutional ban comes up, I’ll vote to repeal.

      That said, no, I do not believe sexual categories are as fixed as race. For one, I am a believer in the Kinsey scale, and two, I believe people can legitmately move up or down a number or two throughout their lifetimes. Moreover, common sense says to me that certain formative events can occur during prepubescence and pubescence that can change a person’s sexual preferences.

      1. You know, I really liked the Kinsey biopic. How much evidence is there to support the Kinsey scale?

        1. Frankly, I don’t know. It squares with my experience, research, and my common sense, so I find it useful.

      2. I pretty much agree with you, but I’d add in that race is partly culturally constructed. Other cultures have different lines of of demarcation (In Mexico it’s more about peninsulares and mestizos for example) and groups like the Irish, Italians and East Asians were often represented in starkly racial ways and now are mostly seen as white. You also have the problem of passing: someone who is by heritage black but looks white enough to get away with it and the flip side you have the “one drop rule”.

      3. “That said, no, I do not believe sexual categories are as fixed as race.”

        But what if the person has really great skin and hair? Seriously, blacks have passed as white and some white guy wrote Black Like Me.

    7. That is not what I asked. What I asked was whether categories of sexual orientation were ever intended by the drafters of the BOR or the 14th Amendment to be a protected class. That is a different question. If being a homosexual is genetic, then that is a good argument for the Constitution needing to be amended or for the government to enact laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.

      1. How about the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment gives SCOTUS enough latitude, short of an explicit amendment, to determine whether homosexuals have equal protection under the law?

        1. How about the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment gives SCOTUS enough latitude, short of an explicit amendment, to determine whether homosexuals have equal protection under the law?

          Which is another way of saying that what is or is not acceptable is a function of what our robed overlords think. If homosexuals get it, why not polygamists? Why not people who want to marry minors or members of their own family?

          The only reason they won’t is because the Supreme Court likes gays and doesn’t like them. That is the principle this case stands for.

          1. I actually have a contrarian point-of-view when it comes to polygamy. I just haven’t heard a satisfactory argument for prohibiting it. That said, it kind of slips away from the discussion of same-sex marriage because I don’t think I have ever heard an argument that people are polygamist at birth.

            As for marriage to minors, I would think that preventing violence and contractual enslavement of children are ample reasons for overriding any discriminatory concerns one could possibly have for prohibiting the behavior.

            1. I don’t think I have ever heard an argument that people are polygamist at birth.

              As far as being wired for any particular behavior, serial monogamy was rare among humans until the Roman Empire normalized Greco-Roman practices. Arguably, most people are still not serially monogamous and the purpose of monogamous marriage is to encourage a behavior that would otherwise not be natural.

              1. I actually knew this, but I stand corrected, Mr. Trouser.

                1. I’ve always found it a bit puzzling that both sides have sought to characterize marriage as a liberating institution. Marriage is itself a contractual agreement wherein the participants voluntarily contract away some of their freedoms in an attempt to keep both partners providing for their kids and to keep them from sleeping around.

              2. serial monogamy was rare among humans until the Roman Empire normalized Greco-Roman practices

                Given that many other species are monogamous, this statement requires a plethora of proof. Linky??

                1. There are no monogamous apes.

            2. But your opinion is not the issue. The issue is how do we decide these things. Right now we decide them by a majority of the Supreme Court deciding what they like with no regard to what the Constitution says or was mean to protect. That, not gay marriage, is the problem.

      2. Genetic like religion?


    1. so when will Joker fall?

    2. As is Sharapova. This is looking to be one hell of an upset Wimbledon. I’m sure Andy Murray just got real excited about his chances now of winning (first time for a Brit in 70+ years, and he wants it bad).

      1. He’ll tear an ACL in his next match.

      2. Can you fuckshits not spoil sporting events?

        1. Hey NutraSweet, did you hear that the Ravens won the Superbowl? And the Blackhawks won the Cup?

          1. Some of us have jobs, hippie.

    3. “Fuck it limeys, if I can’t play with orange soles I’m outta here.”

    4. As I wrote elsewhere:

      In one quarter of the men’s draw, we have the following third round
      matches, with one of these eight players eventually being a

      Lukasz Kubot v. Beno?t Paire
      Adrian Mannarino v. Dustin Brown (Q)
      Nicolas Almagro [15] v. Jerzy Janowicz [24]
      J?rgen Melzer v. Sergiy Stakhovsky

      In one of the quarters of the women’s draw, we have the following third
      round matches, with one of these eight players reaching the semifinal:

      Monica Puig v. Eva Birnerov? (Q)
      Sloane Stephens [17] v. Petra Cetkovsk?
      Marion Bartoli [15] v. Camila Giorgi
      Karin Knapp v. Michelle Larcher de Brito

      Who makes it to the semis?

      1. I have no idea. All these people are basically unknowns. This is going to be interesting.

        1. I thought the Rafa loss was big. What the hell is going on in England?

      2. You must mean quarter finals?
        Murray and Djokovic are on opposite sides

    5. I had no idea he was gay.

  11. *cues up ‘‘Also Sprach Zarthustra’*: Anthropologists say they’ve determined when humans learned to throw spears and other tools.

    1. When the monolith outlawed clubs.

    2. Well, as I understand it, it happened in Africa, next to some black monolith, perfectly proportioned to the squares of the first three integers. I saw some documentary about it once.

    3. The ability to throw at very high speeds is unique to humans.

      I’ll bet a mantis shrimp could beat a human.

      1. Please do not read The Oatmeal.

      2. +1 underwater sonic boom.

        1. Sure you’re not thinking of snapping shrimp?

  12. The family of a pastor shot to death by a deputy in the parking lot of his own business will receive a $2 million settlement.

    Apparently the insurers had little faith in Spokane County police’s defense.

  13. Vancouver commuter stats

    Despite government at all levels making driving around this city hell, and pushing for more transit everywhere, tax breaks, etc. etc., still just under 20% of commuters in Vancouver use transit.

    1. just under 20% of commuters in Vancouver use transit.

      What percentage of commuters in Vancouver pay for it?

      1. 100+%.

        Even if you own property but not a car, you pay for it (yes, there is a transit component to property taxes).

  14. The United Nations is oh-so-upset that underground chemists are finding willing customers for designer drugs. The role of prohibition in inspiring such chemical creativity goes unmentioned.

    With nano sized packs of chemicals exploding on que, the effects can become very exacting. Pretty excited about the possibilities the chemistry provides.

  15. The National Security Agency removed from the Web a “fact sheet” about surveillance that recent revelations have revealed to be untruthy.

    I’m sure it was the least untruthful fact sheet they could have made. And it’s been replaced by an animated gif of General Alexander flipping the bird with the caption “FYTW.”

  16. In retrospect, first-quarter GDP growth in the U.S. wasn’t 2.4 percent after all, but only an anemic 1.8 percent. This is all quite … unexpected.

    And that’s with eye-watering levels of government spending. RECOVERY SUMMER!

    1. wait, wasn’t there something else that happened in the first quarter that might have reduced consumer spending?

    2. Spend one hundred billion for every eight billion (roughly) generated. Macroeconomics is good economics.

  17. Escaping the Friendzone: The story of a former right-wing MRA

    If I am to accept libertarian ideology as legitimate, then logic dictates that I believe that women, people of color, etc., make less money than white men for the same jobs because there is something inherently lesser about them. This is, quite obviously, bullshit, and abhorrently so. As I’m not a monstrous human, even my feeble libertarian ego saw that it was bullshit and that was the end of libertarianism for all intents and purposes.…..-560680036

    1. My God, the man’s talking about logic. We’re talking about a universally misquoted statistic…

      1. You are all missing out by not reading the whole TERRIBLE post.

        1. Jezebel? You ask too much, sir.

          1. Oh come on, it’s written by a libertarian who vote for Gore AND Bush and worked for the State of Oregon. It’s amazing how many times he misrepresents a philosophy he claims to have espoused.

            1. It’s like the girl he’s talking about told him what libertarian is.

        2. She was funny and charming. She was an aspiring comedian here in Portland and studying to be a teacher

          I this the progtard version of the actress/waitress in Hollywood?

        3. But it’s not reasonable. I have to just do the best I can every day, accept that I’m going to screw it up, and just try to do more right than wrong each day. I think that, usually, I succeed

          1. But not today.

    2. “Anyone who disagrees with me is a monstrous human.”

      Oh, I’m a monster. Perhaps you should speak to me more softly then. Monsters are dangerous and just now kings are dying like flies.

      1. that statement is complete bullshit. This isn’t an either/or thing. “Either women and people of color should make the same money or you believe they are inferior”.

        I don’t advocate forcing employers to pay people fairly. If someone does not like the pay they are given, they are free to find another job. Their employer can’t force them to stay, any more than the employee should force the employer to keep them on staff.

        If an employer has 5 men and 5 women working from him/her and they all do the same function, if he/she wants to award the men 10% more, that is his/her prerogative just as if he/she wished to award women 10% more. Those employed who object are free to seek employment elsewhere if the employer refuses to give equal pay. It is the employer’s money to dispense as the employer sees fit.

        If a man has money that belongs solely to him, he should have the right to give that money to anyone he wants for whatever reason, so long as he is not using that money to violate the rights of another individual, such as assassination.

        1. so long as he is not using that money to violate the rights of another individual, such as assassination


    3. Yes, because one of the basic libertarian tenets is that your pay is a measure of your self-worth.

      1. Its Worthington’s Law!:


        which is why I’m better than Van Gogh and Socrates put together! they made NOTHING

      2. I read that as ‘serf-worth’…

    4. Seriously, the blog’s name is groupthink?

      1. These types aren’t really known for their self-awareness, Brett.

      2. It’s a sub-domain of Jezebel, what do you expect?

        1. what do you expect?

          Even MOAR butthurt!

    5. I say we should start rating feminist articles by the PENISPUMPER quotient. You sum up all the occurrences of the below words and the sum is the PENISPUMPER quotient of feminism.

      P: privilege
      E: equality
      N: non-heteronormative (or heteronormative)
      I: insecurity
      S: self-(as a hyphenated prefix)
      P: patriarchy
      U: unable (or helpless)
      M: misogyny
      P: prejudice
      E: entitlement
      R: rape

      I think you will find that the higher the quotient, the more head-bangingly awful the article is. This one scores a 34

    6. There is a claimed ex-Reason H&R commenter in the comments. Reportedly we told her to buy her own damn birth control instead of forcing the Catholic Church to foot the bill. I only remember Jennifer from that exchange (and she was already a longtime ex-H&Rer; at that point).

      1. There were a bunch of randoms from those threads though.

      2. The horror.

    7. Some call me Tim? was right; the full article is so much worse than you think. I just hit this gem.

      I’m not sure if this is true for most young conservatives, but I wasn’t raised in a conservative household. My father’s nominally a Republican, and my mother’s nominally a Democrat, but they’re both generally center-left. They probably voted for Obama. But they came from the same type of whitewashed, privileged background that I did (though my mom was told by the track coach at her high school that she couldn’t run or her uterus would fall out ? SCIENCE). They weren’t educated about oppression, and they certainly weren’t shown how to teach their precocious, unusually intellectually curious know-it-all son about oppression.

      Can they just change the whole site to flash PRIVILEGE in giant text all day long? I mean, the only point of all the articles is just to remind everyone about PRIVILEGE all day long, right?

      1. On Eugene, OR:

        It’s a city that loves to think that it’s good and liberal, but really they love taking on causes that don’t force themselves to face their own privilege. There’s nothing wrong with protesting the war in Iraq and holding rallies for LGBTQ rights (they’re not always perfect on the B, T, or Q parts, but the amount of places that are perfect on any of those are effectively nil); those are important fights that need to be fought. But I’m fairly certain that the term “microaggression” gets very little play there, and “intersectionality” isn’t much stronger. Those are the kinds of things that mean acknowledging your own prejudices and privilege and CONSTANT fuck-ups, and Eugene is somewhat lacking in self-awareness.

        I cannot. stop. laughing. at the idea that someplace where “microaggressions” don’t get a lot of play is bad.

        1. How does this guy even get out of bed everyday? He sounds paralyzed by his guilt. He must be a real joy to be around.

      2. At least with this guy, wouldn’t an animated gif of him on his knees groveling for being white be more appropriate?

        1. White and not poor.

  18. “Don’t get bogged down in the legal arguments offered by Justice Roberts;” listen to me!!!! SCOTUS didn’t address a major legal issue that they had warned Congress about in previous rulings, they gutted the VRA because of KKKorporashuns!!!…..97003.html

  19. If you didn’t watch the College World Series, here’s everything you missed.

    1. Lucky little bastard.

    2. Haven’t been to Westwood in while. I’ll have to stop by there this weekend. Hmmmmm…….

      1. Those are very nice, but the bleached blonde hair just doesn’t do it for me.

    3. What did Brent Musberger have to say?

      1. “You see that lllovely lllady over there?”

      2. He’ll rightly tell kids to work hard and become the quarterback or the star outfielder because you’ll get laid more.

      3. From the comments:

        I’m going to have to take her back stage so we can discuss more about the concepts of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd base.

        -Brent Musberger


        Tuco1855 (Exec)
        June 26, 2013 at 11:12 am

        The face is run of the mill attractive, but those cans, my friends, are some grade A prime, all natural grass fed chest beefers.

        BubbasDriver (Pledge)
        June 26, 2013 at 11:17 am

        Let’s be honest, there is nothing natural about those chest beefers

        1. Awesome.

          1. I learned a new phrase today.

  20. …and is calling in professional athletes to make the pitch.

    Aaron Hernandez might be free to do an ad for them. Well, maybe not free, but available.

  21. So when will Reason create a video on how the Surveillance State is Winning? Or how Socialized Medicine is winning?

    Also can any tell me by what logic does the Right to Privacy allow contraception, abortion, homosexuality and the NSA?

    1. Slow down Rick. You are starting to spit and I’d hate to see you get santorum on that sweater vest.

    2. Also can any tell me by what logic does the Right to Privacy allow contraception, abortion, homosexuality and the NSA?

      Somebody call an ambulance, I think Goldwyn just stroked out.

      1. ????

        Pointing out that Nazgul created a right to privacy but only apply it to what they want. I mean if there is a right to privacy then shouldn’t the IRS and the NSA be illegal?

        1. Rereading your sentence three times, I now get your point. And for the record, I prefer Black Rider, sounds more potent and less kitschy.

        2. Well actually the NSA isn’t supposed to be spying Americans domestically. The issue is one of 3rd party doctrine. You should probably go read about it first and then rejoin the class when you’ve caught up.

        3. Since when does Reason like the IRS and NSA?

          1. I wasn’t referring to Reason.

        4. You can’t use the term Nazgul today. Reason got its pony. They are enlightened rulers today. Save that term for when they do something Reason doesn’t like.

  22. The SCOTUS has murdered MLK all over again!!!!

    I guess pretending the world is exactly the same as 1965 fits in to their narrative perfectly.…..02887.html

  23. Krugman lets the mask slip yet again:

    Even if the game is fair, nothing says that the game has to look the way it does.

  24. A new biography on Karl Marx

    1. I hope who ever threw her into a vault of acid gets the justice they deserve.

    2. So sad. She was so damn cute.

  25. The SCOTUS has murdered MLK all over again!!!!

    I guess pretending the world is exactly the same as 1965 fits in to their narrative perfectly.…..02887.html

  26. How to argue with 1%er apologist against inequality.

    xample: Thomas Sowell

    Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience… Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.
    How to Respond:

    This argument is the most depressing; because it’s often paired with a call to privatize education, and blame teacher’s unions. But it too, is false. America doesn’t have as much upward mobility as the Nordic countries, its upward neighbor and most of Europe. Children who are born rich now get better test scores, are more likely to attend college and make more money than poorer children, even those with the same cognitive ability! The second part of Sowell’s statement is problematic for reasons already discussed: post-Clinton’s welfare reform, most people on welfare are those who are working, but simply aren’t paid enough.

    What a non-sequitur of a response.

    1. He is asserting points already refuted in great detail by Sowell, and doing so while pretending the points went unaddressed. If that is his idea of a response, he is no where near the target zone. Not even in the same building.

      1. He’s showing up on the football field with a catcher’s mitt and a badminton birdie.

      2. Well, in his defense, he is a total moron.

  27. The SCOTUS has murdered MLK all over again!!!!

    I guess pretending the world is exactly the same as 1965 fits in to their narrative perfectly.…..02887.html

    1. MLG has murdered this thread all over again!!!

  28. I don’t even know where to start with this bullshit:

    White privilege means you have an automatic advantage over others because of culturally ingrained social norms. It means there are hierarchies and systems in place to ensure your ultimate success in the world. White privilege means if you don’t get into your “dream school,” you’ll still go on to graduate from another four-year college and find a better than average job in a crappy economy.

    1. And remember, when feminists don’t like you, this:

      It doesn’t help her that she has an effortlessly punchable face. Like, I’m finding her features aggravating and I don’t even live in America. Yesterday 3:44pm

      Becomes magically not misogynistic in their eyes.

    2. Damn Snowden and his white privilege!

    3. Yep all white ppl graduate and get jobs.

      1. That’s why there were so many minorities at those occupy protests.

    4. I loathe the discussion of white privilege. They discuss “systems” and “institutions” that benefit whites but never give an example to what exactly it is they’re talking about.

      I ask this every time the subject is brought up and they always give some diverting or nebulous answer. These damn “constructs” just don’t fucking exist and they won’t admit it!

      1. They’re projecting. They assume everyone is as racist/sexist as they are, so the systems and institutions are self-apparent to them.

      2. You know, I did get an answer once… his example was the norms of interviewing for a job. You have to “act white.”

        I call it acting professional. I mean, if I do business in Japan, I’m not going to be rude by saying no to a client or partner’s proposal until I take them out and get them liquored up, as is custom.

        1. Hmm, if behaving professionally is “white,” then all these millenials must be some other color.

  29. So 20 years ago, music was pretty mediocre, just like today. But Alicia Silverstone was hot in those Aerosmith videos. (And Snoop Dogg looks like a child.)

    1. And it’s all on one page! 🙂

    2. I fucking hate those 4 Non Blonde and Blind Melon songs…. ugh!

      1. I hate 75% of the songs on that page. God damn, the 90s sucked.

        1. not gay enuf?

          1. Not even remotely gay enough.

        2. I liked about half of them. But, then again, I was a teen through most of the 90s.

        3. Wax Trax! and Warp Records would like to have a word with you.

    3. Though the band is now 30, it still seems like the Chili Peppers are a somewhat new group. But three of the guys are now in their 50s, which is 10 years older than the Stones were when people started calling them geezers.

      This guys sense of time perspective is on the warped side. I remember first reading about them in Heavy Metal magazine in the early mid 80s as that band with socks on their cocks, and then listening to them a few years later. Pretty much grew up with them.

      1. The fucking Chili Peppers have been dated as hell since probably 1995. What a goofball this writer is.

        1. They were horrible to begin with. They were always a joke party band best appreciated by drunken white frat boys.

      2. Saw them on “The Thicke of the Night” – Alan Thicke’s talk show in the 80’s. They did – “Get Up And Jump” – still my fave RHCP song. Promptly went down to the local RECORD store (who’d never heard of them). “Red Hot what…?”

        Told them to order at least 5 copies of their album (self titled – 1984), cause I was buying one, and they were so awesome they were going to be HUGE and surely someone would buy the other 4.

        Still have the orig vinyl. Only bought one other Chili Peppers album CD (“What Hits?”). They sure became big.

    4. Here’s a little goodness from 1993: ALL – Breaking Things

  30. the third and final revision to first quarter GDP showed a meager 1.8% expansion in output

    Well, *there’s* your problem!

    Needs more revision.

  31. I hope you have your cups on. Stop and Frisk in action.

    This video will almost certainly make you want to break shit.…

    1. HULK SMASH!!


  32. Please don’t disturb the gorillas.

  33. Feminists suddenly develop the ability to apply scrutiny to studies.

    Least Convincing Study Ever: Voters Don’t Care How Lady Politicos Look

  34. Report: 36 killed after knife gang attacks China police station

    Knife-wielding assailants killed nine policemen and 17 civilians in a bloody attack that only ended after 10 attackers were shot dead in western China early Wednesday.

    1. that’s what you get for bringing a knife to a gunfight.

    2. Told you so.

      /United Kingdom

    3. Police are civilians.

      1. Police are civilians.

        Not in China.

        Seriously, the difference between “police” as understood in the Anglo-American tradition and a paramilitary gendarmerie, like in many other countries, needs to be pounded into people’s heads.

        1. Same with a whole slew of Latin American countries.

          It really does make a difference.

  35. I feel like this is a fitting way to harmonize the two of the biggest news events of this past week: SCOTUS ruling on Voting Rights Act may cost feminist hero Wendy Davis her seat.

    On the very same day that Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) drew national attention for stopping a bill that would have closed every abortion clinic in the state and outlawed abortion after 20 weeks, the Supreme Court gutted the law that kept her in office in the first place.
    In fact, just an hour before Davis launched into her 13-hour filibuster on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act that kept discriminatory voting laws from going into effect in areas of the country with histories of disenfranchisement. That includes states like Texas, where in 2011 the GOP sought to change the demographic composition of Davis’ district, who was elected in 2008 with strong support from minority voters.
    As MSNBC’s Zachary Roth reported, lawmakers moved “tens of thousands of black and Hispanic voters into neighboring districts” and as a result, “of the 94 precincts that were over 70 percent minority, Republicans cut out 48,” effectively separating black and Hispanic voters and preventing them from forming a sizable majority.

    1. When? 2022?

    2. Wendy Davis is a rich white lady who went to Harvard Law.

      1. Peaceful retirement to Wendy Davis!

  36. Good thing Breaking Bad is over. America has a meth problem. Well, I wouldn’t call it a problem as it seems to be available for purchase to just about anyone.

    1. I think something we’ve learned from this is that Americans lack a clear sanctuary option.

      1. Isn’t some lady selling it?

        1. Oh, I thought you meant Jenny Agutter.

  37. National Institute of Health to retire most of its research chimpanzees.

    But will they be entitled to Federal retirement benefits for themselves and their same sex chimp spouses?

    1. Are these genetically modified chimps? Can I have some? You know, to train as my own personal chimp army?

      1. If you do be aware that you are morally and legally obligated as a libertarian to dress your chimps in a top hat and monocle.

        1. Will do. I’ll also teach them about their constitutional rights as chimps.

    2. What about housing discrimination?

    3. “I don’t eat bananas. I prefer banana-flavored energy bars made from tofu.”

      1. All I want out of life is to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit. That’s why I’ve decided to transfer to business school!

        1. Andrew, that monkey is my most important experiment. If you two don’t stop fighting I’ll have you both neutered.

          1. That’ll show him.

            1. Episiarch’s intelligence actually lies in his electronium hat, which harnesses the power of sunspots to produce cognitive radiation.

          2. Why? WHY? WHY DIDN’T I BREAK HIS LEGS!

      2. I’m pissed because I learned this weekend that I missed yet another stalk of bananas that was growing over the fence into the neighbor’s yard. Dammit. Could’ve fed my new chimps, too.

    4. But what about the Rats?

      Someone call Brisby!

      1. I’m afraid the Luddite rates purged the ones that wanted to embrace progress.

  38. President Obama calls plaintiffs in Prop 8, talks to them on live television.

    President Obama called the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case from Air Force One, telling them: “We’re proud of you guys.”

    “You guys should be very proud of today,” the president told the four California plaintiffs in the case in a brief call to a mobile phone that was put on speaker phone live on MSNBC. “You’re helping a whole lot of people, everywhere.”

    Just before the call ended, plaintiff Paul Katami told Obama: “You’re invited to the wedding.”

    The plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case were two same-sex couples who in 2009 asked the federal courts to strike down a voter-approved measure banning gay marriage as unconstitutional state interference in a citizen’s fundamental right to wedlock.

    They didn’t build that.

    1. Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage–one fucking signed DOMA–but that’s all okay now.

      1. Bill even got a GLAAD award.

        I’m sure Castro and all those Commies who used to call homosexuality a bourgeois depravity could get one. Surely some Islamic fundamentalists are up for it?

    2. He sure has come a long way fast, from just evolving last year(?) to being proud this year.

      Maybe he’ll send some carbon offset credits or signed copies of his books as a wedding present.

      1. How is he better than Paula Deen?

      2. Of course he has evolved. For years he thought gay sex was just some fun you had when you are stuck with a fuggass bitch of a wife, but as he has grown older he has learned that emotional attachments can form in same sex unions as well. You think someone as deeply narcissistic as he is can observe the behavior of others and learn anything?

  39. John’s hot tears splattered Mike’s rotund face as he leaned over him. Mike was sunning himself on a large, flat rock in the park, like a fat lizard, a smile playing on his lips as he idly scratched his taint.

    “Mike,” John blubbered. “Those robed bastards did it. Our precious DOMA is gone. What will he do?” He began to sob.

    “Tell me what’s the matter,” Mike said.

    “DOMA. They struck down DOMA. Faggot s are gonna be able to get married,” John wailed. He could felt the beating of his heart in the waves of blood surging into his penis. He wanted Mike very badly.

    “So let them get married. We’d talk about Jesus and sin and blah blah blah and squeeze some more money out of the theoyokels,” Mike said. He’d been playing the religious for fools for years. During his speech to the Family Council on Whatever The Fuck, he’d kept a picture he’d taken of his cock deep in John’s tear-stained asshole pulled up on his iPad.

    “But I don’t want to get married,” John whined.

    “John, marriage is for faggots. We are not going to have to get married.”

    “So we can still have our all-sex dick orgies?”

    “Yes,” Mike sighed.

    “What about our no-holes-barred cock buffets? Or ass-queefing ice roulette? Or Escape From Felch Mountain?”

    “All fine, John. You and Larry and Rick can even play Meathammer Pi?ata with the Archbishop whenever you want.”

    John stopped crying for the first time in what seemed like days.

    1. You seem unusually upset with John lately. Want to talk about it?

      1. The crying is a hint.

        1. Just cry it out SF. It will be okay. And besides even if it is not, I am sure Justice Kennedy will make it all better. He is like that you know.

          1. It’s Boehner and Huckabee.

            1. I don’t like them either. But Justice Kennedy will protect us.

    2. Go on…

      1. You seem unusually gay lately. Want to talk to SugarFree about it?

        1. I’d rather he just told more stories. Gay stories.

          1. I’m sure he has reams of unpublished ones.

            1. These are fresh. I don’t store them up. Each one is loving crafted to tackle the issues of the day.

              If you don’t like it, you can your cabana boy can go bubbles in each other’s buttholes.

              1. Okay, so I fire my cabana boy and. . .he can blow bubbles in the butthole of some bubbles? Why do I have to fire my cabana boy again?

                1. I’m inarticulate with rage!

                  1. People called Romanes, they go, the house?

              2. These are fresh. I don’t store them up.


                1. My other son Mike got shot in the face.

                  1. “Don’t touch the clowns. Let the clowns touch you.”

    3. I have the horrible feeling that, somewhere in the dark parts of the city where the buses don’t run, someone is really turned on by this.

    4. Eduard has got to be worked in their somehow

      1. He’s too sad to make fun of. Someone with no real thoughts or opinions outside of what his religion tells him is only a few steps up from a robot. He comes here, runs his pope-approved script and then goes and waits in a corner until it’s time to try and impose his artificial morality on us again.


        2. You appear to have a serious problem understanding my remarks.

          When I referred to the sex-scandal priests as “Judas priests” who committed “sacrilege,” you said I was “defending child rape.” I called you on it, and you replied with a defense of atheist morality. I don’t claim *all* atheists are immoral, but one particular atheist in particular is ignoring the teaching about bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.


          1. Sugarfree stroked his wife’s fleece as he sadly ruminated on his Internet experience.

            “I don’t know why I let those Catholics get under my skin,” he said. “They’re just a bunch of robots. What do you think, honey?”

            “Bah,” his wife replied.

            “That’s my reaction, too. Bah to them! I shouldn’t let them get to me. But what do you think of the quality of their ideas?”

            “Bad,” said Mrs. Sugarfree, or at least her reply sounded something like that.

            “Exactly, sweetheart!” Sugarfree commented. “Those people don’t have any original thoughts. They are simply blind followers, like sh – sorry honey, I mean like lemmings.”

            1. Subroutine 63-9 is on the fritz. Report to your local pedophile for reprogramming.

              1. Not exactly Churchillian wit there, Sug.

                Here, let me try these Churchill gems on you:

                You are guilty of a terminological inexactitude.

                I may be drunk, madame, but your are ugly, and I shall be sober tomorrow.

                Why don’t you f___ yourself? (You can’t prove Churchill *didn’t* say that).

                1. Poor Eddie. I know it hurt a lot, but that was Father Kiddiefucker making sure Jesus got all the way up in you.

                  1. Samuel Johnson, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Groucho Marx, Winston Churchill…and Sugarfree – all masters of witty repartee!

                    Not to mention little Bobby in second grade with his famous “you’re a poopyhead!”

                    1. Sure these two fight, but the make-up sex is amazing.

                    2. Sure these two fight, but the make-up sex is amazing.

                      Sorry, I doubt either of us are up for a threesome. Thanks (?) for thinking of us. Maybe check with Warty and MLG.

                    3. Homos are still getting married and babies are still getting scraped out, and here you are whining about me. But go ahead. I know you need to get the last word in on this TRAGIC DAY.

                      TRAGIC. Like a thousand 9/11s every day those damn fags get to marry.

                    4. Sugarfree, as Oscar Wilde, displays his rapier wit on SCTV:


      2. *there

  40. Maybe someone else has pointed this out, but when I click on the link about Tor (search without surveillance, I get this:

    The webpage cannot be found.
    What you can try:

    Retype the address
    Go back to the previous page

  41. Beware the ‘crazy ants’: They’ll destroy your electronics

    Matthews has seen crazy ants disable scores of air-conditioning units near Austin, Texas, where the invasive creatures have been a real headache. The ants swarm inside the units, causing them to short-circuit and preventing them from turning on. Often the switches inside them need to be replaced, thanks to the ants, said Matthews, who works for the Austin-area pest control business The Bug Master.

    “When you open these things up, you see thousands of the ants, just completely filling them up,” Matthews said.

    1. Krugman: Crazy ants for everyone!!

    2. Crazy ants? In what way are they insane? Have they been examined by trained psychiatrists?

      1. They sing “Insane in the Brain” in tiny ant voices.

  42. Gentlemen (and I suppose our few ladies) there is hope for you all: How the Internet caused my porn addiction–but also cured it.

    My favorite part:

    Coming out to my significant other
    “I can’t believe you find that attractive.”

    As part of the process of opening up to my partner about porn, we decided to watch porn together. She had never watched porn before, and after the first video, she flatly ruled that it was repulsive to her. Particularly the cumshot scenes.

    When I told her that those scenes used to be a major turn-on for me, that I would fast-forward to those scenes to climax, she just couldn’t understand it.

    I watched myself get mad. I was confused about where the hurt and anger came from, but I knew where they were targeted — at her. At women like her. I grew so angry I couldn’t speak.

    We watched a scene of a pig-tailed girl having sex with her older neighbor and the juvenile logic streamed in my head along with the video: She wouldn’t say porn is disgusting. She wouldn’t argue with me. She wouldn’t say no. I was a pissed off teenager again, smoldering.

    1. Maybe if your significant other put out more often, you wouldn’t have gotten addicted to porn?

      1. Or if she wasn’t such a prude they could find some porn they both liked.

    2. He blames porn for being a loser. And now he’s a pussy too.

    3. My partner closed the browser and we had the worst sex we’ve ever had. She said it was the first time I’d ever “fucked her.”


      1. Well, every other time, she got out the strap-on and fucked him.

        1. I think you’re way too optimistic on that one.

          1. Yeah, that’s actually a pleasurable activity. No way this dude has ever had fun sex.

      2. Male feminists have to have the worst sex lives in the world. I’ve never heard one of them describe an experience that seemed the least bit fun or rewarding. It’s just kind of sad.

        Frankly, if my girlfriend (a lawyer and feminist outside the bedroom) did get a good “fucking” every so often she would be very sad, indeed. Sex can take many forms, and sometimes it needs to be dirty and animalistic.

    4. If he likes cumshot scenes he’s kinda gay.

  43. A sane liberal reaction to SCOTUS striking down the precondition formula in the VRA.

    1. sane liberal reaction

      Whaa…? Does Not Compute.

      1. It happens, even if not very often.

  44. The Carbonated President: Obama unveils a war on fossil fuels he never disclosed as a candidate.

    President Obama’s climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can’t find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth.

    1. tony Georgetown


  45. I wonder whether the DOMA ruling also invalidates the Edmunds Act (the federal law making polygamy a felony)?

    1. It might. Logically it should. But it probably will not at least for the moment. You have to remember the DOMA decision was made the way it was because the majority like gays and like gay marriage and want gay marriage to be a reality. It wasn’t made because they believe in the right of anyone to marry who they like and live whatever life they want.

      Right now, they don’t like polygymists the way they do gays. So it will not invalidate the Edmonds Act. But if they change their mind, they will. What happens is completely up to them and what they think is right for the country.

      I have no idea why any Libertarian or someone with interest in a small government would find that prospect disturbing.

      1. “But if they change their mind, they will. What happens is completely up to them and what they think is right for the country.”

        Where the fuck have you been? Are you under the impression that this hasn’t been the case for at least the last 80 years, and very arguably since the early 1800s?

        And the fact that the legal reasoning may not have been sincere doesn’t mean the decision was automatically wrong.

        1. I was under the impression that people around here found that whole process to be distasteful. Back when the Court was deciding that the commerce clause didn’t mean what it said or what the drafters intended because things had changed, that was supposed to be a bad thing right?

          But them deciding that gay marriage is a right and homosexuality is a protected class because times have changed is just great. Anyone who thinks this is a good decision forfeits any right to object to things like Wickard. If the document means what the SOCUTUS says it does in one area, it means what they say it does in all areas.

          1. John is right on this one. If the Supreme Court can decide arbitrarily what reasoning it will employ on a given decision and when it will choose to ignore said reasoning, it is effectively impossible to limit the degree of the Supreme Court’s arbitrariness and it will have become, in effect, the sort of unelected body of tinkering bureaucrats that libertarians deplore in other areas of public policy.

            As a not-so-nice bonus, we will have lost the rule of law. If you don’t think that’s important, then you haven’t been reading enough history.

            1. Except that’s exactly what the Supreme Court already is; just look at the Obamacare decision or almost anything regarding the police.

              We do not live under the rule of law and never had, and it’s gotten worse yet some insist on pretending that we still have rule of law.

              1. Pretty much. We really don’t. We live under whatever those assholes decide we will live under. Goof for you for at least noticing it.

              2. If it has gotten worse then that implies that rule of law is a continuum.

                Sure, there’s never going to be an absolute rule of law, anymore than there will be an ideal enforcement of laws that libertarians favor, an ideal situation where it is always perfectly clear whether an action does or does not violate NAP, etc. I’d still rather stay on the right side of all of those lines when possible, since it’s both the right thing to do and vital for some measure of success.

            2. I’m not saying the SCOTUS should do that. I’m saying they have been doing it for a long time, and this is nothing new. I’m also saying that even if their motivations weren’t based on sincere interpretation of the Constitution, that doesn’t mean Section III of DOMA was constitutional, which it wasn’t.

              1. The mere fact that judicial activism is not new has not stopped libertarians from handwaving, say, the decision on ObamaCare. I don’t see why a longstanding abuse should be excused on the grounds that it is… longstanding.

                I do agree that there’s a valid case for Section III of DOMA being un-Constitutional.

                1. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m responding to the argument John’s making about how this decision is going to result in a bunch of things libertarians don’t like, and therefore libertarians shouldn’t like it. Even if we assume for a moment that John is right that Section III of DOMA is constitutional and that this judicial activism, blah blah blah, I think he’s wrong about the effects this decision is going to have. Those future bad decisions will be made regardless, if the justices on the Court think that the decision will have an outcome they like. That’s happened for 200 years and has been SOP for the last 80

          2. “I was under the impression that people around here found that whole process to be distasteful. Back when the Court was deciding that the commerce clause didn’t mean what it said or what the drafters intended because things had changed, that was supposed to be a bad thing right?”

            I didn’t say I thought that process was good. I’m saying that even if this case is an example of that, it is hardly some watershed moment that drastically alters Constitutional jursiprudence. The interpretation of the Constitution has been largely subject to the whims of the SCOTUS since the day it was signed. This would be nothing new.

            And I don’t think this is an example of that. I agree that constitutional rights shouldn’t be created out of thin air by the court. Likewise, federal powers should not bee created out of thin air by Congress

            1. I’m saying that even if this case is an example of that, it is hardly some watershed moment that drastically alters Constitutional jursiprudence.

              yes it does in that it expands that horrible reasoning into another area of the law.

              1. Key word there is “another.” The SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean is nothing new, and this case doesn’t change that in any way. I’d think you would at least wait until if/when they knock down Section II to go off like this. As of now, all they’ve said is that the feds don’t have the Constitutional power to enact Section III of DOMA, which they don’t.

        2. And the fact that the legal reasoning may not have been sincere doesn’t mean the decision was automatically wrong.

          Yes it does. The reasoning is the most important part since that is what will drive future decisions.

          1. Ok, I’ll rephrase. The fact that the reasoning *may* have been wrong does not mean that section III of DOMA was not unconstitutional

      2. If people are erring on the side of individual choice and expanding liberty via the 9th and 10th Amendments vs. arbitrary federal laws, I don’t see why libertarians would have any problem with that. I’m for any and all judicial activism to expand individual rights and shrink government control.

        1. I’m for any and all judicial activism to expand individual rights and shrink government control

          I am sure you are. But once you give them the power, you don’t get to pick and choose where and how they use it. They do. They are the ones who have the power.

          Basically what you are telling me is, it is okay to have rule by top men because they are going to give you what you want. That is not quite how it works.

          And again. If the 14th Amendment means what the court says it does and not what it was intended to mean, the why doesn’t the Commerce Clause mean what they say it does? How can you think this is a good decision and then object to the things like Wickard? You can object but you can’t do so for any reason other than you liked the results in one instance and not in the other. Well, that is the price you pay for rule by top men. Sometimes they see things differently than you. But they get a vote on it, you don’t.

          1. No that’s not “basically what (I’m) telling (you)” – and I’ll be damned if I’m lectured by a hypocrite who was (rightly) all for judicial activism when it came to overturning the democratically-passed Obamacare, and then blasts judicial activism in a case where it expands liberty and limits government by knocking down a discriminatory law you kinda liked.

            Judicial review that overturns laws is usually libertarian, since laws are usually not libertarian. If the justices base this finding on the argument that individual rights exist beyond the explicit text of the Constitution as per the Ninth Amendment, I see no contradiction or problem with libertarian activism, which Kennedy seems to thankfully have embraced of late.

            1. I have never once argued that overturning an unconstitutional law is judicial activism. That is an idiotic argument and I have never made it.

              The issue is what does the document say and how do you determine that. I say the document means what the drafter intended it to mean and if you don’t like that, you should change the document. There is no way the drafters intended it to make gay marriage a right or homosexuality an impermissible basis for public policy is to say that the meaning of the document changes as the court’s opinion changes.

              If that is true for the 14th Amendment, then it is also true for the commerce clause. There is no way that the drafters intended the commerce clause to mean what the court says it did. But if they can read new rights into the 14th Amendent, they can sure as hell read new federal powers into the commerce clause. Once you give them the right to decide what the document means independent of the objective facts of its drafting, you don’t get to object to how they use the power. You can’t say “well it is okay to read something into the document that is not there as long as I like it.” Well you can say that. But you are not making much of a case beyond “please sir let me have my pony”.

              1. “There is no way the drafters intended it to make gay marriage a right or homosexuality an impermissible basis for public policy is to say that the meaning of the document changes as the court’s opinion changes.”

                They made it an impermissible basis for federal public policy by not giving the federal government any authority over it in Article I, Section 8 and then again when they passed the Tenth Amendment. There were a ton of things the Founders disapproved of that they didn’t give the feds jurisdiction over, including most instances of heinous crimes like murder and rape.

                I find it incredible how the guy asking the SCOTUS to invent/uphold a federal power out of thin air is lecturing others on supporting the SCOTUS inventing rights out of thin air

                1. Are we talking about the DOMA decision or Prop 8?

                  DOMA was bad legal analysis used by federalism-phobics to circumvent the fact that striking down Section III was clearly a states’ rights issue.

                  Prop 8 was a complete travesty.

                2. “I find it incredible how the guy asking the SCOTUS to invent/uphold a federal power out of thin air is lecturing others on supporting the SCOTUS inventing rights out of thin air”

                  Thank you for making my point so succinctly. The burden of proof is on John that the Constitution permits Congress to pass discriminatory laws against gays, not on us that gays have the right to not be discriminated against by acts of Congress, as implied by the 14th Amendment, if not explicitly stated. The fact that individual rights need not be explicitly stated is sufficiently covered by the 9th Amendment.

                  1. DOMA is not a discriminatory law against gays any more than it is a discriminatory law against singles. Immigration is a valid concern for the FedGov, and the section of DOMA that has been struck down detailed processes regarding said immigration.

                    The only question is whether or not the FedGov can arbitrarily reject marriages that have been legitimized by a state legislature, thus circumventing a state power.

                    1. The fact that marriage laws discriminate against singles doesn’t mean they also don’t discriminate against gay couples. I think Proprietist would probably agree with me that ideally marriage licenses wouldn’t exist.

                    2. …which is irrelevant in this case. The FedGov is not handing out marriage licenses in this case nor is that the issue at play; the question is whether when it comes to Constitutionally-authorized functions of the federal government (military benefits, immigration policy) the FedGov can use some state-granted marriage licenses and not others to determine policy, or whether it must use marriage licenses from all states.

                      I happen to think that the FedGov has to accept states’ marriage licenses rather than excluding some but not others, else it’s violating an implied state power — but there is a reasonable case to the contrary. Marriage as a government institution is not in dispute at all, nor is equal protection since every state has a different definition of marriage (many of which exclude gays altogether).

                    3. I wasn’t responding to your legal analysis with that statement and I agree with you that DOMA violated a state power.

                      For something like immigration, I think the feds would have to have a reason related to immigration itself (or whatever the specific issue is) to not recognize a state marriage license (for example, a marriage for the sole purpose of getting the foreign spouse into the country and skirting immigration law). The gender of the spouses is not relevant in that example. I’ll also add that I think the feds have assumed a lot of power related to immigration over the years that they originally were not given.

      3. I always thought it was interesting how violent the reaction was to the argument that letting gays marry meant other kinds of previously unaccepted marriage would have to be allowed. Because the truth is that there’s no way polygamy can be prevented if gay marriage is permissible, not on any rational equal protection grounds. Incest can be upheld to some extent, but even that might be threatened beyond cases of immediate consanguinity.

        Not judging here, just observing. Frankly, I think the whole idea of polygamy is insane.

        1. Polygamy cannot be prevented if gay marriage is a constitutional right. If gay marriage is just another rational basis upon which states are free to choose to accept or reject, then polygamy can be rejected as well. But once gay marriage is a right, polygamy should be as well.

          But it won’t be. The reason it won’t be is because at least right now the Court doesn’t like polygamists like they do gays. And that is a pretty fucked up reason to reject it, isn’t it? But that is what this case is going to mean in the long term.

        2. That’s because it’s a slippery slope fallacy. From a libertarian perspective, we oppose any government discrimination, but gay marriage advocates are technically advocating only for gay marriage and should not be expected to defend every possible marital extrapolation posed by critics of gay marriage unless they explicitly state that they oppose any government interference in any marital configurations.

          Yes, anti-polygamy gay marriage advocates are bigots, but not inherently hypocrites.

          1. That’s because it’s a slippery slope fallacy.

            Arguing that giving the Court the power to determine what marriage means is going to cause the Court to make arbitrary judgements based on fashion and personal taste is not a slippery slope fallacy. It is reality.

            I get it. You are happy SCOTUS gave you what you want and don’t care what kind of a precedent you had to set to get it. You and Tony should go have a group hug about it.

            1. I think Proprietist was talking about Pro L’s first sentence, where he’s not talking about the court case specifically, but rather the general argument.

            2. My belief in an extremely expansive definition of individual rights is perfectly in keeping with the 9th Amendment. Regardless of my personal preferences. The fact that you’d put legislated state discrimination above individual rights makes you the one who prefers to live in a country with arbitrary laws, not me.

              1. My belief in an extremely expansive definition of individual rights is perfectly in keeping with the 9th Amendment.

                What is an “individual right”? You are begging the question. The issue is what sorts of activities do you have a right to and what things can the government regulate. That is the whole issue. How do we determine that. Basically, you are okay with that question being totally left up to the desecration of the court. You are not really okay with it. But you are okay with it today because they gave you what you want. What you don’t or refuse to understand is that by giving t hem that power, you lose the right to object when they don’ give you what they want.

                1. “what things can the government regulate?”

                  The powers explicitly delegated to them. Regulating and defining marriage was not one of those powers. Funny, that you seem to think Congressionally approved laws give government powers not explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution, and then you act like defending individual rights that exist beyond the text of the Constitution do not matter, regardless of the Ninth Amendment.

                2. So you support DOMA? Turn in your libertarian card John.

              2. Good grief. There is no way to interpret the 9th as anything besides being a limiting clause on the Constitution. The only argument for incorporation of the 9th that I have heard which makes even a modicum of sense is that the 9th includes all documented common law rights which were not included in the Bill of Rights. Anything else is pure ideological nonsense.

                1. Libertarian legal actions are largely based on the 9th Amendment’s implication that there exists non-enumerated rights that the government has no right to intrude upon, and any such capacity must be codified in the text of the Constitution itself.

                  1. This only got confusing when the government stopped being limited.

                  2. 1) The 9th and 10th apply only to the FedGov.

                    2) This was not the argument made by the Court.

                    3) Again, these amendments only make sense as what they were designed as: restrictions on the FedGov’s ability to strip states of rights. While I agree with the states’ rights argument here, the federal government can argue that they are not defining marriage but rather are selecting the marriages eligible for the employment of legitimate government functions. I don’t agree with that line of reasoning, but it is not specious or insubstantial. The 9th doesn’t apply in the case of the FedGov acting legitimately.

        3. That’s because polygamy is usually only the least offensive other type of marriage the people who make that argument use as an example. Can you not see why gay people would be offended by people comparing their relationship to a pedophilia or bestiality?

          1. I suppose, but I’m talking specifically about polygamy.

            Personally, I don’t care. Marry your car! Have sex with it! I don’t really care.

            1. Ok, from the way you phrased your comment, I didn’t get that you were referring strictly to polygamy. Idiots do use stupid comparisons like pedophilia and bestiality. But I do agree that polygamy shouldn’t be illegal, and it is hypocritical of the people who make the argument that “people should be allowed to marry who they love” to then turn around and oppose polygamy.

              1. Sorry–just polygamy. I don’t see anything else necessarily following, as there are justifications that don’t obviously run afoul of equal protection for preventing close incest, pedophilia, bestiality, Warty-Episiarch marriage, and so on.

                1. You can’t stop our perverted…love? I’m not sure what to call it.

                2. Well obviously I don’t think any reasonable person would support Warty-Episiarch marriage. Prohibiting that is just a common sense regulation

                  1. The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

  46. Initial qualifier: I believe gay marriage should be legal in states that clearly vote for it (SLD: I believe the state should be completely separated from marriage contracts, but that is not an option in the world we live in), but not forced on to those that don’t. It seems to me that the result of today’s ruling is a just one.

    That said, I agree COMPLETELY with the dissent that the case should have been dismissed because there was no conflict. The lower courts ruled DOMA was bad and awarded the complainant her money back. The government refused to litigate it any further, taking away the role of the court which is to settle legal dispute between two parties. In this case, there was no longer a legal dispute. The complainant won, and the government agreed. It was improper for SCOTUS to have heard this case at all. Opining on a law not under question in the form of a law suit is NOT their job, and this is the first case in history in which the SCOTUS has done so.

    This decision was activist judicial activism at its worst. Even hearing the case is activist buffoonery.

    1. Yes it was. Just because the result is right doesn’t mean it is a good decision.

  47. RationalWiki, the “skeptic’s wiki”, has a page on Paul Krugman.

    Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for The New York Times. He is a Keynesian/social democrat who favors global free trade and criticized the Obama Administration for crafting an economic stimulus bill that was too modest to be effective. He opposes farm and ethanol subsidies and populist protectionism (of the sort espoused by Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan) and is a fierce critic of supply side economics. Conservatives, of course, view him as a mouthpiece for the liberal socialist agenda. He gets most of his facts right too. Unfortunately, while an economic expert, he is not the best at public speaking, once even losing in a debate with Ron Paul because he was unable to respond properly on live television.

    1. Why would skeptics need their own wiki?

      1. Duh, to prove how skeptical they are by defending Paulie Krugnuts.

      2. Because it’s totally skeptical to firmly support the guy that the largest paper in the US likes and who supports virtually every government action taken.

        That’s a TRUE SKEPTIC?!

    2. He gets most of his facts right too

      Is this damning with faint praise, or does someone really think this is a selling point?

      1. I suspect that Paul Krugman whoever wrote the wiki page who is in no way, shape, or form related to Paul Krugman wanted to avoid saying something completely ridiculous (such as “Paul Krugman is right all the time”) and could only express that sentiment in this most ineffectual way.

  48. Does Amanda have something to tell us about DOMA, Wendy Davis’ filibuster, and the VRA? You bet your ass she does!

    The massive victory in Texas, despite the fact that it decisively achieved the goal of embarrassing the Republicans, helps a little, but still. It’s hard to be happy, because the blow to democracy that the Supreme Court delivered yesterday in striking down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act?even though that act was passed to protect a right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment?is so beyond depressing. This, even though it’s also no surprise, as conservatives have been obsessed with rolling back minority voting rights ever since they were first protected. It seems it’s quite possible it amounts to a license to Republican-controlled states to basically terminate the voting rights of vast swaths of people with the same tactics that were used in the Jim Crow era, and that the VRA was meant to bring an end to.


    Things are bad. Really, really bad. How bad is hard to say right now, but we cannot relax about this. The fundamental right to marriage may have a victory today, but the even more fundamental right to vote has suffered a serious blow.

    1. I love how the VRA is scared because it was passed by Congress, but DOMA was not. But Amanda just wants her pony.

      1. I don’t believe anyone has ever argued that either law is “sacred” because it was passed by Congress.

        Oh, except Antonin Scalia, but only on DOMA.

        1. Amanda just did Tony.

        2. Except that isn’t what he said at all.

    2. Can people be any more hyperbolic? Because all states, rather than some, no longer need federal permission to make a change to voting laws, suddenly Jim Crow is back?

      1. Hyperbole gets the sheep bleating and draws the TEAM closer. All they have is hyperbole.

      2. Exactly. This level of hyperbole is notable, even for the Lovely Ms. Marcotte.

      3. In between becoming Jim Crow and losing Marriage As We Know It, America is apparently due for Caligula-style shenanigans.

        I, for one, can’t wait.

        1. The quality of legislation might actually improve if Congress consisted of horses.

        2. *makes creepy smile, and rubs hands together*

      4. The left is rapidly starting to run out of victims, and they know out. Hyperbole inevitably must replace reality.

    3. the even more fundamental right to vote oppress your neighbors


      1. Judging by the reaction to Rand Paul’s statements on Jim Crow, some people are never, ever going to understand how your correction makes any kind of sense.

        1. It’s just another fun opportunity for me to be reminded of how incredibly different other people are.

          Which, of course, is also why people want to oppress their neighbors.

        2. Was it Yglesias who made the argument that Paul brought up Jim Crow because he has white supremacist leanings, despite the fact that he used it as an example of why he isn’t a big believer in democracy?

          1. Yes. Then he complained about people hurting his feelings on twitter.

  49. Gold still nailing dumbass Inflationistas in the ass, I see.

    $600 coming for the barbaric relic – no inflation to be seen.

  50. “The court also turned away an appeal of lower-court rulings that found California’s Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. County clerks in that state are expected to start issuing marriage licenses ASAP.”

    Except, apparently what the SCOTUS did should only effect the plaintiffs in that case as it was not a class action. Prop * should be the active law in California right now

    1. Except that a lower court had already declared it not valid under the California constitution. (Which in itself is a little nuts, considering that this was a constitutional amendment itself.)

  51. People who are upset about DOMA being overturned should just remain calm. This decision will not adversely affect people opposed to same-sex marriage in any way. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one! Amirite?


    *As long as you’re not one of those hate-filled bigots who believe in an invisible sky daddy.

  52. Now that the Federal Government has involved itself in same-sex marriage, the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach is that same-sex marriage is doomed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.