Gay Marriage

Leading GOP Presidential Contenders on SCOTUS Gay-Marriage Decisions

|

OK, so we know what Democrats who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back in 1996 think about its repudiation by the Supreme Court: Characters such as Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Bob Menendez think it's just fabulous that the courts struck down a law they all supported up the ying-yang (where legal). They are so happy to extend equality to gays and lesbians that they have plumb forgotten their role in passing DOMA in the first place.

And we know what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who won the presidential straw poll at this year's CPAC and is the leading libertarian Republican in the country, thinks about it.

So what about the other leading GOP contenders for the White House circa 2016? Here's a rundown:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): Rubio released a long statement on the issue in which he beat around the bush like he was auditioning for The Vagina Monologues. It consists mostly of reiterating two points. First, the Supreme Court shouldn't have overruled the majority of people, as expressed in 1996. Second, don't call those of us who think that gays and lesbians should not have equal rights as "bigots." Sample language:

"I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints.  These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements."

Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.): As governor, Christie has pushed to put the question to a vote among New Jersey voters because shouldn't all basic rights be subjected to a majority vote? Here's part of his reaction to the rulings:

"I've made it very clear since 2009 that I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I've said that, I ran on that, I've said it consistently. That doesn't mean, in any way shape or form, that I have anything against folks who are homosexual."

Sure. Except for the part about not wanting to let them get married to each other.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.): I couldn't find a direct reaction to the rulings but there's this from June 14:

My own personal views are I believe in traditional marriage, but I would emphasize in the public square, the need to restore our country's greatness through prosperity and through reform and through a recognition of the strength of family, in general, and the more we get into the fights that divide us, the less likely it is that we will be governing again.

In the same discussion the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody, Bush stressed that economic growth is somehow linked to two-parent, male-female households. Why? Because alternative folks just don't have enough love.

"…the non-traditional family that I was speaking of is the struggle in the great majority  part of our society where families are really struggling to be able to do what's right.  And they don't have the infrastructure of love around them that makes it harder to be successful….traditional families are what are going to end up leading our renewal, that moms and dads or husbands and wives that love their children with all their heart and soul is going to be the path to restoration for our country."

Infrastructure of Love sounds like a Todd Rundgren prog-rock album. As a campaign slogan, it's not so good.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): Cruz hit the note of Supreme Court overreach, stressing that even "blue-state" California had voted in favor of banning same-sex marriages and that the majority should rule, shouldn't it? Remember that the next time Cruz or any conservative talks about how the genius of the Founders was precisely that they protected minorities from the tyranny of the majority and all that. Because the minute that majorities in a majority of states vote in favor of gay marriage, expect the same people to start talking about natural, god-given rights that can't be subjected to a vote.

The family is the fundamental building block of society, and I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.): Mitt Romney's running mate said that the issue will now be decided at the state level, where it should be. His official site doesn't mention the rulings, but curiously he drew conservative wrath a few months back when he said he could live with gay adoption. From USA Today:

In 1999, the congressman voted in favor of banning same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting.

"I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple … I think if a person wants to love and raise a child, they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way," Ryan says…

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.): Quoted in the Times-Picayune thus:

"I believe every child deserves a mom and a dad. This opinion leaves the matter of marriage to the states where people can decide. In Louisiana, we will opt for traditional marriage.

"How about we let the people decide for themselves, via their representatives and via referendum?"

So the math here is: Mom + Mom or Dad + Dad is less than just Mom or just Dad. Good luck selling that.

If you've seen other memorable or different quotes or—heaven forbid—a quote by a leading Republican that actually celebrates marriage equality, please add it to the comments below and I'll kick it up here.

Most polls show a slight majority of Americans are now in favor of marriage equality—of treating gay and lesbian couples the same as heterosexual ones, with the same tax breaks, legal status, you name it. All polls show the same direction toward more acceptance over time and all show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to see gay marriage as no big deal.

Here's a representative chart from the Pew folks:

Let me suggest two points in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings related to gay marriage.

The first is that there's no clear reason why Republicans should be so univocal on opposing gay marriage. From a political point of view, it's not logically clear how a supposed dedication to limited government should indicate any one position on gay marriage, or even marriage at all. Many, perhaps most religions, are opposed to homosexuality and many Republicans are religious. But the whole notion of limited government came out of separating religion and the state.

It's totally possible to be opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds without calling for the exclusion of gays from secular rules governing marriage. I assume that most Catholics think most Jews or Muslims or Anglicans are making a mistake by not practicing Catholicism. They might even fight with their friends or neighbors over religion and try to convert them (as a kid in Catholic schools, I was told it was a sin not to try to convert the heathen). But no Catholic thinks the government should treat adherents to other faiths differently when it comes to the secular world. It's not a good sign that no leading Republican—certainly not one likely to be in the hunt for the presidential nomination in 2016—is known to be in favor of equal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law.

The second is this: If the Republican Party cannot come to terms with gay marriage, it will be left behind by American voters, who are moving toward greater acceptance of all sorts of alternative lifestyles. The Democrats are no prize-winners when it comes to inclusion or tolerance, for sure (indeed, DOMA needs to be understood as a Democratically supported piece of legislation, as was Don't Ask Don't Tell). But just as a positive defense of racial segregation faded (took too long, way too long) and just as vile sentiments against Jews, southern Europeans, and other "lesser" peoples faded not just from polite society but all society, so too is centuries-old homophobia passing into history. Mr. Roper, RIP.

I appreciate that for people who take the Bible—or the Koran—seriously, homosexuality presents a scriptural, theological, and cultural challenge. But the fact of the matter is that it's over for treating gays and lesbians as deviants, perverts, or worse in the public sphere. The sooner you can process that and make peace with it, the sooner you can turn your attention to activities that are the proper purview of government and public policy. Lord knows there's plenty of work to be done when it comes to righting the size, scope, and spending of government, which is what Republicans and conservatives always say they care about.

Advertisement

NEXT: Internet Archive Sues NJ Over Restrictive Content Law

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. “I’ve made it very clear since 2009 that I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’ve said that, I ran on that, I’ve said it consistently. That doesn’t mean, in any way shape or form, that I have anything against folks who are homosexual.”

    Unless, well, they’d sorta like to be treated like us ‘normal’ folks!

  2. “In the same discussion the Christian Broadcast Network’s David Brody, Bush stressed that economic growth is somehow linked to two-parent, male-female households. Why?”

    Yeah, it’s not like studies have ever found that welfare dependency, crime, and other social ills correlate strongly with so-called “alternative lifestyles.” Never.

    1. “Yeah, it’s not like studies have ever found that welfare dependency, crime, and other social ills correlate strongly with so-called “alternative lifestyles.” Never.”

      Uh, that brush looks a bit wide there; how do you equate SSM with ‘alternative lifestyles’?

      1. Gillespe made the point, not me, that you can’t tie alternative lifestyles to economic issues. You can. Look at the biggest cohort, single mother “families.” Even accounting for race, intelligence, and other factors, single mother “families” do considerably worse. As for homosexuals raising children, they are known to have worse outcomes.

        http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/…..s-research

        1. You really, really think about gay people a lot, don’t you. Are some of those thoughts…unsettling to you?

          1. Don’t follow.

            1. Sure you don’t.

            2. What I don’t follow is your assumption that these things are all correlated with “alternative lifestyles” and not even more strongly correlated with *government* subsidizing the worst aspects of alternative lifestyles.

              Maybe if we just let people live like they want, on their own dime, then the lifestyles that are socially deleterious might go away.

              In any case its pretty much impossible to make the case that a SS household has worse economic/social outcomes than a HS household does.

          2. Deep down, American longs for nothing more than a gay interracial orgy. He tries to suppress those thoughts by trolling websites about how much he hates those groups

            1. But Cali, those Mexican gays are just begging to be spanked nice and hard across the border by a lean, firm and chiseled Uncle Sam. Yeah, he needs to grab a whip, tie up those Mexicans all dressed in leather, and…

              Wait, where was I going with this? YOU TRAPPED ME

        2. Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 7:54PM |#
          “Gillespe made the point, not me, that you can’t tie alternative lifestyles to economic issues. You can. Look at the biggest cohort, single mother “families.””

          That’s nice. Now would you care to answer the question I asked?

          1. It was Gillespe who made the equivocation, not me. My link refers specifically to homosexuals.

            1. Yeah, idiot, now ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION and quit shucking and jiving.

    2. And correlation, as we all know, is the same as causation. Shucks, it’s not like being a member of an unpopular class that lacks the occasional legal right could ever lead to poverty and the host of “social ills” it brings!

      1. Gotta mention that living in SF, the crowd hanging out at the freebie stations sure don’t look gay to me.
        Most of the people I know who are gay are pretty well off. As you mention, being marginalized can cause those ills, and being gay in SF isn’t a marginalized existence, so absent anything other than anecdote, it seems gays are parasites in pretty much the same ratios as straights.

        1. Same. The gay people I know have done well for themselves.

          The problematic “alternate lifestyles” I know of usually involve taking one parent out of the equation (especially the father in the case of raising boys).

          1. “The problematic “alternate lifestyles” I know of usually involve taking one parent out of the equation (especially the father in the case of raising boys).”

            True enough, but that says nothing about gays.

            1. Does say something about lesbians who want to adopt.

              1. Not if one of them is butch enough to make for a strong father figure.

              2. Says more about your fantasies.

                1. Sorry: @ Bam!

      2. The studies have controlled for such “social ills,” and found that children raised by “families” of the same social class, same race, and same IQ level have significantly worse outcomes if they have been raised in “alternative families” as opposed to traditional families.

        1. Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 7:59PM |#
          The studies have controlled for such “social ills,” and found that children raised by “families”…”

          Cite missing, and before you post some stupid link to word salads by some blithering idiot, here’s what we need:
          1) Pull quote that really represents what the study claims, not some cherry-picked bullshit,
          2) Study that really is a study,
          3) One that includes gay families in enough quantity as compared to controls that it means something,
          OK, have a ball.

        2. Yah know, even if true that’s completely irrelevant.

          You know what a “worse outcome” is? Its a trade-off. Someone is trading off increased economic gain for some other benefit.

          I don’t want to live in a society where you’re told that you can’t do that, where you have to conform to a “socialy optimal lifestyle”.

          1. I’m not, let me be clear here, advocating social conservatism. I think if you want to be deviant that is your right, but you shouldn’t be able to enforce those costs on others. My point is that Gillespe’s patently false cosmotarian argument that deviancy has no economic cost.

            1. Oh, and BTW, you still haven’t offered a cite.
              Can we presume you’re simply a lying bigot?

  3. “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): Cruz hit the note of Supreme Court overreach, stressing that even “blue-state” California had voted in favor of banning same-sex marriages and that the majority should rule, shouldn’t it? Remember that the next Cruz or any conservative talks about how the genius of the Founders was precisely that they protected minorities from the tyranny of the majority and all that.”

    Remember this the next time Gillespe talks about original intent. Is he really saying the founders would have wanted this?

    1. Had the SCOTUS overturned Section II, you might have a point. They overturned Section III, and the Founders did not give the federal government the authority to pass such a law

      1. If that had been their justification, you might have a point. It wasn’t. And I have heard arguments here for homosexual marriage to be forced on ALL the states.

        1. “And I have heard arguments here for homosexual marriage to be forced on ALL the states.”

          Cite missing

        2. You were calling out Gillespie and saying that he would be a hypocrite if he supported original intent in the future. The decision was consistent with original intent, even if the reasoning wasn’t based on it.

          And I’m pretty sure most people here think that the government shouldn’t give out marriage licenses at all

        3. Homosexual marriage SHOULD be forced on the states (yes, all of them) because it’s a civil right

          The Tenth Amendment says that the states can’t pass laws that violate the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court found that marriage was a basic civil right and thus subject to the protections of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, all laws banning same-sex marriage/civil unions are illegal.

          Even if this country had no Fourteenth Amendment, those bans would still be illegal because they violate the Separation Clause of the First Amendment, as gay marriage bans come from religious sentiment. Passing them establishes the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions (but most Christian) as “correct”. Not only that, but they also establish specific denominations of Christianity as “incorrect”. Episcopalian churches have been performing same-sex weddings for years and is very much in favor of gay rights. Same-sex marriage bans legally invalidate their perspective on the issue. That’s an enormous part of why religion has absolutely no place in government; shit gets complicated very quickly.

          1. The question becomes, “What is marriage?,” not “Who gets it?”

            I also don’t know that receiving a marriage license is a fundamental right because it involves the government giving you something and thus seems to be a positive right. Apparently, some other posters recognized this.

            Plus gay marriage is almost entirely a new phenomenon from the past century, so traditional marriage historically belongs to more than just Christians, Jews and Muslims. It’s a product of virtually every culture in human history.

            As to invalidating people’s opinions. It largely does, but they can still go through the same motions, just without the government recognition or benefits.

    2. “Remember this the next time Gillespe talks about original intent. Is he really saying the founders would have wanted this?”

      Equal treatment? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that the founders intended that.
      OTOH, I’m sure you can find where it says ‘all this stuff only applies to straight people’, right? I’ll be right here, waiting.

      1. They never said “this stuff only applies to humans” either. Because it was obvious. “Equal protection” was intended to apply purely to race issues, not to homosexuality. It was fucking illegal back then.

        1. Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 7:46PM |#
          “They never said “this stuff only applies to humans” either. Because it was obvious.”

          So you’re holding out for a marriage license to a sheep, amiright?
          Don’t bother handing out that line of tripe; it just makes you look stupid. Blasphemy was illegal in certain areas also; so what?

          1. That was not my argument? The founders were clear that religious freedom and free speech precluded the right to blasphemy. After all, many of them committed it regularly. None of them spoke out for the right to taxpayer-subsidized homosexuality.

            1. “None of them spoke out for the right to taxpayer-subsidized homosexuality.”

              You’re right, and no one here is doing so either.
              Did you miss your meds, or are you just really, really concerned with what other people do with their dicks?

              1. Strawman cliche. I actually might consider voting for homosexual marriage at the state level if it came up in my state. My objection is to cosmotarianism here. To hypocrisy. And to living constructionism, a doctrine, libertarians usually rightly oppose.

                1. Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 8:31PM |#
                  “Strawman cliche.”

                  Yeah, I’m sure.

                2. “I actually might consider voting for homosexual marriage at the state level if it came up in my state.”

                  You’re full of shit

                  “My objection is to cosmotarianism here. To hypocrisy. And to living constructionism, a doctrine, libertarians usually rightly oppose.”

                  The federal government did not have the constitutional authority to pass DOMA Section III. The law deserved to be knocked down

        2. What is obvious is that society, then and now, dont live up to the values embodied in the constitution. Any progress in that direction is an improvement.

          The declaration clearly says that all men are created equal and have rights by virtue of their humanity, yet, many men were deprived of all rights and held as property.

          What is also obvious is that you are a bigot. Fuck you.

        3. Oh, and any time someone making an argument uses “its obvious” to support their position it means ‘ it is obvious to me cuz it feels right but I cant really say why’.

          There really is not that much difference between progressives and Socons is there?

    3. OK

      1. Gillespie (and the rest of us) *aren’t* GOP so what the GOP argues is pretty damn irrelevant.

      2. What the GOP means by “original intent” is irrelevant to what libertarians mean when they talk about it – see 1.

  4. shouldn’t all basic rights be subjected to a majority rule?

    Marriage as a bureaucratic creature is far from a “basic right”. It is not a negative right and is a very minor civil right. It is certainly more minor a civil right than separation of powers, local autonomy, and voting. That a libertarian would would elevate it to the status of a “basic right” is ludicrous.

    1. “That a libertarian would would elevate it to the status of a “basic right” is ludicrous.”

      I agree; the state has no business getting involved in it at all, and when we get the state out of it, I’ll be right at the front of the line demanding gays also lose any benefits, ’cause A14.
      Until then, I’ll be the same place with the same flag for the same reason.

      1. Sure, and that’s fine. Maybe Nick could take a few tips from you and not be such a drama queen about it, especially given his blase treatment of far more fundamental rights.

        1. You’ll have to talk with Nick about that; I’m dealing with the issue at hand.

  5. Not going to read the post so can somebody summarize the ratio of stupid to non-stupid reactions?

    1. The lot mentioned in the article got this (sort of) summary:
      “But the fact of the matter is that it’s over for treating gays and lesbians as deviants, perverts, or worse in the public sphere.”
      So you can tell Mensa isn’t handing out awards.

  6. Your link does not give Rand Paul’s opinion on the SCOTUS decision. He said he supported it:

    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding “a cultural war.”

    “As a country we can agree to disagree,” Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. “As a Republican Party, that’s kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.”?

    Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called “someone who doesn’t just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion.” He said Kennedy “tried to strike a balance.”

    Source.

    What you talk about in that other article is of course a dumb thing to say but shouldn’t be linked to as his position on the decision.

  7. Oh yeah and then there’s this:

    Bobby Jindal:

    I believe every child deserves a mom and a dad. This opinion leaves the matter of marriage to the states where people can decide. In Louisiana, we will opt for traditional marriage.

    How about we let the people decide for themselves, via their representatives and via referendum?

    Gov. Chris Christie:

    I’ve made it very clear since 2009 that I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’ve said that, I ran on that, I’ve said it consistently. That doesn’t mean, in any way shape or form, that I have anything against folks who are homosexual.

    Sen. Marco Rubio:

    I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.

    Sounds like Our Great Libertarian Hopes’ opinions differ little from that of the white trash populist from Wasilla. Remind me again how young people are going to flock to these juggernauts, Nick.

    1. Yeah, I have no idea what Nick was thinking when he wrote that sentence

      1. He needs to attack the GOP whichever way he can (either as a bunch of statist socons or political inept) and to ignore libertarianism’s fringe status and that a more libertarian GOP would be worse off then they are now.

  8. GOP (Greatly Outnumbered Party)

    When Obama has completely wrecked the economy and the republicans still lose, will anyone care?

  9. You’ve got it all wrong. The Reps aren’t worried about two gay men getting married they are worried about two STRAIGHT men getting married!

    1. “The Reps aren’t worried about two gay men getting married they are worried about two STRAIGHT men getting married!”

      That seems to worry a lot of people; they think it might be contagious!
      Haven’t seen it.

  10. The sooner you can process that and make peace with it

    They just can’t stop thinking about those sweaty, dirty homos though!

  11. Isn’t this sort of article hypocritical when Reason attacks the GOP for accepting Medicare, Social Security and (eventually) Obamacare?

    Also I’m sure the public is much more accepting of the surveillance state and increasingly police state tactics now then before.

    1. The latter three things aren’t the dealbreakers that gay marriage is increasingly becoming for many voters. And even if you think gay marriage is bad, it isn’t anywhere near as bad as any of the things you listed

      1. You don’t think Medicare and Social Security are deal breakers?????? WTF? How many elected politicians out there are calling for their abolition? What opinion polls show majority support for their abolition?

        1. Can you read? What do you think the words “latter three things” mean?

          1. I realized my mistake and made a second post.

      2. Eventually the NSA and Obamacare will become sacrosanct and its opponents will be labeled hidebound bigots. Shouldn’t you accept it and move on? I mean there was a time when it was acceptable to oppose public schools, Social Security, Medicare and welfare but those days are long gone.

        1. “Eventually the NSA and Obamacare will become sacrosanct”

          That’s debatable and I don’t think either of those things are as inevitable as gay marriage is (nor do I think opponents of such programs will ever be considered bigots).

          In any case, your comparisons are stupid. Supporting massive welfare programs or a surveillance state is inconsistent with a philosophy of liberty and limited government. Supporting gay marriage (as a next best alternative to eliminating marriage licenses altogether) is not

          1. That’s debatable and I don’t think either of those things are as inevitable as gay marriage is (nor do I think opponents of such programs will ever be considered bigots)

            Um so when are these programs going to be repealed? Hillary, Biden or a Republican won’t. Once they stay they become sacrosanct and political suicide to oppose.

            My opposition is more to the fact that there are serious violations of civil liberties going on so the triumphalism from reason on gay marriage is a bit strange. And I think libertarians are the last ones who should be defending something on the basis that it is “inevitable” and using opinion polls and not wanting to be seen as reactionaries.

            And you are aware that NSA and Obamacare opponents have already been labeled racists?

            1. “Um so when are these programs going to be repealed? Hillary, Biden or a Republican won’t. Once they stay they become sacrosanct and political suicide to oppose.”

              I don’t think they will be repealed, but there’s a better chance than gay marriage getting repealed once it’s been passed. I don’t see Obamacare being as popular as Medicare or Social Security. This law was supposed to fix the entire health care system, and it’s not going to do it. Prices will rise, government spending will increase, and there will still be a large number of uninsured people. And I don’t see people being as enthusiastic about government spying on the public as they are with SS or Medicare. There’s been a lot of outrage over the Snowden leaks, and the public seems pretty divided on it. If it gets more intrusive, I can see people pressuring Congress to rein it in.

              “My opposition is more to the fact that there are serious violations of civil liberties going on so the triumphalism from reason on gay marriage is a bit strange.”

              It’s not like Reason hasn’t talked about the NSA scandal, the War on Drugs, police misconduct, the Patriot Act, etc. I don’t see how also writing articles on gay marriage negates that.

              1. The goal with Obamacare is to lead the way to “universal” healthcare. And once that happens then good luck trying to repeal it.

                “even if you don’t like gay marriage, is it really so horrible that it’s worth the backlash you’re going to receive over it as the years go on?” Which is a fair point.

                Replace “gay marriage” with something you hate and I doubt you will think it a fair point. I mean I could say the same about the NSA and the IRS.

                I haven’t seen NSA opponents being called racist.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..-8-oduFGd8

                And the only people who call Obamacare opponents racist are partisan leftists

                Wait a few years. Did you ever think opposing the IRS would be considered racist? Now it is.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..92578.html

                1. “The goal with Obamacare is to lead the way to “universal” healthcare. And once that happens then good luck trying to repeal it.”

                  I agree that if single payer (or something similar) passes, it will be very difficult to repeal. Obamacare itself? Not as much. It was a very tough fight to pass it, even with unusually large majorities in Congress and the presidency, and single payer would be much more difficult to pass.

                  “Replace “gay marriage” with something you hate and I doubt you will think it a fair point. I mean I could say the same about the NSA and the IRS.”

                  You really can’t, unless you’re a moron. How can compare giving marriage licenses to gay couples, in addition to already giving them to straight couples, to a program that spies on millions of Americans with no regard to the Constitution, standards of evidence, due process, etc. or an organization that takes very large portions of the earnings of tens of millions of Americans, discriminates against political opponents, and ruins lives? If you actually think gay marriage is comparable to those things, and you claim to be a libertarian or even a small government conservative, you’re either a homophobe (and I’m not one of those people that throws around that term at just anyone who opposes gay marriage) or you’re really stupid. Can you actually argue your case for caring so much about it?

                  1. If you actually think gay marriage is comparable to those things

                    Never said that. Only that reason is only making that argument because they agree with gay marriage. It isn’t a libertarian defence of something. They won’t use that line of argument with something they disagree with. It’s not about gay marriage it’s about using a “pragmatic” argument instead of a libertarian argument whenever it suits them.

                    As for the youtube video, I have no idea who that guy is, but it seems he’s just some leftwing hack.

                    Reason interviewed him here:
                    https://reason.com/blog/2010/09…..ed#comment

                2. As for the youtube video, I have no idea who that guy is, but it seems he’s just some leftwing hack. Bashir is too, although he’s more prominent. The only people who actually think opposing the NSA and IRS is racist are idiotic brain dead progressive partisans like them. You act as if the average Americans holds those views, and that’s definitely not the case. And, as I said earlier, that’s largely a function of having a black president. Obama is not going to be in office forever.

                  1. *American

                    And when I say “that’s largely a function of having a black president” I’m talking about the proclivity of progressives to accuse anyone who opposes Obama of being racist. I’m sure that if we had a white Democratic president, some would still claim that (“They oppose his/her policies because they benefit minorities”) but that’s less credible than “They can’t stand a black man in the white house” which already isn’t all that credible in most instances.

            2. “And I think libertarians are the last ones who should be defending something on the basis that it is “inevitable” and using opinion polls and not wanting to be seen as reactionaries.”

              Reason has never said that public opinion are the sole reason to support gay marriage. When they talk about “inevitability,” I think they’re saying “even if you don’t like gay marriage, is it really so horrible that it’s worth the backlash you’re going to receive over it as the years go on?” Which is a fair point.

              “And you are aware that NSA and Obamacare opponents have already been labeled racists?”

              I haven’t seen NSA opponents being called racist. And the only people who call Obamacare opponents racist are partisan leftists, who aren’t the majority of the country by a long shot. If we had a white Democratic president, there’d be a lot fewer accusations of racism flying around (not that there wouldn’t be any, but you wouldn’t hear “You only oppose the president because you’re racist!” nearly as much)

  12. Not many Republicans candidates are going to expressly support gay marriage, even if they believe in it and understand that it’s inevitable anyway.

    A sizable portion of their constituency is extremely opposed to it, and that’s the portion that typically mans the phone banks, does the campaign leg work, and is the likeliest to vote in the primaries. My guess is that support for gay marriage among Republicans generally is probably close to those national polls, but a candidate can’t afford to piss off such a committed portion of his potential primary voter base.

    1. This is a good point. I don’t think an openly pro-gay marriage Republican would have any chance at winning a presidential primary

    2. Yes. As Cruz pointed out, a ban on gay marriage passed with a majority in California, so how likely is it that a Republican politician is going to openly support it?

      1. I don’t think Prop 8 would pass again in California. A lot has changed even in the last five years.

        1. Pretty sure it passed by (this much) at the time.

        2. I would like to think so, but I’m not so sure. It passed 52-48 in a huge year for Democrats.

          1. True, but if you like at opinion polling, public opinion has changed quite a bit in the last five years. Gay marriage has solid support amongst independents, which it didn’t have in 08. More young people have reached voting age and some old people have died off. Also, blacks are significantly more supportive than they were in 08 (seemingly as a response to Obama’s change on the issue). My mom is almost 60, and very conservative, and she’s changed her mind on the issue since then. I don’t think it would be a landslide, but I think it would get defeated.

  13. “These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.”

    Yeesss, and I’m sure the jews should have accepted the results of the democratic process also. And the Armenians, the Kurds, and American blacks.

    1. The issue at stake is not the same in kind as the issue of Kurds, Armenians, Jews, etc.

      There is no life, liberty, or property issue at stake. When you strip all the gloss and misdirection away, it is at its heart a fairly boring question of a differential contract regime — one that is inherently discriminatory by excluding singles.

  14. “Many, perhaps most religions, are opposed to homosexuality and many Republicans are religious. But the whole notion of limited government came out of separating religion and the state.”

    Where to even start? First, no single religion, not even religion in general, can claim credit for the man/woman dichotomy in marriage. Even non-theistic belief systems (Confucianism, Buddhism) hold this view. And there are plenty of monotheists and religionists who are fanatically supportive of SSM as an expression of their religious values. So the implication that “only Sky-Daddy worshippers with their obsession with a so-called ‘God’ can possibly believe that marriage unites men with women” is unsupported. It’s like saying that SSM supporters only hold their beliefs because they belong to the Episcopelians, the UCC, or the MCC.

    And “the whole notion of limited government,” at least in the Western tradition, did not come from “separating religion and the state,” but from the idea that rulers aren’t divine, but are subject to the same God, and the same moral code, as their subjects – or as Thaddeus Stevens (a key framer of the Fourteenth Amendment) summed up on his tombstone, “EQUALITY OF MAN BEFORE HIS CREATOR.”

    1. (caps in original)

    2. 10 BEEP BOOP HOMOS ARE BAD GOD SAID SO BEEP BOOP

      20 BEEP BOOP GOTO 10 BEEP BOP WHIRRR

      1. Episiarch, as Oscar Wilde, displays his scintillating wit:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyepBJXEYJg

      2. “My name’s Episiarch and I love gayhomosecks and I wish I had a dick in my eye right now.”

        That’s what you sound like.

        #maturity

    3. “And “the whole notion of limited government,” at least in the Western tradition, did not come from “separating religion and the state,””

      Caring? Not really; A1.
      Doesn’t make a lot of difference if some religions don’t mind; the Xian fundies in the US are the ones griping.

      1. Australian writer is indignant that his country’s atheist prime minister is against SSM:

        http://www.vice.com/read/if-ju…..y-marriage

        1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:37PM |#
          “Australian writer is indignant that his country’s atheist prime minister is against SSM:”

          And your point?

          1. …has managed to elude your grasp.

            1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:42PM |#
              “…has managed to elude your grasp.”
              Mostly since there is none.

              1. Tell your Mom I said hi.

                1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:46PM |#
                  “Tell your Mom I said hi.”
                  Glad you finally found your level.

    4. Jesus Christ, just suck a dick and get it over with.

      1. It’s strangely liberating.

      2. What about your mother’s dick?

        1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:38PM |#
          “What about your mother’s dick?”

          You seem strangely interested in the female parents of others. Did you sort of, well, miss something?

          1. [reply deleted by author for reasons of taste]

            1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:51PM |#
              “[reply deleted by author for reasons of taste]”
              Right…..

          2. I know I’ve been lapsed for years, but if I remember my Sunday school lessons correctly, I’m pretty sure screwing people’s mothers out of wedlock isn’t very Catholic. I guess Eddie is just as deviant as the damn homos he rants about

            1. Eddie really doesn’t like being called on his nearly constant (but oh so clever) bullshit, right, Eddie?
              Tell us again about how some religions don’t mind gays and therefore US fundies are just OK! Oh, and how they’re even more OK ’cause Oz!
              Hey, Eddie! C’mon! You can pass on your fixation on other people’s moms long enough to explain your “point”!

              1. Yes, that is a fully accurate summary of my position, not in the least exaggerated or anything.

                1. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 9:03PM |#
                  “Yes, that is a fully accurate summary of my position, not in the least exaggerated or anything.”

                  OK, folks, for your amusement, here’s Eddie, claiming to be misunderstood.
                  And of course it’s true! Why, just look at that clarification! Suddenly it’s all clear!
                  Atheist Ozzie, Buddhists don’t seem to care, Nixon and Hitler on the grassy knoll, Paraguay 1956!
                  But something something iccky fags!
                  Sorry it took so long; was that you on the street corner in the sandwich board?

            2. If I told you to “kiss my ass,” I would not be literally requesting/permitting you to kiss my ass. Or if I told you to take a long walk off a short pier, I am not literally wanting you to commit the sin of suicide.

              Nevertheless, I apologize for the inappropriate insults, and will try to be a good boy in future.

  15. “Marriage equality”? What’s that?

    1. “Marriage equality”? What’s that?

      It’s where a married two income household gets to pay more in taxes than a unmarried two income household.

  16. Sorry Nick, but I only got as far as Ryan and quit reading. I am about to eat and could feel my appetite already dying.

    Every one of those fuckers need a punch in the mouth, then forced to stand in front of a camera and say;

    “Regardless of people’s personal feelings the fourteenth amendment guarantees every american the same rights, privileges, and protections as every other american. The court did it’s proper duty, and in this case at least, they properly interpreted the constitution in letter and spirit.”

    1. Neither decision involved the Fourteenth Amendment. The Windsor decision involved the Fifth, and the Holllingsworth decision involved Art. III.

      1. But I like the idea of making these people publicly recant their errors. Maybe they could wear signs around their necks proclaiming their ideological deviationism, like dissenters during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

      2. Ahh.

        I dont know a thing about this case other than headlines proclaiming that DOMA was struck down.

        I dont even know what DOMA says. Gay issues have no interest for me other than my revulsion at treating certain people differently before the law.

        I can honestly say that pre-DOMA my marriage was happy. During DOMA my marriage was happy. Now that it is gone my marriage will be happy. The relationship my wife and I have is dependent on us and completely unaffected by what other people do.

      3. Eduard van Haalen| 6.27.13 @ 8:11PM |#
        “Neither decision involved the Fourteenth Amendment.”

        Wrong.
        Both found other stated reasons, and both left the default condition defined by A14.

        1. That’s a fascinating spin.

          1. Yeah, it’s a shame that darn A14 is there, isn’t it? Keeps bigots from doing all sorts of things.

  17. “But just as a positive defense of racial segregation faded (took too long, way too long) and just as vile sentiments against Jews, southern Europeans, and other “lesser” peoples faded not just from polite society but all society, so too is centuries-old homophobia passing into history.”

    Two problems. One, no matter how many times Jews may say otherwise, “vile statements” against them was never accepted in polite society in the United States. Of course, it depends on how you define “vile statements.”

    And comparing homosexuals to Jews is an apples to oranges comparison. Jews are merely a different ethnicity within the white race, there is nothing inherent about Jews that makes people hate them. We see Jew-hatred is a socially constructed idea. “Homophobia,” in contrast, appears to be a natural reaction to homosexuality. It has not been around for hundreds of years, but thousands of years. The chattering classes have clearly accepted homosexuality as moral, but if you talk to everyday people, it is far from considered normal. Especially if you talk to ethnic minorities, the future of the country.

    1. “Two problems. One, no matter how many times Jews may say otherwise, “vile statements” against them was never accepted in polite society in the United States. Of course, it depends on how you define “vile statements.”
      And comparing homosexuals to Jews is an apples to oranges comparison. Jews are merely a different ethnicity within the white race, there is nothing inherent about Jews that makes people hate them.

      Make that two lies.

    2. “Homophobia,” in contrast, appears to be a natural reaction to homosexuality.”

      Really? Why then, have attitudes towards homosexuality varied wildly across time and culture? Are you saying social constructs like religion have no impact on attitudes toward homosexuality?

      “The chattering classes have clearly accepted homosexuality as moral, but if you talk to everyday people, it is far from considered normal.”

      You do realize that “everyday people” includes more than just racist homophobes like yourself?

      “Especially if you talk to ethnic minorities, the future of the country.”

      Contrary to popular belief, not all blacks and Hispanics are homophobic bigots

      1. Forget the ancient Greek & Roman civilizations. Homos have always been hated!

      2. Well, it’s “natural”, don’t you see? I mean any homophobe is naturally homophobic!

  18. No alt txt? WTF Gillespie?

  19. These “libertarians” who say that the founders would have wanted homosexual marriage are like the “Christians” who say that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality.

    1. Well, that much is true, anyways.

      There are no originalist grounds (and precious few textualist grounds) on which to force states to recognize gay marriage. There’s certainly no doubt on where the Founders would have ended up on the issue; the most “left wing” any of them got on the issue of sodomy bans was Thomas Jefferson, who proposed that castration would be more appropriate than the death penalty.

      1. It’s a straw man, anyway. Who actually says the founders wanted homosexual marriage?

        1. I mean, just look at those gay clothes…

          1. And those haircuts?! I MEAN!!!

          2. I wonder how many of them were really gay. I mean, there had to be at least a few, right?

            1. How could there not have been? Sorta like ‘did some of those guys have brown eyes’?
              The fascination concerning gay NFL players is hilarious!

    2. Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 8:29PM |#
      “These “libertarians” who say that the founders would have wanted homosexual marriage are like the “Christians” who say that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality.”

      So can we presume that along with missing the point entirely, you’re some ignorant bleever? Is that what we got going here?
      Your sky daddy says ‘oh, no!’?

    3. Someday you’ll learn that in terms of social mores, it doesn’t fucking matter what the founders believed or would have wanted, because mores and folkways change.

      The founders, (though they were far from a hegemonic hive-mind, and I hate it when people talk about them that way), probably wouldn’t have wanted blacks and whites marrying, either. But we moved past that. There’s certainly more historical and textual basis for racial equality than gay equality, but in terms of purely social phenomena, original intent is meaningless.

      1. Not to mention that even though most of the founders disapproved of homosexuality, they didn’t intend for it to be a matter handled by the federal government

        1. I bet that fucker Hamilton did!

          Plus, he was from Houston.

          *eyes Apatheist warily*

          1. You’ve been male gazing me a lot lately. Is Dallas turning you gay?

            1. The Male Graze!

  20. in which he beat around the bush like he was auditioning for The Vagina Monologues.

    I see what you did there.

    1. Yeah, that one made me grin but I got distracted by Lowly Stinko’s blather and forgot to make a joke about it.

  21. For your amusement:

    Lolo Stahko| 6.27.13 @ 8:38PM |#
    “I’m not, let me be clear here, advocating social conservatism. I think if you want to be deviant that is your right, but you shouldn’t be able to enforce those costs on others.”

    We have obvious lie, followed by pejorative statement, and then claim of false condition!
    Now shithead commonly wins the ‘how much mendacity can you get in a single post’ competition, but we got someone here hoping to take the lead!

    1. Are you saying marriage doesn’t cost the single taxpayers like me anything?

      1. Jayburd| 6.27.13 @ 10:11PM |#
        “Are you saying marriage doesn’t cost the single taxpayers like me anything?”

        I’m not. Do you have something to say about the issue at hand?

        1. Are you the moderator? I would consider trying anal sex if an assteroid were going to hit earth.

          1. Jayburd| 6.27.13 @ 11:28PM |#
            “Are you the moderator?”
            No, I’m not

            “I would consider trying anal sex if an assteroid were going to hit earth.”
            Well, help yourself. I don’t care.

  22. But the whole notion of limited government came out of separating religion and the state.

    Huh. I thought it came out of resistance to Parliament arrogating to itself unwarranted taxing authority. I guess you learn something new every day.

    1. Wasn’t Ollie Cromwell a Christfag?

    2. Well, I goofed; the American Independence movement came out of Parliament, etc. “Limited Government” is a separate issue.

      (Where’s the “comment delete button” on this page?)

      1. “(Where’s the “comment delete button” on this page?)”

        It’s not on this page, and believe me, you’re not the first to look for it!

  23. Get rid of the “secular rules governing marriage”. How fucking hard is that concept. Why do people rally for group inclusion into bad law? Because of their feelings? More likely because a check’s involved. Do we really want to advocate for group rights based on personal behavior? Well ya shoulda started a church. I can’t stand people who pick their nose in public. I guess I’m afraid they’ll get it on the park bench. Does that make me a bigot? But I don’t think much about them picking their nose in private. Fuck marriage and fuck baby changing stations in men’s restrooms.

    1. Uh, I’m pretty sure you missed most all of the arguments; please (YES!) start from the beginning.
      Hardly anyone here supports gov’t marriage benefits at all, but if they exist A14 applies.
      And are you sure there’s a marriage tax benefit now? I’m not; thought that disappeared with the most recent screwing with tax law.

      1. Uh, I’m pretty sure you said enforcing costs of marriage onto others was a “false condition”. Read yourself.

        1. Jayburd| 6.27.13 @ 11:38PM |#
          “Uh, I’m pretty sure you said enforcing costs of marriage onto others was a “false condition”. Read yourself.”

          Uh, I’m pretty sure you’re an ignorant asshole.
          Go away.

  24. Okay, fine. Since you’ve asked for it. I’ll give you my opinion as a slack-jawed southern christian clinging to my guns and religion.

    So what if I believe homosexuality is morally wrong (btw there are still some theological arguments being had within Christendom regarding homosexuality)? I don’t believe the state should have anything to do with marriage.

    1. “So what if I believe homosexuality is morally wrong (btw there are still some theological arguments being had within Christendom regarding homosexuality)? I don’t believe the state should have anything to do with marriage.”

      As an atheist, I don’t mind your position whatsoever.
      But until we get the government out of the marriage bizz, well, A14.
      And I’ll be happy to hear why that doesn’t matter; all sorts of folks have tried.

  25. I don’t think the government should acknowledge ANY marriage (civil unions only, same-sex included). But since the word “marriage” is so deeply ingrained, we have to call a same sex union “marriage” even if I don’t accept it morally. It’s quite simple so why don’t Republicans just say what I said?

    Nick, I appreciate the delicate tone you used in the article towards the end regarding religion. Thank you.

    1. That was Nick’s ‘softer’ side shining through. All us guy’s got it. Hell I even like black leather jackets.

    2. Well, that’s the thing. Republicans think marriage means a religious matter, not civil.

      So they see it as the government trying to impose its standards on their religion.

      1. They would have a point, if the vast majority of them didn’t support the government imposing the standards of their religion on the rest of society. Your point is all the more reason they should support ending marriage licenses

  26. When did Republicans turn into pure democrats: “respect the will of the people” and all that trash?

    1. Whenever convenient, though it’s curiously they’d choose this issue, since the will of the people is on the side of equal marriage rights.

  27. Those dudes seem to know whats going on over there.

    http://www.Go-Anon.tk

  28. “Lord knows there’s plenty of work to be done when it comes to righting the size, scope, and spending of government, which is what Republicans and conservatives always say they care about.”

    So says the guy bitching about equality? And insisting on EXPANSION of the government’s power to marry?

    Blow it out your ass, Gillespe.

  29. Are these really the frontrunners? They mostly suck. Does anyone really believe that a Bush will occupy the White House in the near future?

  30. “So the math here is: Mom + Mom or Dad + Dad is less than just Mom or just Dad. Good luck selling that.”

    I wouldn’t let a single parent adopt children, either. If a child ends up in a single parent home by death or divorce, then they are at least with their biological parent and we certainly shouldn’t tear them apart.

    The reason creatures have two parents is because they have a mom and a dad. This “more is automatically better” logic leads to thinking five parents are better than two. Or as Scott Shackford put on this site, “For one thing, what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?” https://reason.com/blog/2013/06…..me-to-talk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.