Define Your Own Families: Scott Shackford Makes Conservative Case for Gay Marriage at Breitbart.com

Credit: Climbing Kilimanjaro / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

I have a commentary up at Breitbart.com's Big Government section today arguing that conservatives should embrace same-sex marriage recognition because it's an example of families having more power to control their own lives:

Looking back into history from the vantage point of 2013, it actually seems strange that it's conservatives that need to be convinced to support gay marriage recognition.

Simply describing the relationship between conservatives and libertarians and the government indicates deep resistance to allowing federal, state or local officials dictate what we can do in our home. The right to have control over what our children are taught and to select schools (or teach them ourselves), the right to protect our homes and property, the right to control what we do with our own property, the right to not have to contribute our hard-earned money to line the pockets of government and corporate cronies – all of these ideals are predicated on valuing individuals and families over central control.

So why is marriage recognition different? Why do so many conservatives support government family planning when homosexuality gets tossed in the mix?

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[John]

That is a great idea. And if the world were populated entirely by Conservatives and Libertarians, it would be a great compromise. But the world sadly is also full of totalitarian fascists known as Progressives. And they are not real keen on people defending their own families or living their own way of life. To them gay marriage is just another weapon to club their enemies into submission with. If the government didn't have so much control over people's lives, gay marriage would be a very benign debate. But the government does. And progressives are going to use gay marriage as a way to effectively make publicly expressing certain view points illegal.

[Tony]

progressives are going to use gay marriage as a way to effectively make publicly expressing certain view points illegal.

Evidence for this claim? Without evidence, you're simply justifying bigotry with absurd slippery slope bullshit.

[John]

Businesses all over America being sued for refusing to recognize gay marriage. I have a bakery in New Mexico that is not bankrupt that says you are a fascist Tony.

[John]

No Oregon. I have a photographer who is out of business in New Mexico who also says you are a fascist Tony.

Yeah, I get it, you are happy to see those people go out of business and would no doubt lock them up or preferably liquidate them if you could. But the rest of us find that disturbing.

[Tony]

Marriage equality and antidiscrimination laws are two separate issues. You are conflating them in service of a fallacious argument against the former.

[John]

No they are not and you, even though you are a half wit, know it. If gay marriage didn't involve the ability to use anti-discrimination laws to run your political enemies out of business, you wouldn't give two shits about it. Indeed, the gay left hated the idea of gay marriage when the idea was first proposed. It wasn't until they realized they could use it to go after their enemies that it became so important.

[DesigNate]

It's like he doesn't even pay attention to the articles that are posted here.

[sarcasmic]

It wasn't until they realized they could use it to go after their enemies that it became so important.

I can actually remember where I was when I heard on the radio that the SSM people were going to use a civil rights argument to get marriage redefined. That right there was the moment I withdrew my support for gay marriage, because I realized it wasn't about equal treatment under the law. It's about punishing people for what they think and believe.

Thoughtcrime is death (and it probably would be if Tony and other tolerant progressives had their way).

[Calidissident]

New Mexico didn't have (and still doesn't) a gay marriage law when the photographer case happened. It's not as if progressives or gay rights advocates are only advocating outlawing discrimination against gay couples. I'm pretty sure they're also in favor of outlawing discrimination (in employment, service, etc.) against gay individuals. Gay marriage doesn't cause anti-discrimination laws. People who support anti-discrimination laws tend to overwhelmingly support gay marriage. That's not the same thing.

[John]

People who support anti-discrimination laws tend to overwhelmingly support gay marriage. That's not the same thing.

But they relate to one another. The existence of anti-discrimination laws makes the recognition of gay marriages much more oppressive.

No one is saying the are the same area of law you half whit. The point is that we don't live in libertopia. Thanks the existence of public accommodation laws, the Left is going to use gay marriage as a weapon in the culture war.

That is why the left supports gay marriage. Only Libertarians are naive enough to think the left cares about anyone's civil rights or anything beyond punishing their enemies using government power.

[Calidissident]

"But they relate to one another. The existence of anti-discrimination laws makes the recognition of gay marriages much more oppressive."

The same could be said of any sort of marriage. Which is why my ideal solution would be to eliminate marriage licenses. If that's not going to happen, I believe the government should issue licenses to gay or straight couples (I'm also in favor of legalizing polygamy, but that's another debate for another day)

"No one is saying the are the same area of law you half whit."

WTF is a "half whit?" Do you mean half-wit? Way to show off your superior intelligence (or should I say wit?) there.

"The point is that we don't live in libertopia."

Obviously. We wouldn't be discussing marriage licenses if we did.

"Thanks the existence of public accommodation laws, the Left is going to use gay marriage as a weapon in the culture war."

That's not the way I see it. Public accomodation laws are the weapon. Had that baker simply refused to serve gay people, regardless of whether it was for a wedding or not, it would have been illegal. Same thing with the photographer (and again, there was and is no SSM law in NM).

...

[DesigNate]

I hardly doubt that if a black baker had refused to serve my wife and I when we got married that we would have gotten any traction with an anti-discrimination suit.

Anti-discrimination is specifically set up to enshrine certain classes of people as untouchable. Because many people are actively working to get LGBT's on this list, John's argument is not without merit.

[Calidissident]

Anti-discrimination laws do apply to discrimination against whites. It's not legal for a black person to refuse service because someone is white. It may be rarer or more difficult for a white person to prove, perhaps, but it's not legal. And I believe most discrimination laws refer to sexual orientation and don't just legally refer to LGBT.

In any case, that's beside the point of the argument. My point was that these laws cover gay people, regardless of whether they're a couple getting married or an individual. Whether such laws apply to discrimination against straight people isn't relevant to a discussion about whether gay marriage causes these laws

[OneOut]

"WTF is a "half whit?" Do you mean half-wit? Way to show off your superior intelligence (or should I say wit?) there."

If nit picking on typing errors is your idea of a reasoned response to another poster I will ignore your posts in the future.

If nit picking a typo is your best argument you have none.

Or is that no'ne?

[Calidissident]

"Only Libertarians are naive enough to think the left cares about anyone's civil rights or anything beyond punishing their enemies using government power."

Depends on who you mean by "the left." Politicians and old Marxist college professors? Yeah, you're probably right in most cases. The average leftist may support government power to punish their enemies, but, at least the ones I've met (and I've lived in California my whole life), would still support SSM even if anti-discrimination laws didn't exist.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Tony is right for once. They are different laws and different issues. The one in New Mexico happened when they didn't even have gay marriage for example.

[John]

Doesn't matter. Gay marriage is the entry to the discrimination laws. And the justification for that case was the SCOUTS precedent that gay marriage is a right.

[sarcasmic]

Not only that, but the arguments used to redefine marriage were based upon anti-discrimination. So to say the two are separate and unrelated is intellectually dishonest.

[Calidissident]

"Not only that, but the arguments used to redefine marriage were based upon anti-discrimination. So to say the two are separate and unrelated is intellectually dishonest."

I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws, as long as they only apply to government. How a libertarian can't see the difference between an argument regarding discrimination by government and an argument regarding discrimination by private parties is beyond me. Obviously the people in favor of outlawing the latter will support the former. That doesn't mean everyone who supports the former must support the latter.

[DesigNate]

I think we can all agree (except Tony of course) that anti-discrimination laws for the private sector are fucking retarded.

[R C Dean]

Bingo. They are two sides of the same coin.

[Calidissident]

The fact that people who support anti-discrimination laws support gay marriage does make them two sides of the same coin. Just as how people who supported racial anti-discrimination laws in the 60s also supported ending Jim Crow doesn't make those two things the same thing

[Apatheist ?_??]

It happened 6 years ago. It had nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision. They gay couple involved were having a non-government wedding.

Your logic on this would apply to almost anything. We can't legalize drugs because some people will buy drugs with their welfare money!

[Cytotoxic]

John and sarc desperately, DESPERATELY want gay marriage = anti-discrimination laws. But it just ain't so. Not that they're going to let facts get in their way.

[R C Dean]

gay marriage = anti-discrimination laws

While it is theoretically possible for a legislature or referendum to implement gay marriage without reference to anti-discrimination law, the sad fact is that this battle is also being fought in the courts, where gay marriage is most definitely being argued as a civil rights issue, which means an anti-discrimination law issue.

And the courts are buying those arguments. So, yes, it is disingenuous, at best, to say gay marriage and anti-discrimation laws have nothing to do with each other.

[sarcasmic]

So, yes, it is disingenuous, at best, to say gay marriage and anti-discrimation laws have nothing to do with each other.

When SSM is being sold as a means to use the courts to go after people who disagree, then yeah, it's just plain dishonest to say the two are unrelated.

[Calidissident]

But that's true of marriage laws in general. I don't support anti-discrimination laws. But I don't see why anyone who did would make an exception for marriage. Obviously laws outlawing discrimination against gays will apply to gay couples. As we saw in New Mexico, it's irrelevant whether that couple is legally married or not.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that people here aren't just arguing that gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws have something to do with each other, they're arguing that the former causes the latter

[Tony]

Change in medication John?

[Cytotoxic]

Shorter John: you can't have freedom because anti-discrimination laws.

See also: you can't have legal drugs because I'll have to pay for your healthcare.

[R C Dean]

you can't have freedom because anti-discrimination laws.

As applied to the private sector, how do anti-discrimination laws not infringe on your freedoms?

[Cytotoxic]

They do, and that's a separate issue to fight.

[Ann N]

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a positive right should be promoted with anti-discrimination ideology?

If you are against anti-discrimination and for SSM it must be a very bewildering time. Why are the 'good guys' aligning IDEOLOGICALLY with the 'bad guys'?

Your beliefs of their the sincerity and reasons must leave you in an uncomfortable place.

[sarcasmic]

Conservatives should resist the urge to try to use government authority to control family structures, because that power will always be subject to abuse by ideological opponents.

mumble mumble Iron Law mumble

[Eduard van Haalen]

The SSM movement isn't about getting the govt out of marriage, but about the govt continuing to recognize marriage under a definition, and to promote this redefinition at the expense of dissenters.

[Tony]

Getting the government out of marriage is a nonsensical concept. Everyone is perfectly free to get fake married already. If it's such an oppression to you for government to issue marriage contracts and provide rights for married couples, then don't get married. I'll take it as a given that you aren't and never have been officially married. Surely you're not a lying hypocrite using fairy-tale delusions to justify being against equal rights.

[Eduard van Haalen]

I don't even understand your point. I've never endorsed getting the govt out of marriage, and I'm pointing out that the SSM crowd isn't seeking that objective, either.

[Tony]

And why should they? It's a nonsensical idea.

[Eduard van Haalen]

You seem to have a little difficulty with grappling with, or even understanding, another person's viewpoint and arguments.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Correction - a few years ago I was bamboozled enough to go along with the idea that the govt could get out of marriage, but I've recovered from that delusion.

[Calidissident]

It depends on what you mean by "get out of marriage." The government would enforce privately-made "marriage contracts" or whatever people want to call it, in Libertopia, but I see no reason why the fabric of the universe would come undone if the government stopped issuing marriage licenses.

[Tony]

It wouldn't, but you have to understand that's a radical idea and has nothing to do with the debate at hand, except when it serves as an excuse for people to endorse continued inequality without having to say that's actually what they want. I don't even think most of you care that much about keeping gays second-class citizens. Maybe you're just incapable of not being purists.

[sarcasmic]

It wouldn't, but you have to understand that's a radical idea and has nothing to do with the debate at hand

I can see that you didn't read the article. Dumbass.

[Calidissident]

Tony, I don't know if you've missed anything I've ever written on gay marriage, but I am in favor of SSM as long as the government is issuing marriage licenses, even though I'm in favor of eliminating marriage licenses long term

[Eduard van Haalen]

OK, I suppose that if you posit a Libertopia where (eg) there's no compulsory subpoenas for witnesses (so the spousal privilege isn't a problem), no govt benefits for married couples (so defining marriage isn't a problem), etc.

Let me qualify, then, that I'm talking about this country, not Libertopia.

[DesigNate]

Until we reach Libertopia, the government is never going to get their greedy little paws out of the licensing of marriages.

That's pretty fucked up when you write it out like that. Why should the government have to give you permission (license) to get married? It's like why should you have to pay the government for the privilege of putting food on your family's table (income tax)? God our system is fucked up.

[Fatty Bolger]

Because you didn't build that (institution). Also, ROADZZZZ!

[Tony]

Why should the government have to give you permission (license) to get married?

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. Government is not going to arrest you if you call yourself "married" to your partner but refuse to get a marriage license. You can call yourself whatever you want. Society has decided to offer legal protections and rights to people who do seek to be officially married, and that's for certain social purposes (adding stability to relationships for the sake of raising children chief among them). You don't have to agree with that social goal, but that is an entirely separate debate from whether gays are entitled to equal legal protection under whatever laws that happen to exist.

Marriage is a common social practice, and regularized marriage in the form of licenses and laws is just an efficient way to handle contracting of this common practice. People are perfectly free not to get the standard marriage license, draw up whatever contracts they like, and call themselves married around their friends. Why don't libertarians avail themselves of this unnecessarily complicated end-run before they start insisting we abolish regularized marriage for everyone else?

[PM]

People are perfectly free not to get the standard marriage license, draw up whatever contracts they like, and call themselves married around their friends.

Unless, of course, the state can prove they've been co-habitating for X amount of time, and are therefore common-law married, in which case if they decide to divorce all of their contracts mean exactly dick.

[DesigNate]

What's fucking rich is I don't oppose SSM but Tony is so fucking retarded he manages to alienate people even if they are tangentially on his side.

[Brian]

Even when you agree with Tony, he can't help but be an asshole. Libertarians aren't agreeing enough, in the right way.

[John]

The government would enforce privately-made "marriage contracts" or whatever people want to call it,

I am constantly amazed at how people who profess to believe in free markets understand so little about contract law or how contracts work.

Hint, if the government is enforcing contracts, it then does through its contract law decide which contracts are enforceable and under what terms.

Making marriage a contract doesn't change a fucking thing. The government could just as easily not recognize gay marriage contracts as it does not recognize ordinary marriages now.

I wish you people would take a contracts course sometime. You need to realize, "contract" doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "the courts will enforce any agreement".

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Oh Jesus, John, that's really specious.

[PM]

Oh Jesus, John, that's really specious.

In other news, water is moist and the sky appears blue on color.

John likes to trot this out in every gay marriage discussion.

"HURRRR DURRRR, the state still has to enforce contracts, so it's exactly the same as forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all legal framework that meshes intricately with the social institution, HURRRRRR DURRRRRRRR"

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

John is buying into the bullshit "logic" of cases like Shelley v. Kraemer, which is a real shame.

[Cytotoxic]

John's desperate. His arguments aren't based on truth but on what he wants to be truth.

[Calidissident]

"I am constantly amazed at how people who profess to believe in free markets understand so little about contract law or how contracts work.

Hint, if the government is enforcing contracts, it then does through its contract law decide which contracts are enforceable and under what terms.

Making marriage a contract doesn't change a fucking thing. The government could just as easily not recognize gay marriage contracts as it does not recognize ordinary marriages now."

Did you not read the part about "in Libertopia," and notice how it does n't say "in 2013 America?" In Libertopia, the gender combination of people would not have an effect on whether or not courts enforced a contract, nor would it matter whether or not the contract was titled "marriage" or "civil union" or "Rainbows and Unicorns for Everyone"

[DesigNate]

The government should enforce contracts on a non-arbitrary basis.

[rts]

Government provides rights now?

Surely you meant "special favours/privileges?"

[Tony]

That's the definition of rights.

[rts]

You wot mate?

[PM]

Lol, Oh God, I'm saving this. I'm so glad you've finally dropped the pretense you little fucking fascist.

[Tony]

I know, God declared you have a right to have men with guns and an entire court apparatus defend your claim to a plot of land and the stuff contained on it. That's not a special taxpayer-funded privilege, because you benefit from it, and you're so special you are exempt from the meanings of words.

[PM]

My right to security of my property transcends any apparatus of government to which I avail myself in pursuit of the same ends. Would you feel better if I stopped paying taxes and used the savings to put up sentry guns to blow you away instead?

[PM]

Because if that would assuage your bleeding little heart, I'd be more than happy to take that deal. We could privatize the courts as well, if you like.

[Tony]

As long as you don't whine like a little baby when I bring my even bigger arsenal with me as I declare your stuff is actually mine. Without legal standards, that is perfectly legitimate, after all.

See why government is useful?

[PM]

Without legal standards, that is perfectly legitimate, after all.

With legal standards, we just make sure that only one group of people that we call "the government" has access to the arsenal, and that makes everything all better.

Might makes right. Got it. You're a fascist.

[Tony]

That's the whole point of government, to change what would otherwise be a might-makes-right society into one in which transactions are reasonably fair and free of violence. It's the only known way to do it--to deposit the legitimate use of force in one place.

[Brian]

Without legal standards, that is perfectly legitimate, after all.

See why government is useful?

Until the government says gay marriage is illegal. Then, the self-legitimacy truism of the law goes out the window, right?

[Ann N]

i wouldnt call Tony laying siege to your house as 'useful'.

although i can certainly understand a fascist thinking that is a useful function of govt.

he's the type who cheered on as David Koresh burned in Waco.

[OneOut]

"I know, God declared you have a right to have men with guns and an entire court apparatus defend your claim to a plot of land and the stuff contained on it."

Hey Tony. That's the definition of Sovereignty, both collectively and individually. Do you get it now ?

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

You guys are the GIANT FUCKING MORONS arguing with it. Seriously, stop enabling it.

[Tony]

I'm sure it will work one of these days Neo.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

fuck off sockpuppet.

[Tony]

Still here.

[OneOut]

No, they provide special rights/privileges in stead of rights equal for all.

[PM]

...government to issue marriage contracts licenses and provide rights special privileges for married couples...

FTFY

[Tonio]

But it's very curious how libertarians and conservatives only got interested in "getting the government out of marriage" when it meant having to do extend rights to those icky, icky gays who really don't want to get married but just (somehow) ruin it for everone else.

And duly noted that GTGOOM was always a libertarian talking point - way, way down in a footnote in an appendix.

Your hypocrisy - it's showing, Eddie.

[PM]

And duly noted that GTGOOM was always a libertarian talking point - way, way down in a footnote in an appendix.

It was way, way down in a footnote in an appendix because the nature of marriage wasn't dinner table conversation at the time. Oddly, context sometimes plays a role in what issues get emphasized. Weird, right?

[DesigNate]

I was unaware there was one libertarian position on this subject.

[paranoid android]

Just looking at this thread I see conflicting thoughts and suggestions on the best way to handle the issue.

But since we're apparently allowed only one official hive-mind position on any topic, I suppose the only rational thing to do is split up into opposing idelogically pure camps with each trying to completely wipe out the other, right?

[DesigNate]

I like the way you think and am interested in subscribing to any newsletter you may produce.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Let's see why conservatives might not want to get on board this bandwagon, based on the rights Shackford supports

"The right to have control over what our children are taught"

Was denied when officials in Massachusetts arrested a father who wanted his son exempted from a curriculum promoting SSM.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2.....c-schools/

"the right to control what we do with our own property"

unless you're a florist, photographer, owner of a bread and breakfast, manager of a tour company, etc. etc., in which case you have to do with your property what the SSM advocates want.

"the right to not have to contribute our hard-earned money to line the pockets of government and corporate cronies"

Unless you count the tax money spent on gay-friendly curricula from which you won't be allowed to exempt your children.

Yeah, I can't understand why conservatives are so hesitant to adopt this great conservative cause as their own!

[John]

The Progs like Tony are fascists. And sadly, the Libertarians are often their useful idiots. Libertarians are such a cheap fucking date.

[CatoTheElder]

Sad, and far too often true.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Go get some help, Red Tony.

[DesigNate]

Wait, you're a libertarian now? :p

[rts]

Mmmm... bread and breakfast...

[Eduard van Haalen]

But be cautious - if you're gay, not a single B&B or motel will want your patronage, and you'll have to sleep in your car like black people under Jim Crow.

[rts]

B&B = *bed* and breakfast.

I pictured people sleeping on giant loaves of bread, which you then eat upon waking. Bread and breakfast! Brilliant!

[Eduard van Haalen]

Oops - you're right - well, I have to put up with that since there isn't an edit button.

[Fatty Bolger]

But where will we sleep?

[Cytotoxic]

Thanks for your completely irrelevant post EVH. Keep grasping.

[Bean Counter]

Here's an idea: Live and let live.....Leave me and my family alone!

[Certified Public Asskicker]

I don't know what I expected, but the comment section at Breitbart is among the worst I have ever seen.

[Nazdrakke]

As I once thought before, the comment section of Breitbart is the raw material liberal strawmen are constructed from.

[Tony]

Those are real people saying those things. Of course this wouldn't be reason without the claim that even right-wing Christian bigots are the fault of liberals.

[CatoTheElder]

"The problem has always been too much government control, not too little."

Government ought to get out of the marriage business. It has no business defining the nature of relationships between and among free men and women.

[sarcasmic]

That is true. But we're not free. Unless freedom means asking permission and taking orders.

[CatoTheElder]

In a slave society, of course, the masters must define the terms and conditions of marriage and marriage-like relationships between and among slaves.

Otherwise the slaves may engage in relationships the the master believes are unproductive, unhealthy, or not conducive to good order.

[John]

How is it in the marriage business? You can get married. There is no law that says you have to have a document to be "married". You only have to be "married" by the terms the government says if you want something from the government.

You want the government out of marriage, don't get a license. Then you don't have to go to court when you split up and you don't get ass raped on your taxes if you both work.

It is not hard. For a bunch of professed Libertarians, you guys sure love you daily government affirmation.

[PM]

Then you don't have to go to court when you split up and you don't get ass raped on your taxes if you both work.

Lol, you don't? That's cute. You might want to let the courts know so they can clear about a decade's worth of cases off their dockets. I must have missed the case where SCOTUS vacated common law marriage.

Also, did you know that there's a filing category called "Married, filing separately"?

Both of these are non-sequiturs.

[John]

Sure there is a common law marriage. But it only exists if one of you goes to court and asserts it. People shack up for decades and split up without going to court. Common law marriage only becomes an issue when parties get into a dispute and one runs to court. Again, if you want the government out of your marriage, don't run to its courts to settle your differences.

Also, did you know that there's a filing category called "Married, filing separately"?

I did know that. And it is worse than filing jointly. Do you think 99% of the married people file jointly because they like paying taxes? They just don't know about this magic way to avoid the marriage penalty? Ah no. You file separately when you think your spouse is cheating on their taxes and you don't want the liability of signing a joint return or you haven't gotten a divorce yet and can't agree on the tax return. It is not better than filing jointly.

The bottom line is you guys are fucking ignorant on these subjects. You shoot your mouth off about marriage. But you have no idea how contracts or family law actually work. And worse, you have no interest in learning. You guys are just like liberals on this subject. You endlessly repeat the same dumb ass talking points without having any idea what they mean or how they would work if they ever became reality.

[PM]

Common law marriage only becomes an issue when parties get into a dispute and one runs to court. Again, if you want the government out of your marriage, don't run to its courts to settle your differences.

So if you can exercise mind control over your probably-pissed-off ex-partner and keep him/her from running to court and forcing you into their arbitration system because you happened to live together for some magical amount of time, you're golden!

I guess your retort to that would be, what, if you can't keep your partner in line, don't start dating? For every problem, a solution!

I did know that. And it is worse than filing jointly.

It is, however, nearly the same as filing singly, except that you lose about a dozen deductions that may or may not affect you, depending on your family and financial situation. For a lot of people who wouldn't have used those deductions anyway, it's identical to filing singly.

But you have no idea how contracts or family law actually work.

Yeah, having been raised the son of a fucking contractor and attending business school, I've never encountered contract law before. Thankfully we've got geniuses like you here to help us navigate these complexities with cheeky non-sequiturs that ignore 3/4 of the relevant law.

[John]

I don't care who your father was, you don't know shit. If you think making something done by contract in any way gets the government out of it, you don't understand how contracts work.

[Brett L]

Actually, the government will consider me "married" for purposes of assessing my next of kin or estate (regardless of prepared documents) without that license. So yeah, government is still in marriage.

[John]

Not if you have a will. Write a fucking will and the government won't be involved. If you don't write a will, then the government is stuck figuring out who among your heirs gets your shit.

Again, don't ask the government for shit and it will stay out of your life more.

[PM]

Write a fucking will and the government won't be involved

OMFG, seriously dude? Do you really need to be reminded of all the times that wills have been vacated or effectively gutted by the courts after months and years of legal wranglings from aggrieved 15th cousins with crackerjack lawyers?

[PM]

That you can possibly manage to call Tony a fascist while sycophantically rushing to defend existing marriage, family, and probate law is motherfucking astounding.

[John]

No, what happened there was someone objected to the will and the court ruled in their favor. Courts don't go out hunting wills to vacate.

Yeah, if your heirs can't agree on what the will says or if it is valid and run to court, the court is going to side with one side or another.

Again, you are just astoundingly ignorant about these subjects. I don't even object to gay marriage. I object to your ignorance and to you making embarrassingly stupid arguments.

[DesigNate]

Dude, that post is full of derptasticness. I'm sure you've at least seen the articles about various cases where wills, power-of-attorney, etc. have been vacated by the state for same sex couples in favor of one of their devout parents? This is not an uncommon scenario.

[John]

have been vacated by the state for same sex couples in favor of one of their devout parents? This is not an uncommon scenario.

then change the laws governing them. That doesn't require changing the marriage laws. And I also find those cases nearly always be an urban myth. Link me to a case where that actually happened and that was the whole story.

But even if you can, that is a problem with the laws governing powers of attorney not marriage. Would you feel better if the devout parents had screwed over a long time girlfriend?

[DesigNate]

I admit, I haven't investigated any of those cases, so they could well be urban legend.

[Calidissident]

"It is not hard. For a bunch of professed Libertarians, you guys sure love you daily government affirmation."

That's great logic there. The people arguing for eliminating marriage licenses are the ones that love daily government affirmation. Makes perfect sense.

[Pelosi's Accommodator]

This is about like when John called allowing pharmacies to sell Plan B to minors a statist position. Never mind that it is exactly the same as the anarchist position.

[Michael S. Langston]

Even in a true anarchist society, if it works in the theoretical way people believe, pharmacies would likely have policies denying certain medications to what society has broadly defined as "children".

Why? Because the people with the money, the parents, mostly want it that way.

Might they be wrong? Sure.

But thinking that anarchy automatically means allowing certain things the government currently disallows misses the point that even completely free societies would end up with built in "policies" formed over time based upon input from free association.

& like with most policies - if it's good, others will follow it.

Remember a long time ago retail businesses weren't open late at night (nor 24 hours) nor were they open most weekends - but some businesses started moving that way - others noticed they made money and wham - most retail business has operating hours which roughly match every other retail store.

[CatoTheElder]

Government has created all sorts of inducements for productive adults to get married subject to a contract that government has defined in its comprehensive "social contract". These inducements include lower income rates, estate tax exemptions, spousal retirement benefits, spousal health care benefits, certain limitations of liability, etc. (As an aside: Government has perversely created all sorts of disincentives for unproductive adults remain unmarried, but that's another subject.)

Whether or not gay "marriage" is legislated or litigated as legal marriage, it's still bullshit social engineering by government either way. If successful, gay marriage opponents will correctly believe that it's bullshit social engineering to normalize homosexuality. If unsuccessful, gay marriage proponents will correctly argue that it's bullshit social engineering to ostracize homosexuality. Make no mistake: social engineering is what this is really about, and right-thinking libertarians understand that social engineering is not a proper function of government.

[John]

But Libertarians also should understand that public accomodation laws exist and are not going anywhere. If your choice is social engineering via not recognizing gay marriage and social engineering via criminalizing anyone who objects to gay marriage, it is pretty obvious what the best of the available bad options are.

Get rid of public accommodation laws or carve out an explicit exception for marriage and then have the government recognize any marriage you want.

I would suggest to you that if you got rid of the public accommodation laws, a lot fewer people would be interested in fighting over this issue. You can get nearly every advantage there is from marriage via contract if you want to and avoid the family courts to boot. The advantage of government recognition is the ability to force other people to recognize your marriage.

[Calidissident]

"You can get nearly every advantage there is from marriage via contract if you want to and avoid the family courts to boot. The advantage of government recognition is the ability to force other people to recognize your marriage."

If you believe this, then why are you so insistent on the need for government-issued marriage licenses?

[John]

I am not wedded to it. Buy there is another advantage in that it is a very convenient system for people Basically what a marriage license is is a standard set of contractual relations that you can enter into by getting a license. It makes things certain and convenient for people. For this reason I think going to a totally contract based system would be a complete waste of time and completely counter productive. If you want gay marriage, start issuing gay marriage licenses. Do it as a policy decision not a civil rights decision. I don't have a problem with that, provided the legislature does it and not some jackass judge.

The issue is how much do you want to let people contract out of the standard family law system. I think allowing a duel system where you can get the standard marriage license family law bundle if you like, but you can also not do that and sign your own marriage contract that says whatever you like would be a really good compromise.

But that system would give freedom to everyone not just gays. It would let people enter into unbreakable marriage contracts and things like that. Leave the legacy system there for people who are happy with the current arrangement.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

You want the government out of marriage, don't get a license. Then you don't have to go to court when you split up

Uhh, bullshit.

[John]

Because no one ever shacked up and broke up without going to court. Never happens. The government just runs around and enforces marriage.

[PM]

I, too, have often been perplexed how expanding the number of couple over whom this government control is exercised is an improvement from the libertarian perspective.

[John]

If I actually hated gay people, I can think of few worse things to do to them then subjecting them to the jurisdiction of family courts.

[Tony]

The article is confusing and convoluted. If you want to appeal to conservatives, get the obsessive focus on government out of it. They don't actually care about that.

The conservative argument for marriage equality can be found in conservative defenses of so-called traditional marriage. It's for the children. Patiently explain to them that gay couples have children too (not to mention trips to the hospital, property, and appearances in court), so the only logical thing is to expand marriage rights to gay couples so that their children can avail themselves of those protections.

[Warty]

That picture is adorable. No one could possibly be better-dressed than a gay black couple, I imagine.

[Cytotoxic]

The Breitbart comment section is not quite as retarded as I thought but it still makes the Red Tonies (John and Sarc) look reasonable.

[DesigNate]

Except there ARE people actively using gay marriage as a means to expand anti-discrimination laws on private parties. To pretend that isn't happening is no better than all the stupid bullshit that "Tony" believes.

(I personally think the government should give everyone that can prove they aren't being coerced a civil union certificate and then "marriage" can belong to whatever flavor of religion, or non-religion, the couple follows.)

[John]

Yes they are. And Libertarians basically hand the argument and the moral high ground to the SOCONS by pretending they are not. If people want gay marriage, then discrimination laws have to be changed.

[sarcasmic]

Libertarians are less than unanimous on this issue.

[Calidissident]

DesigNate, your solution does absolutely nothing to change the underlying problem of anti-discrimination laws. Even if we called all marriages "civil unions" these same cases would be happening.

I don't see why this is complicated. Most progressives
support anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation. The vast majority of progressives who support anti-discrimination laws also support gay marriage, but supporting gay marriage does not make one a progressive. Naturally, anti-discrimination laws will sometimes involve discrimination against couples. I don't see how that means gay marriage causes anti-discrimination laws. There are plenty of examples of discrimination suits that have nothing to do with marriage or couples, and the case in New Mexico happened in a state without SSM

[John]

but supporting gay marriage does not make one a progressive.

For sure. I support gay marriage but am not a prog. The difference is, I won't support it until you change the discrimination laws first.

[Calidissident]

Ideally, I would agree. But I admittedly am not a 100% purist libertarian perfectionist. I support ending marriage licenses ideally (I know you disagree, but that's not the argument here). If not, the next best thing would be to have marriage licenses for everyone, with no anti-discrimination laws. Anti-discrimination laws make marriage licenses more problematic than they already are, I agree (although as I've said, anti-discrimination laws are not limited to covering couples, married or otherwise). But that doesn't change my position on whether it's better to have marriage licenses limited to straight couples, or including gays. And I'd say the same thing if you changed "gays" to anything else. Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate against interracial couples, but that doesn't mean I'd support ending marriage licenses for interracial couples, while leaving them in place for intraracial couples.

[John]

The racial versus gay couple goes to the heart of the issue. To what extent can someone act on their conscience. We have decided in this country that you cannot act on your conscience and discriminate on the basis of race. It is effectively illegal to do that. The liability for doing so is so great, that couldn't have someone employ you much less run a business.

Now understand, that there once was a line of Protestantism that was based on white supremacy. There were people in this country who sincerely claimed desegregating the races was against their religion. We effectively outlawed that religious view in the 1960s.

So the question is are we now going to outlaw the religious view that homosexuality is a sin. If you make being gay like being black you are making effectively illegal for someone to act on their conscience with regard to homosexuality and you are making a large portion of Judaism, Christianity and Islam illegal to practice in this country.

That is the Prog goal here. And that is why they have latched onto marriage as such an issue.

[Calidissident]

I agree that neither racial nor sexual orientation based discrimination by private individuals or organizations should be illegal, although I find both reprehensible personally. That said, I don't think marriage laws should exclude same sex or interracial couples only once anti-discrimination laws are forbidden. Hell, you could change "interracial" or "same sex" to "intraracial" or "interreligious" or anything else and I would say the exact same thing.

[John]

But the racial issue is already left the barn. There is no going back on that one. The question is are libertarians going to stand up for people's right to object to homosexuality or are they going to be seduced by the progs and allow such objections to be outlawed.

[Calidissident]

I agree with you. Where we disagree is that I don't think gay marriage itself is the battleground for that. If you think anti-discrimination laws are a given and a lost cause to even try and get rid of or prevent, what exactly is gay marriage? I think the number of people supporting gay marriage (or at the very least an equivalent form of civil unions) is greater than the number that supports anti-discrimination laws.

[Calidissident]

*exclude should be "include"

[DesigNate]

I didn't say it creates them, just expands them. Though I do admit it doesn't address the issue of anti-discrimination laws foisted on the private sector.

[sloopyinca]

OT: Police dog killed "in the line of duty". PoliceOne commentators react with predictability. Go so far as to defend the use of public funds for the memorial service FOR A FUCKING DOG!

Dynamic SWAT clusterfuck of a raid results in the death of a man and no drugs were found in the house. Settlement reached to the tune of $3.4M but the department is allowed to deny responsibility and all officers continue to walk free. PoliceOne commentators react with predictability. Go so far as to defend any and all shootings by police without ever being second-guessed.

[John]

Here is the problem that happens on all of these threads. You guys are so fucking retarded and dogmatic on this issue, you don't even understand your own position. The libertarian position on marriage is this

The government should for its own internal workings recognize all marriages provided the parties involved wish to be viewed as such but should never use the force of law to force private individuals to recognize any individual marriage.

That is the proper position. And if you dumb asses would stick to it, you would reduce the SOCONS to idiotic arguments about kids and sanctity (whatever that means)and it would be the SOCONS who looked foolish. Instead, you can't resist dragging in civil rights which gives the SOCONS the valid point that gay marriage equals official oppression of all who object and you can never resist the temptation to utter that utterly stupid and irrational phrase "get the government out of marriage".

[John]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with contracts or getting the government out of marriage. What you retards need to understand is that as long as either you or your little honies want to run to court to settle your differences, the government is going to be involved in your marriage. "Contract" is not a magic talisman. If you go to court to settle your differences, the government via case law or statute is going to decide what contracts it wants to enforce, what it takes to create a valid contract, what contracts are against public policy and never enforceable and so forth. So as long as courts are involved, we are going to be having the same arguments we are having today.

To the extent that you people even make a coherent argument, your arguement is that people should be allowed to contract out of standard family law. That is an interesting question. But it really has nothing to do with gay marriage per say. That debate is about children and the role of the state in ensuring they are cared for. Can I contract out of the duty to support my kids or alter my duty away from the set amount in family law? It is also about freedom of contract and how far we are willing to make people live with the consiquences of their actions. Should a court enforce an irrevokable marriage contract signed by two then devout Catholics but now one party wants out? He signed the contract, should a court hold him to it?

[John]

Those are very interesting questions. But we never get to those questions because you people are too stupid to understand your own position.

For the record, I think gay marriages should be recognized. I don't object to them at all. I just object to ignorant people making dumb ass statements like "get the government out of marriage". Stop raping the fucking language and logic.

[Calidissident]

That is the argument everyone here has been making. No one here, besides Tony, has advocated anti-discrimination laws. Supporting gay marriage does not mean one has to support anti-discrimination laws.

[John]

But not supporting them doesn't mean anything if you don't their repeal as a condition for the recognition of gay marriage. Gay marriage with discrimination laws means the criminalization of objecting to gay marriage. That is a hell of a lot worse harm than not allowing gays to marry.

Since Libertarians are such cheap dates, they never demand the modification of discrimination laws as a condition of their support. So Progs say thanks, get government recognize gay marriage, and happily use the discrimination laws to go after their enemies.

[Calidissident]

Refer to my post above. I'd respond to this one in pretty much the same way

[Calidissident]

I guess I should be specific, I'm talking about my 2:26 post

[John]

See my response above.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Sodom and Gomorrah recognized same-sex marriage, and you know what happened there. Driving away Lot's wife looked back and steered the car into a pillar that they used as guardrails back then. Bent the fender.

[Ann N]

I find it fascinating to try to believe: SSM ppl believe their reasons.

Of course I can't do it, but its interesting to try.

SSM claims rights are their motive but doesnt care about polygamists or other socially unacceptable groups. SSM claims rights but doesn't care that singles in the same job would not be equally compensated for doing the same job a gay would.

To believe they are sincere would mean they are all too stupid to understand this. That's just not believable.

Its not enough to make gays equal to straights. You also have to make ALL groups equal. polygamists, singles, bestiality, etc.

If MLK had marched for blacks only and said he didnt give a damn about latinos, would anyone take him as honest about his ideology?

That is what SSM advocates do. Its about social acceptance, which is why they ignore the more taboo sex lifestyles.

[amyebrinton]

my buddy's half-sister makes ,$77, every hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for 8 months but last month her income was ,$21889, just working on the computer for a few hours. Check Out Your URL....

http://www.Works23.com

[box_man]

This isn't that freaking hard to understand. The reason conservatives resist gay marriage is because they want to "conserve" the natural law definition of marriage that defines marriage from the conjugal standpoint. This is the definition that has existed throughout history, found in nearly every religious text regardless of religion and has been enshrined in just about every societies laws for thousands of years. Literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice all underscored the conjugal view of marriage that has stood for literally thousands of years.

Not until very recently has the idea that marriage could be replaced by a revisionist - or more explicitly a companionate view - been advanced. This uproots the natural law conception of marriage that has been prevalent for thousands of years. SSM advocates have to overturn a viewpoint that has been an accepted principle i.e. that marriage is a conjugal relationship that descends from a natural law viewpoint.

One needs only look at the methods of argument justifying SSM to understand that they have to advance revisionist ideas through the use of social justice concepts with the courts in order to successfully manipulate the redefinition of marriage. They would lose any appeal to natural law that would convince conservatives because there is simply no case that justifies homosexual relationships as a natural law conjugal marriage.

[Thomas O.]

So what if it's not natural? The point is, just because it's unnatural doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Gay men can adopt. Lesbians can use turkey basters. (That old gag.) Worried about activists forcing an agenda? Fight the battle on THAT front. Don't penalize everyone for the bad stuff that just a handful of people do.

[Thomas O.]

Without reading the comments here or there, let me guess the majority reaction:

Butbutbutbut FAMILIEZ! The BIBLE! SOCIETY! People marrying HOUSEPLANTS!

[Thomas O.]

And I meant the reaction THERE, by the way. 🙂

[sidoneyhassler]

my best friend's half-sister makes $63 hourly on the internet. She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay was $21312 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this post here

http://www.Works23.com

[Dean Michael Jackson]

Scott Shackford asks, "So why is marriage recognition different? Why do so many conservatives support government family planning when homosexuality gets tossed in the mix?"

Who supports "government family planning" (you must be confusing the United States with China), and what has that to do with same-sex marriage?

If you don't know why the concept of same-sex marriage is oxymoronic, then God bless you. It has something to do with the rearing of children, and imparting onto children (via 24/7/365 observational psychological conditioning) (1) how to behave towards the opposite sex when the child becomes interested in the opposite sex; (2) to be interested in the opposite sex, assuming the child can go either way sexually in later life; and (3) the desire to integrate with the opposite sex, not segregate from the opposite sex.

Needless to say, divorce is another recently accepted social phenomena that encourages a child to (1) view individuals as commodities (when tired of the spouse, throw it away); and (2) distrust society and its institutions, since the child of divorced parents has received the message that marriage, a bedrock of any civilization, is not to be taken seriously, hence, logically, civilization is not to be taken seriously.

You need to take a remedial course on civilization and its pillars. There's a reason for social institutions as they've developed the past 5,000 of civilization, and you failed to divine the purpose for different-sex marriage.

[Dean Michael Jackson]

Correction:

"...5,000 years..."