The War Is Over, Everybody! They're Getting Gay Married in Utah Right Now!

Utah just became the ninth state in 2013 to begin legally recognizing same-sex marriage.  It happened just a couple of hours ago and people are already getting marriage licenses. The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state's current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."

Shelby's ruling is the first decision to address whether a state may ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision this summer that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Utah judge ruled just 16 days after he heard arguments in the case and well before his self-imposed deadline to render a decision by Jan. 7, when the next hearing in the matter was to be held.

"It feels unreal," said Moudi Sbeity, who with his partner Derek L. Kitchen were plaintiffs in the case. "I'm just very thrilled that Derek and I will be able to get married soon, if all goes well and the state doesn't appeal. We want a farmer's market wedding because it's where we spend a lot of time."

The full ruling is here. Some may be amused to note that Shelby actually quotes Justice Antonin Scalia's warning from his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned sodomy laws) that the majority opinion opened to door for this very ruling. He says that Scalia was absolutely correct, but obviously Shelby sees this consequence very differently from Scalia.

When they're getting gay-married married in Utah, folks, the war is over. It does leave one to wonder which state will be the last to recognize gay marriage (presuming there isn't another Supreme Court decision in the future).

UPDATE: A response from the unhappy governor of Utah, Gary Herbert:

"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working with my legal counsel and the acting Attorney General to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."

Given that this is a ruling from a federal judge, this might end up being the source of a Supreme Court challenge.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[Cytotoxic]

Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth by resident SoCons. Cue specious bullshit to rationalize their wailing and teeth-gnashing.

[Austrian Anarchy]

Of course, since we have been cuing up the nonsense that you cannot be legal without a license for everything under the sun.

If you really want marriage equality, get rid of the licenses.

[Joe Clave]

^THIS^

[Evangelical]

Does anyone else share the sentiment that judges just write drivel and simply strike down laws they dont agree with just "because I said so"? Judges now are dictators for a favored minority against the will of the people.

[thom]

Oh my God! Won't somebody think of the poor bakers and photographers whose lives will be turned upside down by this ruling!?!?

[font_of_stupidity]

Yeah! Fuck them and their stupid so-called beliefs! They should just be MADE to do what we say!!

[Michael S. Langston]

So 2 wrongs make a right?

[Cytotoxic]

Even the bakers whose lives were turned upside down by AD legislation that had nothing to do with gay marriage!

[Paul.]

Just don't serve alcohol at that gay wedding.

[Mickey Rat]

"Utah just became the ninth state in 2013 to begin legally recognizing same-sex marriage."

Utah was just forced to recognize homosexual marriages. This decision was not made by any part of Utah's government.

[Cytotoxic]

So?

[Mickey Rat]

This is conquest not persuasion, Utah did not decide to do this. The creation of Vichy Utah is nothing to celebrate.

[Cytotoxic]

'Utah' is a state not a being. It is incapable of deiding anything. If liberty is best brought about by conquest then so be it.

Love your tears by the way. 'Vichy Utah'-priceless.

[PM]

If liberty is best brought about by conquest then so be it.

That's the NAP in action...

[Evangelical]

Does anyone else share the sentiment that judges just write drivel and simply strike down laws they dont agree with just "because I said so"? Judges now are dictators for a favored minority against the will of the people.

[DRourk]

Liberty is never brought about by conquest.

[Death Rock and Skull]

Utah is not just a place.

[Cytotoxic]

Fine. It's less than a place.

[PM]

Dehumanizing people for disagreeing with you is both tolerant and libertarian as fuuuuuck

[Michael S. Langston]

+1

[Mickey Rat]

This has nothing to do with liberty, just elite opinion dominance games. And I'll clarify, no part of the government of Utah or the sovereign people that government represents decided to this.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

Slight correction there MICKEY RAT. Using the word "Vichy" to describe Utah now is ideologically incorrect. Comparing Utah to Vichy France is way off. In fact, Vichy France (a close collaborator of Nazi Germany) was totally against Gays. To be Gay in Nazi Germany or a Nazi Occupied country was to go to a Concentration Camp. No! Utah is becoming more like Weimar (or pre-Nazi) Germany. In any event, anything the majority of the American people are against can and will be repealed at some point down the road. It is interesting that the libertarian agenda is pro-Gay but very Conservative and hands off in other areas. Men butt f***ing each other really has nothing to do with dignity or the Constitution.

[seguin]

It because the libertarian "agenda" is liberty. As in if it isn't any of your business, leave it the f@#$@ alone.

And gays getting married is none of your business.

[PM]

As in if it isn't any of your business, leave it the f@#$@ alone.

Nothing says "Leave me the fuck alone" like "You're now mandated to provide my spouse with medical benefits, and by the way, I'll be taking that new tax status."

Getting married shouldn't be anybody else's business. But whenever you get the state involved in something, it becomes everybody's business. Remember? Government is us!

[Cytotoxic]

Then get working on getting the state out of marriage. Equal protection overrides your concerns.

[PM]

"Equal protection" only applies if a federal right is being violated, as I discussed downthread.

It's also worth mentioning that your "love it or leave it!" bullshit is, well, bullshit, just as much as the original.

[Cytotoxic]

So I guess you were fine with the situation before inter-racial marriage was recognized?

[Michael S. Langston]

So I guess you were fine with the situation before inter-racial marriage was recognized?

So the "you're homophobic" tact failed miserably and now you're resorting to "then you must be racist" tact.

Seems familiar... did you by chance vote for Obama? Twice even? & did those who didn't - are they racists?

Irregardless - lots of rational people can agree the US treated blacks horribly for a long time after "freedom from slavery" and still think laws passed like the CRA, ERA, ADA and others have in the long run done more harm then good by replacing individual freedoms with collectivist ones.

Didn't we all learn as kids - the government which can give you X, can also take it away?

As those currently arguing the judge's incorrect decision is still right due to "morals" or "feelings" is also arguing that if a judge tomorrow thinks this is all wrong and says gays cannot marry - that's cool.

Because all you're doing is reinforcing the idea that men's beliefs should make the rules and by doing so you implicitly give permission for them to decide against you in the future.

Furthermore you put yourself in a position to agree with those future rulings by default. as you've already agreed they have the power to do what they when, when they want, for whatever rationalization they can come up with.

[PM]

Natch, breh. Don't forget slavery too. And the Holocaust.

[Austrian Anarchy]

People getting married should not be any of the State's business either.

And it looks like Road to Mandalay above has no clue about the SA, their openly gay leader Ernst Rohm, or anything else off of his script.

[Calidissident]

Considering Hitler had Rohm murdered and the SA disempowered in 1934, and then proceeded to murder thousands of homosexuals in the Holocaust, I'm not sure how valid that point is. Overall, the Nazi ideology was clearly hostile toward gays.

In any case, I think the ruling is constitutionally incorrect. I think this issue should be decided by the states, as the Constitution is currently written. Ideally, I would like to see the end of state marriage licenses. I do think that if the state is giving licenses to straight couples, that they should also give licenses to gay couples.

[PM]

I think this issue should be decided by the states, as the Constitution is currently written.

I do think there's a case to be made under Article IV section 1 that states which don't recognize gay marriage should have to recognize the marriage licenses issued by other states that do, and certainly that the federal government should have to recognize them.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

CALIDISSIDENT

Gays were sent to Concentration Camps along with political prisoners and communists. They were NOT murdered in the Holocaust! The people that were murdered in the Holocaust were Jews who were sent to death camps, and who were mostly NOT Gay. Get your facts straight before you start yapping about the Holocaust.

Fuck the States!!! They are likely 50 different countries.

[Dandan]

Gays were not targeted in the Holocaust. Those gays who ended up in the concentration camps weren't sent there because they were gay, they were sent there because they were communists or Jews or gypsys or Poles. Fewer than 15,000 gays were in the camps, and the best estimates say that fewer than 2,500 died. More SS guards died in the camps than gays.

[Calidissident]

Yeah, Dandan, that's complete bullshit.

I know it's wikipedia, but all of the appropriate facts are sourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Non-Jewish

[Evangelical]

Hitler had no problem with Rohm being gay and the leader of his SA for 10 years but had no problem murdering Rohm for being gay when he had a problem with Rohm.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

Greetings AUSTRIAN ANARCHY

I know all about the SA. Which means that the German Army told Hitler that if he did not get rid of his Gay Nazis, they (the Army) would not support him. I have lots of "clues" about the SA you f***ing moron.

[PM]

I know all about the SA.

That's shocking considering your political viewpoints.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

Dear PM,

It's not my fault that you are an abortion who lived. Too bad my "political viewpoints" shock you, although I doubt if they really do. Anyway, I think it is time for you to stick your index finger up your Hershey Highway after you have taken a particularly messy crap. Then lick it and pretend it is a candy bar, and while you are imagining that you can contemplate my "political viewpoints". Any questions call 1 800 EAT S**T, and one of my friendly operators will assist you. Have a nice day, Anal Breath.

[PM]

You may find we are surprisingly in agreement, as I do tend to contemplate viewpoints such as your own almost exclusively after taking a large shit.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

What happens in the society I live in is ALWAYS my business. Have a nice day a**hole.

[Death Rock and Skull]

Fact: There was a homosexual faction of Nazis.

[PM]

Those uniforms must have been fabulous!

[Boisfeuras]

Hugo Boooooss!

[Mickey Rat]

I used "Vichy" because because like France Utah's sovereignty has been compromised and under the diktats of a foreign power and its rights as a state are a sham.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Utah jumped through a bunch of hoops to become a US state, so I don't think that comparison makes any sense. That's like saying Alabama is occupied territory because they can't own slaves anymore.

[Mickey Rat]

When the 13th amendment was passed Alabama was occupied territory, however that amendment explicitly outlawed slavery. This is based on a changed understanding of the 14th amendment, based on some controversial and bizarre theories of legal sexual androgyny.

[Evangelical]

It isnt even based on the 14th. It literally is Shelby saying "what are your reasons for banning gay marriage? I dont like your reasons...ban overruled."

It is based on nothing!

[On The Road To Mandalay]

Dear Mickey Rat,

I have a solution for State "sovereignty". Just let the f***ing Confederacy be resurrected, without the slavery of course, and all the people who are always yapping about states rights go and live there forever, and ever, and evermore. You use of Vichy is still incorrect. Good luck if you decide to go leave in "Old Dixie".

[Francisco d Anconia]

Utah was just forced to recognize homosexual marriages. This decision was not made by any part of Utah's government.

Actually, it was, and the system worked EXACTLY how it was designed to. The majority infringed upon the rights of the minority by passing unconstitutional law. The judicial branch acted as a check on this obvious overreach by the legislature.

Fuck off all slavers! Sometimes they system works.

[DJF]

No it was the Federal government not the State government.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Yes, the US Constitution falls under the federal government. What's the point? States don't get to vote to violate 14A.

[DJF]

Oh, yeah, I remember, when the 14th amendment was passed it was all about homosexual marrage. Just like when the commerse clause was passed it was all about giving the federal government power over the entire economy and everything connected to that economy.

[Cytotoxic]

when the 14th amendment was passed it was all about homosexual marrage.

The AR-15 didn't exist when the 2A was passed either.

[Austrian Anarchy]

Yea, that 14th Amendment is not working very well on incorporating that limit on government to the States now is it.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

The AR-15 didn't exist when the 2A was passed either.

Are you claiming homosexuality didn't exist in 1865? President Buchanan was probably humping William Rufus King in the Lincoln room a few years previous.

[Cytotoxic]

No we were talking about gay marriage do try to keep up.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

gay marriage ban:homosexuality::gun control:AR-15s

Why is it always the dummies who are the most outspoken?

[Evangelical]

Before it was the lincoln room...im sure.

[Death Rock and Skull]

When the 14th amendment was passed it was meant for anything libertarians want it for.

[UCrawford]

Actually, it was about stopping states from applying the laws of the land unequally to people they had a personal distaste for.

So the 14th Amendment was about stopping inequality under the law...which is what gay marriage bans create. And, as the judge pointed out in this case, the gay marriage ban supporters were able to provide no evidence that gay marriage harmed anyone...which means those "defending" traditional marriage are defending it against a non-existent threat.

[Evangelical]

Gays are discriminated from marriage? *gasp*

Have gays been secretly marrying for thousands of years against oppression?

Or did someone just invent this bullshit recently?

No doubt Satan himself.

[PM]

States don't get to vote to violate 14A.

Which part of the constitution guarantees the right to a state marriage license again? The 14A extends all federal rights to states; not the other way around. Until DOMA, which was struck down, the federal government was never involved in the regulation of marriage, because the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. Here's the key part of the ruling:

"The state's current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry..."

SCOTUS hasn't ever really established any such "fundamental right". The closest it has come is in anti-miscegenation law rulings. And there definitely isn't any such enumerated right in the constitution. In order for the 14A to apply you have to invent a federal right. Worked for abortion. But let's not pretend it's a cut and dry case. The 10A isn't subordinate to the 14A.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Which part of the constitution guarantees the right to a state marriage license again?

It doesn't. But if the state offers the right to one group, it cannot deny it to another. THAT is what 14A says.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[David Case]

But rights are held by *individuals*, not by groups and there is nothing in the quote you provided that mentions groups. Further, if you concede that there is no right to a state marriage then it follows that marriage is not a right, but a societal arrangement recognized by law. Now the state could decide to extend its definition of marriage to include same sex marriages if that is what the citizens wish. But I cannot see how anyone's rights are violated if the definition of marriage is left unchanged, as long as gays are not denied access to traditional cross sex marriage should they desire it.

[SusanM]

What about laws and procedures which disfavor unmarried people?

[Francisco d Anconia]

They've got a case.

[PM]

But if the state offers the right to one group, it cannot deny it to another. THAT is what 14A says.

The states have scads of qualified privileges (including other types of licensing) that are only available to select people based on some arbitrary criteria and none have ever been challenged on 14A equal protection grounds. It seems to me that the only grounds for a 14A challenge would be, as the judge decided, if the state were abridging a fundamental right. If access to a state marriage license is a fundamental right then he's correct. But I don't think that's well established in law just yet.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

It's funny how often we see Reasonoids quote the constitution with selectively boldfaced type that has nothing to do with what they claim it says.

I don't see anything about groups there, FdA. Maybe it's hiding behind the bold type?

[Francisco d Anconia]

Okay shithead, if the state offers the right entitlement to one group individual, it cannot deny it to another.

Better, you obtuse cunt?

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I'm not sure it really says even that -- hard to shoehorn entitlements into "privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States"... but in any case no individual was prevented from marrying by the previous law.

[Francisco d Anconia]

no individual was prevented from marrying by the previous law

Sure, dickhead, they just can't marry who they choose. God, you are a fucking moron.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Nobody can marry whoever they choose. If you want to marry a person who's already married or your sibling or someone who doesn't want to marry you, then you're out of luck.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Herpity derpity doo.

You are truly a fucking idiot and we are done.

[font_of_stupidity]

Well, that was convincing.

[PM]

Okay shithead, if the state offers the right entitlement to one group individual, it cannot deny it to another.

I don't know if that was intended for me or Tulpa, but what of the other examples I mentioned? I still don't see how state licensing could be challenged on the grounds you are suggesting (and in point of fact, that wasn't how the ruling came down anyway).

[Francisco d Anconia]

Wasn't at you PM. You are neither a shitheat or a cunt. I try to be civil with all who are deserving.

That is, however, exactly how the judge ruled in this case:

A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

[PM]

That is, however, exactly how the judge ruled in this case

His actual ruling came down though on the grounds that the state was infringing a fundamental right. If SCOTUS decides access too a marriage license isn't a fundamental right I don't think the ruling will stand.

[Michael S. Langston]

Good point - as I don't think SCOTUS can agree it's a fundamental right without opening marriage up further to any configuration any couple or group of consenting adults wishes to engage in.

Though it would be cool if that was the end result, I think unlikely as full expansions of liberty actively reduces government control. & governments don't like giving up control 🙂

[Francisco d Anconia]

His actual ruling came down though on the grounds that the state was infringing a fundamental right.

Not sure. Mills vs. Board of Education of District of Columbia said if you offer a free education, you had to offer a free education for speds. (under 14A) Education isn't a fundamental right any more than marriage is. Not sure I agree with your premise that in order for 14A to apply it needs to be a fundamental right.

14A simply says states "cannot deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Laws" doesn't imply "fundamental rights" or any rights for that matter. They simply cannot have different laws for different groups of people.

I fully realize the ramifications of that, but I do believe that was the intent. And if the case, the ability of the government to pick winners and losers will, rightfully, be called into question.

[PM]

Not sure I agree with your premise that in order for 14A to apply it needs to be a fundamental right... They simply cannot have different laws for different groups of people.

I'm no scholar in the field by any means, but it seems like that would invalidate more or less all state licensing that isn't issued without qualification. Every form of licensing inherently discriminates against some. I'm thinking that may explain the language the judge used in describing marriage as a fundamental right. Then again, withholding a license from a person in a CRA protected class may be treated differently than withholding a license from anyone else, for whatever reason. But that's less a 14A question than it is a CRA question.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Sorry PM, you have to spend a bit more time calling out people's bullshit on this site before you can earn the shithead title.

[Francisco d Anconia]

It doesn't. But if the state offers the right to one group, it cannot deny it to another. THAT is what 14A says.

"Right" was not the correct terminology. Governments do not grant rights. Entitlement or privilege would be more appropriate.

[Austrian Anarchy]

Fundamental rights don't need licenses.

[Michael S. Langston]

Just as freedom doesn't require asking permission.

But it's 2013 & doublespeak & Obama... etc/etc/etc

[Cytotoxic]

ENTER THE TULPA FUCKBRAIN

[Mickey Rat]

Which Utah was not. There is no requirement to treat inequivalent arrangements as equivalent.

[Mickey Rat]

Why are you telling yourself to fuck off?

[Skip]

Socons should have done something 10-20 years ago to make civil unions the same as marriage but for the name. Oh well.

[Mickey Rat]

Social Liberals should realize that certain courts decisions made "civil unions" a non-starter as a compromise position. It is all or nothing.

[HarryUSA]

The courts can overrule bigoted laws. It's in the constitution. Do some reading.

[PM]

The courts can overrule bigoted laws. It's in the constitution.

Article and section, please.

[Austrian Anarchy]

Penumbra, that thing is everywhere these days.

[PM]

For the benefit of Epi, I just want to point out I'm not advocating for bigoted laws (however defined), merely pointing out that there is no constitutional authority for the courts to overturn a law on that basis. Making the suggestion for others to "do some reading" somewhat ironic.

[VG Zaytsev]

Penumbra, that thing is everywhere these days.

Until socialized medicine walks in the door, then penumbra disappears entirely.

[Homple]

It won't be really cool until you can have more than one gay spouse at a time. Utah could be the ultimate in hip if they bring another tradition to the ceremony.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

This is probably the best way to do it. So-Cons will be pissed but there's absolutely no going back after this and they'll just have to learn to tolerate it.

What they ought to be doing anyway is cracking down and holding the line on that protected class bullshit where bakers and photographers have to provide service to people they don't like.

[Cytotoxic]

That's what happened in Canada. Supreme Court did the nation and in particular the Right a HUGE favor by simply taking the issue off the table and forcing freedom down our throats. Gay marriage is a fact of life now.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Exactly. Gay marriage is the American Right's gun control, there's absolutely no way for them to win on it and it's better for them to lose like this where they can grumble about the damn liberal courts while accepting that it's over.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Sort of like libertarians need to "accept that it's over" after Wickard v Filburn and Raich v Gonzales, and accept unlimited federal power as "a fact of life" now. Right?

It's always the other side that is better off with their sacred cows slaughtered. They should change the name of the mag to Rationalization.

[Cytotoxic]

Given that we have a massive shift in public opinion on our side wrt this issue, yeah it's your side that needs to lay down and die. STFU, you lose.

Gay marriage has what to do with freedom again?

Contract rights and equality before the law-how does it work?

[Michael S. Langston]

Marriage as defined today and marriage as defined in the future which includes gay marriage still keep a great number of people "not equal before the law".

So that means - not only are you still wrong, but you're arguing that unequal contract enforcement can be fixed with unequal contract enforcement.

Sorry, but doesn't work that way as equality of the law doesn't include "special rules for special people".

If it does - then I suppose the non-disabled should be able to get SS funds just like the disabled.

Or how about college scholarships from the government which only serve the poor?

Sure - it's set asides which grant certain people more money they may well need - but doesn't equal protection demand everyone have access to these "special rules for special people" equally?

How can you rightfully deny my right to get SS money like others?

[Cytotoxic]

Sorry, but doesn't work that way as equality of the law doesn't include "special rules for special people".

Exactly. That's why straight and gay people should both be allowed to marry as much the other.

Psst: no government money involved.

[PM]

That's why straight and gay people should both be allowed to marry as much the other.

It goes without saying, of course, that people who decide to be married should get more privileges than people who don't. And that only homosexual and heterosexual monogamous couples exist.

[Calidissident]

"It goes without saying, of course, that people who decide to be married should get more privileges than people who don't. And that only homosexual and heterosexual monogamous couples exist."

I don't see how the fact that this isn't a perfect ultimate solution means it's a bad thing or not a step in the right direction.

I have to ask, does this reasoning also apply to say, interracial marriage? Before you sidestep it, I'm not calling you a racist, or a homophobe. I'm simply asking that if there was a law (ignore Loving v. Virginia for a minute) being debated that restricted marriage licenses to intraracial couples, would you support or oppose that law?

[PM]

I don't see how the fact that this isn't a perfect ultimate solution means it's a bad thing or not a step in the right direction.

Depends a lot on what your idea of "the right direction" is. If your "right direction" is that the law is more accommodating of gays, then there's no way this is a negative. If your "right direction" is making the law fair, giving everyone equal treatment, and suspension of government privilege based on relationship status, then there's virtually no upside.

I have to ask, does this reasoning also apply to say, interracial marriage?

See my response here:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12.....nt_4203784

[Calidissident]

You still didn't really answer my question. Yes, I agree that ideally marriage licenses wouldn't exist. What I'm asking you is if you view a policy that grants marriage licenses to all straight couples, regardless of race, as superior or inferior to one that only grants them to intraracial couples. Yes or no, would you support a law (ignoring that it wouldn't be constitutional) that limited marriage licenses to intraracial couples?

[PM]

What I'm asking you is if you view a policy that grants marriage licenses to all straight couples, regardless of race, as superior or inferior to one that only grants them to intraracial couples.

...

Yes or no, would you support a law (ignoring that it wouldn't be constitutional) that limited marriage licenses to intraracial couples?

Those are two completely separate questions, and I think both are adequately addressed at my replies in the following links if you care to read them:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12.....nt_4203970

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12.....nt_4203993

[PM]

What you're really trying to ask is

"Which are you, a racist or a homophobe?"

Fuck your false dilemma.

[UCrawford]

You have no right to get Social Security (see Flemming v. Nestor, 1960).

As for your gripes about entitlement spending increasing as a result of this, your complaint is with entitlement spending. You're no more entitled to benefits as a straight person than gay people are. I don't see any reason why their rights should be restricted to deny them access to preferential treatment that you enjoy.

[font_of_stupidity]

Given that we have a massive shift in public opinion on our side

I thought we didn't want to leave these discussions to the people?

[PM]

Given that we have a massive shift in public opinion on our side wrt this issue, yeah it's your side that needs to lay down and die. STFU, you lose.

Appeal to majority is libertarian as fuck.

[thom77]

So as soon as public opinion hits 60% on any given issue, it's best to just throw up our hands and forget about it, right?

[Azathoth!!]

Given that we have a massive shift in public opinion on our side wrt this issue, yeah it's your side that needs to lay down and die. STFU, you lose.

But that's just it--there is no "massive shift in public opinion on our side"--whenever this is put on the ballot directly it loses--hell, it lost in California and Oregon--that should give you a clue.

It spawns huge arguments here--in which libertarians abandon liberty in favor of state coercion for this issue because of feelings.

This entire process expands the power of the state.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Gay marriage has what to do with freedom again?

[Michael S. Langston]

Nada.

Telling gays it is illegal to perform consenting sex acts or cohabitation is completely about freedom.

Special rules for special people is not, nor will it ever be about freedom.

At least not if one agrees with the fundamentals of libertarianism and NAP - as none of that would suggest granting special rights to certain groups is a good thing ever.

Instead doing this takes away from focusing on individual rights and instead pushes us further into the idea that "groups" have rights too - which has worked out just great, right?

Odd so many "libertarians" become committed collectivists for this particular issue...

[Calidissident]

The problem is that while marriage licenses grant privileges that wouldn't exist in Libertopia, they also protect rights that would. To give one example, without a marriage license, a gay person can't sponsor a foreign-born spouse for immigration purposes. There are also plenty of examples where lack of a marriage license has caused problems with inheritance and medical decisions, contrary to the wishes of the couple. I agree that ideally, there would be no marriage licenses, but for me, these concerns easily outweigh the negative aspects of expanding marriage licenses to gay couples.

[PM]

...while marriage licenses grant privileges that wouldn't exist in Libertopia, they also protect rights that would. To give one example, without a marriage license, a gay person can't sponsor a foreign-born spouse for immigration purposes.

Not a great example, since in Libertopia there would be open immigration (to the extent of not even screening for criminals or communicable diseases depending on who you ask), so spousal sponsorship wouldn't be necessary. Plus your socon friends could always turn around the argument about non-discrimination laws: immigration law is separate from marriage. If you want to reform immigration law, work on that instead of changing marriage laws (it's an argument from the opposite direction, but the justification is the same).

[Calidissident]

Not the same thing. Marriage licenses, under current law, explicitly enable spousal sponsorship. Anti-discrimination laws exist in many places absent marriage laws. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop anti-discrimination laws, nor does passing gay marriage guarantee anti-discrimination laws.

Again, obviously it's not perfect, since marriage licenses wouldn't exist ideally. But no one here has ever really made a good case that the marginal cost to liberty of expanding licenses to gays outweigh the positive aspects to it. It's not like we live in a country without marriage licenses and are debating the creation of them for both gay and straight couples.

[PM]

Not the same thing. Marriage licenses, under current law, explicitly enable spousal sponsorship.

You said:

...while marriage licenses grant privileges that wouldn't exist in Libertopia, they also protect rights that would [exist in Libertopia]. To give one example, without a marriage license, a gay person can't sponsor a foreign-born spouse for immigration purposes.

Your example doesn't work, because the "right" of spousal sponsorship for immigration purposes isn't a negative right, isn't libertarian, and wouldn't exist in Libertopia. It's a carveout for special classes of people within existing immigration law.

But no one here has ever really made a good case that the marginal cost to liberty of expanding licenses to gays outweigh the positive aspects to it

Not to your satisfaction, because your calculus of positive and negative is different. Your example above is a perfect illustration. You see it as an unqualified positive for gay people to have access to the special class for which the immigration laws that apply to everyone else can be set aside. The fact that set-asides for special classes of people demean the rule of law and the underclass that is denied access to them, regardless of how large the special class becomes, never enters the equation, because you are narrowly concerned with the advancement of a very small group of people who will see the benefit.

[The Last American Hero]

I disagree. This needs to happen at the ballot box and in the legislature, otherwise you have the same problems you have with abortion and Roe v. Wade. Every time some jackass judge is nominated, it will become a pissing contest over abortion and gay marriage rather than a review of the judge's qualifications and views on more important 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment issues.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

It is theoretically and practically possible to reverse Roe v. Wade. It is not practically possible for them to go back on gay marriage.

You can't just say "your marriage is valid" and then a few years later say "Whoops! Sorry, we changed our minds." At least there wouldn't be any precedent for that and I doubt any court in its right mind would want to go that way.

[PM]

You can't just say "your marriage is valid" and then a few years later say "Whoops! Sorry, we changed our minds." At least there wouldn't be any precedent for that...

"Your indentured servitude contract is valid"..."Whoops! Worry, we changed our minds."

[PM]

(Purely illustrative that the government can cancel any valid paperwork at its whim; democracy sucks unless you're in the majority)

[Francisco d Anconia]

This needs to happen at the ballot box.

It did happen at the ballot box, when they passed a law banning gay marriage. The majority voted to take away the rights of the minority and the court rightfully told them to fuck off.

I think it's awesome and a warning to statists everywhere.

[thom77]

If you see this as a 'warning to statists' then you really have not been paying any attention to who the players are on this issue and where their long-term strategies lie.

Here's a hint: it ain't libertarians who will get one iota of credit here, nor will this push the country one inch closer to the kind of government libertarians are interested in.

This is yet another issue where libertarians are being played as useful idiots for the radical left.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Every time some jackass judge is nominated, it will become a pissing contest over abortion and gay marriage rather than a review of the judge's qualifications and views on more important 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment issues.

Actually, keeping the Senate and President from selecting judges based solely on their preferred interpretation of the Bill of Rights is probably a good thing.

[Episiarch]

Don't worry, all the time and effort will be spent finding ways to argue that this isn't legal or constitutional, while actually devoting any time or effort to stop protected class bullshit won't happen.

But that tells you pretty plainly what this is really about for them. But then again, we already knew that.

[Apatheist ?_??]

They also could have spent their time trying to get government out of marriage, but that didn't seem important to most until gay marriage became an issue.

[Episiarch]

But...but...now they talk about it! Of course, they still don't do shit about getting government out of marriage, even now that they're talking about it constantly. But they sure have the energy to oppose gay marriage!

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Meh, give them time once the cascade of gay marriage legalization passes. Who cares if their motives are blatantly vindictive and homophobic? If they dissolve all aspects of government-sanctioned marriage that would be a win.

[Episiarch]

Sure, I just get really sick of people who only care about getting government out of marriage when it comes to the homos (and use that as reason to block gay marriage) pissing down my back and telling me it's raining. Raining men, that is.

[PM]

I just get really sick of people who only care about getting government out of marriage when it comes to the homos...

And you accuse every person who favors getting government out of marriage of only doing so from homophobic motivations. Who's pissing down who's back?

[Generic Stranger]

And you accuse every person who favors getting government out of marriage of only doing so from homophobic motivations. Who's pissing down who's back?

Well, when those same people only bring it up when you're discussing gay marriage and use it as an excuse to argue against equal protection, it's kind of hard not to get that impression.

I'd like the government out of marriage too, but we're not anywhere close to that happening. OTOH, stopping the government from discriminating against consenting adults is not only close at hand but already happening.

[Michael S. Langston]

OTOH, stopping the government from discriminating against consenting adults is not only close at hand but already happening.

Sorry, but this ruling does not stop the government from discriminating wrt marriage at all.

In fact, it reinforces the government's rights to do so in the future by expanding the definition, but still precluding other groups from the same equal protection (polygamists, 2nd cousins, brother/sister, etc, etc, etc - things I may think are gross but should still not be discriminated against and still will be discriminated against based upon this very ruling and the very logic which says this is all a good thing).

[PM]

Well, when those same people only bring it up when you're discussing gay marriage...

Could possibly be because Reason doesn't run many articles on straight marriage so this is the only context in which the subject usually comes up.

OTOH, stopping the government from discriminating against consenting adults is not only close at hand but already happening.

Lol. Yeah, expanding a privilege class by 1 will totally do that.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Well, when those same people only bring it up when you're discussing gay marriage and use it as an excuse to argue against equal protection, it's kind of hard not to get that impression.

When else would the subject come up? Am I supposed to bring up getting the state out of marriage when we're talking about farm subsidies or gasoline taxes? What a joke this argument is.

That would be like someone saying that since the only stories where Reason is complaining about people beating other people up involve cops beating people up, never non-cops, that means Reason is bigoted against cops.

[PM]

That would be like someone saying that since the only stories where Reason is complaining about people beating other people up involve cops beating people up, never non-cops, that means Reason is bigoted against cops.

Dunphy has pretty much made that exact argument, but then he usually gets roundly eviscerated for it.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Dunphy has claimed that Reason is "bigorati" against cops, but that's not his argument. I don't recall him ever bemoaning the lack of coverage of non-cops beating each other up.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Look, getting the government out of marriage may take decades (if ever) but we just have to wait instead of having equal protection now. Doing otherwise is not truly libertarian.

No, I won't answer whether I would have opposed ending the prohibitions on interracial marriages. What a dumb analogy, totally different!

[Episiarch]

What am I doing now to get government out of marriage? Uh...well...marriage is between a man and a woman! So there!

[Calidissident]

They always sidestep that example. At least the SoCons can honestly say it's not a good comparison, because they make no bones about the fact that there is a fundamental difference in their worldview regarding those two things. But for people who are supposedly libertarian, there's no legitimate distinction to be made their from a libertarian POV. I don't see how, based on libertarian principles, you can view restricting marriage licenses to straight couples as preferable to including gay couples, but think that it's not acceptable for marriage licenses to discriminate based on race.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

But for people who are supposedly libertarian, there's no legitimate distinction to be made their from a libertarian POV.

Liberty is not equality.

How many goddam times do I have to repeat that?

If there is no coercion involved in a situation then libertarianism is neutral toward it.

[Calidissident]

"Liberty is not equality."

Equality under the law is a crucial component of libertarianism. Furthermore, unfortunately, under current law, there are many negative rights that marriage licenses protect or guarantee, in addition to the positive rights they grant. You can't simply ignore that.

Furthermore, your comment isn't relevant, because the people I'm talking about are explicitly basing their positions on libertarian principles.

[PM]

Equality under the law is a crucial component of libertarianism.

Gay marriage will not produce equality under the law - it will merely expand a privilege to one group of people to whom it was previously denied, while continuing to deny it to all the rest.

Furthermore, unfortunately, under current law, there are many negative rights that marriage licenses protect or guarantee, in addition to the positive rights they grant.

Name one. Bearing in mind that your immigration example is bullshit, as is spousal immunity, since that isn't a negative right either.

[DJF]

Reason Magazine did not spend any time trying to get government out of marrage, they just act as cheerleaders everytime the government expands its government marrage system

More people putting their private lives into the hands of the government which has the power to change the marrage any time they like and who is the one who decides when a marrage is begun and when its over.

Don't look like freedom to me, it may be more equal, but equal is not the same as freedom.

[Episiarch]

Well then maybe you should expend your efforts towards getting government out of marriage instead of expending your efforts towards complaining about gays getting equal protection. Because you sure seem to spend a lot more time doing the latter and zero time doing the former.

[Apatheist ?_??]

A net neutral on liberty and a net positive in equal protection by the government.

[DJF]

How is it a net neutral on liberty when more people come under government control?

And is it also neutral on liberty when more people are forced by the government to recognize someone else's marriage?

That is what laws do, force people to do things they normally would not do.

As to being equal, people in prison are equal

[Apatheist ?_??]

How is it a net neutral on liberty when more people come under government control?

No one is being forced to get a government marriage.

And is it also neutral on liberty when more people are forced by the government to recognize someone else's marriage?

No one is forcing you to recognize someone else's marriage, you are perfectly capable of not recognizing it just like the Catholic Church does not recognize my atheist marriage.

There are positives to liberty too, all those people who don't have to pay estate tax when their gay spouse dies for one.

[Episiarch]

God, watching them spin and squirm so vehemently on this is hilarious. I love watching people who deny their motivations on this go apeshit trying any and every excuse that they can. Do they not realize how unbelievably obvious they are? I guess not.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Bigotry deniers?

Bigotry hiders?

They need a name.

[Episiarch]

Bigotrolls? Homodeniers? People who pretend they're not homophobic but then the only thing they ever get worked up about is homos getting to get married?

Oh wait, the last one was too long.

[DJF]

People who pretend they are libertarian but can't wait until they get a government licence backed by government laws concerning the most intimate part of their private lives

[Episiarch]

You mean like straight people who get married?

I can't tell if you're pathetic, stupid, retarded, are all three. It's amazing watching people like you go apeshit over this--but nothing else--and then still trying to spin it as some constitutional integrity thing. The only way that would even be remotely believable would be if you were going just as apeshit over any state-sanctioned marriage whatsoever.

Can you really not see how fucking obvious you are? If so, that really just drives the pathetic home.

[Francisco d Anconia]

People who pretend they are libertarian but can't wait until they get a government licence backed by government laws concerning the most intimate part of their private lives

Can you point to anyone here who doesn't want government out of marriage, altogether?

No?

So you, DJF, don't hate homosexuals, you are doing them a favor by discriminating against them in the meantime, right? Giving them a headstart so to speak. Not allowing them entitlements that the rest of us shouldn't have to begin with is helping them out, right?

[PM]

Bigotry deniers?

Bigotry hiders?

They need a name.

Bigorati?

hth

[DJF]

I know, those homosexual marrage supporters who claim to be libertarian jumping into bed with the government so they can get the government to licence their private lives and then use that licence to force others to recongnize that marrage is hilarious.

[Cytotoxic]

so they can get the government to licence their private lives and then use that licence to force others to recongnize that marrage is hilarious.

How are ambulatory when you are that full of shit?

[DJF]

No argument but just shit, so said

[DJF]

""""No one is forcing you to recognize someone else's marriage"""

Yes they will, you won't be able to "discriminate" against them because of that recognition. And the definition of discrimination will also be ruled by the same judges who ruled on this and so will manage to come up with all sorts of places and reasons to rule against you. Anything in any way to do with economics will use this ruling and the interstate commerce clause to make the government in charge of all decisions having anything to do with homosexuals and marrage

As I said the only reason to pass laws is to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

"""There are positives to liberty too, all those people who don't have to pay estate tax when their gay spouse dies for one.""'

So why should anyone pay, instead all that you advocate is some special group gets special privileges. That is what the government runs on, giving special privileges to special people who then support expanding government power.

[Cytotoxic]

And now more people have their rights thanks to that judge. Epi is right you are so obvious.

[DJF]

What rights do they have that are not the government forcing others to do what they don't want to do?

[Cytotoxic]

Not being forced to testify against a spouse. Immigration issues. FUCKING TONS OF THINGS. Not that your qualification should matter. Indeed it just makes gay marriage all that more important as a bulwark against rights violations.

[PM]

Not being forced to testify against a spouse.

No one should ever be forced to testify against anyone.

Immigration issues

No one should get special immigration preference because of who they happen to be in a relationship with.

FUCKING TONS OF THINGS.

... that you just don't want to get into right now, because your previous 2 entries totally weren't an exhaustive list.

I know, I know, I should have gotten elected to office in all 50 states and changed the law that's been around longer than I've been alive; or else shut the fuck up.

[Cytotoxic]

Then obviously you should support gay marriage because fewer people will be negatively affected by these laws. Unless you're just rationalizing something else of course.

[PM]

Then obviously you should support gay marriage because fewer people will be negatively affected by these laws.

Giving more people a "get out of jail free" card doesn't really do much for me. Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling that once the privileged class grows by 1, it probably isn't going to disappear. People tend to kinda like getting special benefits.

Unless you're just rationalizing something else of course.

Yes, like those stubborn asshole abolitionists in the 18th century who refused to grant new states the equal protection of the laws by allowing them the constitutionally protected right to own slaves, clearly anyone unwilling to compromise has sinister motives.

[PM]

What rights do they have that are not the government forcing others to do what they don't want to do?

A bunch of really awesome positive rights that are totally wrong and completely illegitimate, but should nevertheless be expanded to include the maximum number of people possible. That's the libertarian position on all positive rights. Duh!

Universal Medicare! Universal Social Security! Universal EITC! Universal public accommodation!

I mean, I want those programs reformed as much as the next guy, but until then, you're a vile piece of lying, dishonest, scumsucking shit if you oppose giving them to everyone equally, you fucking bigot (btw, I can't believe what a visceral reaction you have to this issue, you hatemongering disingenuous cunt. How could you have so little self-awareness?)

[prolefeed]

How is it a net neutral on liberty when more people come under government control?

No one is being forced to get a government marriage.

The issue is that nonconsenting third parties are being forced, essentially at gunpoint, to do things they don't want to due to government recognized marriages.

Of course, this is true for straight marriages too, which is why I'd like this (and every other aspect of government) go away.

[Apatheist ?_??]

I'd like to know what those things are that are not in fact the consequence of some other law, like say non-discrimination laws. A government marriage license could conceivably have no benefits or detriments. Those all come from other laws.

And we all agree here that government licenses should go away, even in the situation I just described.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I'd like to know what those things are that are not in fact the consequence of some other law, like say non-discrimination laws.

I'll accept that as an argument when your side stops using stupid immigration laws and stupid tax laws to justify forcing states to recognize gay marriage.

Either we're taking the current legal framework as a given or we're assuming fiat power to change it all. Pick one or the other, don't vacillate between them when it's convenient.

[jacob]

Of course, this is true for straight marriages too, which is why I'd like this (and every other aspect of government) go away.

Then please answer the question that Epi put forth NUMEROUS times. (I'd like to invite DJF to do the same)

Why hasn't there been any legitimate effort (legislation, petitions, etc) to get government out of all marriage? It seems very odd that when gay marriage gets legalized, there are a contingent of "libertarians" who howl about government not being in the business of marriage. I cannot remember a single time in the 15-20 years preceding this era where libertarians/conservatives made it a priority to get government out of marriage.

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[PM]

I cannot remember a single time in the 15-20 years preceding this era where libertarians/conservatives made it a priority to get government out of marriage.

Well, I mean, obviously if you can't remember it then it didn't exist, and you can therefore be sure that nobody - literally, nobody - in the libertarian movement who claims to want government out of marriage is arguing in good faith.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

jacob: pretty sure libertarians have made it a priority to get the government out of sex and cohabitation in general.

Marriage in 2013 is essentially a piece of paper from the state, with a couple of obscure legal nuts and bolts -- not quite the absolute necessity it was in 1963 if you wanted to have sex or live with someone of the opposite sex without constant state harassment.

Since we're talking about sudden disingenuous shifts in movements' goals, perhaps you should look at the gay rights movement, which once advocated for repeal of sodomy laws promising that gays just wanted to be left alone to do their thing behind closed doors; once that was accomplished, they advocated for hate crime and anti-discrimination laws, saying they just wanted to come out of the closet, and weren't interested in societal endorsement; then they pushed for civil unions, saying they just wanted to be able to visit their partners in the hospital, and weren't interested in the word "marriage"; then they advocated for gay marriage via the democratic political process, saying that time was on their side and voters were warming up to it; and now with that avenue failing, they turn to unelected blackrobes to give them the word they once said they didn't want.

So you'll understand if conservatives don't believe a damn thing gay advocates say anymore. Next they may come for churches' tax-exempt status if they "discriminate" by harboring anti-gay beliefs.

You're welcome.

[Michael S. Langston]

I cannot remember a single time in the 15-20 years preceding this era where libertarians/conservatives made it a priority to get government out of marriage.

Thanks for noting the irrelevant - you're basically arguing that by libertarians not arguing against the status quo which was in place before the US even has a real libertarian contingent in existence (other than founding fathers) they cannot now argue remove government from all marriages while the government is expanding their "special rules for special people"...

When really it seems obvious that arguments about this would've fallen on deaf ears and taken time away from more valuable arguments - up until the point the government sought to expand "special rules for special people" at which point - libertarians thought now as a good time to fight.

That's human nature and good timing - not evidence of homophobia.

In case you don't believe me - pro-life groups didn't really exist prior to Roe v Wade either. What would the point be?

But because pro-life groups weren't arguing against abortion when it was still mostly illegal does that mean they can not argue it now in good faith?

No - it's just you searching for a reason to believe what you want while simultaneously ignoring/dismissing information which is logical, rational, but opposes your current view.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

No one is forcing you to recognize someone else's marriage, you are perfectly capable of not recognizing it

I guess you just skimmed all that stuff Reason posted about wedding photographers a couple of weeks ago?

[Apatheist ?_??]

I guess you just skimmed all that stuff Reason posted about wedding photographers a couple of weeks ago?

I guess you are a disingenuous fuck who knows that anti-discrimination laws are separate and in fact the infamous wedding photographer case was in New Mexico WHEN THERE WAS NO GAY MARRIAGE. It was NOT a government licensed marriage. It is Exhibit A that those laws are separate.

[font_of_stupidity]

It was NOT a government licensed marriage.

You seem to be taking the position that the state will be less likely to coerce when the gay couple is officially licensed by the state.

[Apatheist ?_??]

No I'm taking the position that it is a different law and not the gay marriage law that is being enforced in those instances.

[Michael S. Langston]

But a law which would be unenforceable without state sanctioned marriage right?

As if homosexual marriages are illegal (and I don't think they should be) - anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force bakers, photographers, or anyone else to grant equal protection to those the government actively denies equal protection too wrt marriage (which isn't really equal protection since it's really "special rules for special people").

Therefore, you are being disingenuous in trying to separate the two laws which are inextricably linked. & by doing so, you then act as if the real negative consequences which will result in all of this are irrelevant.

But again - so many on here just want to prove themselves correct, so they easily ignore any rational opposing views by attacking any opposition as homophobic, or stupid. or whatever.

Always though - ignoring reality, because you all know this is truly about fundamental rights - it's common sense and moral after all (which is exactly what the current administration says about everything they want - O-care, gun control, etc - but for some reason here - this line of argument works wrt marriage and completely ignored when applied to any other things).

[Apatheist ?_??]

But a law which would be unenforceable without state sanctioned marriage right?

WRONG

That is the fucking point. The New Mexico photographer case was when there was NO state sanctioned marriage. That's the fucking point.

[Michael S. Langston]

That is the fucking point. The New Mexico photographer case was when there was NO state sanctioned marriage. That's the fucking point.

One example doesn't make a rule... so while I do agree about NM, that isn't the only court case due to this.

And the existence of one exception, still doesn't allow those here to ignore the reality that gay marriage is being linked to anti-discrimination laws.

Hell - the whole thing "gay marriage" is collectivist thinking.

Because if this judge, or any other judge, just said, any marriages, including polygamy should be legal because the government shouldn't' be able to prevent freedom of association in any arrangement consenting adults prefer - it would be a true boon for freedom.

As that would both allow gays to marry, while not reinforcing "group rights" (not that such a thing exists in reality).

But that's not what this is - it's about defining a new group and adding them to a special list of people who get special things under certain special conditions.

Because in the other states where these law suits have gone forward - gay marriage is legal (WA & CA IIRC are two examples).

[Apatheist ?_??]

It only takes one example to disprove your statement and it only takes ones example to prove that these are different laws. Not only that but they are enforced even when marriage isn't involved. A baker not serving gays will get punished no matter the context. Gay marriage doesn't violate bakers freedom of association, anti-discrimination laws do.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

It only takes one example to disprove your statement and it only takes ones example to prove that these are different laws.

I've had more than one encounter with cops where I didn't get beaten up or searched or tased or jailed; does that disprove the statement that there is a police abuse problem in this country?

[PM]

He's absolutely right. Most of the benefits conferred by marriage we all get to pay for universally, so it's all good.

[Cytotoxic]

It's Tulpa. He's the Honey Badger of bullshitting. 'Tulpa got tripped by his own attempt at tripping someone else? Tulpa don't care'.

[PM]

...while actually devoting any time or effort to stop protected class bullshit won't happen.

SCOTUS has given protected classes its constitutional blessing, so court challenges are out. What do you suggest, then? Repeal? Are you even vaguely familiar with what happened to Rand Paul when he suggested that the 1964 CRA trampled on association rights?

But that tells you pretty plainly what this is really about for them.

Yep, sick burn, breh. "If you don't like it, go elect a new congress and repeal the shitty laws!" Sounds almost familiar... pretty sure I heart that from Tony.

[Cytotoxic]

Or you could you know advocate actively for those new laws. Which conservatives have NEVER DONE.

[PM]

Conservatives haven't, but then not many conservatives are jumping on the no-civil-marriage bandwagon either; they're happy with the status quo.

[Winston]

protected class bullshit where bakers and photographers have to provide service to people they don't like.

Pretty sure that battle was lost long ago.

[Jerry on the boat]

They better keep their polygaygamy in Utah!

[epsilon given]

Um, you do realize that polygamy is illegal in Utah, don't you? It was required by the Federal Government to make it illegal, on condition that Utah become a state.

Heck, it was required of Utah, on condition that the dominant denomination wasn't fined, and asset forfeitured, and imprisoned into oblivion. (At one point, there was even a Federal army sent out against the people of what would become Utah; the Governor of the territory even sent people south to build forts, in preparation for the possibility that everyone would have to flee south into Mexico.)

This makes me wonder: if the Federal Courts find a Constitutional right to polygamy, will Utah's status of Statehood be revoked, pending re-approval by Congress?

In any case, this is something to keep in mind, when you're wondering why Utah is so opposed to Federal meddling in the definition of marriage: it has been done before, and it was brutal for those who lived in the territory at the time.

[MikeP]

Et tu, Utah?

[Jesus H. Christ]

It would be nice if this meant I didn't have to hear so much whining about this topic. It's gotten old. Then again, I'm a heterosexual married for the last 24 years. I've got no dog in this hunt.

[Banjos]

Sweet, I hope Utah now becomes ground zero for polyamourous marriage rights.

[Leigh]

So gay polygamy is good now, right?

[Live Free or Diet]

Heather Has Eight Mommies?

[Banjos]

Polygamy by definition is one man and multiple women.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Really?

[Banjos]

Oops, never mind. Polygyny is one man, multiple women.

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

Ha! Pedant fail!

[Banjos]

That's what I deserve for not taking two seconds to google.

[Episiarch]

Polyandry is one woman and multiple men; polygyny is one man with multiple women. Polygamy is some combination of the two, presumably also including all of one sex or the other. I'm not sure what they call what your mom is in, though. Polybestiality?

[Banjos]

She gets with your mom on a regular basis, so that sounds about right.

[Episiarch]

The donkeys make it a line marriage.

[Almanian!]

*continues furiously taking notes*

[prolefeed]

Polygamy is ostensibly neutral about the gender mix of the people participating, though in practice it almost always means MFF(...FF).

[Apatheist ?_??]

We all knew this was coming, that it happened in Utah first will be entertaining.

[Live Free or Diet]

Yeah, but are they forcing religious bakers to make them wedding cakes?

[Scott S.]

Updated with the unhappy response from Utah's governor. I wonder if this will end up right back before SCOTUS.

[MikeP]

Given that Utah illegalized polygamy in order to be able to join the Union, one would think that relegalizing polygamy should make them instantly secede.

No SCOTUS. No federal judges.

[darius404]

Except that part of a law can be invalidated without every part of it being ruled unconstitutional. So no, deciding that they can't outlaw cohabitation doesn't render Utah independent.

[MikeP]

Oh, I'm not suggesting something as simple as cohabitation laws. I'm suggesting the Utah state legislature could roll back the marriage law to 1880: marriage is one man, any number of women.

Which country would be first to recognize Utah?

[Live Free or Diet]

Saudi Arabia?

[The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc]

That's an interesting thought. Unlike California, Utah's Attorney General most certainly will defend its law in court, so SCOTUS won't be able to punt on the issue like it did when it denied that the litigants in Hollingsworth v. Perry lacked standing.

[Paul.]

If I were gay, I'd live in Provo.

[Episiarch]

You don't live in Capitol Hill?!?

[Paul.]

Nah, that's old school. I used to live in Capitol Hill, but it got too straight for me.

True story: I used to live in an 8 unit condo on 15th. For the first year, I was the only straight guy in the building.

[Episiarch]

Then you went gay and made the condo homogeneous? Get it? Homogeneous?!?

I gotta work on my material.

[Sevo]

http://instantrimshot.com/

[MikeP]

Try accenting the "gene". You know, like, it's genetic.

[Episiarch]

Are you trying to say that a lot of gay guys are named Gene? I thought it was Bruce.

[prolefeed]

My brother Bruce would pound the hell outta you for saying that. Or mock you. Or fuck your mother.

It could go any way.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Steve.

[prolefeed]

Never knew an openly gay Steve.

[Banjos]

"They took our best names, like Bruce, Lance, and Julian. Those used to be our toughest, manliest names, but now they're just..."

[Almanian!]

Youse guys are gene-iouses!

[Sevo]

Hey, people! It's late on Friday in DC; what new O'care decree is going to be 'announced'(hidden)?

[Irish]

MSNBC makes joke about anal sex and ZOMG Chris Hayes thinks it's so funny!

Where are all the grown ups?

Also, this being youtube, this comment has two thumbs up:

SlightlyNonToxic2 hours ago

Faggots and their sympathizers are vile, grotesque, immoral, and soulless creatures. They rank right up there with that milky scum/liquid that leaks out of the bottom of a dumpster in a rat infested, diseased ally, which characterizes the creatures 'lifestyle' perfectly.?
2

This is an impressive youtube video. It manages to make me hate everyone.

[darius404]

It manages to make me hate everyone.

Isn't that a normal feeling?

[Mercutio]

It manages to make me hate everyone.

Isn't that a normal feeling?

It certainly is for me.

[Goldwin]

So will libertarians admit defeat on the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare? The people have voted and the Courts have ruled in favor...

[Paul.]

It's not just libertarians that need to admit defeat on the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare.

[Goldwin]

Is there a majority of people that oppose Social Security and Medicare and are there five SCOTUS willing to declare them unconstitutional?

[prolefeed]

Not yet and not yet.

[Cytotoxic]

One thing is not at all like these other things.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Because Cytotoxic likes the one thing?

[Cytotoxic]

Because the one thing is a pro-liberty point where society is irreversibly moving to freedom. The others are WIP.

[PM]

Because the one thing is a pro-liberty point where society is irreversibly moving to freedom.

If freedom means freedom to beg the government for a license to seek rent, then I'll be happy to take on the mantle of anti-liberty.

[PM]

If you want to make an equality argument, fine and dandy, but it's got shit to do with liberty anymore than universalizing driver licensing or occupational licensing does.

[prolefeed]

Some things, like all the ones you mentioned, blatantly violate the Constitution. Some, like the gay marriage ruling, arguably defend the Ninth Amendment, among others.

So, not the same thing. At all.

[Goldwin]

blatantly violate the Constitution
Yeah but the judges declared them constitutional already. In what sense are they unconstitutional? You don't like them?

[Cytotoxic]

In the same sense that the sky is blue.

[Paul.]

Is there a point you're trying to make?

[prolefeed]

Goldwin's point seems to be that the Constitution means whatever the hell 5+ sitting SCOTUS justices say it means, unless or until another 5+ change their mind, actual wording of the Constitution be damned.

[Goldwin]

Goldwin's point seems to be that the Constitution means whatever the hell 5+ sitting SCOTUS justices say it means, unless or until another 5+ change their mind, actual wording of the Constitution be damned.

Pretty much, not that I like it though.

[Francisco d Anconia]

So if 5 Nazgul say the first amendment means you can practice any religion you wish except Catholicism, you'd accept that as a correct and proper interpretation?

Such a ruling is the reason the second amendment exists. The people ultimately interpret the Constitution. SCOTUS rulings are only legitimate if the the people are unwilling to go to the mattresses over it.

[Goldwin]

So if 5 Nazgul say the first amendment means you can practice any religion you wish except Catholicism, you'd accept that as a correct and proper interpretation?

No I'd just accept the judges just rule based on whatever they think. It's not like Social Security was ruled constitutional due to an actual reading of the Constitution.

[Goldwin]

I mean the New Deal was eventually approved because FDR threatened to pack the court and enough of them died so he could appoint replacements. The New Deal will be declared unconstitutional only if SCOTUS is packed with judges that want it repealed.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Reasonoids are doing a touchdown dance and telling their opponents to admit defeat because of a court ruling, so it's entirely appropriate to point out the inherent contradictions.

[Cytotoxic]

There's also the crushing advance of societal change on our side too.

[PM]

Appeal to majority is STILL libertarian as fuck.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Appeal to majority is doubly funny when cheering a change to the law that had nothing to do with majority support.

[Francisco d Anconia]

So will libertarians admit defeat on the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare?

You fail to see the difference. One decision is moral, the others immoral.

You know, right vs wrong? Good vs evil? The Empire vs the Republic?

Get it?

[Goldwin]

One decision is moral, the others immoral.

So nothing to do with constitutionality?

You know who else continues to oppose things they find immoral no matter what the courts and the public says?

[Almanian!]

The Pope?

[Cytotoxic]

You know who else continues to oppose things they find immoral no matter what the courts and the public says?

You know who is never going to win and has no moral calculus on their side?

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

People who think it's OK to incinerate innocent women and children in foreign countries?

Admittedly, I'm not giving you enough credit. You scoundrels probably will win, given the natural inclination of human societies toward murderous statism.

[Cytotoxic]

We won that debate becauase we had moral calculus AND the public on our side.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

People who think it's OK to incinerate innocent women and children in foreign countries?

Admittedly, I'm not giving you enough credit. You scoundrels probably will win, given the natural inclination of human societies toward murderous statism.

[Cytotoxic]

It's everybody's favorite gameshow: TULPA. NON. SEQUITOR.

What the fuck is he talking about today? Will it bear any relation to the subject at hand? Will it be truly random or a transparent ploy to distract from the fact that he has no point of his own? Lets not find out.

[PM]

If you're uncomfortable having the implications of majoritarianism shoved in your face after you trotted it out as a talking point you've got nobody to blame but you. And god knows I'm not one to often defend Tulpa.

[PM]

One decision is moral, the others immoral.

Government licensing is a moral issue?

[Michael S. Langston]

How is stealing money from families who need it to give to theoretically more "needy" families moral?

Sorry - but New Deal has moral goods & bads just like gay marriage. To state otherwise is an exercise in idiocy.

& honestly - after too many comments from me on this thread - I don't' get it.

Why are so many here pretending that is a noble good no matter what? Why are so many unable to admit real, serious problems that will flow from this?

I mean - name any law you think should exist or go away - no matter what it is - the outcome will never be completely good and moral nor completely evil and immoral.

Just a every cloud has a silver lining, every cloud can also hide dangerous storms.

To act as if this is somehow fundamentally different solely because a lot of people believe very strongly that "special rules for special people" should be expanded - doesn't make it so.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I'll assume that's aimed at me, MSL.

The determination of whether an action is moral or not is whether it infringes on the rights of others.

Gay marriage infringes on no ones rights, at least no more than straight marriages do (and I'll be the first to claim government has no legitimate place in the institution) and therefore eliminating a ban on it is a moral action.

Allowing an individual to benefit at the expense of others violates the property rights of those paying for it. Therefore, ACA, the New Deal/Great Society policies are, in fact, immoral.

[Cytotoxic]

Why are so many unable to admit real, serious problems that will flow from this?

Because that's bullshit.

[Len Bias]

Senior Chang wishes to weigh in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaG5SAw1n0c

[Almanian!]

I'm sorry, but every time I see a headline about this (or something like this), I hear "AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!!! AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS...." etc. from "Team America".

Actually, I'm not sorry. I just hear that. Reflex.

[Acosmist]

What could possibly go wrong for libertarian causes when the judiciary unilaterally decides issues of policy? You know how many libertarian judges there are, after all!

[Apatheist ?_??]

Your argument is that because the judiciary routinely fucks us just like the other branches of government that we should be happy when it goes our way?

[Irish]

His argument is that we shouldn't support the corrosion of the constitution just because it helped us once.

When the judiciary starts deciding policy, what percentage of these decisions do you think will be good, and what percentage will be pro-government?

[Cytotoxic]

It will still be better than if the people decide.

[PM]

It will still be better than if the people decide.

Because if a million people can't be trusted to make good laws, the clear solution is to put the authority in the hands of one person.

Monarchy is libertarian as fuck.

[Michael S. Langston]

It will still be better than if the people decide.

So a direct dictatorship is your ideal form of government?

Keep trying to ignore reality - and you'll keep making very bad logical errors like this. Stop and contemplate it all together and your position may not change that much, but it will allow you to agree with reality instead of actively trying to argue against it.

Then maybe your use of obvious logical fallacies will be reduced (maybe... somewhat....).

[Cytotoxic]

Geez maybe I prefer this Constitutional Republic thingy. I'm going with that.

[PM]

The one where people get to make laws by electing representatives? Doesn't sound much like:

It will still be better than if the people decide.

[darius404]

How about the one where there is a set of laws that are meant to keep the government from doing things it shouldn't, like say, abridging the privileges and immunities of it's citizens? I'm a big fan of that one, but I guess some people aren't.

[PM]

Sounds like an awesome system to me. One we don't live in, and that we will continue not to live in when gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states, but it does sound awesome.

[Goldwin]

This is something I've been concerned about. Do laws and rights depend solely on what some judges think? Today judges rule in favor of gay marriage. They also rule that bakers and photographers have to serve them. And what happens if in a few years some other judges decide that gays are degenerate and approve of a sodomy ban?

Not to mention this leads into the Whig View of History as an Uninterrupted March of Progress. Now remember that the 19th century liberals who did are credited with this view opposed tax and spend policies and thought that view had won but modern liberals think the opposite.

what percentage of these decisions do you think will be good, and what percentage will be pro-government?

Who do you think appoints these judges?

[Apatheist ?_??]

My point is that the constitution is already corroded, that the judiciary has already started deciding policy, and that the percentages are already bad.

So I'll be happy about this one little thing. It's not like my opinion will have any bearing whatsoever on what SCOTUS ultimately decides. I'm not even casting a statistically meaningless vote to help decide. One way or the other it will be done.

[Michael S. Langston]

First they came for the smokers, but I didn't care...

How do you not see any continuation of this "rule of men" will destroy freedom for all of us in the long run?

So sorry - even though I agree gays, and polygamists, and others should be allowed to marry (any consenting adults in any arrangement they choose) does not mean I must support idiotic pronouncements based upon men's feeling.

Nor does the fact I agree with it mean I want to applaud a ruling that got there in the wrong way.

Just as I think prostitution should be legal - but Canada didn't do liberty any justice when they decided that to be so because "some women have no choice".

Or is it ok to oppose Canada's bad legal logic based upon feelings because that's just prostitution, but to oppose gay marriage ruling based upon stupid things such as feeling is still bad/evil/homophobic?

[Apatheist ?_??]

Rule of man is already destroying freedom, there is only rule of man, not rule of law.

[Michael S. Langston]

Rule of man is already destroying freedom

Agreed completely - and the very reason I'm against this ruling and in a normal world, libertarians would mostly agree (again - given NAP and the philosophy - I can see progs logically not agreeing at all with me because they don't agree with NAP and individual rights to begin with - libertarians though theoretically have an agreed upon philosophy which states pretty clearly this is a bad ruling, even if the results should happen).

[Apatheist ?_??]

The normal world is the one in which there is the rule of man. The one in which there is a rule of law doesn't exist.

[Apatheist ?_??]

libertarians though theoretically have an agreed upon philosophy which states pretty clearly this is a bad ruling, even if the results should happen

No we haven't, clearly because there are plenty us here disagreeing with you.

[HarryUSA]

So the will of the people of UTAH is to be bigoted and Gov. Herbert wants the courts to support this? Interesting. I wonder what the good people of Utah use to boost their argument that gays should not get married. Oh, let me guess, a line in the bible. What a surprise.

[Russ Davis]

They should have also legalized four-sided triangles. There's no such thing as the "gay marriage" oxymoron and never will be, like one must havae a person of the opposie sex in order to have sex for those few left who are sane enough to know about human anatomy. But of course order is irrelevant for those who wear black dresses and pretend to be God and force their deranged, mendacious, antiChristian bigotry religion on others in the intolerant name of tolerance. See the fraud exposed by the fine 2005 article "The gay invention" at http://www.touchstonemag.com and see pervert Kinsey's fantastically successful subversion of American morals jurisprudence exposed at http://www.DrJudithReisman.org. History proves, and our Founders knew, that this kind of depravity was certain suicide for any society no matter the utter cluelessness of the few states sliding down this feces-lined chute to nowhere, like the few states who also promoted the depravity of slavery.

[Irish]

Fuck you, Russ. No one asked you.

[epsilon given]

I'm afraid the editor did: "We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic."

While a bit bizarre, and while most people won't accept the argument because of its religious undertones, it is nonetheless on-topic--and because it doesn't include any ad-hominims, it certainly isn't uncivil...

So, in addition to being invited by the Editor, it even has the bonus of being both on-topic an civil! (Not that I object entirely to off-topic and uncivil--which, arguably, are invited, too, they just aren't fulfilling the requests of the Editor--I nonetheless find some of these off-topic and uncivil comments to be fantastic (although some are just plain bad and uncalled for)).

[SusanM]

"But of course order is irrelevant for those who wear black dresses and pretend to be God and force their deranged, mendacious, antiChristian bigotry religion on others"

If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge.

The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

[Death Rock and Skull]

Its not fair when powerful minorities shoving laws down everyone's throats in democratic systems are overridden by judges shoving their own laws down everyone else's throats.
-John

[Goldwin]

Libertarians would approve if they didn't like those laws but would not approve if they did?

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

After five years on this site, still waiting for one of the cosmos to explain how gay marriage is a liberty issue (as opposed to an equality one, which libertarianism is silent on).

I don't really care one way or the other since there's no coercion involved; what does dismay me is libertarians getting in bed with rank statists on the left to forward their agenda on this issue. eg, counting gay marriage as a supposedly libertarian point in favor of Obama last summer.

[SusanM]

From what I've gathered, it's a matter of freedom of contract and privacy.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

You may want to think more critically about what you've gathered. Especially the part about privacy (wtf?).

[Michael S. Langston]

I think I stand in the minority around here on this one - but from day one I never though libertarianism should be pro-gay marriage as a matter of freedom or equal protection.

As freedoms, according to libertarianism, is based upon protecting negative rights (equality really doesn't factor other than all individuals should enjoy the same protections for negative rights).

& it seems obvious that this isn't protecting negative rights, but about expanding positive rights to a new group.

Because when marriage law were first setup, they were setup deliberately to give a certain group of people extra "rights".

In doing so - the law itself actively goes against any semblance of equal protection and has nothing to do with the rights most libertarians agree should be protected (negative ones).

Therefore using equal rights to expand it is not only wrong, but very bad for long term liberties and freedoms.

Disclaimer: A friend of mine was once unable to visit his long term partner, who was seriously ill for several days and kept in a local hospital. Why not? They're not related. Honestly, that pisses me off, though that's a private decision for the hospital to make.

But my disagreement with the way gays have been treated does not mean that I must automatically agree that the way in which this is happening is also an automatic good. Doing so is honestly weak (at least for those who believe that protecting negative rights should be the extent of government protection).

[Paul.]

You can simplify your descriptions of 'rights types' by calling them rights or privileges.

Rights are things we enjoy in the absence of government, therefore we need no government to grant them to us. Government's only job for rights is to protect them.

Privileges are things we can only enjoy by having them granted to us, because in the absense of government and/or coercion, we wouldn't have them.

Example:
Healthcare: Privilege.
Keep and bear arms: Right.
Low cost abortion: Privilege
Freedom of speech: Right

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Well, a "right" that's not recognized and protected is as real as angels dancing on pinheads, and may as well not exist.

Furthermore, it's not such an easy distinction. Is the "right" to a jury trial something that would exist in the absence of government? How about the "right" to an attorney? Habeas corpus rights?

Trying to shoehorn those things into natural law theory is going to be an exercise in mental gymnastics, but I don't feel at all comfortable demoting them to "privilege" status.

[VG Zaytsev]

Disclaimer: A friend of mine was once unable to visit his long term partner, who was seriously ill for several days and kept in a local hospital. Why not? They're not related. Honestly, that pisses me off, though that's a private decision for the hospital to make.

Yeah, I don't get this kind of petty tyranny. What if I want to see my non-sexual business partner or childhool friend when seriously ill in hospital - why the fuck would they even want to prevent me from seeing those people.

SSM doesn't really address this issue btw.

[epsilon given]

For that matter, we still have this problem when SSM (or even opposite-sex domestic partners) who /don't/ want to get married, /still/ don't have this privilege...and in order to get it, they'd have to be forced into marriage.

Furthermore, if we legalize SSM through the courts rather than through legislatures, does this mean that two non-sexual roommates are going to find themselves married, if they just happen to live as roommates together for an extended period of time?

We have a lot of entangled history of the State getting involved in marriage, going back literally hundreds of years, with a lot of odd and quirky corner cases. Declaring an expansion by judicial fiat is going to leave a /lot/ of issues unresolved...and it's going to bite a /lot/ of people!

[Cytotoxic]

Actually it's been explained to you about a gagillion times but nobody can penetrate your fuckbrain defense against basic logic.

[font_of_stupidity]

The ends justify the means, I suppose.

[Michael S. Langston]

After too many comments - you sum up what I've been trying to say in 5 words.

Simultaneously - thank you and damn you (as by you doing so - I'm reminded that I need to practice brevity more often) 🙂

[darius404]

The end of government not discriminating in issuing marriage licenses is justified by using court readings of the Constitution to declare this as unlawful government discrimination?

Not really, but nice try at logic when suffering from severe brain damage.

[PM]

The end of government not discriminating in issuing marriage licenses...

Let's stop right there and qualify that statement:

The end of government not discriminating against homosexual couples in issuing marriage licenses...

There we go, now the premise is at least accurate.

[Cytotoxic]

Would the Homophobia Rationalizers on this site care to explain to me why they did or did not think the ban/non-recognition of inter-racial marriage was hunky dory?

[Michael S. Langston]

As soon as you tell us all when you stopped molesting children?

Unfair question of me you say?

That may be, but it's as fair of a question as you pose - and is the reason reasonable people will refuse to answer you.

Maybe you thought people were hiding from you. Trust they are ignoring this question because it has hidden implications which isn't relevant nor in discussion.

Sorry, but this "trap" you think you've cleverly put in front of others - is not a trap - it's just weak and obvious your goal is to add "racist" to the list of insults you spew so easily when someone disagrees with you on this topic.

[Apatheist ?_??]

They never do, they just shout it's different and never answer. Their entire retarded argument rests on every single new government marriage through an expanded marriage regime is oppressing us all but apparently that only applies when it's gay marriage and not interracial marriage.

[Ali_Bertarian]

Because the government should not be in the business of licensing anything.

Or has Reason mag. changed from 30 years ago?

[font_of_stupidity]

No, see, what you don't realize is that's just code language for "Libertarians hate gays." Nowadays we don't mind rule by fiat as long as we like the result.

[Francisco d Anconia]

derp

[Ali_Bertarian]

I think I understand now.

The Reason mag. people have been taken over by the same zombie of irrationality just as the Dems and Reps. They need to change the name of the magazine to "Unreason."

[darius404]

Could you point me to where they endorse government licenses? Oh wait, that's right, they haven't done that. Asking for parity in issuing marriage licenses, or for that matter argument about what constitutes parity in issuing licenses /=/ endorsing government marriage licensing. Work on your reading comprehension, shit-for-brains.

[PM]

Would the Homophobia Rationalizers on this site care to explain to me why they did or did not think the ban/non-recognition of inter-racial marriage was hunky dory?

Just as soon as you explain to me why you do or do not think the ban/non-recognition of unlicensed contractors is hunky dory, or why the ban/non-recognition of unlicensed drivers is hunky dory. Giving the state the authority to license an activity is a mistake regardless of what the activity is.

The fight over anti-miscegenation laws would have been a great time as a country to seriously examine the wisdom of giving the government the authority to license people's social arrangements. Maybe if more people had done so we wouldn't be arguing about gay marriage because the entire construct would be non-existent. But then, as now, the time for having that discussion was never. Even though that's totally your ultimate goal, right?

[darius404]

That they shouldn't try to "license" marriage has nothing to do with how licenses should be awarded when they are involved.

But then, as now, the time for having that discussion was never.

Except libertarians (and others, for that matter) are more than happy to say that the state shouldn't license marriage. Oh, if only you had access to the outside world that you find these discussions for yourself! Let me give you a hand.

[PM]

That they shouldn't try to "license" marriage has nothing to do with how licenses should be awarded when they are involved.

Right, as long as there is a massive abuse of state power that creates equally massive injustice by granting certain people special privileges, it should be expanded to include politically popular identity groups we like. I'm familiar with the logic. Not only is it pretty simplistic, but it's also been repeated about 40 million times at Reason alone by the gay marriage cheerleaders in the libertarian movement who are totally against positive rights, except when they're for them.

Except libertarians (and others, for that matter) are more than happy to say that the state shouldn't license marriage.

Just so long as it's divorced from any suggestion that the government marriage scheme should be rolled back and spoil the reparations for gays victory party. There'll be plenty of time to talk about actually reforming marriage laws once a few million more people we like are able to obtain special privilege by way of having their personal relationship blessed by the government (maybe we can have the discussion when the icky people we don't currently give a shit about start petition for the same privileges). Taking special class status away from married people will be way easier and more popular then.

[Edwin]

The libertarian position is pretty obvious. When someone asks you, you just say

"I think the whole thing is a farce. Marriage needs to be legalized in the first place", and then proceed to explain that no-fault marriage is NOT marriage, and people have a right to make their own contracts, even if they're social in nature and subject children to various conditions, and even if they bind people who want to welch on their agreement. EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE THE AGREEMENTS/ARRANGEMENTS.

[VG Zaytsev]

Would the Homophobia Rationalizers on this site care to explain to me why they did or did not think the ban/non-recognition of inter-racial marriage was hunky dory?

Because a ban on inter-racial marriage has never been part of mainstream culture anywhere on earth? Racist colonialists frequently married natives. Europeans and native americans married from their earliest contacts.

The Southern US ban on inter-racial marriage was a deviance from that norm driven entirely by that region's history of racist slavery and an inherent part of Jim Crow.

Beyond that, the rationale for marriage as public policy is that it promotes stable families to raise children to perpetuate society. Inter-racial marriages conform to that rationale while SSM does not.

[PM]

...the rationale for marriage as public policy is that it promotes stable families to raise children to perpetuate society.

Which is a totally legitimate role for the state, and a particularly pressing concern in a country with 350 million people and scads more lined up for decades to get in.

[Apatheist ?_??]

VG answered the question. You have not. Either the answer is yes I oppose any expansion of government marriage including interrracial marriage or you think there is some reason like VG that gays should be discriminated against.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Expansion of marriage compared to what starting state? The historically uncommon, contrived anti-miscegenation regime in the Jim Crow South?

They had laws regulating whether 7/16 black people could marry 1/2 black people, you know. Not exactly a coherent system like one man and one woman.

[VG Zaytsev]

The government not recognizing SSM is not discrimination against gays. Anti-Sodomy laws were clearly discriminatory against gays and I opposed those and am glad that they have been eliminated.

[PM]

VG answered the question. You have not.

Covered it here.

Either the answer is yes I oppose any expansion of government marriage including interrracial marriage or you think there is some reason like VG that gays should be discriminated against.

Interracial marriage has been a resolved legal issue since my parents were toddlers, but had I been alive then, yes, I'd have opposed expanding marriage privileges then as well. As I pointed out below, if the issue had been raised at the time we might not be having this conversation today. If the time to address the issue is always after the next favored political group gets their social restitution then it's never going to happen.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I know Apatheist is trying to tar his opponents as racist (sound familiar?) but it's totally valid to argue that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided w.r.t. the constitution, even if you think anti-miscegenation laws were wrong.

Heck, I think Brown v Board was one of the worst decisions in the history of SCOTUS, despite the fact that I consider racial segregation to be stupid and immoral.

[PM]

I know Apatheist is trying to tar his opponents as racist (sound familiar?) but it's totally valid to argue that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided

True enough. But I'm not going to pretend I'm only opposed to expansion of marriage privileges as a matter of constitutional law. It's a principled position about the proper role of government. That doesn't make one racist either. Anymore than the same principled position via-a-vis gay marriage makes one a homophobe. I guess most people are easily browbeaten by the implication of racism and will acquiesce when confronted with this example. I don't give a shit. I regard being called a racist with all the seriousness of being called a big fat doodie head by a 3 year old.

Historical moments where the injustice of marriage laws with regards to one particular victim group are in the popular consciousness are a good opportunity to think critically about the wisdom of the civil institution altogether. Like I said, waiting until the next aggrieved group has gotten theirs is a good way to advocate for the status quo while pretending you're not.

[PM]

As an addendum, I would also have opposed the 1964 CRA at the time as well, despite the fact that it was intended to remedy far worse injustices than not being allowed to seek a marriage license. It's more than a little ironic that Goldwater is considered a libertarian folk hero for his opposition to the 1964 CRA, punctuated by the famous "You cannot legislate morality" line, by the same people who delight in insinuations of racism against anybody who would have opposed the comparatively trivial overturning of state anti-miscegenation laws or outright accusations of homophobic bigotry against anybody who opposes the overturning of state gay marriage bans.

[VG Zaytsev]

Which is a totally legitimate role for the state, and a particularly pressing concern in a country with 350 million people and scads more lined up for decades to get in.

The answer to that is ending marriage as public policy altogether, not expanding it past it's original intent.

And it gives me pause, that while the libertarian in me agrees that it the government should not be promoting family formation; the realist in me sees that weaker families has led to a stronger more invasive state.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

the realist in me sees that weaker families has led to a stronger more invasive state.

Uh, we still live in one of the freest societies in the history of the earth, and the family is weaker than ever.

If anything it's the opposite; as the state becomes more and more likely to "take care of people" (in both negative and positive ways), people feel confident enough to get out of the suffocating mess that is the nuclear family.

[VG Zaytsev]

Right,

Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc. have all been expansions of liberty.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

Compared to many socieites with much stronger families, we're still doing OK. There were no complaints about weak families in Tsarist Russia.

[VG Zaytsev]

But there were in the Soviet Union and other socialist totalitarian countries where the state attempted to replace the family.

Most despotic regimes throughout history, including Tsarist Russia, did not attempt to do so - that is almost entirely a feature of the progressive-socialist religion and it's desire to create a new man.

[PM]

The answer to that is ending marriage as public policy altogether, not expanding it past it's original intent.

That is my favored solution.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I agree with you for the most part on this issue, but I don't think there ever was a coherent rationale for marriage as public policy; it's something that existed before the state did and the state realized that it needed to control marriage to control society. 200 years ago a person seeking to justify marriage as public policy would point to its role in determining inheritance and keeping women under the control of a man throughout their lives.

The advent of divorce has made promoting stable families a joke, not that I'm thrilled with that justification to begin with since the nuclear family has historically been a very dysfunctional and violent institution. If you want stable families, promote group marriage with matrilineal descent. It's what humans naturally flourish in.

[VG Zaytsev]

I agree that marriage to promote families is only vestigial at this point for a number of reasons, not just the ease of divorce. I also thing that those developments have been a net benefit for liberty and freedom.

My comment was just answering the question of why people see SSM differently than inter-racial marriage.

[VG Zaytsev]

BTW

What is the rational for marriage other than the promotion of families?

The government does nor formally recognize and give benefits to other types of voluntary inter-personal relationships. Why should it do so based on habitual sexual relationship?

[PM]

The government does nor formally recognize and give benefits to other types of voluntary inter-personal relationships. Why should it do so based on habitual sexual relationship?

BINGO!

But hey, as long as they're giving out door prizes in exchange for contracting with the government on how to dissolve your romantic relationships, they ought to give them to gays! But nobody else. Because equality!

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I think my point is that there isn't a rationale. It's an institution that made practical sense for agricultural societies, to control issues of land inheritance, and became so interwoven with our culture during the milennia of agricultural dominance (or CITY-STATISM if you will) that we now think of it as a given... and keep coming up with new rationales for it.

[Edwin]

Oh jeez, Tulpa, it's amazing to see a libertarian fall for all the liberal nonsense worldview in the realm of marriage.

Really? Marriage was always just about property and controlling women? Doesn't that smack of simplistic Western-hate to you? If it was really all about property, then why didn't the gentry legalize poly-quad marriages for themselves and REALLY put all their money together?

Marriage was independently invented and maintained itself for thousands of years across many societies. Clearly it is an extremely stable/stabilizing social institution. It sufficiently deals with all the consequences and responsibilities surrounding sex by providing an incentive structure, and said incentive structure increases personal and societal productivity.

Besides the LITANY of positives that marriage provides compared to the alternatives, a few simple ones are
-It removes un-provided for children. If women in the tribe/group/society/ civilization are fucking and subsequently making babies they can't care for, that's pretty bad and annoying. I can imagine the earliest human tribes getting pissed when such women begged.
If you create ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE, you better damned deal with that HUGE RESPONSIBILITY

Do we even need more than that to justify marriage a social poicy, that government should in some way encourage or at least allow to be effectively enforced?

[Mickey Rat]

There are actual real differences between the sexes that there is not between the races. The equality argument is a demand for androgyny as an official legal position. Suggesting an equivalence between differences in sex and race is shallow muddled thinking. That's to be expected of someone who uses "homophobia" seriously.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

It's telling that, while laws against interracial marriage were once common, there was never a law against same sex marriage. The former was seen as a threat to the social order, the latter as a nonsensical concept that needed no legislation to prevent.

[Edwin]

Well the issue is the law outright says "sex" or "gender" (I can't remember which)

So if anti-miscegenation laws are race discrimination, then anti-gay-marriage laws are sex discrimination

[XM]

If I have tender feelings for my cousin but the government won't let me marry her, am I really some sort of a victim of "discrimination"? Maybe. I personally don't think so. I think sodomy laws are VERY unconstitutional and you should be allowed to have sex with anyone with consent, but I'm not so sure the government MUST recognize every form of relationship as a marriage.

Since polygamy is already on its way to being legal in Utah, it looks like the Pandora's Box is already open. I guess we'll see if the nation is truly "libertine", or everyone just loved gay marriage because it was cause celebre.

I'm just interested in seeing the gay marriage argument used against the liberals, who won't be so keen on legalizing prostitution and such. "If it doesn't hurt you, then it should be legal"

[Isaac Bartram]

Just so you know, second cousin marriage is legal in all states and first cousin marriage is legal in nearly half the states.

So if you really do "have tender feelings for {your] cousin" you might want to check your state laws on the subject. If they do do prohibit first cousin marriage, you might consider moving to a state which does. Alabama, Alaska and California all do. So does Florida.

[PM]

So if you really do "have tender feelings for {your] cousin gay partner" you might want to check your state laws on the subject. If they do do prohibit first cousin gay marriage, you might consider moving to a state which does.

It's amazing how changing 2 words brings the potential of a lynch mob.

[PM]

It's kind of amusing to me that Reason just finished its circle jerk over Nelson Mandela and his principled refusal to accept anything less than the total repeal of apartheid, but anyone who is similarly steadfast about rolling back civil marriage is a heartless cunt who hates gay people.

[Michael S. Langston]

Up is down, black is white, etc, etc, etc

[darius404]

Apartheid is comparable to marriage licensing now? How does it feel, having reached Peak Retard?

[PM]

Apartheid is comparable to marriage licensing now?

Let's see...

Under apartheid, you have a powerful state that elevates one class of people above another

And with marriage licensing...

Nope, I see your point. No similarities there!

[PM]

How does it feel to reach peak disingenuous hypocite?

[PM]

hypocite

hypocRite, even.

[PM]

Also, the original comparison was the admiration of someone for being uncompromising and then denouncing others for the same thing. That discriminating against a class of people based on race pisses you off while discriminating against several classes of people not in the proper social/sexual configuration doesn't wasn't the point. I can see where you'd get confused since they are both hypocrisies that you support, but they're actually distinct hypocrisies.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

It's the first nice weekend in the DC metro area in like two months -- the cocktail parties are going to be wild. No fucking way the Reasonoids are going to miss out.

[Mickey Rat]

Well, now that DOMA's been overturned it is safe for Reason to abandon the notion that the states had a right to determine their own marriage without interference from the federal government.

[OldMexican]

Re: Mickey Rat,

Well, now that DOMA's been overturned it is safe for Reason to abandon the notion that the states had a right to determine their own marriage without interference from the federal government.

But DOMA was interference from the federal government.

More worrisome for me is the position taken by some libertarians, like Kennedy for instance, that consider anybody for whom marriage is the religious union between a man and a woman, as bigots who deserve no respect.

[Mickey Rat]

It is the ends justifies the means arguments and the cognitive dissonance the results from it bother me.

[califernian]

I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah.

The very PURPOSE of the courts is to override the will of the people you jackass.

[PM]

The purpose of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. Overriding the people is one possible result of that activity, but it's not the actual purpose itself.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

I guess Roberts was doing his job in the Obamacare case, then.

[Response]

I think marriage/divorce should be the domain of religion and union/dissolve should be the domain of the state. You could have people get married/divorced as often as their religion allows and that who you are married to could be separate from who is your union's partner. It could bring up some interesting dynamics. People could get married/unioned and then later get divorced but not dissolved. People could be married to someone of the opposite sex, but be unioned with someone of the same sex (maybe business partner or siblings or whatever) for the benefits of the economics of being unioned - because, ultimately, the government is really only interested in the economics. I guess the government could allow more than pair-partnering, but I would suspect they would only allow what is most beneficial to the state. I imagine that atheists would be ok with all of this as they would simply look down upon marriage as a religious cult ritual that would not affect their own rights.

[Edwin]

I think that ultimately we have to admit that the 14th amendment is weird and stupidly worded, and clearly illegally vague. I would say "unconstitutionally vague", but the requirement that laws be specific and clear is more a common law tradition in the first place.

Really creative interpretations of the constitution have aided civil rights in the past, but such bending of language has also trampled our economic rights, and now we're mired in a stupid culture war when more important issues, like marriage's REAL destruction in the family courts and from no-fault divorce, are at stake.

Let's be honest, if you want guns to be outlawed, call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. If you want speech codes, call for the repeal of the 1st. If you want gay marriage to be legalized because you paint religious people and conservatives as boogeymen, and gay rights are part of the liberal dialogue, just admit it to yourself and everyone else.

There's a pretty simple solution, live and let live, that is, each state could decide for itself through voting. God forbid you don't get to control the social policy of areas that are 1000s of miles away from you and totally culturally different (a shared language does not make a same culture).

[Edwin]

To any extent liberals believe that gay marriage should be legal, it doesn't REALLY have anything to do with freedom. To believe that, one would have to believe that the government shouldn't outlaw gay marriage because it doesn't have the right to legislate morality, a la the police power of the state to regulate to better the health, safety, general welfare, and morals of the people. You and I both know that liberals will NEVER let go of the "morals" part; they will always believe the state has the right to regulate in such matters.

[Edwin]

So either governments have the right to regulate their people, or they don't. Pick your poison and be honest about it.

The only real neutral solution is the libertarian one where the government backs the hell off and just recognizes and enforces contracts, even those of a social nature.
But that's so reasonable that no one will ever listen, just as they don't listen to use in general.

[cavalier973]

Same-sex couples in Utah have finally had their relationships legitimized! Yay!

Whatever. "Same-sex marriage" is a preposterous idea. Marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union for the purposes of procreation and companionship, whatever a judge may say.

Practically speaking, though, this might be a way for business partners to deal with a variety of legal and tax consequences. I doubt that the government can mandate any sort of qualification for getting "gay married" (as in, "you have to prove you're in love with the other person"). Also, a father and son could get married, and avoid estate taxes. Pretty cool stuff, there.

[thorax232]

Oh good, you can ask the government permission to write up a private contract just like the rest of us. Congratulations, you just made the state stronger.

[Michael Ejercito]

Sane-sex "marriage" is a total absurdity.

[PM]

Sane-sex "marriage" is a total absurdity.

Hey, everybody likes it a little crazy now and then, nothing wrong with that.