Gay Marriage

Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Gay Marriage Recognition Ban

|

Wisconsin wedding cakes
infowidget / photo on flickr

Add Wisconsin to the states where a federal judge has struck down a ban on gay marriage recognition. Judge Barbara Crabb has ruled that the constitutional amendment in Wisconsin outlawing gay marriage recognition "violates planitiffs' fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

ABC affiliate WISN has the whole 88-page ruling posted here. She notes in her conclusion:

In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these decisions are coming at a time when public opinion is moving quickly in the direction of support for same-sex marriage. …

Citing these changing public attitudes, defendants seem to suggest that this case is not necessary because a majority of Wisconsin citizens will soon favor same-sex marriage, if they do not already … (citing article by Nate Silver predicting that 64% of Wisconsinites will favor same-sex marriage by 2020). Perhaps it is true that the Wisconsin legislature and voters would choose to repeal the marriage amendment and amend the statutory marriage laws to be inclusive of same-sex couples at some point in the future. Perhaps it is also true that, if the courts had refused to act in the 1950s and 1960s, eventually all states would have voted to end segregation and repeal anti-miscegenation laws. Regardless, a district court may not abstain from deciding a case because of a possibility that the issues raised in the case could be resolved in some other way at some other time.

The judge has given both sides 10 days to respond to the ruling so it doesn't seem as though the weddings are going to be happening immediately. Wedding cakes in Wisconsin are made out of big cheese wheels, right? So bakers with religious objections to gay marriage shouldn't be a problem.

UPDATE: Couples are indeed marrying, but the state is seeking a stay on the order striking down the ban.

NEXT: Hurricane Season Sales Tax Holidays: Save Now, Pay Later

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

  1. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these decisions are coming at a time when public opinion is moving quickly in the direction of support for same-sex marriage.

    Then where are all these ban attempts coming from?

    1. Morons. Do you dispute the numbers, Karl Rove?

      1. Easy, tiger. It was one of my patented stealth jokes.

        1. Tony needs a sarcasm detector.

          1. Tony needs a functional brain.

        2. I like it when you call me tiger.

  2. Wedding cakes in Wisconsin are made out of big cheese wheels, right?

    Hey! That’s just a (true) stereotype.

  3. Uh oh, they’re going to have to rename the Packers to the Fudge Packers. You see what happens when you let gays marry?!?

    1. Buttfucky Badger?

      1. They should totally rename the Brewers to the Milwaukee Twinks.

        1. Golden Shower Eagles (Marquette). It’s the gift that keeps giving.

          1. Do the Milwaukee Admirals even need to change names?

  4. 88-page ruling? They could have saved money and time by printing a page with “FYTW” written in a 64-point font.

    1. Who’s getting the ‘F’ in your view?

      1. Everyone who has to deal with this bitch’s aggrandized sense of destiny, which at this point includes the general population of Wisconsin. The ruling cites Andrew Sullivan, FFS.

        1. (Page 12 is of particular interest for libertarians, and quite telling regarding the nature of the debate re: naturally-constructed negative rights.)

          1. “Page 12 is of particular interest for libertarians, and quite telling regarding the nature of the debate re: naturally-constructed negative rights.)
            reply to this”

            I think she deals with this exactly correctly. She says two things, both of which seem correct to me: 1. I have to follow SCOTUS precedent which says marriage, the government recognized kind, is a fundamental right and 2. the issue here isn’t whether there is a right to state recognized marriage, but whether once the government starts recognizing marriages can it refuse to recognize two guys or two gals who want to go that route. It’s about Equal Protection.

        2. Now when two people of the same sex want to solemnize their relationships the poor people of Wisconsin will have to live with the knowledge that their state will recognize that just as they do heterosexual couples going that route.

          The horror!

          In seriousness, I just don’t see who is hurt by allowing gay marriage other than people who just don’t want to see gay marriage.

          1. No one is hurt by gay marriage, you bint. That’s not the point. (Is it shocking in any way that you’re missing the point again?)

            The point is that it is not the judge’s place to make this decision in lieu of the legislature or whatever legal method is in place to change legislation. Some citizens have concerns about the metaphysics of statecraft which I find quite frankly talismanic, but the same is true of many areas. Others have reasonable concerns about how this entrenches gays as a protected class with positive rights. Personally, I think that civil unions resolves the issue quite neatly, but that is not my call. Legally, it’s a power vested in the states which are granting those benefits — a power subverted by this judge and her sense of immanence. It is the very essence of FYTW: I don’t like the legal decision of the people, so I’ll substitute my own judgement.

            1. “The point is that it is not the judge’s place to make this decision in lieu of the legislature or whatever legal method is in place to change legislation. ”

              I have to respond by quoting someone else here, and I’ll say it’s a popular view on other matters (like 2nd Amendment cases):

              “She inverts the normal purpose of the judiciary, which is not to reflect the will of the people (that’s the legislature’s role), but to frustrate the will of the people when it infringes on legally recognized rights.”

            2. it is not the judge’s place to make this decision in lieu of the legislature or whatever legal method is in place to change legislation.

              WRONG. That is exactly her place. 14A

  5. Another judge oblivious to the notion that it just may not be up to them to identify societal changes and implement via judicial fiat.

    The Equal Protection argument boils down to “marriage means any two adults, and so any state imposed restriction on any two adults marrying must pass Constitution muster.” This is variation on the arguments against miscegenation laws, which stated “marriage means any two adults of the opposite sex, and so the state-imposed restriction on interracial marriage must pass Constitutional muster.” At the time, the premise that “marriage means any two adults of the opposite sex” was, well, pretty uncontroversially true. A consensus, if you will.

    Now, however, the premise that marriage now means “any two adults” is not so obviously a consensus. And without that premise, the EP argument falls apart. So, where does this new definition come from? Not the legislature. Not society more-or-less as a whole. It comes from the judiciary and its eagerness to implement a social agenda before society itself has accepted it in any broad terms.

    She inverts the normal purpose of the judiciary, which is not to reflect the will of the people (that’s the legislature’s role), but to frustrate the will of the people when it infringes on legally recognized rights. Here, she uses her perception of the will of the people to create a legally recognized right.

    1. Serious question, all opinions about the legality of gay marriage aside, I’m curious as to how a judge overturns a constitutional amendment. I thought that the point of a constitution set by the people through their representatives was to set the parameters of what laws are and are not permissible, and that judges were required to use them as the basis of their legal reasoning, rather than exercising veto power or approval of them.

      1. I’m curious as to how a judge overturns a constitutional amendment.

        Supremacy Clause: Federal constitution trumps State constitution.

        1. Duh, that’s what I get for skimming. Had assumed this was an intra -state affair. Tnx.

          1. Well, and the 14th Amendment which was relied on here expressly applies to the states.

      2. It’s a federal judge.

    2. “At the time, the premise that “marriage means any two adults of the opposite sex” was, well, pretty uncontroversially true. A consensus, if you will.”

      But at the time of Loving v. Virginia (1967) it appears from Gallup polls that this was not the case. From:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/163…..hites.aspx

      It looks like 1967 was a year in which slightly under 20% of those polled supported Black/White marriage, whereas now we have about 60% support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

      1. My point was taht racial restrictions were added by the state, not inherent in the consensus definition. That is not aclaim that can easily be made for gay marriage.

    3. “She inverts the normal purpose of the judiciary, which is not to reflect the will of the people (that’s the legislature’s role), but to frustrate the will of the people when it infringes on legally recognized rights.”

      Er, you realize the judge was striking down a popularly enacted amendment, right?

      I’m also not sure I buy your EP characterization. One way to think about it is that in Loving the Court said race can’t bar two adults from marriage and in this case they said gender (or orientation) can’t either.

      1. She justifies what she does in part by claiming the public is really on her side.

        1. She justifies what she does in part by claiming the public is really on her side.

          I read the opinion the other way – I thought she was claiming that even though public opinion was swinging that way, it wasn’t her place to judge based on public opinion but on the principle. Which causes me to wonder where these principles are suddenly coming from. Why is it that judges are suddenly finding these principles that call for recognizing gay marriage only now that it’s pretty clear that wide-spread legal recognition of gay marriage is a fait accompli? That’s some pretty shitty principles you got there if they only become principles once majority opinion is on your side.

    4. So, where does this new definition come from? Not the legislature. Not society more-or-less as a whole. It comes from the judiciary and its eagerness to implement a social agenda before society itself has accepted it in any broad terms.

      The only people implementing social agendas are SoCons using marriage to discriminate against gay couples. 14A, get over it.

      1. As I pointed out above, the EP argument relies on the court making a sub rosa redefinition of “marriage”, which I don’t think it has the authority to do.

        If we applaud the courts redefining words, we are not going to be in a good position when they redefine “press” to mean “licensed journalists and media”, for example. Or, for that matter “fines” to mean “taxes”.

  6. Regardless, a district court may not abstain from deciding a case because of a possibility that the issues raised in the case could be resolved in some other way at some other time.

    Umm, courts actually do this all . . . the . . . time. There’s the political question doctrine, for one. There’s the mandatory referral to mediation in divorce cases, and the de facto referral to mediation in innumerable civil cases. There’s judicial deference to administrative agencies.

    What a dishonest hack she is.

    1. She doesn’t seem to have confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

    2. Did any of those abstention situations apply here?

      1. No, but they refute her claim that courts never do it.

        1. If you read that claim in light of the sentences preceding it it becomes clear she is talking about an argument the defendants made to the effect of ‘well, public attitudes are changing and maybe the legislature will address this disparity soon.’ I think she’s right that courts may not abstain for that reason.

          1. I think she’s right that courts may not abstain for that reason.

            Well, here’s SCOTUS saying Congress has plenary authority to interpret and enforce the 14A.

            Two decades ago, in Katzenbach v. Morgan,1 the Supreme Court
            upheld a federal statute, enacted under section five of the fourteenth
            amendment,2 prohibiting state English literacy requirements
            for voters. . . . According
            to the Court, Congress possesses plenary legislative authority
            under the fourteenth amendment enforcement power, authority
            unbounded by the scope of fourteenth amendment rights articulated
            in prior Court decisions.4 The Court maintained that Congress
            not only could devise remedies for judicially-declared violations
            of the fourteenth amendment, but also could decide for itself
            whether a state had violated that amendment.

            http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/…..ntext=wmlr

            Although this seems to have vanished down the memory hole when the 14A is being applied to gay rights. Because remember when Congress said “man and woman”? Yeah, neither does SCOTUS.

          2. And here’s a whole article on varieties of abstention, including two (at least) that run straight to state legislatures:

            http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawrev…../1/lee.pdf

  7. Sick of hearing about the gays on Reason every damn day. Here’s something hetero for you:

    http://alphaphiwsu.tumblr.com/

    WSU has better talent than you would expect.

    1. HUH? you complain about gays but post a link that is totally gay? ok.

      1. If your peener doesn’t respond to that tumblr you might want to get checked out.

        1. Now I want to go watch The House Bunny.

        2. No. college tumblr is gay. tumblr is gay.

          1. Your either 10 or 75 and suffering from soft-peener disease with that attitude.

        3. My peener was about to respond – then the music kicked in. That alone was enough to override the hetero content and send the site so far to the other side that it became the gayest thing since Gay Tony came to Gaytown.

        4. If you’re just looking something to excite you, you do realize ghee are plenty of good, free porn sites, both on and off tumblr.

          1. How does there become ghee? I really hate the samsung keyboard.

  8. Politicians love issues like this. To begin with, social choice issues are none of their fucking business. But because people are so damn stupid that they insist on making their private business the business of the state, the corruptocrats eat it up. Why? Because it diverts attention from real issues, which no talent parasites have absolutely no hope of solving, and it drives wedges into between groups of people, giving the state more power.

    1. If you were a politician, which would you rather talk about:

      The federal debt and spending, where everyone’s ox gets gored and where there really are no good solutions that don’t hurt somebody who is in some sense sympathetic (and who might vote for you)?

      Some social bullshit that only pisses off the people who will never vote for you in the first place?

      It’s the second one every time. Not only is it easy (unless you fuck it up Todd Akins-style), but it’s also a guaranteed vote-getter.

      It’s all fun and games to pit different sections of society against one another until the mustard gas comes out.

      1. Whatever it takes to get that power over other people, right? And the average voter is dumb enough to fall for it. How the politicians must laugh and laugh at their constituencies.

        Richard Nixon’s Head: Oh, no? Well, listen here, missy. Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only one who’s changed is me. I’ve become more bitter and, let’s face it, crazy over the years. And when I’m swept into office, I’ll sell our children’s organs to zoos for meat, and I’ll go into people’s houses at night and wreck up the place! [laughs]

        Fry: Well, he lost my vote.

        1. I don’t think it’s about voters being “dumb”. They’ve internalized the idea that politics are an appropriate arena for social issues and since social issues are more easily measureable than fiscal or political reform, they’ve contented themselves with “victory” on social issues over other, thornier issues. ObamaCare not even close to single-payer or in any way functional? Who gives a fuck, now that bigots can’t discriminate against gays wanting services. Working out the kinks in ObamaCare are hard if you’re a progressive and impossible if you’re anyone else; better to let sleeping dogs lie.

          1. It’s very dumb. They allow themselves to be distracted by idiotic KULTUR WAR bullshit, while politicians lie, cheat, take what are essentially bribes, and most of all spend insane amounts of our money, much of it wasted or funneled to cronies.

            If you’re so incensed about homos getting to get married, or that people are allowed to own guns, that it completely crowds out all that other stuff? You’re fucking stupid.

            1. I guess when you put it that way…

            2. That’s some fantastic question begging there.

          2. don’t think it’s about voters being “dumb”. They’ve internalized the idea that politics are an appropriate arena for social issues and since social issues are more easily measureable than fiscal or political reform, they’ve contented themselves with “victory” on social issues over other, thornier issues

            Dude, you way overestimate the majority of voters. The majority of people in fact.

            Most voters are in fact, dumber than a clump of mud.

            Then you have the ones that are not so dumb, in fact, just smart enough to be malicious as hell. These are the true believers in their own righteousness who are going to save everyone else, save the fucking planet! And of course, make a few bucks for themselves in the meanwhile.

            Then there are the 20% who actually think about these things, and other things, even the nature of existence itself. But let’s face it, most people do not look up at the stars and wonder what is out there, or where we come from, or even why any of what we see exists at all. No, most people fall within groups 1 and 2 that I outlined above.

            Luddites, sociopaths, and cretins rule the world, because they are the majority.

            1. I guess I have a little more faith in humanity than that, which is ironic considering that I have essentially no confidence in democracy as a mechanism for positive change. (It does every once in a great while throw a wrench in The Plan, which is nice.)

              1. Granted, there is a flaw in Converse’s methodology. He tried to map people’s responses to a liberal-conservative spectrum, and then found a befuddling mess of incoherence. The true nature of politics is more 2 dimensional, like this.

                1. Well, in that 2nd chart, there be nary a soul representing the libertarian right.

    2. Politicians love issues like this

      Spot on.

      Meanwhile, at the VA..

      The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced on Thursday that it is presently investigating allegations from 37 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee whistleblowers at VA facilities in 19 states of retaliation for disclosing improper scheduling practices and other threats to patient care.

      1. Right, who the hell wants the unglamorous and potentially career-killing issue of trying to reform the VA, especially if it has implications on limiting the state? Hell no; better to attack gays and say stupid “patriotic” crap, or to scream about single-payer for a spell and tell us all how much better off the world would be without those damn rednecks ruining everything.

  9. I have a hard time seeing how continual redefinition of marriage (not just SSM per se) is somehow a SHRINKING of government.

    These federal judges will have a hard time striking down states from “banning” gay marriage but somehow allow them to not recognize other forms of unions, which can be limitless. It’s still illegal for undocumented aliens to marry someone just to be a citizen. Sex with corpses, animals, incest, still banned for moral (yuck, moral) reasons.

    That means more marriage licenses, more tax laws and regulations to cover every possible scenario, and lawsuits (against bigots who don’t like your lifestyle, you know) in a country with no desire for tort reform whatsoever. You saying I can’t put on a dress and compete in Miss America?

    It seems to me that marriage is mostly a state’s recognition of a relationship. If that’s made a civil right without any definition, you’re going down a weird slippery slope. I can marry an inanimate object or a pet of some personal value and affect society even less than human marriages. No messy divorce, pre-nups, domestic violence, etc.

    Maybe it won’t go that far. “Marriage equality” won’t stop from fleeing this country in droves if it runs out of money and crumbles underneath its own weight.

    1. It seems to me that marriage is mostly a state’s recognition of a relationship.

      Riddle me this, Batman, why should the state be in the business of recognizing relationships in the first place?

      1. It is only through the greatest good fortune that humanity survived prior to the modern convention of one man/one woman state sanctioned marriages. Every civilization that existed previous to this societal miracle collapsed into a dystopian chaos of buttsecks and carpet munching. Nations would go extinct as confused people would refrain from having children due to the homosexual agenda infecting their brains and then succumming to the gay lifesytle. It also robbed societies of their proper ardor. It is obvious to historians that Alexander the Great, for example, would still be alive today and ruling the world had he not destroyed himself in search of “gay love.” The earliest known written records of mankind have been deciphered by Newsmax and clearly document God weeping as the Minoans rejected the divine guidance that He was going to offer them eventually and had to destroy their civilization in order to demonstrate His love for them. This is all a fact and no successful society that we are willing to admit existed has ever deviated from this divine plan. Also, taxes.

        1. Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

        2. Ah, yes. Minoans and taxes. How could I not see this?

    2. You saying I can’t put on a dress and compete in Miss America?

      If you look like this then go for it

      http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-conten…..nada_1.jpg

    3. Libertarianism concerns itself with the overall nature of government, not just its size. A government must be fair and just and that mandates SSM recognition.

  10. This is so stupid. There is no denial of any intrinsic ‘right’ to get married. You cannot have a right to an institution invented and defined by the state. You have a regulated privilege.

    If you want to change the rules of that privilege you should petition the people, not use judges who are in a competition to write ‘the pro-gay-marriage ruling that time will remember’ to pretend the law is on your side.

    But of course nobody cares about what’s right anymore. They care about gimme gimme. Which is why everyone is ignoring the fact that, once they get this, they haven’t stopped. They move on to bullying their next target.

    1. Look, in one sense corporations can be thought of as a set of contractual relationships that do not need governmental recognition, support or what have you. But in another sense, having a corporation that the government, and its courts and other agencies, do not recognize is problematic.

      In a similar sense marriage could be something that exists outside of the state, just people, their promises and maybe contracts (let’s recognize that those on the anti-SSM side certainly don’t want this, their entire argument is that heterosexual unions are special and should get exclusive governmental recognition and support to encourage and foster that special union). But again, we’ve got some serious deficits you would be placing your union in if you go that route.

      So you have this thing, government recognized marriage. Now it seems the real question is, can you tell two dudes they can’t get in on this just because they’re dudes? I mean, what would we think of a corporation law that said that no mixed sex groups could incorporate?

      1. marriage could be something that exists outside of the state, just people, their promises and maybe contracts […] But again, we’ve got some serious deficits you would be placing your union in if you go that route.

        I agree, but how are these concerns not satisfied by, say, a civil unions for all position?

        1. I’m not sure they are not personally, but I think the argument goes like this: when the government puts things, and groups, in different categories, that very classification itself can be problematic. If you read Brown v. Board of Education the Court there assumed that the black schools were in every tangible way equal to the white schools, but said that the very act of telling blacks they had to go to a different school than whites would mark them as inferior or not deserving of what the whites got. I imagine that’s how gay advocates feel about having something not recognized as marriage but with most if not all of the same rights.

          1. That’s exactly the struggle. The whole “separate but equal” thing leave a pretty bad taste in people’s mouths, and it strengthens that link between gay discrimination and black discrimination. Civil unions are great (SLDs apply) if they apply across the board, and government no longer uses marriage as the term for that covenant. However, somewhat ironically, both the hardcore SoCons and hardcore LGBT folks hate that idea and want to claim the word marriage for their cause.

        2. “I agree, but how are these concerns not satisfied by, say, a civil unions for all position?”

          They would be.
          So long as we get the gov’t out of any marriage, the requirement for equal protection would be met.

          1. OK, I will say I read that ‘civil unions for all’ position to mean ‘civil unions for all same sex couples.’ I took it that way because the reality is that recognition of heterosexual marriage, as marriage, is likely not going anywhere anytime soon. But if you meant it to mean that everyone, heterosexual couples too, would all have something and the same thing called ‘civil unions,’ then yes I think that solves the EP issue.

            1. …”I took it that way because the reality is that recognition of heterosexual marriage, as marriage, is likely not going anywhere anytime soon.”…

              Which is the only reason I support gov’t recognition of SSM.
              Given that, EP trumps any argument I’ve read against SSM.

        3. Yes, if marriage is some power word only usable in a religious sense, then all state-sanctioned unions should be referred to as civil unions and religious unions could be called marriages. It’s a stupid semantics argument, but i would be fi e with it. Of course, the same people would be butt hurt when churches or what-have-you start gay marrying people and polygamy comes back. Both of which I’m ok with, because it’s none of my fucking business what contractual obligations consenting adults enter into.

          1. Would you like to join my polygamist marriage Simple? I like the way you think.

            Even if you’re not attracted to me, I have 37 spouses so I’m sure one of them would be to your liking.

            1. You’ll have to convince my wife first.

  11. New York Times continues to be run by morons.

    And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.

    If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history.

    Hear that? If someone deserts during wartime, it’s the fault of his unit for not stopping him.

    Thousands of soldiers desert during every war, including 50,000 American soldiers during World War II. As many as 4,000 a year were absent without leave for extended periods during the Iraq war.

    First of all, 17 million Americans served in the armed forces in WWII. 50,000 deserters is .2%. Now there are 1.5 million people on active duty, meaning 4000 people AWOL is also about .2-.3%.

    They’re trying to make it sound like desertion is common in order to help out Bergdahl, but desertion is incredibly uncommon. Moreover, most deserters are people who leave the Army in America as opposed to people who walk off into the Afghanistan mountains.

    1. “They’re trying to make it sound like desertion is common in order to help out Bergdahl, but desertion is incredibly uncommon.”

      I think you’re too kind; they don’t give a hoot about him, it’s carrying Obo’s water that’s the motive.

      1. My favorite part is that by their argument, a man who leaves a military base on American soil to go elope with his girlfriend is equal to a man who steals supplies and two knives from a base in Afghanistan and wanders off into the hills of a war zone.

        1. Russell Ziskey: You listen to me! You’re gonna finish basic training! You’re gonna keep your mouth shut, and you’re gonna do everything he tells you! You know why?

          John Winger: [innocently] Why?

          Russell Ziskey: Because you talked me into this, you idiot! It was your idea!

          John Winger: I didn’t talk you into this. You NEEDED this.

          Russell Ziskey: [drags John back to the ground] I’m gonna kill you, damn you! Where’s the great pay? Where’s the travel? Where’s the Winnebago, Goddammit!

    2. Ace at AoSHQ did a pretty good job of taking this apart today.

    3. If someone deserts during wartime, it’s the fault of his unit for not stopping him.

      I get what you’re saying, but the fact that this putz walked away from his post twice before and his commander didn’t see it fit to have Bergdahl visit the MPs for some new metal bracelets says something to me about the level of discipline within the unit.

      1. …”his commander didn’t see it fit to have Bergdahl visit the MPs for some new metal bracelets says something to me about the level of discipline within the unit.”

        Agreed, but that simply adds one more villain to the story.

      2. But that’s not a rational defense of Bergdahl, which the times piece is clearly intended to be.

        The Times piece is angry at people for ‘demonizing’ Bergdahl. Well, the fact that he had a history of irresponsible behavior (including once being disciplined for falling asleep on duty) is not a mitigating factor. In fact, it’s an exacerbating factor. If someone commits a robbery, we don’t say ‘well, he’s not really at fault! He’d tried to rob like ten stores before, so it’s entirely on the cops for not throwing him in jail!’ In that scenario, the robbers previous malfeasance is actually greater proof of his moral flaws, just like Bergdahl’s prior incompetence and immaturity.

        1. let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.

          Logic and facts are not whats important here. I mean it’s obvious people are only saying these things to make Obama look bad.

    4. I wouldn’t agree that desertion is *uncommon* – but like you said, the vast majority (actually, pretty much all, because even the average rock is smart enough to not think deserting while *in* Afghanistan is a good idea)take-off inside the US.

      4,000 a year during the Iraq war, how many went UA, let alone deserted, while in theater? I’m betting its pretty damn close to 0.

  12. Airline pilots: ‘They’re taking our jerbz!’
    “Pilots battle against ‘Walmart-ing’ of airline industry”
    http://fortune.com/2014/05/08/…..=tab_top30
    They want a “level playing field”, so long as it’s “leveled” by the gov’t with protected pay schedules, that is.

    1. If you’re worth more than the guys who are gonna take your jerb, then what are you worried about?

      My occupation is swamped with work visa immigrants from around the world who are willing to work cheaper and yet I still have clients willing to pay me more.

      My advice for these pilots. Get off your whiny fucking asses and show why you are better than the alternative.

      1. Hyperion|6.6.14 @ 8:49PM|#
        “If you’re worth more than the guys who are gonna take your jerb, then what are you worried about?”

        I remember a transcript of Sullenberger testifying to congress on pilots’ pay. He said (as closely as I can recall) ‘We now have people flying planes only because they want to, instead of for the good pay!’
        And thought, ya know, that’s just the sort of description I’d like to hear about a guy or gal who is charged with keeping my butt in the air until we get where we’re going.

    2. a Norwegian-named airline based in Ireland that employs Thailand-based crews through a Singaporean pilot supply company.

      Umm…Thai Airways and Singapore Airlines continuously switch between 2nd and 3rd place for best service in the world (Cathay Pacific holds at number 1). Sign me up!

  13. Rachel Maddow is even dumber than the New York Times.

    “Jessica Lynch did not go down shooting,” Maddow explained. “There was not a bloody firefight and stabbing. She was not ‘fighting to the death’ . . . It turns out that the group of vehicles that Jessica Lynch and her company were in, they were supposed to take a detour around the city of Nasiriyah.”

    “But they didn’t,” she continued. “They took a wrong turn, or a few wrong turns. And they ended up right in the city center. They were supposed to go around the city and not go through it at all. They ended up wrong turn after wrong turn, right in the city center, undefended, in territory where the U.S. Army knew there were likely to be attacks or ambushes. And they just drove right into it.”

    You see, Jessica Lynch getting lost and wandering into an ambush is the moral equivalent of Bergdahl willfully deserting his unit.

    1. You would have thought that someone as “enlightened” and “progressive” as Maddow wouldn’t have continued the media’s habit of ignoring Shoshana Johnson.

      Toure is gonna be soooo pissed!

    2. It’s all about the team.

      Who’s going to be watching Copa do Mundo besides me?

      I almost feel like watching it with one eye open. God, I really have a big place in my heart for Brazil, and I really don’t want this to be a disaster.

    3. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

    4. 1) I’m surprised that Maddow is still on the air. I don’t think I’ve heard anything from her in 3 years.

      2)She’s really quick to blame the victim. How quickly the left will on victims/women/minorities/etc. when it suits them.

  14. Let’s add to the rights and duties! That’s how you expand freedom! Not.

    Jurisprudence. Learn it. The authentic libertarian position is liberty and thus fewer laws rather than more.

    Federalized gay marriage decreases liberty. Federalized gay marriage increases duty and rights. Federalized gay marriage increases to whom authority is granted and to whom capacity is granted.

    Gays now have authority to order people to associate with them in commerce. Gays now have capacity to marry in order to secure welfare from politicians.

    All the so-called libertarians who chat up on Reason in favor of legalized gay marriage are little more than libertines championing the expansion of the size and scope of government. They do so precisely because they are clueless about jurisprudence and all of the attendant concepts of rights, duty, power, liabilities and disabilities.

    The authentic libertarian stance is to rid marriage licensing as a determinant for any legal standing, including welfare and taxation.

    Good luck, geniuses.

    1. Drugs r bad, mmmmkay?

      1. Drugs are bad? As well, living with a subnormal intellect is bad.

        Good luck. Maybe a social worker can help you.

    2. Now, look, road-guy, you promised you were leaving this time.

    3. All the so-called libertarians who chat up on Reason in favor of legalized gay marriage are little more than libertines championing the expansion of the size and scope of government. They do so precisely because they are clueless about jurisprudence and all of the attendant concepts of rights, duty, power, liabilities and disabilities.

      I like that when conservatives disagree with us we’re filthy hippies who want to disarm America, when liberals disagree with us we’re hardcore, gay hating uber-conservatives, and when other libertarians disagree with us we’re secret statist sleeper agents who are using our love of gay sex to expand the power of the federal government.

      1. It’s great to be equally hated by both teams. It’s when you no longer have any doubt that you are right.

        1. The authentic libertarian stance is to rid marriage licensing as a determinant for any legal standing, including welfare and taxation.

          What’s hilarious is that I made that argument @ 8:17, but that didn’t stop the oaf from stumbling into the thread 37 minutes later as a stentorian asshole.

      2. “‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” ~ unnamed U.S. officer on Ben Tre, Vietnam War

        “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” ~ George W. Bush

        “It became necessary to destroy liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty.” ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

        1. “It became necessary to destroy liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty.” ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

          See, what I find hilarious is that you never really see angry libertarian rants about how evil government marriage licensing is until someone starts talking about gay marriage.

          It seems to me that if there was this seriously anti-licensing movement among libertarians, I’d periodically see this argument crop up when people weren’t arguing against marriage equality. Yet it only ever seems to show up when people are talking about why gay people shouldn’t be allowed marriage equality, and the argument never seems to appear when it comes to unlicensing heterosexual marriages.

          Moreover, this is like the most minor affront to liberty in the history of the universe. When a cop gives me an angry stare it’s more of an affront to my liberty than fucking marriage licensing.

          1. Ahh, Irish, you’re on to them. Such strident vociferating against state-sanctioned marriage…only when homos are involved. Amazing how that works out. And then they bitch and moan that you’re calling them out for it, as if it wasn’t screamingly fucking obvious. So tedious. So pathetic. So stupid.

            1. Irish’s argument is little more than ad hominem by innuendo.

              They only come out against the gays is a weakly veiled attack suggesting bigotry.

              It earns Irish a big F for fail.

              Facts remain. A libertarian opposes reduction of liberty and the expansion of rights and duties.

              It’s the illogical, confused mind who fails to see that reality.

              1. “It earns Irish a big F for fail.”

                So you’re busted and the best you can say is ‘neener, neener’?

                1. So all you can say is neener, neener, you are busted because we say so?

                  So all Irish can say is because you don’t side with our contradictory idiocy and thoroughgoing misunderstanding of libertarianism, you are busted?

                  Don’t fret and don’t sweat it. Many go through their whole lives clueless.

                  1. “Many go through their whole lives clueless.”

                    I’ll take that some someone with experience!

                    1. Stutter much?

                    2. Still clueless?

          2. It seems to me that if there was this seriously anti-licensing movement among libertarians, I’d periodically see this argument crop up when people weren’t arguing against marriage equality.

            Huh? You’ve read Reason’s articles on hairbraiding and Lyft, as one example, haven’t you?

          3. Every authentic libertarian opposes marriage licensing as a determinant in legal relationship.

            Being an anti-war, pothead, pro-gay champion fails to make anyone libertarian. Expanding duties and rights is the polar opposite of liberty and libertarianism.

            Politician sanctioning fails to increase freedom. Politician sanctioning of behavior increases officialdom and their power.

            Authentic libertarians know better. Every victory against liberty no matter how big or small nonetheless is a victory against liberty.
            From a taxpayer perspective, this one is a huge victory against liberty.

      3. I like it when confused, faux libertarians join up with conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, in the never-ending quest to expand power politicians have over every aspect of living. It amuses to watch them reveal their ignorance over libertarianism.

        It reveals how right authentic libertarians are.

    4. Aww, how cute. It’s funny how almost nothing you said is true. I guess next you’ll tell us how we need closed borders or else all the immigrants will just expand welfare rolls, force us to sell things to them and expand government power. Then you’ll explain how we need to not legalize drugs because it will just increase government tax revenue and give them more areas to regulate, thus increasing there power.

      Funny how your “true libertarianism” involves telling an entire class of people that they don’t get rights because it’s inconvenient for you.

      1. Your response is typical of someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. You have caught a glimpse of the truth, but because of psychosis owing to the pernicious effects of hyper indoctrination, you push back.

        It’s obvious that you are arguing from feeling and indoctrination. It’s clearer still that you know nothing of jurisprudence and thus have zero basis for belief other than feeling.

        Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. Giving X authority to decide duties and rights stands opposed to the NAP.

        You might want to join Democrats or Republicans. They’re all about rights and duties.

        Good luck!

        1. You keep using these big words, like jurisprudence, cognitive dissonance and rights, that you obviously have no idea what they mean. But by all means, keep on with your ad hominem, circular reasoning and slippery slope fallacies, rather than addressing any arguments. I understand that it can be scary when people live differently than you and have different desires, but it doesn’t mean you have to hate them and stop the from excercising their rights.

          1. Saying so doesn’t make it so. You have done little more than make silly claims like “ad hominem, circular reasoning and slippery slope fallacies” in a rather clumsy display of ad hominem.

            It’s not a question of big words. You don’t understand the concepts and thus you don’t realize your beliefs stand opposed to libertarianism, in truth.

            Join the Democrats or the Republicans. They love telling people what to do and they love granting privileges masquerading as rights in furthering their efforts to gain a permanent lock-hold on power.

            1. Wow, it’s like you have nothing but projection in your toolbox. It’s a good thing most libertarians aren’t as into not telling people what to do by denying them their innate rights and can see through you nonsensical arguments.

              1. Wow, so aggressively you use force against others, trying to get them to shut up by aggressively shouting down their comments.

                So you are one of those holier-than-thou libertarians, eh?

                What you seem to be whining about is that never before have you realized that you are progressive Republican rather than an authentic libertarian precisely because you are ignorant to civil jurisprudence.

                No one on earth has an innate right to a marriage license. Marriage licenses are legal fictions created politicians who impose duties and rights.

                You seem to be suffering from Reason.com’s equivalent of Stockholm syndrome. Because of your deep psychosis owing to hyper indoctrination, you fail to see that you need deprogramming to get you out of the crypto Republican progressivism religion pushed by the cult leaders at Reason.com.

        2. Hey, look everyone! It’s a True Scotsman! Thanks for visiting, True Scotsman. We hardly ever see anyone like you. It’s been hard keeping our moral compasses straight without a True Scotsman around to guide us.

          1. “Authentic libertarians know better”

            See? We just wouldn’t know that without some self-important imbecile to guide us!

    5. If Diogenes of Sinope were here, he would hold is lamp at me and say he has found an honest man. To the lot of you, he would say either you are disingenuous or stupid for failing to understand libertarianism while claiming to champion it.

      More rights and duties means less liberty. If you are for more rights and duties, you are not a libertarian. Most likely, you are a liberal who doesn’t like the Democratic Party.

      So to try it one more time.

      “‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” ~ unnamed U.S. officer on Ben Tre, Vietnam War

      “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” ~ George W. Bush

      And

      “It became necessary to destroy liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through X in order to save liberty.” ~ Typical Clueless American

      where X is Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Permanent Residency to Illegal Aliens, and other pet causes

      So, for example:

      “It became necessary to destroy liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through Obamacare in order to save liberty.” ~ Typical Liberal

      and thus:

      “It became necessary to destroy liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty.” ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

      1. Smack MacDougal|6.6.14 @ 11:09PM|#
        “If Diogenes of Sinope were here, he would hold is lamp at me and say he has found an honest man.”

        WHEW!!
        Sorry, I have to step outside the room. My boots are too short for that depth of bullshit.
        I’m thinking sock here, folks.

        1. You flatter me by chasing me all over the message board begging for my attention like a whore begging for business from would-be Johns.

          And you have yet to learn what should be obvious, libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. Giving X authority to decide duties and rights stands opposed to the NAP.

          That you champion the expansion of rights and duties by definition means you stand against libertarianism.

          You and everyone like you should quit this site as you are for progressive liberalism. You believe in political control over interaction by having politicians decree rights and duties.

          1. Smack MacDougal|6.6.14 @ 11:43PM|#
            “You flatter me by chasing me all over the message board begging for my attention like a whore begging for business from would-be Johns.”

            Your unwarranted self-importance leads you to believe I’m doing other than laughing at such a vapid twit.

            1. And you are who exactly? Are you Sevo, the Self-Important Reasonoid Libertarian?

              One thing for sure, your beliefs about libertarianism are quite subnormal.

              Good luck!

              1. So after being lost, was someone kind enough to help you find this thread?
                I hope you thanked them.

                1. Did you place that call yet?

                  Here is the number again, taken from Call 1-800-969-NMHA

                  The call is free, but you must pick up your handset.

                  If you have any, your friends shall thank you. If alive still, your mommy and daddy shall thank you.

  15. OT: Did Murray really play this poorly today ot did Rafa just make it look like he played poorly.

    1. Andy lost?!? Fuck!

  16. Using equal protection under the law to expand the definition of marriage to gays takes the vector in the wrong direction. Simply, there are people who are pretty much un-marriable regardless of orientation. They will never know and experience the full flower of the State’s role in marriage. How is this equal protection? The vector on marriage should be to reduce the State’s role in promoting certain behaviors instead of dealing with the underlying property rights underneath. The State’s place is use the least amount of Force in keeping the civil peace. People fighting over shared property can create conflict, so perhaps boiler plate language comes into being. Fine. If this were the extent of the State’s involvement in marriage, then orientation or married status would be irrelevant (i.e. if you’re an individual who never combines/co-joins property, you never have to appeal to it for fair distribution upon dissolution). But if marriage is supposed to be some positively promoted institution for which favors are handed out, then the un-marriable do not get equal protection under the 14th amendment. Essentially, ugly and crazy people are effectively Forced to subsidize the prettier and only slightly crazy people, and this is regardless of orientation. I’ve never had a problem with gay “marriage” so long as that is a properly defined and executed concept.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.