Gay Marriage

Sen. Ted Cruz Embarks on Doomed Legislative Campaign Against Federal Gay Marriage Recognition

He can't win this fight, but he could win primary votes.

|

Mutually exclusive options?
Reason

Overall, federalism has been good for the gay marriage recognition movement. It may not look like it, given all the states where voters actually approved bans. But the possibility of federal gay marriage recognition would not have even happened had some other states chosen otherwise and begun recognizing gay marriage. The world did not end. The world is nowhere near ending. More and more Americans have come to realize that letting gay people marry doesn't actually cause any problems.

I wrote back in 2012 that federalism isn't necessarily the enemy of gay marriage. Conor Friedersdorf recently wrote his own take over at The Atlantic. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a likely contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, has the idea, as an opponent of gay marriage, that federalism can be harnessed to hold back the tide. He is reintroducing the State Marriage Defense Act, which would require the federal government to recognize each state's definition of marriage and not overrule them with its own guidelines. From his announcement:

"Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state 'choices about who may be married,' the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage," said Sen. Cruz. "I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens."

In Windsor, the Supreme Court improperly struck down a federal statute, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman.  At the same time, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the states' longstanding authority to define marriage.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has overruled that state authority, as various federal agencies are recognizing same-sex marriages in states that only recognize traditional marriage, creating what the Windsor decision condemned: "two contradictory marriage regimes in the same state."

The State Marriage Defense Act remedies this problem by requiring that the federal government defer to the law of the state where a couple resides to determine whether the couple is married for purposes of federal law.

So if a state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, then the federal government couldn't, for example, extend benefits or allow for tax breaks to gay couples in that state that are based on marital status, even if they were legally married in another state.

It's not really worth analyzing the potential impacts of such a bill because it's most certainly doomed, even in the new Republican Congress. Could something like this get a veto-proof majority, even if it actually passed? I doubt it. Even if Cruz attempted to attach it to other legislation, there would likely be way too many howls about it.

More importantly, the Supreme Court is taking up gay marriage this summer, and all signs indicate they're about to make this all moot. The Supreme Court will take up the question of whether bans on gay marriage recognition are violations of the 14th Amendment. There are some pretty strong indications that the court is going to rule in favor of the gay couples, which would mandate gay marriage recognition in all states, thus making Cruz's effort pointless.

Cruz is aware of this possibility as well, which is why his statement ended with an announcement that later this year (after the Supreme Court ruling, one imagines) he will "introduce a constitutional amendment to further protect marriage and prevent judicial activism" by declaring that marriage is a policy question for the state legislatures. Such an amendment will go absolutely nowhere, but can be a concrete proposal he can bring up to appeal to Republican Party's religious conservatives during the primaries.

Read more analysis of Cruz's positions and background from our February cover story here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Parents of Toddler Burned by Drug Warriors Demand Compensation

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. Ted Cruz has to die on some hill. Might as well be this one.

    1. It’s just a practice hill. The real hill will be keeping out the dirty Messicans that the red team rank and file are terrified of.

      1. Gay Muslim Mexicans = Cruz’s Everest

    2. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

      http://www.navjob.com

  2. Ted Cruz is small gov’t until it involves one of his hobby horses. So, not so much small gov.

    1. Less government licences issued is smaller government. Too bad government does not get out of the marrage licence business all together

      1. This idea isn’t even in the cards. Neither side of the Great SSM Debate is proposing it.

        So I fail to see the relevance.

        1. Neither side of the Great SSM Debate is proposing it.

          Well, except those weirdo libertarians (who admittedly lean more for gay marriage recognition if the current license system is still in place).

          1. I believe that “Great SSM Debate” refers to an actual battle going on in the political arena, not late-night dorm-room discussions or libertarian blog yakfests.

        2. When you’re in government, getting government out of something is always bad.

        3. Most of what’s discussed here is not in the cards.

      2. Government issuing licenses to everyone just for the asking is pretty small government, since it just requires rubber stamping. It’s when government starts making complicated distinctions that it gets big and complicated.

  3. anagram generator resuts for Rafael Edward Cruz (Ted’s just a nickname) and some are very spot-on:

    http://wordsmith.org/anagram/a…..t=1000&a=n

    I’m partial to Czar Leeward Fraud

    1. Ted Cruz 2016: Leeward!

    2. Czar Fuedal Warder is pretty good.

  4. Focus, Cruz, FOCUS! You’ll accomplish a lot more that way.

  5. “The world did not end. The world is nowhere near ending.”

    You know what else won’t cause the end of the world? Parietal rules. Letting conscientious civil servants keep their jobs. Classifying people born with dangly bits as men, and those born without dangly bits, as women.

    For that matter, respecting the 10th Amendment won’t end the world, either.

    See, two can play at that game!

    Cruz “will “introduce a constitutional amendment to further protect marriage and prevent judicial activism” by declaring that marriage is a policy question for the state legislatures. Such an amendment will go absolutely nowhere, but can be a concrete proposal he can bring up to appeal to Republican Party’s religious conservatives during the primaries.”

    Wow. The fact that a simple amendment like this is considered controversial, so controversial that only right-wing religious loonies will support it, shows that the Sexual Revolution has taken priority over the Constitution.

    “I wrote back in 2012 that federalism isn’t necessarily the enemy of gay marriage.”

    That was back in the Dark Ages. Now, as the author indicates, federalism is the *enemy* of all that is true, good and beautiful.

    1. Classifying people born with dangly bits as men, and those born without dangly bits, as women.

      Who’s doing the classifying and why does classification matter?

      1. People who issue birth certificates.

        Prison medical officers who are asked to approve sex-change operations.

        Managers of public buildings which maintain separate men’s and women’s restrooms.

        1. Why do birth certificates need to list the baby’s sex? Parents names, DOB, and baby’s name should suffice to establish identity.

          1. Why parents’ names? You can identify the person based on name and eye color, can’t you?

            1. You don’t need to tell me. I don’t think the government should be issuing birth certificates in the first place.

          2. “Why do birth certificates need to list the baby’s sex? ”

            If we suddenly don’t know or care what the sex of people are, how will NPR do victim-trend stories?

            1. If it’s not listed on a government form, it’s not a real thing.

      2. Also, I’ve been on the internet long enough to know there are labium out there that would definitely qualify as “dangly bits.”

        1. Best kind.

        2. I initially read your screen name as “Dances-with-Tools”. I suppose that could be apt, too.

      3. “Who’s doing the classifying and why does classification matter?”

        Um so you know what the fuck something is? Why classify apples from oranges why not just call them all as fruit. In fact why classify a single thing? I’ll just piss in bottle label it “apple juice” and serve it to you, because why should calling something what it actually is matter?

        1. If the only way you can tell the difference between a man and a woman is from the check-mark on their government-issued identity papers, then you probably need to get out more.

        2. Those names aren’t going to rectify themselves!

      4. “Who’s doing the classifying and why does classification matter?”

        Have ever woken next to someone with the wrong dangly bits? It mattered to me on that fateful morning!

        1. Define “wrong”

          1. It forced Paul to have to add a period after his name.

      5. +1 to Hugh yet again

    2. Everyone’s bits get a bit dangly before the end – men and women both.

    3. If Christianist social engineering is “all that is true, good and beautiful”, then count me on the side of the false, evil, and hideos.

      1. You mean the “social engineering” which was part of the law for centuries until, say, 1990?

        1. Yes, remember before 1990 when we suffered under the dark night of theocracy, where unveiled women were drenched in acid, atheists were burned at the stake, and Playboy wasn’t even allowed to exist?

        2. Slavery was part of the law for centuries too. It’s long legal precedence didn’t make it any less wrong.

          1. Wow, that didn’t take long!

            Yes, government-recognized SSM is obviously right because slavery!

            1. Except what I actually said is “government-recognized SSM isn’t obviously wrong because it’s new”.

            2. Don’t pull out an appeal to tradition as a justification for your argument then.

              1. If you want to discredit a longstanding tradition, you need to provide some evidence.

                Eg, show that the tradition in question led to, let’s say, lifetime bondage, the separation of families, the violation of female chastity, intolerable physical abuse, etc.

                1. So I take it you’re fully in favour of polygamous marriages due to their long standing historical traditions, far longer than monogamy?

                  1. Slavery: check.

                    Polygamy: check.

                    I’m surprised nobody mentioned Loving v. Virginia.

                    1. If you want to discredit a longstanding tradition, you need to provide some evidence. You have decided not to do so.

                    2. The decay of traditional marriage leads to broken homes, more crime, more welfare, compulsory cake-baking, etc.

                    3. Yes, Eddie, stable, legally protected gay marriage will lead to all of those things. Better we stick with denying gay couples the rights and responsibilities of straight couples. For the children.

                    4. You said I decided not to give evidence. Of course, I didn’t think you’d agree with me.

                    5. Please provide long term reasons as to why single parent households are ‘broken’ and less acceptable than, say, abusive or loveless marriages, violent crime as been going down dramatically for decades, and again, you’re in no position to argue about other people pushing marriage concepts that you disagree with considering that’s your goal as well.

                    6. JT,

                      So I see you’re standing up for broken homes as well as for SSM, thus illustrating the connection between these phenomena.

                      And as to crime, I should have said, “with single-parent homes, there’s more crime than there would have been without.”

                    7. Actually you’re constructing that connection in your head. Single parent homes are a product of easier divorce, they have nothing to do with same sex marriage. Everything but CAKES has nothing to do with same sex marriage. I asked why they were less acceptable than dysfunctional marriages.

                      “with single-parent homes, there’s more crime than there would have been without.”

                      Unsupported hypothesis. It’s easy to dream up alternative histories to support your argument.

                    8. The decay of traditional marriage leads to broken homes, more crime, more welfare, compulsory cake-baking, etc.

                      I couldn’t agree more. But guess what? I was never going to get traditional-married, ever, anyway. So this point vis-a-vis gay marriage is completely irrelevant.

                    9. What? No Hitler reference yet? Someone lying down on the job.

                2. No one is trying to “discredit a longstanding tradition.” No one has called for marriage to be banned. Just for the government to recognize those marriages that occur between two adults of the same sex.

                  Or is heteroness really the defining characteristic of marriage in your opinion, and without which the institution of marriage will crumble?

                  Also, we’re libertarians here. Individualists. It’s not hard to find a gay couple that has been harmed because the government would not grant them marriage rights. That’s enough for me. What are the harms that you envision with SSM being legally recognized?

                  1. CAKES!!!11!tenplusone!!1

                  2. “No one has called for marriage to be banned. Just for the government to recognize those marriages that occur between two adults of the same sex.”

                    No one has called for SSM to be banned. Just for the government to recognize only opposite-sex relationships as marriage.

                    “What are the harms that you envision with SSM being legally recognized?”

                    See above for John Titor linking SSM with single-parent households. They’re part of the same phenomenon. You can’t ban them, but you shouldn’t promote or encourage them either.

                    1. Again, that connection is purely in your head. I didn’t link gay marriage to single-parent households and they are not the part of the same phenomenon.

                    2. I didn’t link gay marriage to single-parent households and they are not the part of the same phenomenon.

                      He’s making the assumption that gays will get tradtional-married if that’s the only option. Well, I guess that’s what happens in countries like India or China but that’s hardly by choice.

              2. that is not what he was doing. He didn’t appeal to tradition. He merely pointed to the fact that this wasn’t always so, yet the world didn’t end or go into a theocracy.

                1. Right, Stormy said that restoring laws which were pretty universal pre-1990 would be “Christianity social engineering.”

                  1. When your goal is specifically to prevent people from getting married that you disapprove of due to your Christian beliefs, yes, that’s ‘Christianist social engineering’.

                    1. Are you saying that Jews, Confucians, Hindus, etc., want to recognize Adam and Steve’s marriage? Because that’s what you’d have to show if you’re claiming that I’m defending a uniquely Christian idea.

                    2. Except you’re not arguing them for the sake of Jews, Confucians, Hindus, etc. You’re arguing for it because of your specific Christian belief. You take this Christian belief and demand that it be applied to society. That’s social engineering.

                      You’re taking your preferences and demanding that they be broadly applied to people who don’t agree with you. So any whining about gays doing the same is just blatantly hypocritical.

                    3. You’re not arguing for the sake of gays, certainly not on behalf of the gay-rights movement. You’re arguing on behalf of narrow cosmotarian views. You want to take your cosmotarian views and impose them on all society, with SSM recognition – all in the name of limited government.

                      And your SSM recognition would of course apply to people who don’t agree with you.

                      The difference in our cases is that you are willing to encourage the SSM movement even though you are aware that the movement wants to force people to make them cakes.

                    4. In fact, your argument is narrower than that – you’re trying to impose your atheist views on society – the fact that some religious people agree with you makes no difference to what *your* sinister motives are!

                      (I’m *using* your logic here, not endorsing it)

                    5. And you don’t even know what my views on gay marriage are. I’m for contracts, specifically because I recognize the fact that I’m not the one who should be deciding those aspects for other people. Note how I’m not ‘imposing’ my views on anyone, but recognizing their right to have views different than mine.

                      I’ll only support SSM to the extent that the marriage system as a government instrument is already an inherent poor system that should at least be applied broadly. I’m not in favour of it being used to force people to make cakes (and again, it’s extremely rich hearing this complaint from someone who has no problem using the government to enforce what they define as a marriage).

                    6. Blah, blah, blah, you’re an atheist, therefore all that stuff you just said is trying to force your atheism on others, and I don’t have to bother with the merits of your argument!

                      /sarc

                    7. You haven’t provided any arguments of merit outside of vague utilitarian positions on the ‘decay of traditional marriage’ (which is far more relevant to divorce law than gay marriage) and CAKES (which again, is not something I’m in support of). In the first you’re arguing against freedoms and choices, while the second you’re arguing for them.

                    8. “you’re arguing against freedoms and choices”

                      In what way? Sending gay-married couples off to re-education camps? I actually don’t recall saying that. I *do* recall saying the govt shouldn’t *recognize* same-sex relationships with certificates, tax breaks, testimonial immunities, etc.

                      “CAKES (which again, is not something I’m in support of)”

                      I recall hearing something once about “forseeable consequences are not unintended.”

                    9. I *do* recall saying the govt shouldn’t *recognize* same-sex relationships with certificates, tax breaks, testimonial immunities, etc.

                      And when you have a system where the government has to recognize your marriage for it to constitute a marriage, you’ve decided that the government should only recognize certain marriages you deem acceptable. You are specifically limiting the freedoms and choices of others to engage in that activity due to your personal preference.

                      You want special treatment for your views. Rights for me but not for thee.

                    10. Would you want the government to recognize the members of a soccer club as “married?” The members of a hippie commune?

                      If so, why, and if not, why not?

                    11. I notice you haven’t responded to my point that, if you can dismiss the interreligious conesnsus in favor of the opposite-sex definition of marriage, because I’m a Christian, why I can’t dismiss your support of SSM as a uniquely atheist position.

                      And I note that that atheist/agnostic Robert Ingersoll endorsed the opposite-sex, non-polygamous definition of marriage. I’ve linked to him before. He wanted to make divorce easier, but he didn’t want Adam and Steve to marry.

                      Was Ingersoll a Christian stooge?

                    12. I’m not dismissing it out of Christianity alone. It doesn’t matter what religion (or lack thereof) is endorsing the viewpoint. The point is that you are taking your personal preferences (in this case, Christian ones) and demanding that it be public policy. You’re arguing that other people should be restricted to fit what you want.

                      I’m sorry, why am I supposed to care what Robert Ingersoll believed?

                    13. For example, if my personal preference was to restrict marriage for Christians because I disapprove of your lifestyle, why, it might almost come off like I’m being a bit of a cunt, attempting to enforce my worldview on other people purely due to my own selfish beliefs.

                    14. You seemed to have missed that whole part about how I don’t want the government responsible for recognizing any marriages.

                      Why do you, Notorious, not want two people to have their marriage recognized by the government and given certificates, tax breaks, testimonial immunities, etc. that other two people relationships enjoy? Could it be because you disapprove of their lifestyle choice, and thus you are, in an extremely self-centred way, demand that people conform to your viewpoint?

                    15. *two* people?

                      So I guess you wouldn’t allow soccer clubs, fraternities, polyamorous groups, etc., to register as spouses.

                      Why is that? What accounts for your bigotry?

          2. Comparing traditional marriage to slavery? That’s derptastic!

            1. He didn’t compare marriage to slavery (insert henpecked husband joke here), he merely pointed out that to defend something on the grounds it’s been “part of the law for centuries” is ridiculous. The derp was Eddie’s, not Stormy’s.

              1. “Stormy said that restoring laws which were pretty universal pre-1990 would be “Christianity social engineering.””

                Which is ridiculous.

                In addition to which, putting the burden on those who would assail a longstanding tradition wouldn’t in any way protect slavery, given the clear evidence of that institution’s wickedness.

                1. I don’t see how their longevity precludes them from the label of social engineering. They were an attempt to use the force of law to compel a specific set of moral values on the populace. That fits the definition in my book.

                  1. paranoid: if you believe: “They were an attempt to use the force of law to compel a specific set of moral values on the populace”, your screen name fits.

                2. In addition to which, putting the burden

                  I reject the notion that I’m required, much less “burdened” to gain your approval on how I wish to organize my family. Fuck off, slaver.

                  1. Again with the slavery! What is it about whips and chains which interests you so much?

            2. Both are practices that were defended primarily on the basis of their longevity rather than on their actual merits.

              1. Smooches.

    4. Wow. The fact that a simple amendment like this is considered controversial, so controversial that only right-wing religious loonies will support it, shows that the Sexual Revolution has taken priority over the Constitution.

      The Constitution guarantees that people can stick their dangly bits wherever they want without interference or subsidies from the federal government.

      Right wing religious loonies and social conservatives just seem to be incapable of grasping this simple fact.

      1. What does that have to do with SSM?

  6. Over 100 bills to restrict _________ have been introduced on the state and federal level since the first of the year. That’s 2.3 bills per day. Fiscal conservatism FTW!

  7. OT: Oregon governor Kitzhaber resigns due to ethics scandal.

    I’m kind of surprised that he didn’t try to ride it out. I mean, it’s Oregon, what were the voters going to do, elect a Republican?

    1. They elected Bob Packwood, didn’t they?

      1. Oh, and speaking of things ghey. The woman that will replace him will be the “first openly bi-sexual” governor in US history.

        1. You forgot Governor Cornbury:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..Reputation

        2. “What can Brown do for you?”

          /not a damn thing, actually

        3. Guest: Wow, she’s a really awful governor

          Npr host: I know, but she’s the first openly female bisexual governor… so…

    2. A Democrat resigned? Incontheevable!

    3. Damn you!

      1. pwnd. 🙂

  8. Oh, Cruz. You so cray!

  9. I would like to have a constitutional amendment limiting the states’ powers over marriage.

    In addition to to enforcing the opposite-sex definition, I’d like an amendment by which no divorce will be valid unless (a) it’s granted by the state* where the marriage was initially solemnized, or the state in which both parties currently live, and (b) the divorce proceeding is conducted under the same procedural and substantive rules applicable at the time of the marriage, in the jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnized.

    *or other jurisdiction (eg, D.C., Virgin Islands, etc.)

    1. Better yet a constitutional amendment getting the government out of marriage entirely.

      1. That’d be quite nice, but unfortunately it will never happen because it won’t let people push their hobby horses in regards to marriage.

        1. You say it would be nice, so explain how it would work? Would people no longer be able to go to court to settle disputes regarding marital dissolution? If so, would family law statutes be repealed? Would anyone who screwed up their contract or didn’t sign the right one be told to fuck off?

          When you say “get the government out of marriage” what you are really saying is repeal the body of law governing marriage and let people govern their marriages by contract. That could work except people just want to get married. They don’t want to fuck with negotiating a contract and are happy living with one size fits all terms set by law.

          1. I don’t think it would be unheard of for a ‘Standard Marriage Contract’ to emerge for those people who want a ‘one size fits all’ option.

            1. Except that people would still have to agree to that. And frankly negotiating a contract with the person you are going to marry is not something most people want to do. It causes a lot of conflict that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

              Beyond that, businesses can’t properly negotiate contracts half of the time. Expecting every married couple in America to sign a contract and thinking that would work or that most people wouldn’t fuck it up is the kind of goofy idea only a Libertarian could think would work.

              The heart of this issue is the ability to get the government to force private parties to recognize your marriage. That is really all this is about and the only advantage government sanctioned marriage gives you. I don’t see how it is very Libertarian to endorse letting more people use the power of the gun to force people to recognize their private associations.

              Even if you really think government marriage is bad, which every Libertarian does, how is expanding it a good thing? It is not. But a good number of Libertarians don’t give a fuck. All they know is that they like gays and hate the people who don’t. That is it.

              1. I see, so you’ve made my point below for me. Well that was easy.

              2. And frankly negotiating a contract with the person you are going to marry is not something most people want to do. It causes a lot of conflict that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

                This actually seems like a feature, not a bug. Every marriage is going to face conflict sooner or later; better to found out the two of you can’t handle it up front than five years in.

                1. Maybe Stormy. But most people don’t look at it that way.

                  1. Which is why the divorce rate is so high.

              3. Even if you really think government marriage is bad, which every Libertarian does, how is expanding it a good thing? It is not. But a good number of Libertarians don’t give a fuck. All they know is that they like gays and hate the people who don’t. That is it.

                John, you have argued with enough people about this issue around here that we all know that you know that’s not true. It’s an exact parallel with other government benefits–take social security for example. Most libertarians aren’t fans of it–let’s just generalize and say the favored libertarian position would be to abolish it. However, if the government suddenly decided that they weren’t going to abolish SS, but they were only going to start granting SS payments to white people (or straights, or any other single class of people), and libertarians objected on the basis that the government shouldn’t discriminate, would you be telling people that they have nothing to complain about, because it would result in a net decrease in social security payments?

                1. Adnroid,

                  It is absolutely true. They just rationalizes it by rubbing their chin and saying “gee I wish the get the government out of marriage unicorn would show up and prevent this”.

                  Libertarians were warned and knew good and well what gay marriage was going to result in. They supported it anyway. They knew better and didn’t care. In the end they let their cultural biases overrule their better judgement and principle. They like gays and are happy to see people who don’t put under the foot of the government. And I don’t care how much they protest otherwise. If they cared about such, they would have conditioned their support for gay marriage on first changing the law to ensure things like the bakery cake didn’t happen. They didn’t do that because ultimately the bakery case doesn’t bother them. They are happy to see it.

                  1. I see John has got his Red Bo underpants on today.

                    I can never remember if I’m supposed to be a crypto-progressive or a crypto-neocon on any given day of the week. Anyone out there have the schedule?

                    1. Trolls,

                      Why are Libertarians not responsible for the foreseeable results of the causes they support? They knew what was going to happen if gay marriage was enacted and supported it anyway. They own the results.

                    2. Why are Libertarians not responsible for the foreseeable results of the causes they support? They knew what was going to happen if gay marriage was enacted and supported it anyway. They own the results.

                      The same kinds of nondiscrimination suits were happening before gay marriage. The NM photographer was sued when gay marriage was illegal in NM. It makes precisely zero difference.

                    3. And Libertariians helped make them easier because they are cowrds and hypocrites

                    4. Why are Libertarians not responsible for the foreseeable results of the causes they support? They knew what was going to happen if gay marriage was enacted and supported it anyway. They own the results.

                      So the result of supporting gay marriage in the 2000’s is that it opened up a wormhole in the fabric of space-time that led to the passage of public accommodation laws in the 1960’s? Great Scott!

                    5. So the result of supporting gay marriage in the 2000’s is that it opened up a wormhole in the fabric of space-time that led to the passage of public accommodation laws in the 1960’s? Great Scott!

                      Glad I am not the only one who feels like I am living in backwards world on this…

                    6. John has that effect on people. His sophistry can be potent when he chooses to use it.

                    7. No those laws existed and were. Not going away and Libertariians didn’t nt care. Fuck you coward

                    8. Trolls,

                      I never said you were a closet anything. I am just asking why you supported a policy that results in people losing their freedom to believe what they want. Why did you do that?

                    9. I don’t and never did. No one lost the freedom to believe squat. I certainly support the rights of people to serve whomever they choose, or not. Because people are using a good thing in bad ways does not make the good thing bad.

                    10. I certainly support the rights of people to serve whomever they choose, or not.

                      No you don’t, not if it involves gay marriage. If you did, you wouldn’t have supported gay marriage. You might as well be saying you don’t’ support bombing people, you just supported the war. It is not your fault the war resulted in people getting bombed.

                    11. I never said you were a closet anything. I am just asking why you supported a policy that results in people losing their freedom to believe what they want. Why did you do that?

                      Who’s trying to take away your freedom to disapprove of gays? Or are you more concerned with losing your freedom to dictate the terms of other people’s contracts?

                    12. Dances — the rule is:

                      On Breitbart — you’re an Obama loving, gay Marxist junkie illegal alien.

                      On HuffPo — you’re a Pat Robertson, John Birch Society, anti-scientific, homophobic, racist neo-nazi puppet of the Koch brothers.

                      Or at least that’s my experience. Today on Breitbart I kept getting replies asking me how often I shoot up, in response to a pro drug legalization comment.

                  2. I don’t see how any of what you just wrote addresses my point in any way.

                    1. It does too Android. Your position seems to be that gays should be able to oppress other people because everyone else does.

                      You knew what gay marriage would result in and supported it anyway. Own the results of the policy you supported. The bottom line is you think the bakery case and others like it is a unfortunate but necessary evil to obtain the greater good of gay marriage. Just be honest and admit it.

              4. Except that people would still have to agree to that. And frankly negotiating a contract with the person you are going to marry is not something most people want to do. It causes a lot of conflict that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

                With all your talk of “what people want” in a marriage contract, one is tempted to think you’re making a statement about consumer choice. But if consumer choice were relevant to your logic, you wouldn’t support the existence of a monopoly gatekeeper to such contracts promulgating a statutory one-size fits all contract that quite clearly has failed. Do you think family courts and divorce laws are just?

                A marriage is a contract and common law provides very clear universal standards for the operation and dissolution of contracts. You’re doing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify your inner socon reflexes. Just step the fuck off of other people’s relationships. Recognize them or not, but don’t claim a right to force other people and institutions to not recognize.

                1. No Free society. I don’t have a preference to be honest. I am just expressing other people’s preferences. No one but libertarians wants such a system. And as a result of that it is never going to happen.

                  And fuck you with the SOCON instincts. You people are nothing but moral cowards who are terrified to stand up for someone you don’t like. In my personal life I am anything but a SOCON. I just stand up for them to because they have a right to do whatever they like regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. You people accuse me of being one as a way to cover up for your own cowardice. Fuck that. I don’t give a fuck about culture or being cool. I love defending people who are unpopular and uncool. There is no more easy and conformist thing to do in our society then attack the SOCONs. I have no idea why otherwise bright people find being that conformist and boring so damned important.

                  1. No Free society. I don’t have a preference to be honest. I am just expressing other people’s preferences. No one but libertarians wants such a system. And as a result of that it is never going to happen.

                    No one but libertarians want consumer choice on lots of things, yet I fail to see how that makes them wrong to assert that.

                    And fuck you with the SOCON instincts. You people are nothing but moral cowards who are terrified to stand up for someone you don’t like.

                    What now? Who don’t I like? Gays? I’m terrified of gays?

                    I just stand up for them to because they have a right to do whatever they like regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. You people accuse me of being one as a way to cover up for your own cowardice.

                    Slow down, Billy Graham. Citation please.

                    I don’t give a fuck about culture or being cool. I love defending people who are unpopular and uncool.

                    That’s right, someone has to stick up for the bullies. How noble of you!

                    There is no more easy and conformist thing to do in our society then attack the SOCONs.

                    I attack arguments that are wrong. Social conservatives have more wrongness than they know what to do with. Is this where you accuse me of “punching down”? You’re like a reverse SJW.

                    1. I have no idea why otherwise bright people find being that conformist and boring so damned important.

                      I’m going to need some evidence of how one is being “conformist” for opposing a type of state coercion. Just because you’re in the minority with your ill-formed opinion doesn’t justify labeling everyone else a conformist. That’s some real emo shit right there, John. And what kind of name is John anyways? It’s so common… it’s so…so… conformist. *gasp*

                    2. You love gays free so iety and are happy to see socons have their views crimnalized to be efit gays. You only care about freedom when it benefits people you like.

              5. Except they’re specifically not private associations because of the government recognition, they’re become public social statuses. You are already arbitrarily validated ‘private associations’ into public social statuses even without recognizing gay marriage.

                Expecting every married couple in America to sign a contract and thinking that would work or that most people wouldn’t fuck it up is the kind of goofy idea only a Libertarian could think would work.

                Because people never sign prenups and why on earth would people want actual choice in how their apparently ‘private’ associations are managed?

              6. Expecting every married couple in America to sign a contract

                Signing a (symbolic) marriage contract is a standard part of many culture’s marriage practices. In Jewish tradition the marriage contract is called a Ketubah.

                and thinking that would work or that most people wouldn’t fuck it up is the kind of goofy idea only a Libertarian could think would work.

                I fail to see what logically distinguishes marriage contracts from any other contract. People ought not enter into marriage lightly and part of their responsibility is understanding what their obligations will be. A contract is a great vehicle for that. Standard contracts would arise and custom contracts would be allowed. It’s really quite simple.

                As everyone always points out, it’s also a pipe dream. In a situation where we have the government deciding what a marriage contract can be, there should be no discrimination against homosexuals according to the principle of equality before the law. Also polygamists, when can we start agitating for equality for polygamists? I ask this seriously.

                1. crap, I messed up my attempt to quote you, sorry

                2. Expecting every married couple in America to sign a contract[…]and thinking that would work or that most people wouldn’t fuck it up is the kind of goofy idea only a Libertarian could think would work.

                  Expecting every married couple to get a permission slip for a one size fits all marriage contract is the kind of goofy idea only a statist could think would work.

                  Also polygamists, when can we start agitating for equality for polygamists? I ask this seriously.

                  Right now if you want. Why not?

            2. The government should only have a small interest in child protection and support. Unfortunately, they fuck that up with wreckless abandon.

              Fuck “the body of law governing marriage”.

        2. And by the way, gays were offered a contract based marriage system in the form of civil unions. And they turned it down. They want marriage because they want to use the force of law to make people accept them. This has nothing to do with freedom. It is all about taking away people’s freedom and forcing them to do something they don’t want to.

          1. Did you read what I actually wrote? I said exactly that in regards to hobby horses. That was applicable to both social conservatives and extreme gay rights activists.

          2. And by the way, gays were offered a contract based marriage system in the form of civil unions. And they turned it down. They want marriage because they want to use the force of law to make people accept them. This has nothing to do with freedom. It is all about taking away people’s freedom and forcing them to do something they don’t want to.

            Yeah, it had nothing to do with having a patchwork of legal recognitions of various shapes and sizes sometimes varying city to city causing difficulty for financial or funerary planning or the resolution of legal disputes…nothing at all.

            1. Pah, spoken like a card carrying member of the Gay Mafia. We know that this is all a front to convert the precious youth into gay robots that will mandate gay marriage and rainbow flag forehead tattoos for all and then on to people marrying animals. There is no way that your refusal to accept the condition of separate but equal can be interpreted any other way.

            2. What is “legal recognition” other than to get the government to force people to recognize your marriage?

              The whole point of gay marriage is the bakery case. That is it. It doesn’t matter that it only happened once. The message was sent. Anyone who runs a business and objects to gay marriage or won’t recognize one is now subject to being finned and run out of business. That was the entire point behind it and that is what has happened.

              Gays were freer without marriage. Before marriage none of their relationships were recognized by law so they were not constrained by them. Gay couples didn’t have to worry about community property rules or even bigamy laws or hiring an attorney and going to court when they broke up. They got to live outside the law. Now they don’t. They sold their freedom for the right to take other people’s freedom away.

              1. What is “legal recognition” other than to get the government to force people to recognize your marriage?

                Sometimes you should be able to force people to recognize your marriage. Yeah, if you don’t want to bake me a cake, you shouldn’t have to. But if I designate my gay spouse as the person making decisions for me when I’m incapacitated, or leave my house to them when I die, or name them the ward for my children, then no, you don’t get to swoop in and go “well I don’t have to abide by any of that because I don’t recognize the marriage”.

                1. But if I designate my gay spouse as the person making decisions for me when I’m incapacitated, or leave my house to them when I die, or name them the ward for my children, then no, you don’t get to swoop in and go “well I don’t have to abide by any of that because I don’t recognize the marriage

                  That is true. But you know what, if I designate my best friend to make those decisions, the hospital should have to recognize that as well. So the solution is to just pass a law requiring hospitals to recognize medical powers of attorney no matter who it designates.

                  All of those sorts of issues really have nothing to do with marriage. They are about hospitals and people’s freedom to delegate decision making.

                  1. So suppose Rick Santorum’s hypothetical gay son, Bear Santorum, ends up in the emergency room and the nurse on duty that night is a Southern Baptist and decides that even though Bear’s boyfriend has a power of attorney document, she’s going to call Rick to get directions because having to obey a gay power of attorney violates her religious conscience?

              2. What is “legal recognition” other than to get the government to force people to recognize your marriage?

                How is that different from legal recognition of domestic partnerships or civil contracts or any other legally binding agreement?

                Gay couples didn’t have to worry about community property rules or even bigamy laws or hiring an attorney and going to court when they broke up. They got to live outside the law. Now they don’t. They sold their freedom for the right to take other people’s freedom away.

                Fuck off, John. I mean this in the nicest way possible. You’re telling me that I was freer when my options for organizing my personal and financial life were legally limited because you don’t like some aspects of some of those possibilities? No straight or gay couple is legally forced to enter into one of these contracts.

                Thank you for making that decision for me and calling it freedom though. Ass.

                1. You were freer when you were not subject to family law. Fuck off and go sue a bakry Jesse that is what you want isn’t it?

                  1. Fuck off and go sue a bakry Jesse that is what you want isn’t it?

                    Are ya drunk, John? Or just intentionally being a cunt?

                    The fact that you’ve convinced yourself that there’s a unified gay agenda that’s out to get Christians is paranoiac levels of cray-cray. I know plenty of gay men and women who prefer a “marriage”/civil union disentanglement but know that won’t happen and are looking for access to the full range of tools that straight couples have. For you to assume that everyone who supports gay couples having equal access to those legal tools is just out to get Christian bakers is ridiculous, but that’s a narrative that justifies your position and I doubt anyone will talk you out of it.

                  2. You were freer when you were not subject to family law.

                    And just to be perfectly clear. I am not subject to family law as I have not availed myself of the OPTION of getting married, but in the future, if I fall in love with a mobster and think 5A spousal immunity might be necessary, or a strapping Italian fellow and need to sponsor his citizenship. I CAN, but don’t have to.

                    So I don’t really see how I’m any less free now than I was before the fall of Prop 8 or certain sections of DOMA.

              3. The whole point of gay marriage is the bakery case. That is it. It doesn’t matter that it only happened once.

                I’m sorry, what year were public accomodation laws ruled constitutional? 1964? Okay now what year was the first currently in-force gay marriage statute passed? Logic, how does it work?

            3. It also didn’t address federal benefits.

              1. Didn’t need to Paul. The Feds could have recognized that by recognizing civil unions. That would have been easy.

                1. Except that Cruz’s ammendment says the exact opposite. People would only get federal benefits if they live in a state that recognizes the union. So if you’re in the army and get transferred to Fort Hood, your spouse suddenly loses all benefits because Texas has decided you’re no longer really married.

          3. Cruz should’ve skipped this issue. It’s not a winner and is already a lost cause, and we’ve got far bigger fish to fry in the U.S.

            1. Rather then trying to prevent gay marriage he should move out in front of it, and start talking about protecting religious freedom. Like say the right for a Christian baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

              I think it’s a bigger winner politically. It get the social conservatives supporting you without alienating everyone else.

              1. They tried Bard. But they lost that battle as well. Moreover, once gays become a protected class under the 14th Amendment, those laws won’t be Constitutional anymore. You could no more allow people to not recognize a gay person’s marriage than you could a black person’s.

                It is or is about to be effectively illegal to object to homosexuality in this country. Anyone who does is going to be subject to legal action if they own a business or being fired by their employer to avoid legal action if they don’t.

                That was the whole point of this. And we are now moving on to transvestites and after that who knows.

                1. It is or is about to be effectively illegal to object to homosexuality in this country

                  I didn’t realize that “objecting” to homosexuality meant enlisting state force to prevent the otherwise voluntary recognition of contracts to which you are an uninterested 3rd party.

                  When you write things like “It is or is about to be effectively illegal to object to homosexuality in this country.” how can you possibly wonder why people think you’re a socon?

                  1. No retard. No one says a contract is t valid.

              2. That’s actually an important issue. Free exercise is just as important a right as the Establishment clause.

                1. That’s actually an important issue. Free exercise is just as important a right as the Establishment clause.

                  Not when it is done by people judges don’t like Pro. Why are we about to have judicially mandated gay marriage and not polygamy? The principles apply just as well in both cases. I will tell you way because judges like gays and don’t like polygamists.

                  So when they decide free exercise versus equal protection, the group they like is the group that will win. And that will be the gays. That is what we have now, rights determined by how much the judicial class likes the people asking for them. Good luck that .

                  1. I just had a weird thought. If they legalize polygamy, does each member of the polygamous marriage have to agree to the addition of a new spouse? In other words, would everyone be married to everyone else? Or could there be individual hubs of polygamy, where one spouse in an existing marriage can independently marry a new spouse without binding the original spouse?

                    Fuck if I know why anyone would want more than one spouse. I’m fundamentally monogamous, so the whole business is strange to me.

                    1. I just had a weird thought. If they legalize polygamy, does each member of the polygamous marriage have to agree to the addition of a new spouse? In other words, would everyone be married to everyone else? Or could there be individual hubs of polygamy, where one spouse in an existing marriage can independently marry a new spouse without binding the original spouse?

                      Ideally that would depend on the type of marriage contract you put together.

                    2. Yes, of course, but I was thinking less ideally and more the current state of affairs plus polygamy.

                    3. Pro,

                      You make a good point and why polygamist societies are always totally male dominated. They get around that problem by only giving the man a say. The women have no legal standing so the man marries whomever he wants.

                    4. But that’s clearly not going to be the way it works in U.S. polygamy, given the legal protections women (and men) have.

                      God help the first judge who has to deal with equitable distribution in a complex polygamous marriage.

                    5. Fractions. How do those work?

                    6. God help the first judge who has to deal with equitable distribution in a complex polygamous marriage.

                      He would need to only look at the terms of the contract. And if the poeple chose to forgo a contract, well then the judges job is easier because the parties to the unwritten contract left themselves at the mercy of the court.

                    7. If only family law were so simple.

                  2. So when they decide free exercise versus equal protection, the group they like is the group that will win. And that will be the gays. That is what we have now, rights determined by how much the judicial class likes the people asking for them. Good luck that .

                    If on a given issue, equal protection cannot be objectively applied then that tells you the state doesn’t have any business trying to regulate that issue. Yes courts prefer gays to polygamists, but that’s just proof of the arbitrariness of statutes governing these types of contracts.

          4. Yeah I think some Libertarians are fooling themselves if they think gay marriage is going to be a net gain for freedom in this country.

            1. The problem is picking and choosing our battles. Right now, stabbing Leviathan everywhere is far more important.

              Frankly, if we could really get back to something like limited government, getting the state out of marriage altogether would be lovely.

          5. And by the way, gays were offered a contract based marriage system in the form of civil unions. And they turned it down. They want marriage because they want to use the force of law to make people accept them. This has nothing to do with freedom. It is all about taking away people’s freedom and forcing them to do something they don’t want to.

            Sooooooo if there’s no substantive difference between ‘civil unions’ and marriage, what’s the problem? You think it would be icky if they used the word “marriage”?

            1. The only difference between the two is that you can’t force a private person to recognize a civil union. Civil unions only bound the government.

              And I am fine with civil unions. It is what they should have done.

              1. The only difference between the two is that you can’t force a private person to recognize a civil union. Civil unions only bound the government.

                And I am fine with civil unions. It is what they should have done.

                So you’re okay with hetero marriage recognition ‘being forced’?

                1. How is it being forced? I don’t think a baker is going to get sued if they refuse to do wedding cakes.

                2. Yes, because doing that doesn’t violate people’s religion. Libertarians hate to hear this but Religion gets special treatment. It has its own clause in the 1st Amendment saying the government can’t fuck with people’s religious views.

                  The problem is not forced recognition of marriage. The problem is forcing people to do anything that is against their religious views.

                  1. So if someone’s religion (say, United Church) recognizes gay marriage, then why does the government still have an arbitrary ruling on whether it’s a ‘civil union’ or a ‘marriage’?

                    1. The government isn’t ruling John. They can call it whatever they want. The government just considers it something different. That doesn’t prevent others from calling it a marriage.

                    2. But that’s a blatant violation of a person’s religion. That’s my point, why is the ‘violation of religion’ valid when not recognizing gay marriage, but is invalid when it’s recognizing it.

                  2. The problem is not forced recognition of marriage. The problem is forcing people to do anything that is against their religious views.

                    It’s against my religious views to be told what to do by busybodies who feel they should have a say in contracts to which they are not a party. I win.

                  3. Yo we’re not Saudi Arabia John. The first amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to have their religious beliefs trump the civil rights of others. In fact it forbids it!

                3. Why should heterosexual marriages not be downgraded to ‘civil unions’ as well then?

                  1. They should the civil union aspect is the only part the government should have a hand in, keep the marriage part to the churches.

                    1. They should the civil union aspect is the only part the government should have a hand in, keep the marriage part to the churches.

                      Which church gets to own the word ‘marriage’?

                    2. I think you may have missed the point. All legal aspects would be covered by the civil union.

                      One church could recognize one type of marriage, and another a different type. It’s no different then if one church chooses to serve wine at communion or another commits that sacrilege of serving grape juice instead, since it’s purely a religious ceremony.

                      And sense it doesn’t add another protected class into the mix it hopefully won’t result in being used as club to punish people for thought crimes, like say not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

                    3. And sense it doesn’t add another protected class into the mix it hopefully won’t result in being used as club to punish people for thought crimes, like say not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

                      Public accommodation laws are a separate issue altogether. It’s like saying you shouldn’t support equal rights for blacks because the result is being forced to bake a wedding cake for black people. Separate issues entirely.

                      Not to mention that public accommodation laws predate the gay marriage recognition statutes by half a century.

      2. While you’re at it, don’t forget the Rainbow-Powered Unicorns for Everyone Amendment!

      3. I agree. Get government out of marriage. It would be so much easier for me to ditch my wife and run off with all the money.

    2. (b) the divorce proceeding is conducted under the same procedural and substantive rules applicable at the time of the marriage, in the jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnized.

      Each state should have the right to its own marriage laws! Unless I don’t like the ones they pick, in which case they should be required to continue enforcing the old ones.

      1. Smooches.

    3. I would like to have a constitutional amendment limiting the states’ powers over marriage.

      Well, so you are coming out as a totalitarian. What are us libertarians supposed to say?

  10. I’m not going to lie to you. Ted Cruz will never be president.

  11. I can’t look at Ted Cruz without expecting to hear a really sassy, Queeny, Gay Southern Accent. Its the rosy cheeks and simpering smile that does it. Oh he’s just so precious.

    1. Ted Curz is too Cuban for that. Jeb Bush is the one with the sassy Gay Southern accent.

        1. OMG yes, he’s got that Ralph Reed, “perpetual face of a 12yr old”-look that just screams ‘I’m a naughty boy’.

          Or ‘strangler’. I personally find the ‘cherubic’ look terrifying.

          1. Lindsey Graham also has this southern accent + always sounds on the edge of hysterics thing going that reminds me Scarlett O’Hara whenever he’s giving a speech.

        2. Lindsey Graham is Bush’s twink.

      1. No, Jeb actually looks slightly more ‘manly’ than most of his siblings. Which isn’t saying much.

        But yes = I agree, Cruz could just as well go with a ‘Birdcage-esque‘, latino sassy gay thing.

    2. He’s got more of a 1938 Tin Man look.

    3. Mr Haney.

  12. Oregon Gov. Kitzhaber announces his resignation amid scandal

    http://www.startribune.com/pol…..09921.html

  13. It’s too bad, because Cruz sounds quite libertarian much of the time. At least he’s mostly opposed to big government. This shit is going to kill him, though.

    1. Time will tell. A good number of Libertarians are single issue gay marriage voters. So it won’t help him there. I am not sure many people outside of Democrats and Libertarians are single issue gay marriage voters though.

      1. A good number of Libertarians are single issue gay marriage voters.

        [citation required]

        1. Single issue voters might be an exaggeration, but it’s certainly a big issue for a number of the commenters here, a far bigger one then I think it should be.

          1. The ability to decide who is to be included in your household and how that household will be organized touches on the most fundamental core of someone’s life. If it’s an issue that impacts you directly, there are few things that could possibly be more important from a liberty perspective.

            1. Is there anything actually preventing you from doing that right now? Are you saying you can’t create contracts that would fill all the legal obligations of a marriage?

              You could of had all that with civil unions, but that wasn’t good enough, because civil unions can’t be used as a weapon to destroy those social conservatives you hate so much, but gay marriage combined with the civil rights act is going to make it essentially illegal to oppose gay marriage if you’re any type of business.

              You’re going to destroy religious freedom in the United States, and gain what exactly? Nothing.

              This is a Progressive issue, do you really think getting in bed with those fascists is going to move the United States one step closer toward freedom? They only want to control people, and after they use you to get what they want that is all they’ll do. Control.

              1. Are you saying you can’t create contracts that would fill all the legal obligations of a marriage?

                In theory. In practice those contracts are routinely ignored.

              2. “You could of had all that with civil unions, but that wasn’t good enough, because civil unions can’t be used as a weapon to destroy those social conservatives you hate so much,”

                The straw man asks for MERCY!

                1. Right because civil unions haven’t been proposed for years, and constantly rejected by the gay activists.

                  But don’t argue, just scream Strawman!!

                  1. BardMetal|2.13.15 @ 4:35PM|#
                    “Right because civil unions haven’t been proposed for years, and constantly rejected by the gay activists.”
                    BEAT on that stawman!

                    “But don’t argue, just scream Strawman!!”
                    You keep doing it, I’ll keep calling you on it.
                    I just love calling bullshitters on bullshit.

                2. That is not a straw man at all. We could have civil unions and gays turned it down. They wanted marriage because they wanted to stick it to their enemies. It is that simple.

                  Bard metal had a great post. So of course those who don’t like it but can’t respond to it just yelled STRAWMAN

                  God that is fucking tiresome.

                  1. John|2.13.15 @ 4:37PM|#
                    “That is not a straw man at all. We could have civil unions and gays turned it down. They wanted marriage because they wanted to stick it to their enemies. It is that simple.”

                    Yep that stawman just won’t stay down, John.
                    Keep beating on it.

              3. “but gay marriage combined with the civil rights act”

                Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Numerous commenters here are missing the entire point, which is that the extension of discrimination provisions to the private sector is what has caused the baker to have to write “Fred and Barney” on the cake in frosting.

                Let’s put the blame where it is due, and that is the massive cock-up which has resulted from the unconstitutional restraint of trade caused by misapplication of the Civil Rights Act to private businesses.

                1. Exactly. The completely misnamed “civil rights act” is the cause of the problem here, but unfortunately I don’t see any politicians with the balls to actually try to repeal it.

                  I think some commenters are looking at how gay marriage would work in some sort of Libertarian utopia, and not in modern Progressive America, where it’s going to be used to fuck over people royally for holding the wrong opinions.

                  1. Again, it looks like you’re trying to right one wrong with another.

        2. Is 1 or 2 a ‘good number’?

          1. And can they be imaginary?

        3. It was a joke trolls. But apparently one that hit the nerve it was intended to hit.

      2. Yeah, I don’t think it’s quite that bad. It’s been a hot issue for some libertarians, but I doubt seriously they put that ahead of other concerns.

        For the record, while I’m going to vote for Paul, unless things change radically, I’d consider voting for Cruz in the general. He’s at least somewhat in favor of limited government, which is a change of pace for the GOP, if he makes it that far.

        1. “For the record, while I’m going to vote for Paul,”

          I appreciate that, but I’m not running yet. I’m waiting for Hillary to make an unforced error.

          1. I’ll vote for Paul or the other Paul.

            As for Clinton, she’s been making so many mistakes, over and over again, that I think that’s why she’s withdrawn to the shadows. You know, like Shelob.

      3. Oh, I’m certainly a “single issue gay marriage voter”: any politician who thinks marriage is the business of the federal government isn’t going to get my vote. That includes the social conservative loonies as much as the progressive loonies.

  14. Ah, Ted Cruz. The guy Nick Gillespie claimed is winning the future for the GOP! What a future, eh Nick?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..e-gop.html

  15. If sexually ambiguous person one only makes 75 cents on the dollar compared to sexually ambiguous person two, how do we assign blame to the koch brothers?

    1. Damn, I haven’t seen an ethical question of that difficulty since having to decide who to support in the Skyrim Civil War.

      1. That decision is easy. The empire tries to have you executed in the beginning so pick the other side.

        1. Besides the empire actually sends people to camps for practicing their religion. As far as I could tell the Stormcloaks just didn’t like the minorities in Skyrim, but they didn’t send them to camps, or actively hunt them down.

          Seems to me the Libertarian choice is pretty obvious.

  16. There’s our guy Ted, worried about who puts what where in their bedrooms!
    Way to go, Ted! Keep it up! The GOP needs to dig a deeper hole!

    1. Opposing gay marriage does not equal supporting idiotic, and unenforceable anti-sodomy laws.

      1. Wait I forgot to yell STRAWMAN!!!

      2. Opposing gay marriage also does not equal supporting marriage or children or tradition.

        Opposing gay marriage, just like supporting gay marriage, equals picking an irrelevant, divisive political issue in order to grab a few votes.

    2. This has nothing to do with that. This is about government recognition of marriage. You can fuck anyone you want. Your desire to get it governmental sanctioned has nothing to do with your privacy.

      This is not about privacy or freedom. Gays are perfectly free to get married, screw anyone they want and live however they want. You don’t need a marriage license for that.

      Come on Sevo, you are brighter than this.

      1. But they need to be able to choose to get a marriage license if they want one, just like straight people. The argument here is painfully simple, which is why it has prevailed almost universally in courts.

      2. John|2.13.15 @ 4:34PM|#
        “This has nothing to do with that. This is about government recognition of marriage.”

        Bullshit.
        “Sen. Ted Cruz Embarks on Doomed Legislative Campaign Against Federal Gay Marriage Recognition”
        See “gay” right there?

        1. Did you even read the post? We get it you love gays and hAte socons have fun with that but shut the fuck up about caring about freedom because you dont. You are worse than Tony. At least he is honest about being a fascist.

            1. No I am honest. This isnt about freedom. It is about govenrnment power to force others to accept you. The people on here lnow that. They just won’t admit it because they want so bad to see gays win and Socons lose. That is sll their is to it. They are letting their bogotry and desire to fit in rule their principles. And they scream like stuck pigs when someone throws the truth in their faces.

              1. Have another shot there, buddy.

                1. If you don’t like the truth too bad. Be honest and do a happy dance about those people in Colorado going broke. It is the one thing Libertariians have ever acvomplished. They have accomplished jack shit on the drug war or economic freedom. But you guys made sure some bakery was punished for not recognizing gay marriage. Its your legacy. Own it.

                2. You wish I were drunk. Hell drunk I am a hundred times smarter and more importantly more honest than you. Its the lying and the rationalization that I hate more than anything. You know its wrong. You are just too insecure and too much of a conformist to admit it.

      3. Your desire to get it governmental sanctioned has nothing to do with your privacy.

        People don’t care about government “sanctions”, they care about government handouts given based on religious concepts.

        Frankly, I’d prefer if the government stopped giving these kinds of handouts altogether. But if they are going to be given, they should be given to any two adults, not a subclass of two adults that churches happen to approve of.

  17. This is not about privacy or freedom. Gays are perfectly free to get married, screw anyone they want and live however they want. You don’t need a marriage license for that.

    So there’s no difference between your marriage and gay marriage?

    1. Yes you dishonest half wit. You cant force people to recognize your union without the govenrnment and you know it. You fucking love the government when it puts the boot on a face as long S you hate that person.

  18. I’d call Sen. Cruz a hypocrite but I guess technically the Bible doesn’t forbid douchenozzles from getting married.

    1. Tony you ate the only honest person on here. I loathe your politics but at least you don’t lie about them like the rest of these people

  19. The GOP never will get it, will they? Thanks to the Religious Right/evangelicals and their losing Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs, they are handing the country over to the Socialists.

    Cruz had so much potential and he’s throwing it away for nothing. The republicans will never win another presidential election. IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS — and Socialism has won!

    1. No, not at all. American Christian conservatives are handing the country over to the progressives, because Democrats are progressives, not socialists. That has a long history; it’s basically what happened in Germany in the 1930’s (of course, their progressives were more homicidal than our progressives).

  20. Isn’t Reason a libertarian journal? Why is the author then cheering the increasing expansion of federal government at the expense of the states? Or why is he cheering activist judges who overturn democratically supported definitions of marriage? Something has gone seriously wrong in Libertyville. This is not about whether or not gay marriage is a good thing but about letting the people decide for themselves whether they think it’s a good thing and not have a tiny unelected judicial elite decide it for them.

    1. All that and more. But understand they don’t care. All they know is it is socially acceptable to like gays and hate SOCons. All they care about is fitting in and using their ideology to rationalize their prejudices.

      1. I think federal recognition of gay marriage is incompatible with libertarianism, but then so is federal recognition of straight marriage.

        What I can’t fathom, however, is why a SOCon would hang out at a libertarian site. Being a “social conservative” means believing that government should promote particular forms of social organization and personal behavior; that view is fundamentally incompatible with liberty.

        Social conservatives follow pretty much the same political ideology as socialists and communists, they just differ a bit about the policies they want to impose.

    2. Somebody doesn’t understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

      1. Somebody else doesn’t understand either the principle of subsidiarity or separation of powers.

        1. So the majority can pass law that infringes upon the rights of the minority and that’s perfectly acceptable, eh?

          1. LOL @ “infringement of rights”. State recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right. You don’t have to get married. As a libertarian, I don’t think the government should be privileging monogamous marriage over any other kind of living arrangement people choose to get into, but if the government is going to do so, it should be at the most local level possible, which in American traditionally means the states. The feds are way out of line on this one.

            1. I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all. BUT, since they ARE in it up to their ass…

              14A

              States don’t get to discriminate via law. PERIOD!

              1. But it is. Amd since it is gay marriage means people get punished for objectimg to it. I dont think people should be bombed. But when I support a war that results in that, I still own the consequences. Same here. You own the forseable consequences of the policies you support.

              2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

                Nothing in there about gay marriage. Keep trying.

                1. Oh wait…

                  It’s right here:

                  nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                  Is it that you missed it, or that you don’t comprehend what that means?

                  1. No Fransisco you seem to be unable to comprehend what that means. You are really that stupid. You can only grasp very simple concepts and cant understamd equal doesnt mean the treat all people the same all of the time. You are like Bo and unteachable. You don’t even understand your own case. It os just pathetit

                    1. So how many judges have agreed with your interpretation wrt gay marriage John?

                      Maybe you could help me out here, as I’m too stupid.

                  2. No I don’t see what equal protection has to do with gay marriage. It means that every citizen is entitled to the same due process of law. It does not mean that the laws themselves may not discriminate between people in any way. In particular, if the state defines marriage as one man and one woman, then all it means is that any man has a right to register his marriage with any other woman and no man or woman can be arbitrarily discriminated against.

                    Sure, a court may decide to interpret “equal protection” more expansively to strike down state’s laws that appear to violate it, but as we’ve seen in this discussion, they can be quite arbitrary about this. E.g. why allow gay marriage but ban polygamy? Since the interpretations of “equal protection” are never obvious, this is precisely the issue that a libertarian would want to leave to local authorities to determine. Really, the 14th amendment is just one of the earliest ill-considered amendments that paved the way for Leviathan.

                2. Marriage wrt the Full Faith and Credit clause remains untested in the courts. Maybe make it a double whammy and do CCW/gay marriage case.

                  It’d be fun to watch the ideological contortions folks would put themselves into.

                  1. Jesse

                    There probably is a case to be made for that. But it wont be made because the point isn’t marriage. It is to make gays a protected class.

                    The proper way to do thos was to let the states that wanted gay marriage do it and then use the p&i clause. I would have supported that. But that wouldnt have made gays a protected class

                    1. I think the simpler explanation for why this course hasn’t been pursued is that while everyone would get something they want, everyone would lose something important as well. Neither party really wants strict full faith and credit because it would mean allowing things they find icky and so neither side will back it, which is why I joked about a CCW/gay marriage double whammy. Equal protection ends up being the path that rocks the boat less.

                    2. Unless you have a religious objection to gay marriage. The progs would never have given up on equal protection because marriage was never the point for them. It is about supressing religion and punishing thisr enemies

            2. State recognition of marriage is a privilege, not a right.

              Let’s say Alamaba decided to give a special tax break to Christians. I think that pretty clearly violates the equal protection clause.

              Now, should libertarians allow that under a subsidiarity principle? I don’t think so. Taxes are obtained by Alamaba if necessary through violence. People tolerate these involuntary exchanges only because they expect that government at least doesn’t misuse the money too much. That’s why we have limits on how government can act. Those limits are imperfect, but at least we should follow them. And those limits include religious liberty and equal protection. There is no way that taking taxes from everybody and then spending them according to Christian views is compatible with that.

              1. As I indicated, “equal protection” is itself sufficiently vague that I see it as partly responsible for the subsequent erosion of states’ rights and individual liberties. But since it is well-established I suppose even libertarians have to work with it. So, what counts as a protected class? It certainly isn’t obvious. Why should religious denomination be protected but not occupation? Tax regimes discriminate according to occupation, and yet somehow that doesn’t violate equal protection. Even discrimination by income level, the essence of the progressive tax, discriminates among groups and yet somehow doesn’t violate equal protection.

                All these debates about equal protection just show that the interpretations of the clause are not obvious and the libertarian view should be that where the law is unclear, local jurisdictions should come to their own conclusions. There shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all policy. And if your state discriminates against you on grounds of religion, then move to another state! I certainly don’t believe in such discrimination, but if a state government does so, the advantage of free movement within the US means nothing is stopping you from voting with your feet.

      2. No you dont understand the difference between freedom and coercion of others. Gats csn marry now. They just cant force peopke to accept their union. Gay marriage is all about the ability if gays to use government force to make people accept their unions. That us it. The whole piint is to make sure anyone who objects does so at risk of liability or jail. The bakery in Colorado being run out of business is the whole point. Libertariians should be honest and celebrate that. It is the one thing they have ever contributed to accomplishing.

        1. derp

          Gay marriage=protected class

          Herpity derp.

          Sober up.

          1. Be honest and admit who you are. You only yell derp because you know its true and have no answer. Just admit it that you hate Socons and are happy to see them get theirs. Hell even Tony is honest enough to do that. Why aren’t you?

            1. Yawn. Your same old tripe bores me John. Gay marriage has nothing to do with protected classes and you know it. You are simply a bigot and you need an excuse to continue to be a disgusting bigot so you conflate two separate issues and hope there is no one in the room who will call you on it.

              I call.

              1. Once it became an equal protection issue it had everything to do with protected classes and you know it you are smarter than Bo. I dont have to explain equal protection to you.

                1. derpy werpy doo

                  Equal protection under the law=protected classes

                  Of course, how could I not have seen it before? The evil gays want to be treated like everyone else in the eyes of the law. AND that could NEVER happen without giving them MOAR rights than everyone else. You’re right John. It was right there in front of me. How stupid of me for not seeing the logic of it. Thank Christ we have smart people like you to point it out to us. Thank you, thank you.

                  I’ve got it now.

                  Gay marriage = a new protected class

                  CHrist you are a fucking moron.

                  1. I don’t write the law. I just try and explain it to morons like you and Bo. If you thing equal protection means the government must never treat anyone differently, the. You are too stupid to understand the law. It is that simple. You are frankly one of the dumbest and most simple minded people on here. You just happen to hold less offensive views than someone like Tony but you are just as stupid. The sad fact is you dont seem to wNt to learn or get any smarter. You seem to pride yourself on your ignorance

                    1. Yes John, your law degree means you are certainly correct on this. As has can be seen by the decisions by every fucking court who’s ruled on it.

                      You must be such a good lawyer.

                      And smart, ooooohhhhhhhh!

                    2. The dvree doesn’t mean anything. If you don’t believe me go loon for yourself. Its all online. It is not rocket science. I have tried to explain it a thousand times and it goes roght over yours and Bo’s head. Maybe my explanation sucks. I don’t know. But the clause doesn’t mean what you think it does. I don’t understand why I fail so badly in getting you to see that. It is not a matter of opinion. It is objective fact.

                    3. Right. All those judges who’ve ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional under 14A don’t know what it really means either, right John?

                      Has there been one judge who agrees with you? I think there was one, IIRC. One out of wha, 15?

                    4. Those judges ruled that gaus are a protected class they didnt rule that the equal protection clause means what you say it does. Those cases are about gays. They dont overturn equal protection jurisprudence. Go read them sometime. I have

                      Some dont come out and say it. Some try to limit the case to its facts like beimg gay somehow only matters for marriage and nothing else. But that will never stand

                      Frankly Fransisco you are so misinformed about this topic it is hard to even have an intelligent conversation with you. You dont even understand the case for gay marriage. You just want your fucking pony.

                    5. Burgess’ order Sunday follows a slew of decisions issued since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor in 2013. That case overturned portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that it violated same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

                      Huh. I guess you’re right again, John.

                    6. They found it violated equal protection. That means gays are a protected class. Again you are either too dumb or too mendacious to have an intelligent conversation with about this issue.

                      If a court rules this violates equal protection that is because it found gays to be some sort of protected class. It is that simple. If you are too much a moron to understand that, i cant help you

                    7. It means gays are people, asshole!

                    8. The judge, U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, ruled that Alabama’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, known as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, violates the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.

                      Got me again!

                    9. Are you illiterate? Which par of equal protection means they Re a protected class do you not understand? You do realize every time you post those cases and act like they don’t speak to protected class you are telling everyone reading it who understands the law you are a moron?

                    10. ? In Bostic v. Schaefer, the 4th Circuit Court struck down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage, saying it infringed upon the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

                      ? In reviewing Walker v. Wolf and Bogan v. Baskin, the 7th Circuit struck down gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. Again, this court reviewed these cases in terms of the 14th Amendment.

                      Yep, you’re right. NOTHING to do with the equal protection clause.

                    11. Are you refarded? Those cases are about equal protection. That is the whole point. That means gaus are a protected class. You seem to have missed the entire point of the discussion. You really are thos stupid. Go away so Jesse and I can talk. You are not up to being at the adult table.

                    12. Yeah, John. If the equal protection clause applies to a group of people, they become a protected class and private businesses need to bake them cakes on demand. You are a moron.

                      In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered “Protected Classes” by Federal law:

                      Race ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
                      Color ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
                      Religion ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
                      National origin ? Civil Rights Act of 1964
                      Age (40 and over) ? Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
                      Sex ? Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
                      Pregnancy ? Pregnancy Discrimination Act
                      Citizenship ? Immigration Reform and Control Act
                      Familial status ? Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
                      Disability status ? Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
                      Veteran status ? Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
                      Genetic information ? Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

                      Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state’s law.

                    13. Yes now the courts have added gays to the list. God you are stupid

        2. Gay marriage is all about the ability if gays to use government force to make people accept their unions.

          Not at all. Gay marriage is primarily about legal protections and financial benefits for two adults.

          The whole piint is to make sure anyone who objects does so at risk of liability or jail. The bakery in Colorado being run out of business is the whole point.

          The bakery in Colorado would have been in trouble even if they discriminated against a gay couple in a private ceremony, so that issues has nothing to do with “gay marriage”, it has to do with non-discrimination laws.

          Social conservatives are hypocrites on such laws, because they generally don’t put religious anti-discrimination laws on the table. That is, churches and social conservatives want to continue to receive privileges and special legal protections, while denying other groups of people the same kind of status.

  21. Remember Libertariians you have neverade a dime’s worth of differemce on any issue eccept flr this one. You have never made a single person more free but you did contribute to some business who held politically incorrect views getting sued out of business. You may not have intended that but hey at least you did something and you hate those people anyway right?

    1. John, how many drinks have you had? I hope you have a ride home.

      1. Not a one. I hope you look yourself in the mirror and stop rationalizing and lying to yourself. You are better than this.

      2. Go look those people who lost their business up. They are the one Libertariian success story in all of history.

        1. I assume you mean the cake people.

          Yes, John, they lost their business because of gay marriage.

          There isn’t a libertarian on these boards who thinks a business should be forced to serve anyone against their will.

          But go ahead. Conflate two separate issues if it allows you to continue to sleep at night. Fucking bigot!

          1. Every Libertariian knew public accommodation laws wee not going anywhere and gay marriage was going to result in that and supported gay marriage anyway. They own the forseable results of their positions. If they cared about this happening they would have supported gay marriage only on the condition the public accommodation laws were repealed first. But they didnt because they didn’t really care about the people like that. And they need to be honest and admit that. Gays mTter more than the people who owned that bakery.

            1. Dude, you know that there have been non-discrimination ordinances since at least the ’70s for sexual orientation, no?

              I find it weird that you’re so obsessed with marriage somehow augmenting these laws when there’s no evidence that that’s the case. That these lawsuits under one law might be more common because more people are looking for wedding services under a different law does not seem like good legal justification for not having the second law.

              1. They wouldnt have been able to invoke those laws without gay marriage. If they didnt want a wedding cake but a birthday cake sure they could sue. But no one could have a religious objection to that. It is only marriage

                Be happy Jesse. You can now sue anyone that doesnt like you. Doesnt that make you feel happy? You can now smite your enemies and drive them underground and into bankruptcy.

                1. That again ignores that in NM the lawsuit was over a commitment ceremony not a wedding in a state where gay marriage was illegal. It isn’t the difference between a state-sanctioned marriage and a birthday it’s the difference between a non-state-sanctioned commitment ceremony and a state-sanctioned marriage. I believe that case is more damning to your point as you seem to think the bakery case is damning to the idea that gay couples are legitimately seeking equal protection under the law.

                  1. The NM case is about public accommodations. Yeah even civil unions produce harm though not as often. The colorado case is different because it was about marriage

                    The larger issue is that once SCOTUS declares gays to be a protected class under equal protection, every civil rights and public accommodation law will cover gays. You can’t consistent with the 14th amendment outlaw discrimination against some protected classes but not all. So protection of gays will be read into those statutes. That was always the end game of gay marriage litigation.

                    1. The NM case is about public accommodations.

                      ALL of these cases, the Washington florist, the Colorado baker, whatever, are about public accommodation and only public accommodation.

                      As far as I can tell there was no legal recognition of the relationship in the Willock case. It was purely a legally non-binding commitment ceremony.

                      That was always the end game of gay marriage litigation.

                      I think you’re being dramatic and ignoring that most gay men and women are looking to not have to navigate multi-state variables when adopting a child, writing a will or going on vacation. I think it’s easy for straight opponents of gay marriage to say “oh it’s just a few contracts” but when there’s inconsistent enforcement of those contracts across state lines it can become a mess.

                      I think I’ve mentioned before that my very conservative Christian mother is in financial services and had a couple of gay clients. For insurance she’d have to figure out the laws for the state the insurance company was incorporated in, deal with nuances of CA law (during the prop 8 era) and the couples had to factor that into retirement plans (such as moving to a more retirement friendly state like NM). She very quickly changed her mind on gay marriage.

              2. Jesse you benefit from this. If someone says so much as a word about your lifestyle you can sue them. It is no different than a racial slur. Fo forth amd sue Run those people out of society. A lot of people worked hard to give you that power. Use it.

                1. I’d have to check CA law but I’m pretty sure someone can scream faggot at me all day long without it being a hate crime, now if they screamed faggot at me while bludgeoning me with an aluminum bat that could quickly change.

                  1. Jesse if they do it at your work or if you are st their business you can. You are about to hit the gravy train your boss willl now be terrified of firing you and any time you dont get a job or promotion you can sue.

                    1. Hahaha, my employer is already terrified of firing me. I’m the only one in the office who knows how to reset the voicemail passwords when he locks himself out every few weeks.

                      I also manage all of his passwords.

                      None of these things sound even vaguely appealing to me. If I get fired I’ll assume it’s because I have enough free time to post on PM Links (although less so lately). Litigiousness is for angry people or people who have been harmed in some way. I don’t have the energy to be that angry.

                  2. Jesse if any employee of any business makes you angry or feel uncomfortable, sue the fuckers for discrimination. Its the Libertarian way now.

            2. Yeah John, and we shoulda made them niggers ride in the back of public transportation until we got rid of the public accommodation laws first as well, right, John?

              You are a disgusting little man.

              And you show me ONE FUCKING PERSON here who is in favor of forcing that bakery to bake that cake. ONE!

              You are a shit weasel.

              1. You seem to be. You just compared it to Jim Crow. It doesnt matter whether you like it. You helped make it happen just because you dont like it does relieve you of the responsibility for doing so. That is all you are claiming here. You just think because you don’t like the consequences of your position you are somehow not responsible for them. Sorry responsibility doesn’t work that way

            3. John,

              You knew this stuff would happen when you favored marriage among blacks. Bakers would have to make wedding cakes for black weddings. Even racist bakers. That was the whole point, right? And yet you still are in favor of blacks getting married. WTF?

              If you’ve answered this objection above, I apologize. Basically, it seems you are saying that making laws generally applicable, we get all the negative effects that go along with that expansion. Thus more liberty is sacrificed in favor of equality. And your response is that we should not equally provide protection of the law, thereby sacrificing fairness in favor of a net increase in liberty?

              If that is your argument, I’m wondering how far it goes. Should the franchise be strictly curtailed, as well? If black voters, for example, as a group, vote for candidates which contract overall liberty, should their ability to vote be stripped? What about black marriage, in the question above? And so forth.

  22. And you show me ONE FUCKING PERSON here who is in favor of forcing that bakery to bake that cake. ONE!

    No one’s stupid enough to do that. But several posters here have played down the incident, and it’s even been openly mocked.

  23. **Happy valentines day**
    Google is paying 98$ per hour! Just work For Few hours & Spend more time with friends and family. On Sunday i Bought Themselvers a Alfa Romeo from having made $18543 this month.
    Useful Site === == == http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  24. Caden. I just agree… Patrick`s st0rry is astonishing, last tuesday I got a top of the range Land Rover Defender sincee geting a check for $6814 this last 4 weeks and in excess of 10k last month. it’s certainly the coolest job Ive had. I actually started……………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  25. Roll that beautiful bean footage lol.

    http://www.AnonVPN.ga

  26. Government should get out altogether and just make it a contract between any consenting adults. But what I don’t get and don’t like is that when it comes to taxes, it could be argued that single people pick up the tab for what married couples leave when it comes to taxes. If the government says “we need x amount in taxes” and then decides certain people owe less due to being recognized as married, then the taxes they don’t get from them have to come from elsewhere. Well, not all taxes that are taken in are even remotely what it should actually cost, the cost is actually much lower, but government is more likely to raise taxes to compensate, which means those who can’t or won’t take advantage of getting married can be hurt most by it.

    This isn’t to say that the taxation is particularly legitimate, but we are left with a conundrum. Either give as many people the opportunity to marry the person or people of their choice and have their marriage recognized when it comes to tax time, or ignore marriage status entirely. The former helps more people, though raises the tax burden on single people even more harshly while the latter ultimately “hurts” no one.

    1. Ideally, I would vastly prefer the latter, as it isn’t fair to tax somebody more just because they haven’t gotten hitched than somebody who has. But if we’re going to do so, people should be able to have their marriages recognized as long as the people involved are consenting adults. It seems a bit hypocritical that most people that seem to be against recognizing gay marriage are people that are heterosexual, they can marry somebody they love or are attracted to (and have it be recognized for benefits), and yet they want to withhold such benefits from others.

      Ultimately I do disagree with getting married just for financial benefits. I’ve seen too many people get married to be recognized only to find they were incompatible. I understand that many religious people and conservatives feel that marriage benefits society and children, but I feel that children going through their parents divorcing hurts them more than if their parents were unmarried. Such tax breaks were designed to encourage marriage and it has done so, but also it has resulted in more divorce. I am not saying that marriage is bad or should be regulated, just that if people married not out of influence of tax breaks, less people would get married and less people would get divorced. But it really should be a contract plus whatever ceremony or lack thereof the relevant individuals want.

  27. ** Happy Valentines day all of you **
    My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998,
    If you are interested,
    Visit this web-site…….
    ———- http://www.Workvalt.Com

  28. Gay marriage causes no more problems than the absence of gay marriage caused, and it’s the perfect political issue for this reason, full of sound and fury while signifying nothing. Diverting attention from the next trillion dollar imposition with this sort of issue is every politician’s wet dream.

  29. So let’s see, we have:

    1. Libertarians are simultaneously the most irrelevant and the most powerful political force in this country. It is only by the whims of our true intent, which has finally been unmasked, and the power of our Illuminati-like dominance of politics that gay marriage came to fruition yet public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws still exist.

    2. Contract-based marriage is bad because it would make couples have to work out all of those niggling little details upfront. Instead, the family and divorce courts, with their proven record of being fair and just to all parties involved, should be the arbiters of the terms of marriage.

    3. Contract-based marriage is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will never gain any traction, but it is a completely realistic possibility that people will start taking marriage vows more seriously and adhere to them more strictly while marriage is a state-sanctioned institution subject to democratic approval.

    4. Libertarians who defend gay marriage on equal protection grounds are secret liberals who don’t really care about freedom of association. Yet do not dare accuse anyone who opposes contract-based marriage–the ideal solution to so many problems–of being secret social engineers who really just want state-sanctioned marriage to exist but be limited to heterosexual couples.

    Truly, this issue brings out the best in people.

    1. Good summary.

      I think it also illustrates how similar the reasoning of social conservatives is to that of progressives.

  30. I think I need to reevaluate my opinion that marriage equality will harm no one. We are clearly on the brink of a John aneurism. Will someone keep an eye on him?

  31. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $12600 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.

    http://www.gowork247.com

  32. my classmate’s mom makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $16174 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here……………
    ????? http://www.navjob.com

  33. Why doesn’t this fool spend his time trying to improve funding for wounded veterans’ care so that they don’t have to put out a begging bowl on TV every day? Those TV ads are a disgrace. Is there a single wounded veteran in Texas who is better off because of this fool’s crusade against gay marriage? Send him back to Calgary, Alberta, Canada where he was born.

  34. I am actually a supporter of Gay marriage and divorce but I am not happy with the federal government constantly gaining more power from the States. The federal government was supposed to have very limited power.

  35. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  36. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.