Gay Marriage

Polls Show More and More Support for Gay Marriage. Will GOP Candidates Let It Go?

Rand Paul continues trying to thread the needle with "private contract" argument.

|

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has support for gay marriage recognition in the United States at its highest point yet, with 59 percent giving the thumbs up. Support for gay marriage has nearly doubled over the course of just a decade:

Wall Street Journal

 

So the big remaining unknown about gay marriage will be how prospective Republican candidates are going to be dealing with it during the primaries. The Wall Street Journal notes that the core of the Republican Party is still reluctant to embrace the change:

However, the issue still poses some risk to GOP candidates facing a spirited presidential primary. Among core Republican voters — the party's most committed followers — opposition is far stronger, with only 29% saying they support gay marriage.

When Republican primary voters were asked in the new survey how their view of candidates would be affected by support for gay marriage, 50% said it would make them less favorable to candidates, 19% said it would make them more favorable.

Those Republican poll numbers contrast with a previous poll that showed a slight majority of Republicans in early primary states found opposition to gay marriage to be "unacceptable" in a candidate. Washington Post writer Aaron Blake may have been right after all when he worried that the wording of the questions in the previous poll was too confusing.

A few days ago Sen. Rand Paul was interviewed by Fox News and asked to explain his position on gay marriage. He stuck to his guns that he personally thinks marriage should be between a man and a women but the entire fight could be avoided or dealt with by allowing for contracts between adults:

He said the idea of gay marriage "offends" him and some others, so you can guess which part of his response ended up in headlines. But notice something interesting in this coverage of Paul's comments over at gay magazine The Advocate: It engages with Paul's libertarian leanings and his idea of marriage as a private contract. I've noticed in a couple of other gay (nonlibertarian) blogs as well that actually address the full concept of what Paul is proposing, not just his personal opposition to gay marriage.

Is this significant? Typically Paul is lumped in with other conservatives by liberal or progressive gay marriage supporters, the nuances of Paul's positioning lost. But that's not quite what's happening this time, headlines aside. This isn't like the time the Human Rights Campaign completely mischaracterized his support for "traditional" marriage as support for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage recognition. The Advocate even points out that libertarians are typically much more supportive of gay marriage than Paul is showing in his interviews. I am used to seeing the "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot," refrain in gay blogs and deep suspicion that the "get government out of marriage" private contract argument is cover for some attempt to create a "separate but equal" segregation system with marriage that isn't really equal at all.  

It may well be a reflection that gay marriage is winning as an issue that everybody is paying closer attention to the complexities on the positions of those on the right. With the signaling from the Supreme Court suggesting that the fight may be over—as a legal matter, anyway—by the end of June, we may see more interest in how each Republican candidate deals with this new reality, not just by libertarians and Republicans interested in influencing the outcomes of the primaries, but by progressives and Democrats looking at who they'll be facing in 2016. Paul's policy position (as abstract as it is) may seem a lot less hostile to same-sex couples than Sen. Ted Cruz's proposed constitutional amendment to keep marriage a state issue. As such, arguments against whoever lands the GOP nomination that are targeting gay voters (or voters who are very supportive of gay issues) may need adjustments depending on who it is.

Oh, and note that Paul didn't go the federalism route with his response that states should decide for themselves, which he had argued before was a way for more conservative states to avoid recognition. That has become Cruz's position.

Advertisement

NEXT: Second SAE Video: Even the 79-Year-Old House Mother Was a Racist

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. If so many people support it, why then does anyone have to go to court to get it? Let the elections and popular preferences run their course. Other than the overwhelming fear that some city or some town somewhere might not act on the most important civil rights issue facing America since slavery, there seems to be no reason to rape the equal protection clause because you can apparently get what you want via elections.

    1. Loving was decided when opposition to interracial marriage was greater than opposition to gay marriage is today. There is enough democratic cover to give SCOTUS the go-ahead to rule in what is obviously the way required by the equal protection clause. I don’t see how this is a novel twist on it.

      1. John’s point.

        Tony’s head.

        1. What a non-comment.

      2. It’s always amusing hearing someone who generally doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the constitution, appeal to it’s authority when their particular ox is gored.

        1. So you care more about the constitution yet don’t see how equal protection applies? Or what? I like many aspects of the constitution. It’s far from perfect and could use an overhaul, but equal protections seems like a pretty enlightened idea.

          1. Tony, learn some logic.

            I very much care about the equal protection clause, but I actually buy into the broader system of constitutional constraints.

            I’m just commenting that I find it kind of funny to here people like you pretending to care about the Constitution when you only care about it when it happens to be your pet issue that is involved. You are no different then a red meat conservative going on about the constitution over guns but who is perfectly cool detaining Hispanic immigrants indefinitely without a warrant.

            If you don’t accept the general structure and logic behind of the constitution as legit, you can’t use it as an authority when it just happens to line up with your particular cause.

            1. I have two coexisting opinions on this matter: equal treatment of gay people under the law is 1) required by the constitution and 2) a good idea.

              I do not treat the constitution as sacred, and if I don’t like part of it I will say so.

              1. So shorter Tony “I like the constitution when it happens to agree with me. I wipe my ass with it whenever it doesn’t”

                1. Why am I required to love every single letter of the constitution?

                  1. Tony|3.10.15 @ 5:19PM|#
                    Why am I required to love every single letter of the constitution?

                    1) You’re obliged to acknowledge its authority, until and unless it is amended.

                    2) You should rephrase it as “I actually buy into the broader system of constitutional constraints.” … then you can ignore whatever you want, huffing and puffing with self-righteous indignation .. while making the most dumbass statement of the year (anonymously).

                    With practice, you too can become a shameless hypocrite.

                2. More from the anonymous bullshitter:

                  First says this:

                  I very much care about the equal protection clause, but I actually buy into the broader system of constitutional constraints.

                  Then after wiping his ass on the equal protection clause, he invents a broader system of constitutionl restraints, the only one allowed to do so.

                  Then, filled with self-righteous rage:

                  So shorter Tony “I like the constitution when it happens to agree with me. I wipe my ass with it whenever it doesn’t”

                  So shorter ashamed-to-show-its-name: “I like the constitution when it happens to agree with me. I wipe my ass with it whenever it doesn’t”

                  Nobody can invent such laughable irony!

                3. Liking clause “x” is separate from agreeing with it. You can still dislike something you accept as current law. Also, a lot of our “constitutional” law comes from the emanations and penumbras of Mr Justice Douglas. This could be changed by a future court decsion. For the emantions and penumbras, see Griswold v Connecticut.

                  1. I very much care about the equal protection clause, but I actually buy into the broader system of constitutional constraints.

                    You’re another self-righteous fucking imbecile, brainwashed by Ron Paul and Reason, who somehow believe that states can have powers that were never delegated. DUH.

                    The Ninth Amendment denies ALL levels of government any unenumerated powers. And, uhhh, unenumerated rights trump unenmerated powers. Ask your high school history teacher.

                  2. one more brainswashed SoCon!!!!

                    This could be changed by a future court decsion. For the emantions and penumbras, see Griswold

                    Umm, what Justice Douglas found, in a decision of the entire court, is that the penumbras and emanations include a RIGHT TO PRIVACY (gasp)

                    So we have another statist, stumbling onto a libertarian website, denying a rght to priavcy, and spewing anti-liberty bullshit.

                    “.. The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans …

                    “The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, … (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual’s constitutional right of privacy.”

                    What kind of people want the Court to overturn a right to privacy? The same folks who want to rule every moment of our private lives. If they come for me, they better be well-armed.

            2. Watch the bullshit! (anonymous)

              I very much care about the equal protection clause, but I actually buy into the broader system of constitutional constraints.

              Translation: I pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to ignore, to support mu favorite issues.

              I’m just commenting that I find it kind of funny to here people like you pretending to care about the Constitution when you only care about it when it happens to be your pet issue that is involved.

              Translation: (sorry, laughing too hard)

              If you don’t accept the general structure and logic behind of the constitution as legit, you can’t use it as an authority when it just happens to line up with your particular cause.

              Translation: Accept my bullshit because I say so — with no justification — or you’re illogical.

          2. Tony, the dumbasses must defend the bullshit federalism of Ron and Rand Paul … to maintain the delusion of a libertarian moment … even though the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (2006 Cato/Zogby Poll)

            And this page is overflowing with Liberty’s Enforcers. Like something out of Orwell.
            (I rarely agree with Tony, but Tibalism is beneath me)

    2. John, because the legislatures are not in sync with the voters. Republicans can’t win a primary if they support marriage equality, and Democrats can’t win a general election in the states which still have bans. If voters don’t have a say, then the courts are the only solution to a consitutional problem.

      If you overlay the map of the states banning mixed race couples in 1967 and same-sex couples in 2015, you will see a near match to the old Confederacy.

    3. John,

      Human and civil rights are not supposed to be SUBJECTED to popularity contests.

      Your “rape the equal protection clause” is just more frightwing hyperbole. (And gay folks get called ‘drama queens’!!!)

  2. May 3 gay males marry?

    May 3 straight males marry?

    May 2 females and 3 males form a marriage?

    May a father marry his two sons?

    May 2 trans-sexuals and 1 non trans-sexual form a marriage?

    If not, why not?

    1. Do you ever read the responses to your asinine questions?

      Did your mama drop you on your head?

      Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

      1. What if Judge Nap wrote an article about AlgerHiss? What if people responded to the questions? What if AlgerHiss acted as though he never actually read any of those responses? What would the father who married his two sons (EW! GROSS!) think?

    2. May 3 gay males marry?

      May 3 straight males marry?

      May 2 females and 3 males form a marriage?

      May a father marry his two sons?

      May 2 trans-sexuals and 1 non trans-sexual form a marriage?

      If not, why not?

      You always bring up these “points” we always answer in the affirmative to all of them and then you disappear like a fart in the wind until the next time. You post it so often as though to imply this is actually a good argument that’s a real stumper and yet still we blow it out of the fucking water every time. You’re delusional.

      1. The question is: If you agree with them, then why are you responding? I have never asked anyone that agrees to explain anything It is those that disagree that I seek an answer. If you agree, fine. I don’t care one whit why you agree.

        Delusional? You think I am being delusional by asking about these marriages? Really? It’s not delusional to talk about “same sex marriage”, but all of a sudden, it’s delusional to bring up these others?

        1. Actually yes it is.

          With any 2 party marriage the genders of the participants are actually irrelevant when it comes to adjudicating the laws surrounding marriage.

          The instant you insert a 3rd party into the marriage every existing law and legal convention that deals with marriage goes out the window.

          Everything from inheritance to divorce is tailored to a marriage consisting of exactly 2 people their genders are irrelevant. Adapting the existing laws to handle multi party marriages would be a huge undertaking and therefore no, multi party marriages are in no way shape or form analogous to gay marriage.

          That said there is certainly a moral argument that all of the above should be legal in the sense that they are not prohibited by law as some of them are today (assuming all parties fully consent and are legally and morally capable of doing so) however there is no logical reason to presume that the government should give such relationships special legal standing and they should be purely treated as private contracts and handled as such meaning that it is the responsibility of the signatories of the contract to include the terms under which the contract can be dissolved should it come to that.

          1. Oh, it’s only gender that needs corrected in marriage. All other elements are just fine. If same-gender would have only been included from the beginning, we wouldn’t be having these discussions now. They got all those other things right from the start.

            Okay. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like you’ll be agreeing with Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum on disallowing my list.

            1. Geez, I thight they were picking on you until that dumbass comment about Robertson and Santorum —

              Oh, it’s only gender that needs corrected in marriage

              You’re learning that only now?

              If same-gender would have only been included from the beginning, we wouldn’t be having these discussions now.

              He finally gets it! And also disagrees with Robertson and Santorum.
              What can we expect from someone who chooses the screenname of a convicted spy

            2. Oh, it’s only gender that needs corrected in marriage. All other elements are just fine.

              It’s a freedom of association issue and nothing in any of your posts detracts from that. The argument is; 3rd parties have no standing to dictate the terms of other people’s contracts. Address the argument for once.

    3. Alger, my answer to all is, “I certainly hope so”. Watching the Greek-mythological scale divorces would be a treat.

    4. And, again, of course they can.

      They just can’t get a state license for it.

    5. File a lawsuit, if you like. To answer your questions:

      No. At least under current law. They can challenge the bans on polygamy if they wish and see whether the law has changed since Utah joined the union.

      No. Why would this question even come up? Do you expect to find 3 straight men who wish to challenge the status quo?

      No. Separate from #1, hetero polygamy has always been abusive to women. Ask the women of the middle east, or the Fundy LDS sects. Ask the teenage men made homeless at puberty when the power-mad “husband” with multiple subservient “wives” kicks him to the street. The harm to society is clear in a legal system that values the rights and freedom or the individual. The cultural shifts to make polygamy safe and acceptable or impossible to envision in a democratic society.

      No. Marriage creates kinship (among other things). Incest is a redundant situation, and harms the family based on the number of marriages which fail.

      No. See above.

      Marriage will remain a dyad status unless some seismic culture shift occurs. Marriage by same sex couples fits a dyadic culture. None of your examples do.

  3. It is of course more than a bit ironic to hear a Libertarian publication point to the unpopularity of a position as a reason why someone should renounce it. Really?

    1. It’s just diasappointing to see all that potential support for Paul get flushed down the toilet over whats basically a state rubber stamp of something thats been going on for ever. That’s no fault of Pauls but still disappointing.

      1. I seriously doubt there was much actual support there. The progs have pretty thoroughly co-opted the gay community into an arm of the left. Gays are never supporting anything but hard leftist politics in any numbers.

        1. Gays are never supporting anything but hard leftist politics in any numbers.

          Well, with gay marriage more or less settled, there’s one less reason to blindly support Democrats. Right?

          Because I can vouch for the fact that your statement is complete bullshit. Absent Democrat pandering, gays are no more leftist than any other demographic.

          1. I wonder what Chris Barron (among others) has to say about John’s statement?

            1. What do the Spin Doctors have to do with this?

              1. Goddamn you.

          2. Absent Democrat pandering, gays are no more leftist than any other demographic.

            Presuming that “liberal or very liberal” can be taken as a proxy for “leftist” (which doesn’t seem unreasonable considering the way those terms are used in the modern context), polling indicates that’s not the case. LGBT Americans were twice as likely as non-LGBT Americans to describe themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal” and half as likely as non-LGBT Americans to describe themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” according to Gallup. Note that this question was about political attitudes. Party affiliation was addressed elsewhere in the same poll.

            1. I suspect if you remove “culture war” from consideration, those numbers would be very different.

              1. If you removed culture war from the equation, the country would be very different.

        2. Think really hard and ask yourself why it seems that all minority groups tend to significantly favor Democrats and liberal policies. Could be that only straight white dudes are smart enough to know what’s best for the country. Could be that Republicans have been consistently and openly hostile to these groups for decades. When one political party is hellbent on using you as a political bogeyman, you might question the value of their platform.

          1. Think really hard and ask yourself why it seems that all minority groups tend to significantly favor Democrats and liberal policies.

            Protected class status. Targeted pandering along ethnic lines. It’s no surprise that the culture and class warriors do well with perceived ‘minorities’.

            Could be that only straight white dudes are smart enough to know what’s best for the country.

            Think really hard and ask yourself why it seems that all countries supposedly dominated by the evil straight white men, happen to also be the most tolerant, prosperous and even-handed societies in human history. Societies that place value on gays, browns and one-legged transgender bisexuals too.

            1. And gays as a whole are not part of the free-shit brigade. Therefore, the answer to his question which is relevant to this post is “culture war”.

              1. No, it’s because the KOCHSUCKING TEATHUGLIHADISTARDIKKKANS want to put EVERYBODY that’s not like them in CHAINS!!1!1!

                /Tony

            2. It must be because straight white men are inherently superior. Now what to do about everyone else? They probably shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, just like it was when white guys were setting up all these civilizations.

      2. whats basically a state rubber stamp of something thats been going on for ever.

        You, like the Paul’s, don’t understand our constitution.

        1) States have been issuing drivers licenses for probably a century. Does that mean they have the constitutional power to do so? From where?

        2) In a nation of delegated powers, where ALL rights are either enumerated or reserved to the people, when has ANY level of government been EVER delegated ANY power over ANY aspect of marriage.

        3) What sort of libertarian believes that states possess whatever powers the STATES decide. Our Founders were not fucking stupid. That’s why they demanded the “libertarian amendment” (the 9th)

        4) What sort of libertarian believes state powers are superior to individual rights?

    2. John|3.10.15 @ 12:44PM|#
      It is of course more than a bit ironic to hear a Libertarian publication point to the unpopularity of a position as a reason why someone should renounce it. Really?

      Umm, we have this thing we call elections. The issue, phrased several times, is whether Republicans can get elected for supporting an unpopular position.

      The stupid part — and not the first time — is praising for Rand Paul doing the same thing — and covering Rand’s ass (again, and Ron’s) by never suggesting that until those contracts exist, and until tens of thousands of laws are changed … the “libertarianish” Pauls are in severe violation of individual liberties.

      Ir started with Ron. He waves his arms, slips into that whiny voice, snarls git the gummint out, and the cult libertarians say. “Amen.” And proclaim a libertarian moment,

      Got it?

  4. Sometimes you have to say what you believe and live with the political consequences. I’m sure politicians in the past went through this too once the tipping point was reached on issues like abolitionism and womens vote.

  5. The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to be involved with personal, intimate issues like that of personal, intimate relationships, so Sen. Rand is 100% correct as far as I can tell. America needs to take another look at our framework for national government, and quit being so ignorant of our own form government. Had Senators done their jobs and represented the states that they were elected to represent, would we have the health care mess that varies from state to state right now? Back to the basics America, we tried everything else so why not go back to the thing that has worked and will continue to work so long as we use it properly?

    1. The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to be involved with personal, intimate issues like that of personal, intimate relationships

      well…does your intimate personal relationship have any effect on interstate commerece? If you buy less gay porn because you’re getting manhole fix from your significant other, that has an effect on interstate commerce. Then bingo bango federal control is now “constitutional”.

      1. Wickard should be known officially as the “FYTW precedent”.

    2. FreedomYes|3.10.15 @ 12:49PM|#
      The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to be involved with personal, intimate issues like that of personal, intimate relationships,

      Umm, it forbids ALL levels of government from doing so, See 9th Amendment.

      so Sen. Rand is 100% correct as far as I can tell.

      He’s 100% wrong to anyone who know the ENTIRE Bill of Rights,

      America needs to take another look at our framework for national government, and quit being so ignorant of our own form government.

      When will you start?

      Back to the basics America, we tried everything else so why not go back to the thing that has worked and will continue to work so long as we use it properly?

      A wise man coined this phrase: “Repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome is the definiiton of insanityt”

      Reagan’s New Federalism was a giant step in the right direction. Libertarians (so far) have nothing at all.

  6. Please let me know when this horse has been well and truly beaten such that it will be beaten no more.

    1. At this point they’re smacking a hole in the ground where a horse used to be, but nothing gets both the left and the right more riled up than a good old gay marriage debate

      1. nothing gets both the left and the right more riled up than a good old gay marriage debate

        Well, nothing except racist fraternity chants.

  7. “It’s settled law and there’s no point in debating it anymore.” The Republicans are being given a gift by SCOTUS, if they’re smart enough to accept it.

    1. When exactly does a law become settled shitstain? When they pass the law you approve of?

      1. When the supreme court says it is.

        1. And then until it says it isn’t.

          1. And then until it says it isn’t.

            First it must be challenged. The Court has no other entry.
            You’ll learn that in high school.

            For example, do states have a constitutional power to issue driver’s licenses?

    2. Funny, up until a few years ago, it was about as well settled a law as you could find that only one man.one woman marriages could be licensed.

      1. I was supplying them with talking points. It will be settled law come June or so, and all that will be left is for you to cry some more about it.

      2. Funny, up until a few years ago, it was about as well settled a law as you could find that only one man.one woman marriages could be licensed.

        Yeah, fuck the constitution and individual rights.

        Also long-settled law: slavery, women denied the right to vote, drug prohibiltion.
        Are you American?

  8. “like the time the Human Rights Campaign completely mischaracterized his support for “traditional” marriage as support for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage recognition.”

    Ah.

    Well, I guess I’m going to get to see how effective the “Hihn” filter in Greasonable is now.

    I should add ‘snicker’ to the exclude list just to be sure.

    1. The very next sentence

      The Advocate even points out that libertarians are typically much more supportive of gay marriage than Paul is showing in his interview

      Even?) They defend libertarianism against Rand Paul, so Scott thinks that’s a positive.
      And the bobbleheads nod in agreement.

      Meanwhile on planet earth, never, at any time, have states been delegated ANY power over ANY aspect of marriage. But unless and until the gummint is out of it, we have this pesky thing called a constitution. (gasp)

  9. I’m not going to pretend I know for certain what he truly believes or even what he truly meant to say in that clip, but technically what I heard in that sentence was Rand promoting the idea of “contracts … instead of calling it marriage, which offends myself [sic] and a lot of other people.” When I first heard it, before hearing the furor, I really thought he said the idea of marriage (i.e., a state-sanctioned and state-approved function with legal and tax and government implications with its terms dictated by politics and legislative whim instead of by common law) is offensive to some people. And I imagine indeed many libertarians, at least,ARE offended at the notion, for they have long promoted the notion of marriage (under that or another name) as a contract instead of as some government-based classification. Perhaps Rand was being cleverly artful in his wording there. Just a thought. Again, who knows for sure? Rand, care to clarify?

    1. Rand and his father are liberty hustlers, like Al Sharpton is a race hustler.
      They provide constitutionish justification for all the bigots to hide behind. See how often Ron is featured on Alex Jones!

      It should go without saying, especially to libertarians, that getting government out of marriage is great idea … but useless bullshit as long as the government remains.

  10. But who will speak for those Americans whose marriages are threatened with ruin by the existence of licensed unions not like their own?

    1. Fist of Etiquette
      But who will speak for those Americans whose marriages are threatened with ruin by the existence of licensed unions not like their own?

      As a general rule, satire doesn’t always play well here.

  11. The easiest and most logical solution is issuing civil unions contracts to all couples and leaving defining the term marriage to the Church. There is no way of justifying same sex marriage bans since they give married straight couple special rights like tax breaks that are denied same sex couple based on a MORAL, not legal objection. The equal protection clause makes upholding the bans impossible. When either the left or the right attempts to use the power of the government to impose a predetermined set of values on all of us, everyone’s freedom is at risk. The government has far too much power and if we do not reverse the tide, our Constitutional Republic cannot and will not survive.

    1. The easiest and most logical solution is issuing civil unions contracts to all couples and leaving defining the term marriage to the Church

      Which church? Or are Muslim couples not allowed to be legally ‘married’? What if atheists form sort of institutional equivalent of a church organization, are they suddenly be allowed to use the word ‘marriage’? The logical solution is to apply the word ‘marriage’ as a type of contract and leave the state out of it altogether, and that includes the state being able to tell people who’s allowed to use the word ‘marriage’ to describe their contract and who’s not allowed to do so.

      1. I think he’s saying that you can call your relationship/contract anything you like, but the state will only call it a union. Don’t know why that matters, but…

    2. That easiest and most logical solution was floated early in the gay marriage kerfuffle.

      It was shot down, drawn, quartered, barbecued, and fed to the pigs by the gay marriage activists.

      They don’t want legal equality, They want social acceptance, and see nothing wrong with using the State to force social acceptance.

      That’s my beef with them. I got no problem with their goals. I got a real problem with how they go about achieving their goals.

      1. It was shot down, drawn, quartered, barbecued, and fed to the pigs by the gay marriage activists.

        Of the two major ideas I’m familiar with, “civil unions” are not a solution at the federal level and “getting the government out of marriage” is not a solution that is ever going to happen in this reality.

        Is there some other logical solution that I’m unaware of that does not involve gays sitting around and patiently waiting for the rest of America to bestow upon them the rights and prviliges of marriage that they’ve always enjoyed?

      2. I got a real problem with how they go about achieving their goals.

        Through routine legal channels you’d be 100% happy to avail yourself of if ever you had a grievance you think you could rectify? Or are you suddenly a champion of democracy?

        The easiest and most logical solution is obviously the one that is coming, simple uniform equality. Separate but equal is not simpler or more logical than that. You just have a problem with gay people and you’re letting it turn you into an idiot.

      3. They don’t want legal equality, They want social acceptance, and see nothing wrong with using the State to force social acceptance.

        Gay marriage has not brought them much social acceptance, exactly the opposite.
        If you mean civil unions, they fell apart when tens of thousands of laws would have to be changed for equality.

        Back in reality, mariiage had been not become a church sacrament until 1500 years after the death of Christ.

  12. “Oh, and note that Paul didn’t go the federalism route with his response that states should decide for themselves, which he had argued before was a way for more conservative states to avoid recognition. That has become Cruz’s position.”

    When did Paul repudiate this position? Is he quietly letting federalism drop out of site as he issues soothing noises to “the base” while hoping the Supreme Court takes the matter out of his hands?

    Is he actually offering any practical suggestions to implement his preferred policy, or is he simply uttering platitudes without planning to do anything?

    1. Being fucking stupid about the Constitution ain’t gonna help libertarianism much.
      Just the notion that states have powers which have never been delegated is a horrifying concept more appropriate to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

  13. So, concretely –

    The grand jury asks you what you know about the chop-shop your boyfriend is running. You take the 5th, but the prosecutor grants you immunity and asks the question again. You invoke a “relationship privilege,” saying that the rules preventing spouses from testifying against each other should be extended to lovers of all sorts. What to do? Assuming, of course, you truly really *care* about equality.

    1. Look, these are the issues you deal with if you “deregulate” and “privatize” marriage.

      If marriage is whatever individuals say it is, then anyone can decide they’re married and refuse to testify against each other.

      Or, more plausibly, the legislatures will abolish the marital privilege entirely.

      1. If marriage is whatever individuals say it is, then anyone can decide they’re married and refuse to testify against each other.

        Nobody has proposed any such thing. “Privatizing” marriage would entail basically leaving it to contract law. Your contract documents would presumably establish the “marriage” for such legal purposes as spousal privilege, which is more or less worthless anyway.

        Or, more plausibly, the legislatures will abolish the marital privilege entirely.

        Good. They should. It’s ridiculous to make the state’s ability to compel testimony contingent on who you’re fucking.

        1. “Your contract documents would presumably establish the “marriage” for such legal purposes as spousal privilege, which is more or less worthless anyway.”

          OK, so until the privilege is abolished, extend it to anyone with a signed contract proclaiming themselves married.

          But the privilege should be repealed as unnecessary and discriminatory based on “who you’re fucking.”

          If I got your views wrong, please correct me, I’m trying my best.

          1. No, you’ve got it.

            1. How many thousands of laws must be repealed?

    2. Even if you were married instead of shacked up, the prosecutor could just drum up a charge on you, in which case your spousal privilege goes out the window since communications related to conspiracy aren’t covered.

      1. So, concretely, your answer to my question – “what to do?” – is to simply abolish spousal privilege since it doesn’t really matter.

        1. As I just addressed above, there isn’t actually any incompatibility with spousal privilege and “privatized” marriages/civil contracts. But you’re right, as I posted above, it would be a good in my opinion idea to do away with a ridiculous bit of legal lunacy that is effectively castrated in the modern legal system anyway.

          1. Look what Google found for me!

            The Australian high court abolished the marital privilege (or most of it) a few years ago, prompting this response:

            “Terry O’Gorman from the Council for Civil Liberties says the ruling overturns hundreds of years of legal practice aimed at upholding the stability of the institution of marriage.

            “”This judgement…will reverberate around the ordinary criminal law from the lowest courts in the land, magistrates and local courts, through to supreme courts in all state and territories.

            “”It is a major, major decision.”

            “He says lawyers will now be advising their clients to keep sensitive matters from their spouses.

            “”Frankly, advice that I or any other criminal lawyer would give to spouses now is that if you’re at the slightest risk of being prosecuted, say absolutely nothing to your wife or your husband at all about what might be the subject of a police or crime commission investigation because you’ll be hauled into the dock and made give evidence against your spouse,” he said.”

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…..ce/3703892

            1. And New Jersey seems to have a more robust privilege than other jurisdictions – a privilege which actually made a difference in a particular case. A husband and wife were allegedly partners in drug-trafficking, but the state Supreme Court did not allow communications between the spouses to be used as evidence.

              At the same time, the Supreme Court was so opposed to the very rule it was enforcing that it proposed a legislative amendment to overrule its own decision.

              So at least in New Jersey, the privilege still means something, for better or worse.

              http://www.nj.com/politics/ind…..rimes.html

            2. Okay? Good for Australia. From a legal perspective, there’s simply no justification for treating spousal communication differently from any other confidential communication between legally-connected parties.

              FWIW, I don’t think the state should be able to compel anyone to testify. I just don’t think spouses should get a special exemption.

              1. What about priest/penitent, lawyer/client, doctor/patient?

                1. All of those are already extremely limited, sometimes even more so than the spousal privilege. Shrinks and confessors, in particular, have increasingly been legally obligated to violate confidentiality in cases of criminality. If you’re suicidal and ever want to own a gun, for example, you should avoid disclosing one or both of those facts to your psychologist. Then there’s cases like this one.

                  But like I said, I don’t think anyone should ever be compelled to give testimony. Selectively giving out exemptions allows the state to wield an enormous amount of power and to unfairly privilege certain people or groups of people. Religious, medical and legal ethics should be sufficient to guide those practitioners in reporting crimes or testifying in court.

                  1. Ethical rules generally require lawyers to obey court orders. I don’t know what the ethical canons say about physicians. Priests are required to *disobey.*

                    But if there’s no special “privilege” for confidential communications, these folks will ethic themselves into prison. Which may give them a chance to suffer for the truth, but will reflect badly on the public for imposing the imprisonment.

                    I think your all or nothing approach will leave you with…nothing. Because they’re not about to abolish compulsory process in all cases.

                  2. The attorney client privilege is on its way to being gutted. Current law allows prosecutors to credibly threaten such annihilating penalties for regulatory violations that the enforcers routinely ask accused businesses to waive attorney-client privilege as a condition of even having a conversation about plea bargaining or settling.

                    Because actually defending the case and risking the penalties is such a non-starter, attorney-client privilege is toast.

                    In my workday as an inhouse attorney, my assumption is that if we ever need it, we won’t have attorney-client privilege.

                    1. Ah, yes, the plea-bargain exception. It works to water down the Bill of Rights, too. Thank you for this educational if chilling information.

  14. A marriage contract should be treated like any other. Each person, married or not, should be able to designate one other person as their ‘partner’ for tax, visiting or other legal purposes. So anything among consenting adults goes.

  15. One problem with such polls is that they tend to treat the issue as legalizing homosexual marriage, which in fact isn’t really banned anywhere. What is banned is official state recognition of them in the same way as it recognizes heterosexual marriages (such as for tax purposes). Meanwhile, this forced redefinition of marriage is leading to an increasing number of small businesses run by people who refuse to redefine marriage at government command and then get punished for “discriminating against gays”. This is the inevitable consequence of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas not merely to legalize homosexual behavior, but to establish it as a constitutional right.

    1. “This is the inevitable consequence of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas not merely to legalize homosexual behavior, but to establish it as a constitutional right.”

      I don’t see how that follows, as Lawrence v. Texas was based on an entirely different part of the Constitution. And while I don’t support mandating that businesses make wedding cakes for gay people, that’s nowhere near as egregious a violation of liberty as anti-sodomy laws are.

      1. He may have in your view, the case law wrong, but the point still stands. At a time when OWS was still in full swing, people everywhere celebrated that an upper-crust New Yorker, who married her wife in Canada, could (finally!) get a tax break on her spouse’s more-than million dollar property from the US gov’t.

        The problem with Lawrence v. Texas was made clear at the time. Existing amendments (as well as other law) regarding the Freedom of Association or even the ‘Right to Privacy’ were overwhelmingly ignored in favor of a cultural equality issue. Lawrence v. Texas wasn’t resolved as a police conduct issue, it was resolved as a Gay Rights issue. It was not about unifying free people around greater freedom but dividing individuals along cultural lines.

        Either way, the end result being that all the public accommodation industries (which neither case had actual bearing on) and corporations in general are less free to act as they feel, need, or want to. This trickles down, of course, because Gay Rights is actually LGBTQQIP2SAA Rights and, while Equal Protection was established to protect former slaves/African-Americans, it came to protect mixed-race couples, and now arbitrary abstract notions of gender/sexuality.

        1. A good example of this is the recent incident in which a woman went to her local Personal Fitness center and found a man-who-thinks-he’s-a-woman undressing in the women’s locker room. She objected, and they decided to cancel her membership (I hope they at least refunded the fee). The wishes of a single confused male trump the interests of all the women who don’t want men to watch them undress because of the attitude demonstrated in Lawrence and in a variety of cases since then. And that is a far grosser violation than anti-sodomy laws that were almost entirely ignored anyway.

          1. A private fitness center who cancelled a membership is a worse violation of liberty than anti-sodomy laws (and even if they were mostly ignored, one person arrested under such a law is too many)?

            1. Businesses such as Personal Fitness or (earlier) Mozilla do the bidding of the Lavender Though Police because the latter have a great deal of influence in the liberal-dominated culture. The purpose (at least partly achieved) is to make it dangerous to oppose the homofascist militants’ agenda in any way. That is a severe restriction on freedom, even if it doesn’t actually emanate from government.

              1. You’re changing definitions to suit your biases. Private businesses choosing not to associate with people who hold certain beliefs is a “severe restriction on freedom” but choosing not to associate with gay people (let alone anti-sodomy laws) isn’t? The woman had to go to a different gym, she wasn’t sent to prison. And you’re not making yourself look good using terms like “homofascist militants’ agenda” unironically.

        2. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the substantive due process part of the 14th amendment. That has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws, which are passed at the state level anyways.

          1. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the substantive due process part of the 14th amendment.

            Your missing the point, as the case is easily decided without regard to sexuality under the pre-existing due process clause. Rather than due process of the 5th and/or freedom of association of the 1st and/or search and seizure of the 4th, it was decided by due process of the 14th that was intended to guarantee slaves/black men the same speedy trial as whites.

            Lawrence v. Texas was a straight up violation of pre-existing Rights. Instead, a new legal precedent of gay (and other) culture was officially established and ordained by SCOTUS and granted rights based on law that was written for people considered as a different species when it was written.

            None of it has/had any direct bearing on public accommodation (both Lawrence and Windsor were oversteps by the government), but it is applied thusly nonetheless.

            It’s as bad, if not worse, than fabricating the ‘Right to Privacy’ when the ‘Right to Property’ and ‘Habeas Corpus’ are already well established and exist and further applying said privacy rights broadly to cover everything from abortion to wire tapping.

            1. Lawrence was based on sexual conduct, not anything to do with homosexuality specifically. That area goes back to Griswold and Loving at the very least. You’re making huge logical leaps to draw this very questionable link of causation. Again, anti-discrimination laws are made at the state level. You haven’t shown how Lawrence actually enables them beyond saying “well Lawrence was about being gay, and those laws are about being gay, clearly Lawrence caused gays to become a protected class”

      2. And while I don’t support mandating that businesses make wedding cakes for gay people, that’s nowhere near as egregious a violation of liberty as anti-sodomy laws are.

        I’m honestly not sure how to rank order these violations of liberty.

        And I’m not sure its a good idea to do so, as once you rank order them, you are about 90% of the way to subordinating one to the other.

        As so many have been eager to do. Its not uncommon for posters here to say that forced association with gay people is a price they are willing for other people to pay, if that’s the price for licensing gay marriages.

        1. Making business owners treat gays the same way they’re required to treat racial minorities is hardly as bad as making sex acts illegal.

          1. Actually, as Orwell observed, requiring specific behavior (which is what mandating approval/recognition of marriage redefinition involves) restricts freedom more than merely banning some behavior.

            1. I don’t think that was the point of Orwell. Furthermore, that distinction is often a matter of perspective – anti-discrimination laws claim to be banning the behavior of discrimination, and anti-sodomy laws could be seen as mandating sexual habits acceptable to a particular moral system

        2. By that logic, one could say the US is just as unfree as Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Iran, etc. because how can you rank our violations of liberty against theirs? Again, I’m not saying it’s ok, just that not all violations of liberty are equally bad. For one, at least in the cake example, you have the option of not serving gay people by not selling cakes at all. Furthermore, nobody is getting sent to prison over this. There’s no equivalent way out for anti-sodomy laws, and people actually went to prison over it (and still do in some countries).

  16. Will the Republican hopefuls drop gay marriage?

    Hell no, the media will simply not let them.

    They will be asked and re-asked and then asked some more about their position on gay marriage because there simply is no winning answer for a Republican to that question.

    Any hint of opposition and they will be portrayed as being rabidly anti gay costing them support among independents. Any hint of acceptance and they will be cast as maybe possibly pro gay costing them support among the Republican base. Either way, whatever answer they give will cost them votes in the general election and therefore the Media will hammer away on this question eternally until it reaches the point where the Republicans have no choice left and jettison Socons from the party

    1. Compare and contrast the grilling Repubs will get over this issue, which is tangential at best to the Presidency, to the grilling the Dems won’t get on Hillary’s email, which is directly relevant to the Presidency.

    2. They will be asked and re-asked and then asked some more about their position on gay marriage because there simply is no winning answer for a Republican to that question.

      Do you still beat your (gay) wife?

    3. Do you guys never stop whining about the meany liberal media? Jesus, that’s all conservatives ever do, whine whine whine. How about you sack up and act like the tough rugged individualists you tell everyone you are?

      1. Do you want cake?

        1. Death please. No, I mean cake!

    4. Three years ago, the media narrative was “Republican war on women” because Republican candidates for President didn’t support free birth control. If the Republicans support gay marriage, the media narrative will be “well, you don’t support ENDA or are for religious liberty laws that discriminate against gays.” The media will always push the next liberal social issue (and beat it to death) in order to make it seem like Republicans are out of touch. It’s best for Republicans to have conviction and take a stand for traditional morals. As for social conservatives being jettisoned from the Republican Party, that is a Libertarian wet dream which will never happen.

    5. You lay down with dogs, you get fleas. I want the socons out. I cannot convince reasonable people to deal with what they consider to be irrational zealots.

  17. Daniel . I just agree… Ellen `s posting is really cool, last monday I got Lexus LS400 from earning $8063 this last 5 weeks and even more than 10k last-munth . with-out any question its the most-financially rewarding I have ever done . I began this 3 months ago and pretty much straight away started making a nice minimum $86, per/hr . look here –www.TradeValt.com

  18. Oh, and note that Paul didn’t go the federalism route with his response that states should decide for themselves, which he had argued before was a way for more conservative states to avoid recognition

    Maybe he finally discoivered the 9th Amendment trumps the 10th. It was always humuliating to see anyone labeled as libertarian saying that ANY government can have powers that have never been delagated by the people.

    The again, the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. In a “libertarian moment,” despite 35 years as a majority in America, only 5.3% will accept being labeled as libertarian.
    2006 Cato/Zogby Survey

  19. uptil I saw the draft saying $5276 , I did not believe …that…my father in law had been trully earning money part-time on their laptop. . there neighbor has done this for only 16 months and just repaid the loans on there appartment and purchased a great Lancia .

    Check This Out…….. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  20. The entire issue is another example of government getting involved unnecessarily. How can we consider ourselves a free society if adults need to obtain government permission to form a personal relationship? Our constitution was written to treat everyone equally as individuals, not special rights and privileges based on relationship status.
    If it is about inheritance rights that is a legal function, register of wills.

    There should be no such thing as a government issued marriage license.

    1. Unless and until there are no more gummint licenses, does that justify gay mrriage bans as argued by Ron Paul?

    2. tlapp,

      Re: “The entire issue is another example of government getting involved unnecessarily.”

      Not so. Civil marriage is a civil contract governed by civil laws. And, it is the very job of government to establish and administer the civil laws.

      Re: “How can we consider ourselves a free society if adults need to obtain government permission to form a personal relationship?”

      It isn’t “permission”. It is a simple matter of registering the contract with the body that administers the myriad laws that ‘govern’ the 1,138 “effects that flow from marriage” (or, to use your term, “legal function[s]”. If you don’t register your “personal relationship”, the State cannot grant you the effects.

      Re: “Our constitution was written to treat everyone equally as individuals”

      Yes, it does. So why are you against LGBTQ “individuals” having THEIR Constitutionally-promised equal treatment?

      Re: “not special rights and privileges based on relationship status.”

      Sorry, but “equal” is NOT “special”.

      P.S. Wills can be challenged – all-too-often successfully by “blood relatives”. Marriage establishes legal next-of-kin status where no kinship existed previously. Smart married people (like me and my husband) have not only our marriage certificate but wills and powers of attorney as well.

  21. Oh to go back to 2004 when the gays marrying each other was a complete crisis. An argument can be made that the appearance of anti-gay marriage referenda on several battleground states’ ballots won Bush a second term. How times have changed.

    1. And, for the better.

  22. Re: “Will GOP Candidates Let It Go?”

    If they’re smart, they will. Which, of course, means they won’t. Opposing equality for SOME citizens is red-meat for “the base”.

  23. The real issue is not marriage, but the LBGT community trying to use the government to impose their value system on everyone. Any ban on same sex marriage cannot stand on a secular level because it violates the equal protection clause. However, the LBGT community is not actually fighting for “equal” rights. Oklahoma is considering a law that removes the government entirely from the institution of marriage and returns it to the exclusive domain of the church. However, the LGBT community is up in arms. When certificates of civil union for all couples are proposed, they object. They are not seeking equal rights under the law, but rather trying to use the government to force acceptance of their lifestyle. Progressives think the government should be used to force citizens to think, act and do was the State deems is proper, which means liberty is impossible. Paul is not threading a thin line, but skillfully pushing the argument out into the open.

  24. The real issue is not marriage, but the LBGT community trying to use the government to impose their value system on everyone. Any ban on same sex marriage cannot stand on a secular level because it violates the equal protection clause. However, the LBGT community is not actually fighting for “equal” rights. Oklahoma is considering a law that removes the government entirely from the institution of marriage and returns it to the exclusive domain of the church. However, the LGBT community is up in arms. When certificates of civil union for all couples are proposed, they object. They are not seeking equal rights under the law, but rather trying to use the government to force acceptance of their lifestyle. Progressives think the government should be used to force citizens to think, act and do was the State deems is proper, which means liberty is impossible. Paul is not threading a thin line, but skillfully pushing the argument out into the open.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.