History

Documentary Uniquely Nasty Chronicles the Government's Long and Cruel War Against Gay Rights

For decades, the feds would actively try to destroy the lives of homosexuals.

|

You say that like it's a bad thing.
"Uniquely Nasty," Yahoo

The Supreme Court is set to rule on Thursday, Friday, or Monday whether gay men and women can demand the government recognize their marriages under the 14th Amendment. Most folks seem to think the court will rule in favor of recognition (read my analysis of the arguments here). If the predictions hold true, that will mark the end of a huge chapter—no, really a volume—of gay activism and history.

For much of the late half of the 20th century, the American government was actively hostile toward gay and lesbian citizens. A new documentary put out on the cusp of this important Supreme Court decision serves a reminder of how the government was actively the enemy of gays and lesbians—or rather that the government was convinced that its own gay citizens were an enemy of the United States.

The years between 1950 and 1980 were a notably harsh period for gays in American society. The federal government viewed gays, especially gay men, in the same way it viewed communists: as huge threats who could destroy American society.

Gays were not just banned from working for the federal government; the government also spent huge sums of money and assigned personnel to track down employees that were suspected of homosexuality, attempt to find out the truth (or what seemed like "truth" anyway) and drive them out. It was an open, culturally approved purge, with headlines announcing how many government employees had been fired for being "sexual deviates."

A short documentary by journalist Michael Isikoff presented by Yahoo's "Viewfinder" series provides some insight into two stories of federal abuse, mostly forgotten by now. Uniquely Nasty: The U.S. Government's War on Gays tells of how the demonization of gays destroyed people's lives.

Oddly, though, the documentary's first chapter has almost nothing to do with this time period. Instead, Isikoff starts by exploring how former President George W. Bush reached out to gay conservatives during his first term, but then abandoned them as the administration turned toward anti-gay-marriage populism to help bring out the religious right vote and guarantee a second term.

There are logical reasons for Isikoff to start here. The documentary's aim is to introduce Charles Francis, a gay conservative former friend and advisor to Bush, who has since taken up duties researching the history of federal abuse of gay citizens and workers. It's Francis' work that is responsible for the stories that make up the second and third chapter.

Still, though, it's a jarring shift, after opening with snippets of outrageous claims about the evil corruptive influence of homosexuals in the government, to instead first talk about Bush and the current gay marriage fight. It—intentionally or not—blends the modern political debate with the historical political debate, and the tonal shifts are odd.

Starting with the 2004 gay marriage fight seems especially weird once we get deep into the second segment, which was how the FBI's program of ferreting out and arresting homosexuals in the 1950s led to the suicide of a sitting U.S. senator. Lester C. Hunt, a Democratic senator from Wyoming, was targeted by allies of Sen. Joe McCarthy in the Republican Party after Hunt's son was arrested for soliciting sex with an undercover male officer. They tried to drive him out of office. Instead, he ultimately shot himself at his desk in his Senate office. The story is told in Uniquely Nasty in part with the assistance of Hunt's own son, Lester "Buddy" Hunt Jr., on camera for the first time.

The second segment does a great job of highlighting just how pervasive and organized the federal government's hunt to root out gay workers would be in the 1950s and '60s. This was not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It was aggressive and predatory. J. Edgar Hoover ordered supervisors, planted in various federal agencies, to actually track accusations of homosexuality and report this information both to the FBI and to employers. Hundreds lost their jobs this way and had their reputations ruined. Hunt's suicide inspired part of the plot (altered a bit) of the Pulitzer-prize-winning book and movie Advise and Consent.

The third segment pivots to gay men and women starting to fight back against efforts by the government to destroy their careers. Did you know that in the early 1970s an openly gay man working for the U.S. Bureau of Standards successfully fought back when the government tried to fire him entirely because of his sexual orientation? The third chapter tells the tale of Charlie Baker, who sought out the help of pioneer of gay activism Frank Kameny to try to keep his job. A court ruled back then that the government couldn't just fire Baker for being gay unless it somehow affected his job performance. Baker's case has been largely lost to history, but he's still alive and married his partner earlier this year. He is interviewed for the documentary. (The piece also reminds us that the federal government at the time thought gay people could be "rehabilitated," something to remember when government officials attempt to assert control over therapeutic treatments.)

As we mull over this history in the terms of the possibly momentous decision that expected from the Supreme Court, it's easy to look at this massive change and ask: What next? Is that the whole ball game? 

It may depend on what role you think the government should play in the lives of gay men and women and their relationships with not just the government but the private sector. Gay activist Michaelangelo Signorile is already warning against too much celebration with a new book literally titled It's Not Over (subheaded "Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality"). But while libertarians and progressives have largely agreed that gay people have the right to demand the government recognize their relationships in the same fashion they recognize those of heterosexuals, there is significant disagreement over the government enforcement of policies related to sexuality and private sector entities like businesses and employers.

As such, I wanted to point out an important quote from Baker talking about his experiences of being stalked and threatened by the federal government: "What really made me angry is that they had all this power and all these people involved in this, and they were coming after me. I mean, you know, just little me. It was not fair. It was very unfair."

And now we have the reverse: We have government agencies with huge amounts of power and numerous people investigating, threatening, and fining small businesses because they don't want to provide goods or services for gay weddings. This is often how government operates. Assuming that this trend of gay acceptance continues (and there's no reason to think it won't), we should look at this and consider whether it's moral or ethical to use the government in this very same fashion to torment those who deny us cakes or flowers.

Uniquely Nasty is a breezy 30-minute documentary available online at Yahoo. Watch it here

NEXT: Freddie Gray Autopsy: 'High-Energy' Ride Killed Him

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. You know who else had a long and cruel war against gay rights?

    (There, I did it first!)

    1. Gay lefts?

    2. Che?

    3. The Democratic party, until 2012?

  2. Also, why does a gay documentary need to be described as breezy. what’s that supposed to mean?

    1. Yeah, that’s a queer choice of words.

      (starts running for the door)

      1. Always fanning the flames.

        1. Flames? Well, luv, I could use those flames to light a fag.

          Cherio.

    2. I believe it’s in reference to how short / fast-paced it is.

      1. yes, but at least he didn’t say, it’s a great cocksucker of a documentary. Or call it a puff piece, etc.

      2. Then gusty would be more appropriate.

    3. The review needed another draft.

  3. Yeah, but the government has ‘evolved.’ And the Proggie solution to prevent future government overreach and abuses? More power and more money! In spite of the government’s epic failures in the past, we can totally trust them to do the right thing from now on. Right?

    1. Unless you elect a Republican.

      The progressives have gone out of their damn mind. It’s as if they blocked all memory of what they thought under Bush out of their heads the last 7 years.

      1. Progressives necessarily need to have a short memory in order to buy into their own BS.

      2. Yes, it’s as if they assume they’ll ALWAYS be in power. And what’ll they do if we someday have single-payer health care (where all doctors and nurses work for the government) and a SoCon President decides that abortions will no longer be covered and no doctor in the US can perform one? Proggies seem incapable of any level for foresight.

        1. Yes, it’s as if they assume they’ll ALWAYS be in power.

          This is where progs and pushy religions intersect – the Kingdom will only come when everyone is a Believer.

          Until then, the failures are faults of gentiles gumming up the Divine works, and it’s up to Believers to either convert or otherwise eliminate such evils until no impediments remain to stop the untold blessings.

          1. God you people are tiresome. Be libertarians! Stop ragebonering over the fucking “progs” all the time. None of you have any interest in understanding what actual modern liberal thought is about, all you do is parrot Mark Levin and ilk. Contribute something for Christ’s sake.

            1. “None of you have any interest in understanding what actual modern liberal thought is about, all you do is parrot Mark Levin and ilk. Contribute something for Christ’s sake.”

              Oh, that’s so precious. Actually, most of the time we’re quoting Salon, Alternet, Raw Story, and the hilariously insightful pope-loving warblings of ESB @ The New Republic. is there a deeper well of Modern Liberal Thought that we’ve been missing? Please, do share. We need a new kind of laugh.

            2. This is where progs and pushy religions intersect – the Kingdom will only come when everyone is a Believer.

              Wow, Tony, way to ignore TZs compact restatement of Erich Hoffer.

              1. “Eric Hoffer,” dammit.

                1. True believers all around.

            3. I have referenced “Democracy Now” and others refer to NPR regularly.

              Did you think you were posting on a FoxNews story?

            4. What’s true for you, Tony, may not be true for other people.

            5. actual modern liberal thought

              Sometimes, a straight-line is hilarious all by itself.

              -jcr

            6. modern liberal thought

              Wesley Mouch, is that you?

              1. You must be drunk. You usually pretend that your handle was a flight of fancy and not evidence that you’re a lame-ass Randroid.

                1. My handle is a character that I liked from a book I liked. Liking AS doesn’t make me an objectivist.

                  But Rand sure nailed you social justice types. It’s like you are going out of your way to prove her point.

                  1. That book wasn’t written to be liked. It was written to slap people across the face with. People who like it are sadists (and masochists for reading it). Perhaps this all makes sense in the context of Rand’s sexual politics.

                    I’m sorry you can’t grasp the concept of an evolving political philosophy, let alone one that welcomes its own evolution. It’s understandable, you prefer the more set-in-stone varieties.

                    1. I prefer liberty…

                      …asshole.

                      You are diseased. An immoral fucking pig.

                    2. The thug

                      Francisco d’Anconia
                      You are diseased. An immoral fucking pig

                      The uninformed

                      But Rand sure nailed you social justice types.

                      Rand also nailed you bellowing goobers, by stating what should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80 or so. What was then called voluntary would be the last step, not the first step, toward a free society. The last reform, not the first, to be enacted.

                      She wasn’t big on screaming anti-gummint slogans.
                      Or thuggish aggression.

                    3. My bad. Rand was talking about voluntary TAXATION, She said, in effect, that we must change the culture first. (duh) Somebody please explain how voting works to the Paulista Cult.

      3. We never thought that because Bush was a disaster we ought to reduce the federal government to a nightwatchman state, because that would be totally insane.

        1. Yes, that would be insane because who else will punish all the straight, white guys for the crimes we had no hand in? Someone’s got to pay, and since the people responsible are long dead you have to take vengeance on anyone who looks like them. Huh?

          1. Antilles|6.23.15 @ 7:00PM|#
            Yes, that would be insane because who else will punish all the straight, white guys for the crimes we had no hand in?

            Relevance? Tony demolished the bigotry at the top of this subthread.

            True or false:
            The hated “proggies” attacked Dubya’s abuses of power.
            But who now defends those disasters? Or never read what those fuckups were, in their own tribal journals?

            Tribalism runs rampant across the spectrum, including libertarians (gasp)

            What was the biggest fuckup in:
            1) Bush tax cuts?
            2) Medicare Prescriptions?

  4. Documentary Uniquely Nasty Chronicles the Government’s Long and Cruel War Against Gay Rights

    Which are totally different than the other, gloomier rights.

    1. what year is it?!

    2. My gay apparel is covered under the first amendment.

      1. Mine’s under my trousers.
        Joke, I’m not gay,
        NTTAWWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!

    3. Which are totally different than the other, gloomier rights.

      And when the extreme socons piss and moan that “marriage” is not in the Constitution .. they’re saying that NO level of government has EVER been delegated ANY power to define, control or regulate marriages. (duh)

      Then they say they’re constitutional conservatives. Yeah, in the same way Orval Faubus was

  5. One of the hallmarks of government is that it always likes to have classes of people to pick on. Since many of the people who go into government are doing it for the power over others that it gives them, it is inevitably going to be abusive towards groups–especially minority groups, because they have much less voting power as a block–because it can, and because many of the individuals who joined did so at least partly to treat people like shit.

    Gays have long been one of those groups, but that seems to be shifting. But the problem is, with government, this is sort of a zero-sum game. If gays get out from the “pick on them” ghetto, someone is going into it instead, because the government wants targets. Of course, there is one way to improve this situation for everyone: have a smaller government. Or, you know, none.

    1. hahahahaHahahahahahah!

      Let me know if that argument EVER works on someone who doesn’t already agree with it.

      1. I’ll be so stunned myself that I might forget to let you know, but I’ll try.

    2. Eddie concurs in this opinion, except for the final sentence.

    3. I’d suggest the left has moved christians into the pick-on-me ghetto. Exactly as happened here. Gays were picked on (read not allowed to get married) before, so now it’s ok to harass business owners for not making cakes or whatever for gay marriages.

      1. What does that have to do with Christians?

        Do you think the Muslims are going to be lining up to make gay cake?

        The pooooor abused Christians…

        1. Do you think attention seeking activists will actually try with Muslims?

          1. Yes. It’s already happened. http://louderwithcrowder.com/h…..im-bakery/

          2. Of course they won’t. Then they’d have to choose which kind of bigot they are. Are they Islamophobes for pointing out that Muslims aren’t pro-homosexual. Or are they homophobes for saying that Muslims shouldn’t have to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Not to mention the possibility of being killed by Muslim fundamentalists for offending them with such a ploy.

        2. What does that have to do with Christians?

          It was a well-publicized story. It’s fucked that leftists preach acceptance and then don’t accept christians’ running of their own businesses. Have christians historically had it easy? Sure. Does that mean some sort of reparation is in order? Hell no.

      2. Now they pick on visible users of nicotine, who such a short while ago were the sympathetic victims of the evil tobacco cos., who didn’t use to be so evil either.

        They don’t seem to pick on pipe smokers, though, because smoking a pipe is something a stereotypic intellectual does. It’s still illegal wherever cigarette, cigar, or hookah smoking is, but the people doing smoking pipes aren’t vilified. I don’t think they’re giving vaping a chance to pick up the cachet of pipe smoking.

        1. My Brooklyn neighborhood is lousy with hookah joints. You can’t smoke cigarettes in any of them, of course. I’ve given up trying to understand the logic.

    4. Just remember if you are in a room with a bunch of people and you don’t know who ‘that guy’ is….it’s probably you.

  6. The third chapter tells the tale of Charlie Baker, who sought out the help of pioneer of gay activism Frank Kameny to try to keep his job.

    Was he paying for working? Was he the actual owner? No?

    Then he can go fuck himself. Jobs belong to employers. NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY, has the right to a job. I don’t care how noble the fight; the ends do NOT justify the means and NOTHING justifies that gross violation on property rights. I can fire you for being stupid or being gay. Why would you care? It’s NOT your money, it’s MINE.

    Fuck them Marxians.

    1. But you didn’t build that!

    2. It’d still be nice to keep the job, and/or not be dismissed for such a stupid reason.

      And the employer in this case is the federal government.

    3. He worked for the government, so everything you just said doesn’t apply.

      1. Re: Apatheist ojos,

        He worked for the government, so everything you just said doesn’t apply.

        It is later government who imposes policies derived from those cases on the rest of us. The idea that jobs are a right stem directly from the kind of attitude this guy showed.

        1. He had a right not to be discriminated against for being gay by the government and had every reason to fight for that. Full stop.

          1. Re: Apatheist ojos,

            He had a right not to be discriminated against for being gay by the government

            That pertains to the application of the law when it comes to individual rights. The Equal Protection Clause is explicit in this. But a job is not a right. Nevertheless, he won. We [taxpayers] got fucked from behind. We’re all gay now. End of Story.

            1. So you think the government should be able to discriminate in it’s hiring/firing practices on the basis of race/gender/sexuality/etc. and preventing that is fucking the taxpayers?

              1. Re: Apartheid ojos,

                So you think the government should be able to discriminate in it’s hiring/firing practices on the basis of race/gender/sexuality/etc.

                The government shouldn’t have employees at all, period. Public service is supposed to be a vocation, not a job.

                But whatever. The guy won. The government suddenly discovered gays were a “protected” class with the right to someone else’s money and lawyers across the country rejoiced. We got fucked. End of story.

                1. The government shouldn’t have employees at all, period. Public service is supposed to be a vocation, not a job.

                  Well I agree with you on that, but if the government is employing people then it shouldn’t discriminate, just like the government shouldn’t license marriages but if it is going to then it should not discriminate.

                  This is a totally separate issue to from laws about employment by private actors. And of course, gays aren’t a protected class at the federal level. So I have no idea why you think this guy has anything to do with what you are talking about.

            2. A job is not a right, but there can be a right not to be fired for being gay. It’s perfectly acceptable in a decent modern country.

              What you’re arguing is that job owners have no responsibilities as job owners. That’s a choice we are under absolutely no obligation to make.

              1. “What you’re arguing is that job owners have no responsibilities as job owners.”

                “Job owners”?!

                WTF is a job owner?

                There’s no substantive difference between employers and employees. The only difference is the medium of exchange. Employers pay in cash. Employees pay in time and effort.

                The idea that the government should prohibit employees from quitting their jobs because they don’t like their bosses–for whatever reason–would be awful. And there’s no substantive difference between doing that to an employee and what you’re saying you want to do to employers.

                …no matter what new term your handlers taught you this week.

                “Job owners”!

                LO freakin’ L!

                1. Job owners? Damn ambien hangover lasts all day.

                  There’s no substantive difference between employers and employees. The only difference is the medium of exchange. Employers pay in cash. Employees pay in time and effort.

                  There is a substantive difference: one can destroy the livelihood of the other and not vise versa. That’s what you get in a system of ruthless capitalism, and it’s why people have found it necessary to implement worker protections. You want unfettered contractual labor? I’ll go along with it once everyone gets a government check to meet basic needs or government provides work for everyone who can’t find a job, perhaps because his community has labeled him deviant. These protections are especially necessary in such an environment. A capitalism that systematically excludes a race or sexual orientation is not providing them with its boundless benefits, is it? It’s on its face an argument for its failure.

                  1. “There is a substantive difference: one can destroy the livelihood of the other and not vise versa.”

                    I suspect you’ve never worked for a company whose success depended on competing for talent.

                    Do you work for the government?

                    1. I suspect you’ve never worked for a company whose success depended on competing for talent.

                      Perhaps you’ve not spent much time in this country lately, but things are quite nicely engineered so that most workers are begging for jobs that don’t pay them anything.

                    2. “Perhaps you’ve not spent much time in this country lately, but things are quite nicely engineered so that most workers are begging for jobs that don’t pay them anything.”

                      That is absolute garbage.

                      https://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

                      You have no idea what you’re talking about.

                      Your whole world view consists of nothing but platitudes with no factual basis.

                      Look at the tables.

                      Here we are against other countries:

                      http://tinyurl.com/psdhjyn

                      You have no idea what you’re talking about.

              2. in a decent modern country.

                You sound like a fucking Rand villain.

                What the fuck does being decent and modern have to do with jack shit? Do rights change based upon how modern your country is?

                1. Do rights change based upon how modern your country is?

                  Absolutely. As societies get better, they establish more rights for people. That’s how you describe a society getting better. Contrary to what you guys seem to think, a list of rights for all humans for all time, never to be amended, was not shat out by the universe one day.

                  1. Rights are infinite and unenumerated dipshit, there is not list except the one you want the gov to make for you.

              3. Is there a right not to be fired for being a Christian?

                1. Is there a right not to be fired for being a Christian?

                  Well there are laws, and unlike with the gays, this is true in every state and at the federal level.

                  But of course they are in fact right infringing rather than protecting laws.

            3. We [taxpayers] got fucked from behind. We’re all gay now. End of Story.

              More like the end of rational thought.
              With a dose of hysteria.

    4. Except that the employer is the government, which supposedly exists for the sole reason of protecting our rights. Or something.
      However, homosexuality was very frowned on by society at the time, and it is not illogical to suspect that a gay federal employee would be susceptible to blackmail by a foreign government.
      The fact that the government helped foster this attitude towards homosexuality in no way invalidate the government’s position that gay people were at higher risk of being blackmailed.

    5. “Did you know that in the early 1970s an openly gay man working for the U.S. Bureau of Standards successfully fought back when the government tried to fire him entirely because of his sexual orientation? ”
      So there was no “owner” he worked for the government. They had no right to fire someone for their prejudices when they supposedly work for all of us.

  7. Gay and heterosexual only became identifiable groups with the advent of psychology. Before that, sex outside of marriage, gay sex, and even too much sex inside of marriage was all considered more or less the same thing–deviant sexual behavior.

    Discrimination against gay people began and was rooted in average people’s refusal to recognize other people’s right to make choices about their own sexual proclivities, and discrimination against gay people started to die when average people started recognizing and accepting other people’s right to make their own choices about their own sexual proclivities.

    What the Supreme Court says about gay marriage later this week is a footnote, What people like Boy George, Freddie Mercury, Rob Halford, and David Bowie did was far more important. It’s important for all of us non-gay people to keep that in mind. Freedom doesn’t come from the top down–on any issue. It has to come from the bottom up. The politicians and the courts are always the last ones on board.

    1. It happened that way with segregation, too. Once white girls started shaking their tail-feathers to Little Richard, Jim Crow didn’t stand a chance. It’ll happen that way with legalizing marijuana–and everything else, too. The politicians and the courts have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the people at large to give us our freedom. The solution isn’t to elect libertarian politicians. It’s to evangelize our friends and family and spread the libertarian gospel. Once we get a critical mass of people on our side, the politicians of whatever party will fall all over themselves to do what we want.

      If they can get gay marriage recognized, anything can happen. We can do anything.

      1. While inspiring, I’m not sure this means we can do *anything*… Unfortunately, a very large number of gay rights supporters do not have libertarian principles in mind. I’ll bet diamonds to doughnuts that through the statutes and tax exemptions, etc., that we end up with a larger government after all of this. Practically nobody was calling for government to get out of marriage altogether, simply to expand it.

        1. Like I said if THEY can get gay marriage recognized, WE can do anything.

          If you’d asked somebody in 1984 which would happen first, legal recognition for gay marriage or the abolition of the income tax, almost everyone would have said the abolition of the income tax.

          The thought that gay marriage would ever get legal recognition in this country was literally laughable–as in, if you said you thought that would ever happen in your lifetime, average people would literally laugh at you.

          1. Yes we can!

            Wait….

          2. If you’d asked somebody in 1984 which would happen first, legal recognition for gay marriage

            “You mean a real gay marriage or a gay marriage like an episode of 3’s Company or Bosom Buddies where a guy has to ‘marry’ a guy to keep up the charade that they’re gay?”

            1. I mean average people would laugh at your for suggesting that any government would allow or recognize two guys getting married.

              They thought that was as crazy then as we think the government recognizing a guy marrying his dog would be today.

              The world has changed dramatically since then. In 1984, California was solidly Republican. In 1984, California, Massachusetts, New York, and Hawaii all voted for Ronald Reagan.

              1. In 1984, California, Massachusetts, New York, and Hawaii all voted for Ronald Reagan.

                I’ll grant you California but the other three are not evidence of massive change since they were Dem states before and only went Republican due to a terrible performance by Mondale.

                1. When an incumbent wins 49 of 50 states like that, it isn’t because the challenger did a terrible job. It’s because the incumbent totally kicked ass!

                  1. Whatever. If you weren’t such an idiot you should have pointed to Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Iowa or Wisconsin.

                    1. Well, obviously, if you called me an idiot, and I could have pointed to other states, too, then I must be wrong.

                    2. Let’s see the only times Hawaii voted Republican was in 1972 and 1984. And the only Republicans to win Massachusetts since Coolidge were Eisenhower and Reagan. And only three times since Eisenhower has New York gone Republican were in 1972 and Reagan. So these three states going Republican in a huge Republican landslide is hardly evidence of some massive shift.

                    3. What are you trying to prove and why?

                    4. Don’t bother, Ken.

                    5. Saying that Reagan was able to carry some Democrat states in a fluke is not a good example of “anything can happen”. Maybe you should have used Vermont.

                    6. Sorry you specifically said the fact that they voted Republican in 1984 but not now is evidence of some massive shift. Erm well they didn’t vote Republican much before then either. Vermont would be a better example. Solidly Democrat now but only voted for a Democrat once until 1992

                    7. Ah, so you’re mad because I said something that might have been construed as good about Reagan?

                      You and Bo should go bowling.

                      “Saying that Reagan was able to carry some Democrat states in a fluke is not a good example of “anything can happen”. “

                      My point wasn’t that because Reagan carried some traditionally Democrat states, that means anything can happen.

                      My point was that if gay rights can move as far as they have, then libertarians can do anything.

                      Opposition to gay rights was by no means a solely Republican issue. From Clinton to three and a half years into Obama’s term, using the government to discriminate against gays is something that both the Republicans and Democrats were enthusiastic about doing–right up until it became an unpopular thing to do with a critical mass of voters. If gay rights people can change the minds of that many voters, then there is no issue that libertarians can’t have similar success with over time.

                      And flailing about Reagan doesn’t change anything.

                    8. Ah, so you’re mad because I said something that might have been construed as good about Reagan?

                      What? No.

                      My point was that if gay rights can move as far as they have, then libertarians can do anything.

                      Sorry but I don’t buy some mushy headed thinking. Do Obama, Hitler and Stalin prove that libertarians can win too?

                    9. “Sorry but I don’t buy some mushy headed thinking. Do Obama, Hitler and Stalin prove that libertarians can win too?”

                      I think Hitler has far worse prospects in the future than gay rights did just after the Stonewall riots. Most unpopular dude ever.

                      I don’t see why you think Obama’s odds of getting elected were worse than gay rights? Do you mean because he’s black?

                      Anti-miscegenation laws went out the window decades ago, but laws against gay marriage are still on the states’ books. I guess I’m not surprised to see a black president before gays get the right to get married. We integrated the armed forces before being openly gay was acceptable in the military, too. Even in 1984, seeing a black president before gay marriage was legal was entirely likely. With Jesse Jackson in the campaign in 1984 as part of the National Rainbow Coalition, some people might have even thought the first black President would be Jesse.

                      Stalin might have more chance at persuading some people to support him than the gay rights people did shortly after Stonewall. All the more reason to push libertarian ideas on our friends and family.

                    10. Umm, both Reagan and Goldwater were openly (and defiantly) defending gays in the late 1970s. Reagan began his 1980 campaign as one of America’s strongest defenders of gay rights. He was the deciding factor in defeating an initiative to ban gay school teachers.

                      His op-ed, unusually blunt for him, was a stick into the eye of the Moral Majority that he and Goldwater opposed. Said homosexuality was NOT a choice (gasp). Gay teachers are no threat to our kids because homosexuality is not communicable “like measles.” That was the first defeat for the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, which soon collapsed. Brought down by Reagan (directly) and Goldwater (indirectly)

                      The extreme socons then infiltrated the GOP apparatus, after Goldwater had called them a threat to his party, and famously stated, “Every Christian should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass.” Socons late began infiltrating the libertarian movement, capturing a small but vital part.

            2. Um…Bosom Buddies was about two straight guys pretending to be women to live in an all female apartment building.

              1. My mistake, I thought they were straight guys being (pretending to be??) transvestites to demonstrate the suffering and social injustice heaped upon the oppressed minority.

                Either way, the mere suggestion of even being slightly askance sexually/genderally was such a crushing social taboo sitcoms classic comedies were made that used it as major plot/scene/gag elements.

                1. Francisco is correct. They needed to move into an affordable all female complex, amusingly named the Susan B Anthony Hotel, after their original apartment burned down or something. Lotsa great gender and cross-dressing humor, launched the career of Tom Hanks.

          3. If I had said to somebody in 1984 “In the future there will be only one superpower. And that country will monitor private communications of all citizens, molest people before boarding airplanes, try to reshape other nations in their image, and boarder agents will harass citizens 100 miles inland” they would’ve asked me how the Soviets won.

            1. Anything can happen so that means you will get what you want, right, right?

            2. +1. (Didn’t Orwell kinda say that in 1984?)

            3. and boarder agents

              Wouldn’t boarding of Border Patrol agents violate the Third Amendment?

              Are we that far gone? Have we lost the Third?

          4. Ken shultz
            Like I said if THEY can get gay marriage recognized

            Even though NO level of government has EVERY been delegated ANY power to be involved with marriage at all.

      2. If they can get gay marriage recognized, anything can happen. We can do anything.

        Shorter Ken: Clap your hands if you believe!

        1. That’s not naive.

          Gays just after Stonewall had shorter odds than libertarians do on any issue I can think of.

          And now it looks like they’re about to get their rights some Supreme Court protection.

          If they can do that, anything we want is achievable.

          Personally, I’d like to get rid of the income tax. Most destructive, socialist, authoritarian aspect of our government. Worse than the Drug War, in some ways–because drug dealers can mostly avoid paying income tax!

          There are a lot more people negatively impacted by the income tax than there were by laws against gay marriage, too. Should be an easy fight compared to what gays went through.

          1. Don’t bother Ken. He sees the libertarian moment happening and it’s killing him.

            1. Do really think Francisco that getting rid of the income will be that easy?

              If Rand gets elected in November and is able to push some libertarianish reforms through and get re-elected in 2020 in a Reaganite/Nixonite/Rooseveltian landslide than I will believe.

              1. The libertarian moment isn’t about electing politicians. It’s about convincing people that liberty is in their best interest. Grass roots.

                The politicians will follow the votes.

                1. Except that means that the people have to elect politicians who will listen to them.

                  And there will have to be a sea change of people who do not fear deregulation or budget cuts and will ignore the protests.

                  And what makes you so sure that when shit hits the fan the public will vote libertarian? Didn’t happen in Cambodia, China, Germany or Russia. And their current regimes are not exactly libertopia.

                  1. Not to mention people will have to adopt a “Fuck You Cut Spending!” attitude as opposed to their current “Why Doesn’t Everybody Stop Bickering and Get Things Done” attitude.

                  2. Except that means that the people have to elect politicians who will listen to them.

                    No, they won’t.

                    In a world where the population values liberty, politicians will bend to the will of the people. See pot and gay marriage. Even the Republicans see the writing on the wall. They don’t like it, but they are realizing that if they want to win, they need to change to adhere to the will of the people.

                    There have been major changes in parties before. There is no reason it won’t/can’t happen again. In fact, such thinking is ridiculously naive.

                    1. There have been major changes in parties before. There is no reason it won’t/can’t happen again.

                      Burn that strawman!

                      In fact, such thinking is ridiculously naive.

                      Again Strawman. The Dems and Reps have changed, mostly for the worst. They could turn libertarian, they could go full totalitarian, I don’t know.

                  3. Cambodia and China are vastly freer than they were a few decades ago and getting more so. Your shitty understanding of the world perfectly complements how tiresome you are.

                    1. Cambodia and China are vastly freer than they were a few decades ago and getting more so. Your shitty understanding of the world perfectly complements how tiresome you are.

                      You missed the whole part that they had to hit rock bottom with genocidal regimes and after 40 years they still have regimes that are not libertarian.

                    2. No I didn’t, and you missed the fucking point. What’s new?

                    3. Well if you think that if things do hit rock bottom, there will be an improvement, eventually, even if it takes decade, well okay then. I just expect better from the libertarian moment.

              2. Winston|6.23.15 @ 8:12PM|#
                If Rand gets elected in November

                Not even the slightest chance of that. No extreme social conservative will be elected President in the foreseeable future. Even if he looked to get the nomination, also highly unlikely, his “tax plan” will get attention and he’ll get laughed out of town. It may even be wackier than his Dad’s.

                Rand says he balance the budget in five years, after his huge tax cut, by cutting spending, however his tax cuts leave less federal revenue than is now spent on Social Security and Medicare. But if we BELIEVE ..

            2. All this libertarian moment stuff reminds of the attitudes of the German Communists in 1932 or the Spanish Communists and Anarchists in 1936. They had more electoral success than the LP though…

              1. “They had more electoral success than the LP though…”

                You read everything I wrote, and you think I’m judging our success by how well the LP does in elections?

                “The solution isn’t to elect libertarian politicians. It’s to evangelize our friends and family and spread the libertarian gospel. Once we get a critical mass of people on our side, the politicians of whatever party will fall all over themselves to do what we want.”

                You missed that part entirely.

                1. You missed that part entirely.

                  Did he? Or have we totally failed at the (proper) solution you describe? For over 40 years?

                  We already have a majority of Americans willing to be identified as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” … but 91% of THOSE libertarians reject the libertarian label. (Cato/Zogby Survey)

                  I can’t think of a more massive political failure. Did the Communists he listed suffer such a grand delusion … ignoring their own people entirely … even to now defying their own people?

                  Is it tribal to deny libertarian tribalism?

              2. All this libertarian moment stuff reminds of the attitudes of the German Communists in 1932 or the Spanish Communists and Anarchists in 1936.

                Yeah but that’s because you are a tiresome stupid cunt.

                1. How’s the $15 minimum wage going? Has Rachel turned libertarian?

                  1. So tiresome, so fucking stupid. It’s amazing: you’re like a pro at perfectly missing the point. AND you can’t shut your mouth. Why do you come here? To demonstrate to the world how EDGY and CLEVR you are? Because it’s convincing no one. Are you sure you’re not Tulpa?

                    1. Well if the Alberta NDP openly admitted that their policies are full of shit, then I would have believed that the libertarian moment is upon us!

                2. Cytotoxic|6.23.15 @ 9:44PM|#
                  Yeah but that’s because you are a tiresome stupid cunt.

                  (yawn) Is this a typical libertarian? Or shameful?

            3. How is Reason being subpoenaed part of the libertarian Moment? Will the backlash put Rand or Gary Johnson in the White House?

              1. Winston
                How is Reason being subpoenaed part of the libertarian Moment?

                Not just the subpoena, and free speech is not the only issue here. There’s the public humiliation of Reason and libertarianism, as millions of Americans read about the “blowhard stupidity of Reason’s libertarian comment peanut gallery” … with the example of six libertarians debating the most vicious way to grind up people in a woodchipper, with one alternative feet first or head first.

                And our brand was already toxic.

                1. The resident sandwich board screaming lunatic of Reason doesn’t realize his very existence poisons ‘the brand’.

                2. Actually, the goobers are PROUD of their gooberism. Or is it gooberity?

                  I keep asking if Rand Paul should run a campaign ad saying he wants to grind up Hillary, Pelosi and Obama into tiny chips. Viewers could even visit his website and vote their choice to feed each one head first or feet first.
                  No responses yet.

            4. Don’t bother Ken. He sees the libertarian moment happening and it’s killing him

              Don’t forget how Reason (mostly Nick) spent all of 2013 claiming we were in a libertarian moment, perhaps a libertarian era! Then one week into 2014 Nick apologized (“yeah, yeah, yeah”), said 2013 was one of the WORST years for libertarians, but THAT year (2014) would be the year.

              And don’t forget, the great increase in social liberalism proves a libertarian moment. Likewise, increased coverage of Ron (then Rand) Paul — extreme social conservatives also proves a libertarian moment.

              I come here every day, expecting to learn that a glorious sunrise also proves a libertarian moment.

              So who’s changing our culture? Is it the 5.3% of Americans who identify with the libertarian brand? Or the 59% who self-identify as Nolan Chart libertarians (fiscally conservative or socially liberal), 91% of whom reject the libertarian brand? Hmmm.

              (The libertarian era began in September of 1960, when the student protests began. They were not originally about the war or civil liberties. They were entirely a revolt against authority, college admins. We were there BEFORE Goldwater announced, instrumental in electing Reagan and then …. the long, slow task of micro-advances in liberty, mostly by thousands of (Nolan) libertarians in local public office. The libertarian establishment? Mostly pulling their puds).

          2. That’s not naive.

            Merely unconstitutional (your premise) since no level of government has EVER been delegated any power regarding marriage.

          3. Ken Shulz
            There are a lot more people negatively impacted by the income tax than there were by laws against gay marriage, too.

            Gay marriage would not eliminate over 50% of federal revenues.

            Should be an easy fight compared to what gays went through

            Not that easy, as shown above. And seeing total bullshit from the Paul Cult does not help. They both (Ron and Rand) say the entire federal government can be run on FICA taxes … just cut spending! And if we click our heels ….

      3. “If they can get gay marriage recognized, anything can happen. We can do anything.”

        Gay marriage doesn’t threaten the power of the state. In fact, by subjecting more interpersonal relationships to legal registration and all the benefits and penalties and regulation it entails, gay marriage gives more power to the state.

        You’re right, though — we can win any social battle, as long as the state’s position is improved by it.

        1. Gay marriage doesn’t threaten the power of the state.

          Pot legalization does. Big time. And it’s happening.

          1. At the state level. And while I imagine the states value the law enforcement potential, none of them is as invested as the feds are with the DEA, so the promise of revenue can potentially outweigh the benefits of fucking with people.

            Then again, prohibition was repealed (with a Constitutional amendment), so it’s possible that with Herculean effort, the state can be reined in.

            1. I suspect it will be reined in one way or another. People…Americans…will only put up with so much bullshit. I suspect it’s approaching a limit. Hell, my dad, a fucking diehard statist Republican is talking like a libertarian.

        2. In fact, by subjecting more interpersonal relationships to legal registration and all the benefits and penalties and regulation it entails, gay marriage gives more power to the state.

          No it doesn’t. It makes it FAIRER.

          1. Getting rid of (legal recognition of) straight marriage, or rolling both types into ordinary contract law, would be fairer while also rolling back state power.

            1. Really just downgrading the concept of a ‘legal marriage’ to ‘civil unions’ for everyone, not just homosexuals, would probably be an improvement.

        3. “Gay marriage doesn’t threaten the power of the state. In fact, by subjecting more interpersonal relationships to legal registration and all the benefits and penalties and regulation it entails, gay marriage gives more power to the state.”

          I don’t think I agree with that.

          Using the government to arbitrarily discriminate against people on the basis of things like sexual orientation is reenforcing the power of the state.

          Think of it this way: is legalizing recreational marijuana giving more power to the state just because marijuana shops now have to pay the same taxes as liquor stores and are subject to zoning laws like liquor stores, too?

          I don’t think so. I think taking the power away from the government to imprison people because of their favorite intoxicant is limiting the power of government.

          No question, we should get rid of all stupid zoning laws, etc., too. But treating marijuana just like alcohol isn’t expanding the power of the state.

          I think the government should get out of the marriage business, too–but making them stop arbitrarily discriminating against people isn’t expanding the government’s power. Quite the opposite.

          1. I think the government should get out of the marriage business, too

            They were never delegated any power to be in it anyhow.
            If we’re still a government of delegated powers, even partially.

          2. Ken Schulz
            Think of it this way: is legalizing recreational marijuana giving more power to the state just because marijuana shops now have to pay the same taxes as liquor stores and are subject to zoning laws like liquor stores, too?

            I thought about it. That means all income and property rights increase the power of he state because they’re heavily taxed. So we should repeal property rights and ban wages … to advance individual liberty? Might you consider that taxation alone is the issue?

    2. Re: Ken Shultz,

      What the Supreme Court says about gay marriage later this week is a footnote, What people like Boy George, Freddie Mercury, Rob Halford, and David Bowie did was far more important.

      You’ve been reading Thaddeus Russell’s book lately, haven’t you?

      1. Never heard of him.

        But that’s where gay acceptance went mainstream.

        I saw the same thing happen a bunch of times in elementary/junior high. Tough guys under the bleachers are smokin’ out and blasting the Screaming for Vengeance cassette through a boom box, when some kid comes up and says, “Did you know Rob Halford is a fag?”

        If the kid didn’t get his ass kicked, the first reply was often, “So what?”.

        1. Re: Ken Shultz,

          Never heard of him.

          But that’s where gay acceptance went mainstream.

          He makes a similar case to yours. I find his and yours very convincing, by the way.

          1. I’ll look at it!

    3. Last ones on board but the first ones to take credit for it. Thanks Obama for allowing the gays to get married even though you barely lifted a finger.

      1. Exactly, and I hate to see politicians get credit for what average Americans did over the course of decades.

        This isn’t any politician’s achievement. This isn’t the achievement of the Supreme Court.

        The American people through debate and persuasion became increasingly tolerant–and once the worm turned, the politicians jumped on board–that’s the way it always happens.

        Here’s Barack Obama on gay marriage in 2008:

        “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman”.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

        That he would pander to bigots like that is disgraceful. It just goes to show that with progressives, as sarcasmic would say, it’s always about principals rather than principles.

        I’d love to see Rand Paul get elected and prove me wrong. If he doesn’t get elected this time, though, I hope we all remember that what we say to other people is far more important than how we vote because changing the minds of the American people is where lasting change come from–not politicians.

        Rahm Emmanuel’s ‘ “Never let a crisis go to waste” rings Machiavellian, but I’m starting to wonder if it’s possible for politicians to do anything themselves without a crisis to justify it. Like I said, I hope Rand Paul is elected and proves me wrong.

    4. Ken Shultz
      Gay and heterosexual only became identifiable groups with the advent of psychology.

      Precisely backwards, because ….

      Before that, sex outside of marriage, gay sex, and even too much sex inside of marriage was all considered more or less the same thing–deviant sexual behavior.

      It was psychology which first labeled homosexuality as deviant sexual behavior … a phrase which did not exist before psychology. Likewise, it was not psychology which applied deviance to sex outside of marriage or too much sex inside of marriage, which was (and is) promoted by the extreme socon’s agenda in rewriting all of world history for (some of) their faithful,

      Even in the oppressive 1950s, we were taught than homosexuality was quote common in ancient Greece. Marriage was not even a religious sacrament until the Dark Ages. (1600s). For the vast majority of human existence, “traditional marriage” was a private agreement between two people — also commonly taught. So with zero church or state records, how can any person of integrity claim to know who all got married?

      And, of course, no power over sexuality has ever been delegated to government.

  8. Persecuting gays is just something we all decided to do together.

  9. Jim Crow laws were just things we decided to do together.
    Segregation is just something we decided to do together.

    Gulags were just something Soviet proletarians decided to do together.
    Gassing Jews was just something Germans decided to do together.

    I think there are a limitless number of memes here to mock Obama. How hasn’t any the internet done this already?

    1. “Jim Crow laws were just things we decided to do together.”

      It’s something a lot of people tolerated for a long time.

      The laws themselves were inflicted on us by politicians–from the top down–though.

      If the guy that ran the lunch counter that was targeted by the sit in hadn’t called the police to have black people thrown out of his drug store, the police would have arrested him for serving black customers.

      That isn’t a bottom up kind of system.

      And it took a long time and a lot of work for the bottom to tear that system apart from below. MLK wasn’t running for office, but what he did in mobilization was far more important than anything he could have done as a politician.

      I grew up in the town where George Wallace was shot.

      In 1963, he was all about, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

      When he was running for President in 1972, after a long hard look in the mirror–and the polls–he decided that he wasn’t in favor of segregation anymore.

      What changed?

      Somewhere in the middle there people decided they didn’t want segregation anymore. It wasn’t because our politicians and the Democrats were bold and brave. It’s that the American people changed their minds. Again, score that one for the American people–with the politicians getting on board after the fact.

      1. You want it both ways: evil government imposes segregation, but advances in equality come from the people.

        The people wanted segregation until their sentiment changed, and government changed along with the public sentiment. It never did anything radically different from what the people wanted; and despite the fact that this meant enforced bigotry, that is how democracy is supposed to work.

        The feds step in when certain states can’t quite get there at a pace resembling contemporary standards of decency. Government didn’t make itself bigger to do any of this, it simply switched the obligation of police from enforcing segregation to preventing it–no net loss in liberty at all, a huge net gain actually. It’s plausible that government acting changed a lot of hearts and minds too, though it obviously made some add resentment to previously unchecked hate.

        1. “You want it both ways: evil government imposes segregation, but advances in equality come from the people.”

          That’s only one way, Tony.

          There’s no contradiction there.

          You have a long history of not being able to differentiate between government and the will of the people, though, and this is further evidence of that.

          “The people wanted segregation until their sentiment changed, and government changed along with the public sentiment.”

          It’s almost like you understand what I wrote; it’s just that you seem to think you thought of it yourself for some reason. It represents a good effort though. Give yourself a pat on the back.

          1. Ken Shulz
            “You want it both ways: evil government imposes segregation, but advances in equality come from the people.”

            That’s only one way, Tony. There’s no contradiction there.

            Which is it? You say both.

            You have a long history of not being able to differentiate between government and the will of the people, though, and this is further evidence of that.

            How can it be both one way and two ways?

        2. “It never did anything radically different from what the people wanted; and despite the fact that this meant enforced bigotry,…”

          Then you went off the rails again.

          There was a time in this country when people wanted the Drug War and they didn’t want gays to be allowed to marry. Let’s say that’s the way it was in 1984.

          Now it’s 2014. The Drug War is ongoing, and there are still laws on the books prohibiting gay people from getting married. But the American people don’t necessarily want that stuff anymore. Certainly not like they used to.

          Because politicians (and judges) are the last ones to change, and they have to change before the laws change, there can be a significant lag between what the people want and what the laws say. And that’s just one of the reasons why it’s so ridiculous to look at politicians and laws as the will of the people. Hell, some of those politicians only run once every six years! At best, a third of the Senate represents the will of their constituents–from six years ago.

          That being said, eventually, the politicians will go along with what their constituents want, which is why we should concentrate on changing people’s minds rather than electing politicians. Politicians eventually do what people want, but it doesn’t work the other way around.

          1. This is what happens when the subject is something that has little to do with libertarian fixations, you start babbling about nothing. Of course our government most often lags behind public sentiment. That is often considered one of its conservative virtues. But you need politicians to end the drug war just as they were needed to start it.

            And the claim that institutional racism in the South was an imposition of dastardly governments on unwilling people is so absurd that it can only be the product of the OCD-like fixation to which I referred: trying to shoehorn “government is evil” into every conversation, the answer to every question.

            1. It’s an observable fact.

              It wasn’t just that it was a crime for a black person to enter the front door of a restaurant; it was also a crime for the restaurant to serve black customers.

              This goes back to the basics of legitimacy. The old school way to measure it is by counting the number of police per capita it requires to enforce the law.

              It took a lot of cops to make businesses turn black customers and their green money away. No doubt, some aspects of segregation were more popular with whites than others, but the giant backlash against integration–where business owners refused to take the money of black customers–never happened.

              Schools and housing were another issue, but then that’s still an issue. There are still a lot of racists in this country, and a lot of people who will pay a premium to avoid living in a black neighborhood or to be able to send their kids to a public school with very few black children.

              White flight was all about white people fleeing the end of segregation on those two issues; i.e., that’s what happened when the state stopped enforcing segregation. Surely, you’re not going to tell me that there weren’t any changes once the government stopped enforcing segregation, are you?

              1. Jim Crow laws were put in place by politicians and the government and were enforced by the police. How can you claim it wasn’t imposed on people by the government? When they stopped imposing it, things changed rather dramatically in a number of ways.

                Segregation wasn’t always unpopular with everybody, but for the people who didn’t like it, the government used the coercive power of the state and the police to force such people to comply with segregation against their will. I don’t see why that’s so hard to understand.

                1. No matter how racist the society, without government force, slavery is not possible.

                  Beyond that, slavery started as a policy implemented by the courts and entrenched by government well before the racial justifications were fully developed.

                2. It’s Tony, he couldn’t think his way out of a drenched paper bag.

              2. Again it’s like two contradicting arguments. I’m too tired to look anything up, but I would surmise that fat KKK moonlighters serving sandwiches probably only practice their active racism to the extent that cops aren’t going to interfere.

                Yet indeed there are still a lot of racists. (?) Am I implying that I think the reforms of the 60s made everything all better?

                1. Slavery cannot exist without the backing of government force. Same as segregation – it existed only as long as the local governments were willing to actively enforce it.

                  The racial justification for slavery came AFTER slavery was put in place, and wouldn’t be fully developed until the 19th century. And it was only possible and existed because government decreed it so in the 17th century in Virginia.

                  In Tony world, every white Southerner was a secret KKK member. Probably business owners in particular.

                2. Yet indeed there are still a lot of racists. (?) Am I implying that I think the reforms of the 60s made everything all better?

                  No, you’re changing the subject again.

                  Let me refresh your memory. Here is what you wrote:

                  “The claim that institutional racism in the South was an imposition of dastardly governments on unwilling people is so absurd that it can only be the product of the OCD-like fixation”

                  How do you impose something on willing people?

                  Of course Jim Crow laws were an imposition of government on unwilling people!

                  You only need criminal law and the cops to impose laws on the unwilling.

                  This seems to be a major disconnect with you. Do you or do you not understand that when you use the law, the police. and the criminal courts to impose your will, you’re imposing your will on the unwilling?

                  Here’s a great sampling of Jim Crow laws:

                  http://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/…..w_laws.htm

                  It’s mostly the government imposing a bunch of regulations on businesses.

                  Tony, you seem to be very confident in your knowledge on these topics, but that confidence…it doesn’t seem to be well founded.

                  1. Ken Shulz
                    Of course Jim Crow laws were an imposition of government on unwilling people!

                    If you mean negroes, that would be a truly shameful mind game on what he said. If you mean the society in a jurisdiction — which is what the phrase “willing people” means — the you’ve proven Tony correct again.

                    Is there a third possibility?

            2. Tony
              And the claim that institutional racism in the South was an imposition of dastardly governments on unwilling people is so absurd that it can only be the product of the OCD-like fixation to which I referred: trying to shoehorn “government is evil” into every conversation, the answer to every question.

              Doesn’t matter since he has such raging hatred for you. Try claiming that the current year is 2015. 🙂

              (Actually, he argues both sides of that, often in a single comment)

              Ironically, you’re defending classical libertarianism better than he is. The original intent was to always be pro-liberty. Then the “anti-gummint” faction arose, which consists of screeching what you call “government is evil” and ridiculing the notion of proposing solutions to get elected and govern on — which, of course, is colluding with the state.

              Time passes and the best-known representatives of the libertartian brand are now two extreme social conservatives, father and son, who can’t even grasp the constitution. But the goobers are eagerly brainwashed by …. anti-gummint snarling.

        3. It was the ‘general public’ screaming for the Pink Scare, right, Tony? No, that wasn’t government…

          and despite the fact that this meant enforced bigotry, that is how democracy is supposed to work.

          America is not a democracy. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL democratic republic. And even the democracy was pretty limited in the beginning. It was more of a constitutional republic. Meaning – there are limits placed on government power, or at least their used to be before people of your ilk stepped in.

          That you readily admit it happened because a large number of people went along with it, and don’t see the problem with that is what’s scary. That you don’t see why there needs to be strong restrictions on government for precisely those reasons is scary.

          The historical sin was not practicing what was on paper. One of the few things Obama said (though I doubt he was sincere) was that Americans have not always lived up to the constitution. They also made one ugly compromise to get the good that they did with regards to slavery.

          You do not know how our government is supposed to work.

          1. Brochettaward
            It was the ‘general public’ screaming for the Pink Scare, right, Tony? No, that wasn’t government…

            It was both.

            America is not a democracy.

            Nor what you say, at first.

            It is a CONSTITUTIONAL democratic republic.

            “Democratic” is batty there.

            And even the democracy was pretty limited in the beginning.

            Limited to zero.

            It was more of a constitutional republic.

            Entirely.

            Meaning – there are limits placed on government power, or at least their used to be before people of your ilk stepped in.

            It’s better that your ilk is equally clueless?

            That you readily admit it happened because a large number of people went along with it, and don’t see the problem with that is what’s scary.

            As scary as believing elected officials, as a rule, defy voters.
            Was it government officials hanging blacks from trees?
            Was Orval Faubus defying the will of Arkansans?

            That you don’t see why there needs to be strong restrictions on government for precisely those reasons is scary.

            The restrictions FAILED. Often.

            You do not know how our government is supposed to work.

            Tell us again about “a constitutional democratic republic”.

        4. True, but we were still somewhat democratic back then. Now, not really. Congress doesn’t fear an informed electorate (to the extent it fears them at all, it fears low information or low wisdom voters being whipped up by bullshit artists).

          Even if Congress did act as an organ for the people, the unelected executive branch agencies have usurped lawmaking authority and feel bold enough to lie to or stonewall Congress on a regular basis and disregard judicial orders and precedents. While I think the administration probably encourages and enables it, I suspect if the president tried to stop it, it would be his last act as president.

          Prosecutors abuse the shit out of plea bargaining to deny people the democracy of a jury trial, to say nothing of abusing the power of grand juries and pursuing bullshit cases because the process is the punishment. Judges violate the first amendment to prevent jurors from learning that they have the power to nullify unfair or illegitimate laws, at least on a case by case basis, and trials are routinely conducted by secret courts using secret law. Of course, that assumes you make it to trial, and that you’re aren’t executed by a cop with a virtual license to kill.

          We’re a liberal democracy in name only. Elections don’t mean shit — any number of dictatorships and authoritarian shitholes have had elections, and sometimes they’ve even more or less fairly counted the votes.

          1. ant1sthense
            low information or low wisdom voters being whipped up by bullshit artists).

            Like you’ve been?

            We’re a liberal democracy in name only.

            Not in any sense ever.

            Elections don’t mean shit —

            You don’t get things 100% your way. (gasp)

            any number of dictatorships and authoritarian shitholes have had elections,

            So we should ban elections?
            Other Americans are simply brainwashed in different ways than you are. It’s scary how many supposed libertarians believe the “right” constitution or the “right” reforms will fix everything, despite the will of the people. Stalin suffered the same delusion.

            Jefferson understood centuries ago. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

            Despite all the ant-gummint bullshit, any free government is only as perfect as its people. We need persuasion, not bellowing of platitudes.

        5. The people wanted segregation until their sentiment changed, and government changed along with the public sentiment. It never did anything radically different from what the people wanted; and despite the fact that this meant enforced bigotry, that is how democracy is supposed to work.

          Which was kind of the point of the founding fathers. Democracy is for suckers, and always ends badly.
          Always.
          Every. Fucking. Time.

          1. We have a de facto Democracy, in that government most often FOLLOWS the will of the people (time wise). How else could it possibly work in even a semi-free society with elected officials?

            We don’t vote directly on issues, except on a tiny percentage of issues. We vote for representatives who we think best reflects our own views. That’s what “representative democracy” means, It just doesn’t fit the “anti-gummint” conspiracy rhetoric, because they’re dead wrong.

  10. “Oddly, though, the documentary’s first chapter has almost nothing to do with this time period. Instead, Isikoff starts by exploring how former President George W. Bush [blah blah]…

    “Still, though, it’s a jarring shift, after opening with snippets of outrageous claims about the evil corruptive influence of homosexuals in the government, to instead first talk about Bush and the current gay marriage fight. It?intentionally or not?blends the modern political debate with the historical political debate, and the tonal shifts are odd.”

    I think Mr. Shackford hints at the answer in his own article…the people doing this documentary think that refusing to make gay cakes is *exactly like* purging a qualified government employee because of his sexual proclivities.

    In other words, the world is divided into Light and Dark – Light meaning doing everything gay activists want, and Dark meaning denying anything, even a single demand, to the activists.

    1. In other words, the world is divided into Light and Dark – Light meaning doing everything gay activists want, and Dark meaning denying anything, even a single demand, to the activists.

      As long as nobody suffers the bullshit that all gays are :”activists” in that sense.
      So how do we persuade toward liberty? Or do we just keep screeching ant-gummint slogans to our own tribe?

  11. It?intentionally or not?blends the modern political debate with the historical political debate, and the tonal shifts are odd

    This is an intentional technique by far too many documentaries.

    I consider documentaries to be about as truthful as 60 Minutes so I avoid them like the plague.

  12. Aren’t libertarians who support gay marriage socialists? Like the revisionist socialists of old rather than destroying they system (like the radical anti-capitalists) they want reform and hand out more benefits? Since the government supports big business, the socialists of old argued, we ought to support the working man too…

    1. Re: Goldwyn,

      Aren’t libertarians who support gay marriage socialists?

      No.

      Like the revisionist socialists of old rather than destroying they system (like the radical anti-capitalists)

      Hmm, actually, little red Marxians should be careful about what they think they’re for because once homosexuals start enjoying the pleasures of being fucked twice from behind by the government taxman, they’ll pretty soon turn conservative.

      For us libertarians, it is the “live and let live” principle at play. Why should I or anybody care who gets married to whom? As long as they don’t come anywhere close to my heavily-defended bunker.

      1. Homosexuals are just as capable of understanding the implications of their choices as you are in their stead. More, largely, I’d guess. Most of us don’t live in mobile ho– er bunkers. Actually you probably do live in a bunker. It’s why you’re always so precise in your inability to apply your arguments to anything resembling the real world.

        1. It’s why you’re always so precise in your inability to apply your arguments to anything resembling the real world.

          No Tony you’re just too retarded to understand those arguments or the real world.

          1. No Tony you’re just too retarded to understand those arguments or the real world

            Umm, the real world of heavily defended bunkers?
            Oh wait, that was Tony. He’s always wrong … not that anyone’s a bigot.

    2. Aren’t libertarians who support gay marriage socialists?

      Libertarians who OPPOSE it are the statists..
      The 9th amendment says, in effect, that no level of government was ever delegated any say in marriage at all. And the 14th explicitly denies states any violations of equal protection..

  13. They’re gonna make a class out of internet commenters.

    Starting with the Woodchipper Boys.

  14. Oh noes.

    Hillary says All Lives Matter and some people are pissed.

    1. She should know better that no all lives matter. Only Democrat lives matter.

    2. Yeah, but you know she doesn’t mean it. No life matters to her other than her own. Everyone else is just a tool to gain power, or a hurdle in the way.

    3. Well she is there to pander, it’s fair to demand that she pander correctly.

    4. Will Social Justice Whiners derail the Hildog? The fact that her Bushification in Libya has millions fleeing Libya, yet these retards are clubbing her over 3 words is hilarious.

      This go around could get entertaining. I’m stocking up on Jiffy Pop.

  15. “Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality”

    What’s beyond tolerance? Does it involve eyelid clamps and visine drops?

  16. And now we have the reverse: We have government agencies with huge amounts of power and numerous people investigating, threatening, and fining small businesses because they don’t want to provide goods or services for gay weddings.

    They have crossed that line to point of ruining business’ that on’t want to participate in gay weddings.

    This is often how government operates. Assuming that this trend of gay acceptance continues (and there’s no reason to think it won’t), we should look at this and consider whether it’s moral or ethical to use the government in this very same fashion to torment those who deny us cakes or flowers.

    They are not denying you anything except their labor. They are refusing to work for you. To force them to work for you is similar to what the slave owners who flew the Confederate flag did to Africans back in the day.

  17. OT: Mistrial in the Vanderbilt football rape case.

    These guys are actual scum and deserve to be in prison, so I hope they get it situated.

  18. Should gay business owners be forced to provide their goods and services to the Westboro Baptist Church?

  19. I’m a gay immigrant. And I have to say: despite the US government’s hostility to homosexuals, the US was still a better place than elsewhere, because the US government actually used to have less power. European governments were generally just as hostile as the US government, but they had infinitely more ways to screw up people’s lives, since they controlled everything from education to health care to jobs.

    The fact that the US government is more accepting of gay people now doesn’t make up for the grave risks posed by its increase in power. In fact, I view the US government’s “pro-gay” policies as harmful, since forcing people by law to accept me and not to discriminate breeds resentment and just drives discrimination underground. Furthermore, the flip side is that the same laws that supposedly protect me also protect people who hate me. That is, a Southern Baptist bakery may be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, but gay bakers may also be forced to bake cakes for Southern Baptist weddings.

    1. I’m a gay immigrant

      “Where do you come from, Lake Homo?” (I could not resist).

      I think everything you said was spot on, especially summing up the bakery conundrum.

    2. The entire problem is bakeries are required not to discriminate based on religion. If the Christians want to discriminate, I say they make the gesture of vocalizing the belief that they should be the first ones eliminated from civil rights protections.

      1. @Tony

        So when a Westboro Baptist Church member comes into your bakery demanding a cake saying “Thank God for Murdered Fags” on it, you’ll have no problem whipping that out for him?

        1. Oh gee haven’t heard that one before.

            1. If the bakers refused to sell a cake because of the customer’s religion, that would be illegal. They are only required to serve. Being forced to essentially endorse a message by writing it on a cake is compelled speech and is unconstitutional.

              1. AHAHAHAHAHA!

                You are an immoral cunt.

                You want to be able to compel people to do as you wish based upon YOUR beliefs, but give NO credence to the beliefs of others.

                You are a miserable piece of shit.

                1. I think it makes sense to require businesses that serve the public not to discriminate against customers on the basis of race, religion, disability status, sex, or sexual orientation. I also think it makes sense not to unconstitutionally permit compelled speech. That means, if you can try to keep up, that bakers shouldn’t be compelled to write a pro-gay-marriage message either.

              2. Fuck off, you don’t get to choose who can be discriminated against, you vile fuck.

                1. One more goober …

                  That means, if you can try to keep up, that bakers shouldn’t be compelled to write a pro-gay-marriage message either.

                  Fuck off, you don’t get to choose who can be discriminated against, you vile fuck.

                  Sailed right over your head!

      2. The entire problem is bakeries are required not to discriminate based on religion.

        No, that is not “the entire problem”. The “entire problem” is that government interferes in freedom of association.

        I do criticize conservative Christians as hypocrites for wanting religious non-discrimination while opposing non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

        However, I don’t actually want anti-discrimination laws that apply to me because I think they are actually harmful to the people they purport to protect.

        See, just because government gives you a free shit sandwich doesn’t mean I want one too.

        1. Win Bear is the grownup here, Tony, when government gets their sticky mitts involved in this shit everyone loses.

          I believe everyone should be able to choose who they associate with. As Win Bear points out there are hypocrites on both sides here,I heartiliy agree though I’m not gay or a conservative and don’t really identify with either tribe here.

          It’s not the government’s business, Win Bear is probably confident enough that he can safely make decisions in his life. .

          I respect an individual like Win Bear, even though we may not agree on all issues (entirely speculation on my part), Win seems like a sharp person and I like to hear views from people that make intelligent points, like Win.

          OTOH, there’s Tony who is like a 10 year old hiding behind “mother” governments apron with nothing of substance to add. I’ll take intelligent points from Win over your mewing any day.

          1. Migrant Log Chipper
            OTOH, there’s Tony who is like a 10 year old hiding …

            How does you talking like a 10-year-old deal with that?

        2. Win Bear
          The entire problem is bakeries are required not to discriminate based on religion.

          No, that is not “the entire problem”. The “entire problem” is that government interferes in freedom of association

          You both said the same thing, but you added the trendier soundbite.

  20. “Gays were not just banned from working for the federal government; the government also spent huge sums of money and assigned personnel to track down employees that were suspected of homosexuality, attempt to find out the truth (or what seemed like “truth” anyway) and drive them out. It was an open, culturally approved purge, with headlines announcing how many government employees had been fired for being “sexual deviates.”

    Yet, if the government court rules in favor of an individual’s sexual preference and marriage rights than the government will be the hero, and only government was able to grant them their rights despite denying them in the first place.

    Because ignoring the desire of folks to be free in their sexual preference, and openly discriminating against them in regards to employment, is now all washed away because the government will fix everything now after the countless lives they destroyed with their social engineering bullshit.

    1. This is pretty much the same thing that happened with blacks. After all, it was the US government, primarily driven by progressive politicians, that instituted some of the most hateful and racist policies in US history: segregation, eugenics, forced sterilization, miscegenation laws, based on “science” that supposedly showed that blacks were genetically inferior. When that kind of racism became unpopular, they changed over to a completely different kind of racism, namely that of blacks as helpless victims.

      It isn’t surprising that something similar is happening with homosexuality. After all, a lot of the government policies against homosexuality were supposedly based on “science”, namely the belief that it is a serious mental illness. Now progressives are doing the same flip from victimizer to benevolent overlord for homosexuals that they did with blacks.

    2. Vampire
      and only government was able to grant them their rights despite denying them in the first place.

      Our governments never “grant” rights.
      It’s called acknowledging (or recognizing) rights which everyone is endowed with.

  21. The once genuinely down-trodden in this country (gays/blacks/women) who have slowly gained access to power will use their authority in a matter that flexes their dominance. What better way to do this than by discovering new deviants to confine?

    Unless the future is less bleak than my skeptical nature currently considers I’m comfortable in positing that the general trend of legislation over the last few decades seems to indicate a hardening against the libertine/libertarian nature and rugged individualism.

    Laws that make it costly to disturb the ethos of those who have fabricated an ultra-sensitive existence will become more abundant over time. The definition of an open mind is fast becoming ambiguous. What the hell is an open mind anymore? Censorious natures are abounding like fucking storm clouds.

    I can’t imagine a better use of the open and liberal society than one that presents an abundant environment for all faiths, sexual orientations, races, and genders. But this is idealistic drivel when facing realities rife with draconian applications of power, abuse of authority, and the overt subjugation of offensive expression.

  22. “Gays were not just banned from working for the federal government; the government also spent huge sums of money and assigned personnel to track down employees that were suspected of homosexuality, attempt to find out the truth (or what seemed like “truth” anyway) and drive them out. It was an open, culturally approved purge, with headlines announcing how many government employees had been fired for being “sexual deviates.”

    Yet, if the government court rules in favor of an individual’s sexual preference and marriage rights than the gov’t will be the hero, and only gov’t was able to grant them their rights despite denying them in the first place.

    Because ignoring the desire of folks to be free in their sexual preference, and openly discriminating against them in regards to employment, is now all washed away because the government will fix everything now after the countless lives they destroyed with their social engineering bullshit.

  23. Can 3 gay males marry?

    Can a father marry his two sons?

    Can a father marry just one son?

    May 2 straight males and 2 lesbians form a marriage unit?

    If not, why not?

    1. AlgerHiss
      If not, why not?

      You forgot “can a gay person marry a tree?”

      Snce this is an issue of equal rights … How many of THOSE wacky examples are rights now guaranteed to heterosexuals????

      How many of those wacky questions would eliminate unequal treatment under current law?
      When has ANY level of government EVER been delegated ANY power at all over ANY type of marriage? Why do you liberals keep claiming government powers that cannot exist.

  24. 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.Wage-Report.com

  25. I can’t wait to see your column on how cruel the Federal government was to the Mormons, Scott. Any day now, you’ll comment on the hypocrisy and blood-thirsty bigotry of the State of Missouri’s Mormon Extermination Order.

    Any day now . . . .

  26. BEST STRAINS OF BUD AVAILABLE FOR SALE
    Hi mate if you need the best buds to get high contact us for more info
    Medicated Marijuana
    Green Crack
    Purple kush
    Granddaddy purple
    Sour diesel
    White widow
    Afghan kush
    GDP per gram
    OG Kush
    Black widow
    White Widow
    Hawaii-Skunk
    Hindu Kush
    Super Silver Haze
    Real OG
    Super Skunk
    Lemon kush
    Bubba kush
    Blueberry
    AK 47
    contact us now at;Chicinat@gmail.com
    Text;5174923178

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.